| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Campaign to remove Rosslyn Park advertising screens | |
| Posted by: | Jonty Nicholls | |
| Date/Time: | 03/12/15 19:33:00 |
| I enjoyed watching the Pathe news footage of the lido, but wouldn't describe it as being particularly "pastoral". On a more serious note, this campaign's credibility will suffer immensely if it bases its case on irrelevant, spurious or specious arguments. There are illuminated advertising signs all over the country, including many using this type of technology (I don't have much time for advertising - it seems to be mainly about conning people into paying over the odds for stuff they don't actually need, and often can't really afford). But they are not dangerous. The criticism being levelled at the approach to safety is flawed: "does that mean someone has to be killed before something is done about it.....etc etc" - this is one of the best approaches which can be taken - an evidence-based approach. Firstly you rule out things which are obviously dangerous - cars without brakes, 100mph drivers and the like. For factors which can be argued either way (yes they are dangerous, oh not their not), the approach usually taken is to gather statistics as to whether they are really dangerous - have they actually caused any accidents or worsened the effects of accidents. This approach led to the introduction of many sensible safety procedures such as seat belts, child seats and more recently, extra guards and mirrors on HGV lorries. Illuminated advertising signs have not been recognised as causing an increasing number of accidents - because they don't. It might be your opinion that they do - but where is the data? Carpa's website doesn't mention safety as a concern and it would be a mistake if it did. |