Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2020 02:30

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:21 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/newbe ... 3576613.jp

Guilty speeders, get over it

By Keith Newbery

Call me old-fashioned, but if I see a sign which says 'Danger 1,000 volts! Do not touch!' I do my best to avoid the area.

I have the same wary regard for traffic signs, and when faced with one which informs me that the speed limit is 30mph and that there are cameras in the vicinity, I make the necessary adjustments.

According to the latest batch of statistics, two million motorists failed to heed this advice in the past 12 months, paid a total of £120m in fines – and their squeals of indignation can be heard throughout the land.

Anyone would think some mysterious force bore down on their accelerator pedal as they approached the restricted area and prevented them complying with the law.

It didn't. You broke the law. You paid the price. Get over it and stop whining.

I was once fined for speeding in those far-off pre-camera days, having failed to notice a brightly-decorated police car in my rear-view mirror.

I explained to the magistrates that my excess speed was caused by my rushing to cover their courts as a trainee reporter, but this elicited little sympathy and I received the going rate for such fines in those days.

The point I'm trying to make is that it never crossed my mind to blame the police, the government, or even God. It was nobody's fault but mine, and I accepted the responsibility.

I have no patience with outfits like the oxymoronic Safespeed, which worships at the altar of Jeremy Clarkson and actively campaigns against the use of speed cameras on the spurious basis that they 'make matters worse.'

The anti-camera campaigners also cite the ludicrous statistic that cameras appear to have made no difference to the number of drink-driving offences.

Why on earth would they? Any fool prepared to get behind the wheel in an intoxicated state is hardly likely to take any notice of signs warning him or her to reduce their speed.

The big mistake the government made was to vest responsibility for these cameras in
quangos called Road Safety Partnerships, thereby making a perfectly sensible initiative
seem slightly shifty and primarily profit-driven.

But if the life of just one child has been saved, that's all the justification these cameras require.

***

Needs a letter, obviously.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:35 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
His ignorance shines like a beacon to imbeciles everywhere!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Keith Newbery wrote:
It didn't. You broke the law. You paid the price. Get over it and stop whining.


Would Keith be whining if there was an equally pointless law which, for example, prevented those with low IQ writing newspaper articles? They would have a similar impact on road safety!

Keith Newbery wrote:
I have no patience with outfits like the oxymoronic Safespeed


Not an oxymoron, clearly a safe speed exists.

Keith Newbery wrote:
which worships at the altar of Jeremy Clarkson


The man irritates me. I also have no points on my licence and never have, and I still think scams are a bad thing. How inconvenient that I do not fit his prejudicial view of all scam opponents as boy racers and speed freaks!

Keith Newbery wrote:
actively campaigns against the use of speed cameras on the spurious basis that they 'make matters worse.'


Keith Newbery writes newspaper articles with the spurious claim that our claims are spurious without substantiation!

Keith Newbery wrote:
The anti-camera campaigners also cite the ludicrous statistic that cameras appear to have made no difference to the number of drink-driving offences.


Rather missed the point there Keith!

Keith Newbery wrote:
Why on earth would they? Any fool prepared to get behind the wheel in an intoxicated state is hardly likely to take any notice of signs warning him or her to reduce their speed.


..and herein lies the root of all Keith's problems! He clearly believes that if the intoxicated fools did heed the signs warning them to slow down, they would become safe!!

Keith Newbery wrote:
But if the life of just one child has been saved


Won't somebody pleeeease think of the children! :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 13:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
Those behind the scams must delight greatly in the existence of apparently stupid, simple people such as Mr Newberry. Without them the "game" would have been up long ago, even taking into account the lying, vested interest crowd.

That article was especially vague and insubstantial. At least some of our detractors actually go into detail even if they are wrong. He didn't even have a stab at demonstrating why cameras are supposed to save lives. He just said so, as if that's enough in itself. Slower is safer; it's "obvious", and Safe Speed is just trying to complicate things with needless numbers because they want to race around everywhere endangering themselves and others. Not that many members are responsible family men who genuinely want safer roads or anything like that.

Most frustrating. If we must have simple people then I wish they wouldn't write in newspapers and spread their rubbish around. Mr Newberry, if you really care about the children that much then you must stop indirectly endangering them by encouraging a policy which is costing lives rather than saving them. Just because you don't understand the science which unequivocally states that, it doesn't make it any less true. Just because you might instinctively like cameras and want them to work (due perhaps to being a spiteful control freak), it doesn't mean that they do. Please have the decency to STFU and leave the shaping of these important policies to those who actually have a clue. Write about flower shows or something else where lives aren't at stake instead. The pen is mightier than the sword, and at the moment your pen is killing people.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 14:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
bombus wrote:
Those behind the scams must delight greatly in the existence of apparently stupid, simple people such as Mr Newberry.


Who says that he is stupid? He may have been persuaded by someone from one of the Scameraships or be a friend of Monbiot.

Bombus wrote:
Just because you don't understand the science which unequivocally states that, it doesn't make it any less true.


So you believe in our impending doom at the hands of Global Warming because of The Science?
[/ :twisted: ]

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 14:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
Quote:
Keith Newbery wrote:
But if the life of just one child has been saved


I'm not sure if the cameras have saved just ONE life I'm prepared to say it is worth it. Mainly based on that I'm sure there have been a number more people killed BECAUSE of cameras (sudden braking, not paying attention to road etc etc - we all know reasons on here). It's a shame no one could publicy air this opinion without being branded a child hating satanist


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 21:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
SafeSpeed wrote:
Call me old-fashioned, but if I see a sign which says 'Danger 1,000 volts! Do not touch!' I do my best to avoid the area.

Good comparison.
I know someone who is making an RF amplifier and has been fiddling around with its 700 volts while it is live.
So if you are practised enough not to touch it then you can get very close quite safely.
So people who know what they are doing don't need to avoid the area as much.
So anyone who knows what they are doing could conceivably encroach on the area of 31mph...

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.513s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]