Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Jun 23, 2018 21:01

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
In this post:
viewtopic.php?p=218097#p218097

You claim the following:

"It's about time the Police and Council sorted out this horrendous tend of additional pretend cameras.
They have caused deaths and must be stopped.
It is utter folly to claim that a burglar will be put off by a Gatso type camera - when a blue tit is attracted to yellow, since when ? If they were attracted to them then why are there not more trying to nest on or by the real one's ?

For the authorities to show even mild support is extremely wrong as it sets up a dangerous precedent."


1. Where are your examples of "death by imitation speed camera"?

2. I do not know whether Blue Tits are attracted to yellow but they may well be. Where is your proof they are not?

3. Blue Tits do not nest in real Gatso cameras because they are made of steel and do not have holes big enough to allow the ingress or egress of even the smallest of Blue Tits.

4. The authority involved here has supported the use of an imitation Gatso camera, where is your proof that the precedent is causing a danger.

In line with your policy, show where your proof is or please retract the statements, the statements you have posted do not come over as opinion but do come over as fact.

If you have any proof then please post it up in support of your postings and I will gladly accept what you have said should the reference be an acceptable source.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:39 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
1. Where are your examples of "death by imitation speed camera"?
Was that statement in regard to speed cameras in general?

2. I do not know whether Blue Tits are attracted to yellow but they may well be. Where is your proof they are not?
No such claim or statement was made; it was posed as a question based on sceptisism, not fact. The claim was made by the person with the 'birdbox'.

4. The authority involved here has supported the use of an imitation Gatso camera, where is your proof that the precedent is causing a danger.

An example quoted within the report: "One man told the Echo there had been a few near-miss accidents as drivers slammed on their breaks at the sight of the camera, "
This is typical behaviour and a reasonably expected negative side-effect of speed cameras, genuine or otherwise.

2 of your 3 questions have been answered, 1 is outstanding.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
1. Where are your examples of "death by imitation speed camera"?
Was that statement in regard to speed cameras in general?

2. I do not know whether Blue Tits are attracted to yellow but they may well be. Where is your proof they are not?
No such claim or statement was made; it was posed as a question based on sceptisism, not fact. The claim was made by the person with the 'birdbox'.

4. The authority involved here has supported the use of an imitation Gatso camera, where is your proof that the precedent is causing a danger.

An example quoted within the report: "One man told the Echo there had been a few near-miss accidents as drivers slammed on their breaks at the sight of the camera, "
This is typical behaviour and a reasonably expected negative side-effect of speed cameras, genuine or otherwise.

2 of your 3 questions have been answered, 1 is outstanding.

1. It is clear that the claim is made about simulated speed cameras; there is no ambiguity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 19:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4363
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Isn't the Honesty and Accuracy Queries forum supposed to refer to questions about the main SS webpages and not throwaway statements made in the informal forum chat?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 20:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
malcolmw wrote:
Isn't the Honesty and Accuracy Queries forum supposed to refer to questions about the main SS webpages and not throwaway statements made in the informal forum chat?

Yep you are correct - the forum is a place to chat generally about driving ... still I will answer and satisfy him I hope ... :)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 20:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
In this post: viewtopic.php?p=218097#p218097
You claim the following:
(please try and use the quote facility :) )
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
"It's about time the Police and Council sorted out this horrendous tend of additional pretend cameras.
They have caused deaths and must be stopped.
It is utter folly to claim that a burglar will be put off by a Gatso type camera - when a blue tit is attracted to yellow, since when ? If they were attracted to them then why are there not more trying to nest on or by the real one's ?
For the authorities to show even mild support is extremely wrong as it sets up a dangerous precedent."

