Jump to content
LogicprObe

New mobile speed cameras.

Recommended Posts

Obtuse ... indeed.

 

Bikeracer: You know I partially agree with you, that's the honest truth, but I have a story.

 

This year, for the first time in my life I got booked speeding. It was a shcool zone too! First day back at school, I wasn't paying attention and missed the 40km/h sign, and the Police got me.

 

Now, I honestly have no problem with this, sure they were there on the FIRST day back, which is a bit of 'meh' move. But Regardless, kids were at the school and the 40km/h sign is there for a reason.

 

5 months later and I've never missed that sign again.

 

So you know ... I guess on that level it worked very well!

 

 

 

Like I said “most” I partially agree with school speed cams and TRU black spots, but the school zones must have LED speed signs. Not everyone has kids to know when they are on holidays and not. They also have them in mad areas; there is a big school zone on Hoddle Street, having a 40k zone on such a busy road at such a busy time is just stupid.

 

I also have a problem with their unmoving on some tickets. A friend got snapped in a school zone going 6k over the limit 3 minutes before if went back to 60k zone, he was on his way to the hospital after getting a call that his wife had just been in a car accident and had been taken to hospital in an ambulance.

 

He sent in all the info on his wife with the police time of accident and the injuries she got in the crash, but the ticket still stuck.

 

It’s all about money, the stats show cams don’t work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what they're trying to push, not what I'm trying to say.

 

It's the same with the TAC ad campaigns. Speed kills. Wiping off five K's can save lives. All depends on circumstances, and overall is just scare-tactic bullshit.

 

 

Frankly, if cars are the most dangerous thing out there, why are we driving them? Why don't they just completely block off school roads between school hours? That'd make all the kids safe. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are people going to wake up and see just about all speed cams are all about making money and have very little to do with saving lives.

 

I'm glad we have you around to enlighten us simple fools who were not aware of this!

 

 

 

 

Trolling so early in the day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same with the TAC ad campaigns. Speed kills. Wiping off five K's can save lives. All depends on circumstances, and overall is just scare-tactic bullshit.

Seriously?

 

"In some circumstances these safety measures don't work, therefore they're invalid"?

 

Sheesh.

 

I'm not at all speaking to the validity of the safety measures, only that you're attempts to prove them invalid are - with all due respect - moronic.

 

At the very least you need to come up with some stats along the lines of "School zones on average only decreases the relevant death toll 30% - which isn't worth it"

 

[edit]: Or even better! Simply a statement like "School zones don't actually save any lives" would be sufficient, because it would leave anyone who disagrees with you searching for stats - and possibly not finding any to reject your suggestion.

 

Rob.

Edited by robzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rob...

 

The 40km/h limit is supposed to save lives. A kid jumping out directly in front of a car is fucked regardless, therefore the limit isn't saving lives.

 

*cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Rob...

 

The 40km/h limit is supposed to save lives. A kid jumping out directly in front of a car is fucked regardless, therefore the limit isn't saving lives.

 

*cough*

 

The "therefore" makes that sentence totally and utterly wrong.

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me that if a kid DID jump out and die, and it happened today, then my logic would be flawed and the limit still safe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 40 km/h impact for a pedestrian is much more survivable than one at 60 km/h.

 

I've got no problem with the school limits of 40 betwen 8-4 weekdays. Anyone speeding in those zones deserves to be caught and fined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me that if a kid DID jump out and die, and it happened today, then my logic would be flawed and the limit still safe?

So you're telling me that IN NO SITUATIONS will the 40km/hr limit save lives? 'cause that's what your original statement says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me that if a kid DID jump out and die, and it happened today, then my logic would be flawed and the limit still safe?

So you're telling me that IN NO SITUATIONS will the 40km/hr limit save lives? 'cause that's what your original statement says.

 

Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're telling me that if a kid DID jump out and die, and it happened today, then my logic would be flawed and the limit still safe?

So you're telling me that IN NO SITUATIONS will the 40km/hr limit save lives? 'cause that's what your original statement says.

 

Where?

 

You start with:

 

The 40km/h limit is supposed to save lives.

