Safe Speed Forums

I can vouch for that

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I always feel it’s wrong of me to say things like this, as someone in the caring profession, but yes: -

You could make all pavements from the rubber material you see in play areas

You could ban junk food and alcohol along with cigarettes

You could make all traffic do no more than 20mph!

You could stop the likes of Brunstrom mountain climbing by banning that too or from people enjoying white water rafting and diving.

The list is endless, but I don’t think a sterile disinfected world with cotton wool covered humans is our destiny - or should be.

Maybe I should I resign now?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

You do not have to be walking to injure yourself. On the 2 occasions I have broken bones I was stationary and no vehicles were involved. I fractured my wrist when a plastic garden chair I was sitting in collapsed (I know fat bastid ). The other was a meat mincing machine broke and fell on my foot. :wheelchairsmilie

I have never injured myself or anyone else either inside or outside a moving car. In fact my personal experience is the faster you move the safer you are I din't move fast enough on the second one :wheelchairsmilie

Me too

The first was when I jumped down off a van I was loading and my foot landed on a stone I didn't see. Although I didn't go to the hospital I'm absolutely certain I broke a bone in my foot. (Wrong footwear)

I rolled on the ground in agony in front of my family "What's the matter dad?"

"I'll be with you in a second Chicken" (Said through gritted teeth.)

The bruise spread all over the top of my foot. I guess I was speeding, (or was I racing? ), but it was at 9.8 meters per second downwards over about four feet.

The second is a long story and the only accident I've had on my motorbike. The engine wasn't running; I wasn't even on it. Not quite a Darwin award but I admit I was dumb. Maybe I should post it under 'What's the dumbest accident you've had?" (Probably wouldn't get much owning up by others mind)

I may post it tomorrow for anyone in need of a soporific

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I'm afraid you understand it incorrectly. The figures show that under 5% of KSIs had speed, in excess of the posted limit, as a factor.

The raw data has been rather thin on the ground, but from that which I have been able to analyse, it was interesting to note that only one incident, out of hundreds, had 'speed in excess of the posted limit' recorded as a factor without something else of the magnitude of "drunk/drugged driver" or "stolen vehicle" listed alongside it, and if I recall correctly, that incident did also include an observational failure.

The fact that speed cameras are clearly marked and signed, the fact that the revenue no longer goes directly to those operating the equipment, and the fact that speed cameras are not proliferating as quickly as they used to, are all indications that this campaign, amongst others, has played it's part. In a David vs. Goliath situation, you don't give up if the first pebble doesn't prove fatal!

Interesting to see that Mrs. Paton has been given her internet privileges back. Is there not some requirement here to not post insubstantial, vapid provocations? I'm not sure whether it constitutes trolling, or spamming, given the utter lack of intelligent though so it so glaringly illustrates.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Thanks for the clarification. So speed in excess of the limit may have featured in more than 5% of the accidents, but were only a factor in 5%? By factor I mean causal factor.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I look at it more simply, as mmltonge said:



That’s true I think but sadly the current policing, (if you can call it that), of our roads means that they’re catching the careful drivers based on just one aspect of driving while only catching a small fraction of these “idiots” who are the real threat.

I don’t think you need to look at figures to realise this is what’s happening in the real world although I expect to be lambasted by some for saying so. I just look around me and see for myself..

Everyone I know who has points for speeding is a safe driver with no record of ever hurting anyone. There’s just one, whom I work with and have mentioned before, who drives too close to others, too fast in the wrong places and has had small bumps, (so far), and yet he has a clean licence!

Myself and others at work have refused to go in his car again.

Que: When is he going to get caught?

Ans: After another thousand safe drivers have been done I suspect.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Unfortunately the data does not differentiate between causal and aggravating factors, that is one of the things I, for one, would very much like to see in accident investigations in the future! It would appear that wherever there is evidence that a vehicle was in excess of the speed limit at the time of the accident then excess speed is recorded as a factor. Sadly that leaves us none the wiser as to the actual part played by 'speed', or even the degree to which the limit was being exceeded.

