Safe Speed Forums

Hi Digital Fungus and welcome.





This family suffered two where speed was not the cause. Wife's cousin was killed at low speed by a defective artciulated and my on wife was hurt when someone was taken ill and rear-ended her We jpined Brake at that stage and quite sure the charity can list more non speeds incidents than high speeds if they really wanted to..




No wonder old I-G goes all quiet over his court appearances - his "sums" are on trial.

Have to say - they did cross all the proverbial "i"s etc when they eventually sorted out my wife's incident.



If that is the sace then would agree that is a more sensible use of one. If we had a general information advert to try to show the error and consequences as well - that might also help simiilar areas where they instal the s/cam a couple of miles after such a hazard as part of the con trick and where collsions still occur as a result.



Classic examples of that's wrong with the scammers.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I completley understand, when people refuse to enter debate, when their view is flawed



Lets analyse a few





Thousands of cars, hundreds with the same tyre, ABS, does not leave any kind of skid mark, if it did, it is not working properly, when dealing with such small markings, it could easily be from a vehicle that passed yesterday. Tyre's are not finger prints



You need all the sums, to draw a mathmaticle conclusion.

1, Traveling speed, prior to the driver spotting the hazard.

2, exact position of the vehicle, when the driver spotted the hazard

3, exact position when the brakes were applied

4, exact pressure applied to the brakes

Miss anyone of these points, and you are only assuming speed.

1, you may have within 3 to 8 mph, if the driver had actually checked their speedo

2, never in a month of sundays, would the investigating officer or the driver know

3, as 2

4, as 2 & 3



Not with a good solicitor they would not, it is all unsubstantiated, and only guess work at best.



it only takes one day to kill one, thats 15 dead at least , based on speed kills theory:!:



Oh yes their are ethics of the debate

A local road, to me has been a 60 mph limit, for as long as i can remember. No accidents on the stretch of road either, certainley no fatalities. So for years, the strecth of road is deemed to be safe to travel on at 60 mph.

Then

Council changes speed limit to 30mph, then our local traffic police make it the local scamvan parking spot. Both the council & the force know full well, this will catch people out, as the road is safe to travel at 60mph, therefore it will boost revenue.



At that point we feel like being Robin Hood and taking on the sherrif of Nottingham, taxing our highways



A blind junction, classic poor road layout, should of just put a roundabout in, job done, traffic has the chance to pull out in a safe manner, and does not interupt the free flow of traffic, too much



Why are 2 roads, that support the same local traffic, more of a danger than others

Simple really, bad road layouts

_________________
Steve

So it's a camera that issues zero tickets then?

I must also point out that good quality science in a large scale evaluation found speed activated warning signs were three time more effective than speed camera at getting drivers to slow down in areas of special danger.

Here the report: http://www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL548.pdf

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I dont particularly want you back on the roads, as all you seem to do when youre there is act as backup gatsos, (in my bitter experience)

If however you were out there to catch the real crims on the road, then thats a different story, but certainly not one that I have experienced.

You talk about not whining and trying to get out of the penalty, but you must remember that average peoples livelihoods are at serious risk from minor infringements of ridiculous rules.

Some of us just dont equate going ever slower and slower (presumably to meet more demading business plans of the partnerships), with better/safer driving.

Take the money out of the whole deal, and there would be NO enforcement.

Can I take this opportunity to apologise to Digital (fungus), publicly 'bury the hatchet', and thank him for accepting my invitation to register here.



It may have escaped some people's attention that I did in fact attempt to agree with him on certain matters over on the MEG forum (particularly over the incident of one individual who managed to deter and 'punish' a TWOCer using some clever central locking and two 118dB sirens mounted in the vehicle ), and I published on MEG the link to the Police Magazine article by David Begg and Brunstrom, with the follow up from traffic officers who supported Digital/fungus's viewpoint.

People in here know I can be a bit of a hothead as I am frustrated (as many are) by the one-sided view of the speed camera system that is presented to the 'ignorant masses' by the powers that be, and I wanted to enter into a discussion with Digital as to why I felt his factsheet on MEG was a little propagandaic (is there such a word), but I see that he has acknowledged this in one of his posts above.

Thanks again for joining this forum, Digital - I hope you will see that we aren't all just 'trying to get away with it' as some people on MEG think, but do indeed want safer roads.

Sorry once again

r11co (doing what Ken Livingstone won't!)