Then you say:

 

A kid jumping out directly in front of a car is fucked regardless

Demonstrating that in a specific situation a life may not be saved.

 

therefore the limit isn't saving lives.

Then you conclude that no lives are saved by the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said my original statement. You've just taken three quotes from different posts and sewn them together.

 

Where, IN MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT, as you said, did I say that in no situation will the limit save lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK then. I meant "the statement you're arguing about and quoted yourself to back yourself up with".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolling so early in the day?

Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll! Rawr!

 

Posted Image

 

:P

 

So you're telling me that if a kid DID jump out and die, and it happened today, then my logic would be flawed and the limit still safe?

So you're telling me that IN NO SITUATIONS will the 40km/hr limit save lives? 'cause that's what your original statement says.

 

Where?

 

You start with:

 

The 40km/h limit is supposed to save lives.

Then you say:

 

A kid jumping out directly in front of a car is fucked regardless

Demonstrating that in a specific situation a life may not be saved.

 

therefore the limit isn't saving lives.

Then you conclude that no lives are saved by the limit.

 

 

 

If he's said it wasn't saving "any" lives, then yeah, but he never said none were saved, he was clearly highlighting the flaws in what it claims versus what it accomplishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK then. I meant "the statement you're arguing about and quoted yourself to back yourself up with".

The only reason I say that no lives have been saved by the lowering of the limit is that I have heard of no instances where a child has been say, nudged by a braking car, and not hit and killed. I'm not everywhere at once though, so I can't say that there haven't been instances where the speed limit has saved lives.

 

Needless to say, I haven't backed up any of my posts with statistics to prove otherwise, therefore this is simply my opinion, my beliefs that the lowering of the limit hasn't saved any lives because there hasn't been any publicised incidents.

 

I suppose it all comes down to when something DOES happen that we will know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it all comes down to when something DOES happen that we will know.

If by something you mean a child dying, then that's the equivalent proof of someone with a seatbelt on dying. It doesn't stop it from reducing the likelihood or incidence of it happening.

 

*EDIT* But basically you're making an argument from assumption/ignorance. You say that it probably doesn't save lives because you don't have proof it saves lives. You haven't looked for the proof, you haven't looked at why the speed limits were put in place, you've just sort of decided that since you haven't had personal experience with it when you've made no effort to examine the topic that that's enough to cast doubt on what teams of people advised by professionals have decided.

 

*EDIT* I realise this is a possibly biased interpretation of the studies it quotes, but I can't find the original quoted studies in full. Check out the first paragraph of the second page on this thing.

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trolling so early in the day?

Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll! Rawr!

 

 

tantryl is it, if you could read you would find he was agreeing with me in a roundabout trolling way.

 

 

 

 

Remember, read once, then read again and if your tantryl, read one more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the reversing caused the accident? Bit unclear from the article - May of got hit regardless - Dunno *shrug*

 

 

But, wtf does that article have to do with mobile speed cameras?

It's about where they put the dollars.

 

Less patrols.........more cameras.

No warning signs either.

 

Now they even call them 'Safety Cameras' in some places!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all about money, the stats show cams don’t work.

They work great at revenue raising.

 

 

Hey Rob...

 

The 40km/h limit is supposed to save lives. A kid jumping out directly in front of a car is fucked regardless, therefore the limit isn't saving lives.

 

*cough*

 

How far in front of a car are we talking here? Just so that I can have some of that 'context' that robzy's always banging on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes no difference what speed you are doing in a school zone; if a child isn't paying attention and runs out right in front of your car you're still going to hit it.

Yes, but you'll hit the kid at 20km/h less.

 

Actually.

 

At a distance of a kid jumping out 2m in front of the car, an extra 20km/h would have you travelled over 5.5 metres, over the length of a normal car, which means the kid would have jumped out after you already had passed, thus saving the kid from being hit.

 

At a distance of 4-5m they would see the car in front of their direct on vision and wouldn't jump out, instead of not seeing something in their wide field or peripherary vision.

Edited by Athiril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they even call them 'Safety Cameras' in some places!

They are the modified red light cameras, so they can get you speeding and running the red at the same time. Ingenious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×