It has always been my contention that, other than in very contrived circumstances, speed itself can never be more than an aggravating/mitigating factor in a collision. I have written extensively on the subject elsewhere on these boards; the search function will help if you are genuinely interested.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

So ill bet Mpaton's now feeling a bit silly for suggesting the campaigns "over".

As i said before chummy, its just starting. First Swindon, next the world.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Not at all. Safespeed has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Can I also point out that Swindon have not removed any cameras yet. You seem to be getting a bit carried away with yourselves.

I beg to differ Mpaton.

The very fact that theyre openly discussing removal is very highly likely to be due to the information gleaned from sites such as these.
Councillors arent averse to getting both sides of the story, especially as theyve obviously realised theyve only been getting the party line all these years without seeing the so called speed camera benefits.

According to you, the campaign was "over" you were effectively suggesting there was no chance, but what a turn up eh?
It only takes one to commit to it and once the illusory benefits of the scamera system have been laid waste, theres absolutely no reason for other councils to be continuing to lie to themselves and the public.

The campaigns far from over, its just hotting up.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Don't get carried away.
The cameras are still there, more are going to be installed.
This is only a ploy to obtain more leverage and try to keep more of the money.
Note:

So, it is not as simple as you think.
It seems the best you can expect is an extension of the "speed workshop" scheme, and no points.
Since most drivers will be happy with that, you cannot expect the removal of speed cameras any time soon.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to post this.

The hot air from Swindon is all about getting more money, and nothing about any alleged or claimed "success" of this "campaign".

Also, if anyone watched Top Gear last night, they admitted that this "campaign" is wrong. Did anyone spot it? When they were talking about Swindon? They asked everyone in or visiting Swindon to drive differently over the next few weeks - as all eyes would be on there, drivers should be "extra careful". Proof that even the Top Gear mob don't believe the mantra from this "campaign" that removing cameras will bring about an increase in road safety.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I think you have completely misinterpreted the Top Gear presentation which, in common with most of their programs, was intended to be a light hearted anecdote.

However, IMO they were unwise to fete the Councillor proposing this as he has yet to get approval for the proposal which may well owe more to financial than safety matters.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Or proof of a sound understanding of statistical blips and RTTM, and how they affect policy, i.e. safe Swindon road has camera removed, someone crashes for unrelated reason, crash "proves" cameras make roads safer.

Its amazing how two different people can draw different inferences from the same piece of television. I simply took the 'extra careful' comment as simply that, please take care because we now have the chance to prove that you don't need speed cams to have a safe driving environment and we don't want to give the scammerati any excuse to crow. You have to try quite hard to draw the conclusion that the TG team know that the safe speed message is flawed...but fair play, you clearly did that hard work, you drew that conclusion.

to use the common internet parlance, "lol".

Hard work? To know that this "campaign" calls for road safety improvements by scrapping cameras, and see three of the anti-speed-camera mouthpieces pleading for people to be extra careful when there is a chance [*] that some will be? It's not hard work, it's obvious.

EITHER:
The "campaign" is wrong, and removing speed cameras will NOT bring about an improvement in road safety.
OR
The exhortations from the popular entertainment car show were wrong, and removing the cameras does not need any extra care from any member of the driving community.

Which is it?

It's a crying shame that the entertainment lobby never use the words "be careful" at any other time though.

[*] very slim. Swindon's announcement is, as we know, mostly political posturing and will be resolved if / when money is promised.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Handy, don't paint yourself into this corner.

You know full well that in no way were the TG team somehow 'admitting' that the removal of cameras would make the roads more dangerous. You also know that the intention of their comments was to urge caution, albeit in a lighthearted way, as any accidents during the post camera period would be used as pro camera propaganda. the logic in your 'either or' statement is somewhat tenuous.

I happen to hold your posts in pretty high regard but I fear your pursuit along this line will do you no favours. You're begining to ape the teenage debating style favoured by some of our less savoury posters.

You must have a different definition of the word tenuous to the one I am familiar with. It's a direct statement - either scrapping speed cameras (as per the government petition) will make roads safer, or it won't. If it will, a concommitant change of driver behaviour should not be demanded. If it won't, then such a change will skew figures. Ahhhh ... skewed figures, suddenly the light comes on.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.