'Insp Paul Winks, from Thames Valley Police, said: "It's obviously disappointing.Why is the consequence more death? Have there been any more accidents? Why assume there will be? Maybe drivers are just driving at a speed that they deem to be safe.
"It clearly means switching off the camera has given a green light to a small number of people to break the law.
"The consequence is more death and more death is unacceptable."'
Tuesday 10 August 2010
Does that necessarily follow, outside of the BBC's control-freakery mindset?
The BBC report that: 'The number of drivers speeding past Oxfordshire's deactivated speed cameras has increased by up to 88%, a road safety partnership claim.' Probably true, what else would you expect? But the BBC have to state as fact that:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
There's a compelling argument that speed cameras have cost more lives than they have saved in Christopher Booker and Richard North's thought-provoking book 'Scared to Death'.
Also, I saw a biased BBC report on that subject last night. The reporter was keen to paint the subject in the light of what he called "savage cuts" of course.
He then did some vox pops in a village, saying “Even here opinion is divided.” The first vox pop thought the switch-off was a very bad idea, and so did the second. The third - who was the only ‘dissenting’ voice - approved of the move but purely for silly, selfish reasons (“I’m not really” (sad to see it go) “because I’ve been caught on the camera”).
Couldn’t they have found any sensible opponent of the speed camera?
It was very obvious where than reporter (Dominic Sandford) stood on the issue (as it so often is with the BBC).
Post a Comment