GreenShed wrote:
1. Where are your examples of "death by imitation speed camera"?
The example is the case in Hampshire where they had a case of a 'cardboard' camera. The local police thought it a great joke, until one day one of the policeman's daughters travelling along the road crashed and killed herself. The conclusions were that she had braked for the camera only unlike many others she lost control of her car and hit a nearby wall and died. That is totally tragic.
I think the chap should have been held to account. - I will try to find some links for you ...
GreenShed wrote:
2. I do not know whether Blue Tits are attracted to yellow but they may well be. Where is your proof they are not?
the article claimed that he thought they were - he was clearly being glib.
GreenShed wrote:
3. Blue Tits do not nest in real Gatso cameras because they are made of steel and do not have holes big enough to allow the ingress or egress of even the smallest of Blue Tits.
you have proof that they don't nest in metal ? Far more to do with holes than any colour I might hazard a guess ! :) However I am not interested in any proof either way as this is nothing to do with the Campaign and is pointless to discuss never mind debate.
GreenShed wrote:
4. The authority involved here has supported the use of an imitation Gatso camera, where is your proof that the precedent is causing a danger.
Camera's have many side effects that make driving worse including on centrating on a speed than driving to conditions. The report claim's near misses - it is widely known and reported that people pay less attention at camera sites as they become distracted.
GreenShed wrote:
In line with your policy, show where your proof is or please retract the statements, the statements you have posted do not come over as opinion but do come over as fact.
I always try my very best to know that I have knowledge and can back up what I say, but these are the forums where general chat can happen, it is the website that is the Campaign Honesty Issues to be discussed here.
GreenShed wrote:
If you have any proof then please post it up in support of your postings and I will gladly accept what you have said should the reference be an acceptable source.
I am sure there are appropriate Police reports if you care to go and find a copy they say there was to be one... but I post up a link ... :)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 20:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
Link here 1
Here 2

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 21:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3428
[quote]
3. Speed limits are generally set correctly within the confines of the speed limit values allowed. Why then are they being reduced? Well for a start there is a problem with them being observed. Set a 60 mph limit and see the average or 85th percentile at 70 mph, set the same road to 50 mph speed limit and see that drop into the 50's or low 60's job done.[quote]

Greenshed, is this the official SCP line? If so maybe you will get round to proving this statement or retracting it....;-)

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 23:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9238
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Tell us something Greenshed ( after all you invoked the honesty idea ) -
1) Please confirm or deny that you are SCP( I.E PUT UP OR SHUT UP)
2) Is this constant smokescreening of topics ,particularly those with newcomers part of the overall SCP plan ,or just something you do on your own account .( And I always thought using smoke was something done by naval SURFACE vessels to avoid further enemy action and damage .)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 00:36 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

Neither link shows that the camera was the cause of the death.

Extract from Link 1:
"Asked if the artificial camera could have distracted the 19-year-old driver, Mr Wright said: "I can't see how - there were no skid marks."

Other residents said the badly- injured driver told people at the scene that she crashed after swerving to avoid a rabbit in the road."


The police said they would look to see if the fake camera may have had an effect but none is shown to have been found.

A quote from "The Newspaper.com" Isn't really going to be a convincing or accurate source; your link at Link 2 from that source has it making a very selective quote, a little like yours I have to say.

So no substantiation of your statement so far in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 00:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Thank goodness your opinion is not of any paramount importance then Steve, sorry, Greenshed, or Lord help us all!

So, is the raising of this issue in a new thread, when one already exists for the purpose, mainly to obfuscate the inappropriate response of yours that I highlighted in the previous one? Is this all part of your spin of avoiding the inconvenient truths, much like your blatant ignoring of botach's most recent post in this thread?

I think a courtesy has been extended to you, in answering all counter-points you wish to raise (regardless of how you wish to dismiss the responses based on their inconvenient contravention of your paradigm), that you seem reluctant to reciprocate. I can only imaging the furore you would raise if any of your points went ignored and unanswered, as evidenced by your wholly inappropriate response on the previous thread when less than a whole eight hours elapsed on an internet forum without a point you were interested in (that someone else had raised) being answered!!

To address one of your points (whilst wholly unconcerned with whether you choose to ignore/dismiss it), are we to believe that there must be skidding evident for a driver to lose control of their vehicle during harsh manoeuvre in response to an external stimulus?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 01:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
Neither link shows that the camera was the cause of the death.

Not at this stage no.
I am aware of more information but I need to try and source what I have understood to be true however I will request the Police Report which is likely to be more conclusive. However we can debate the likely causes of the accident ....
Camera's are renowned to cause distraction - do you agree ?

Extract from Link 1:
GreenShed wrote:
"Asked if the artificial camera could have distracted the 19-year-old driver, Mr Wright said: "I can't see how - there were no skid marks."
You do not have to have skid marks to show distraction !
GreenShed wrote:
Other residents said the badly- injured driver told people at the scene that she crashed after swerving to avoid a rabbit in the road."
Inconclusive and unreliable.
GreenShed wrote:
The police said they would look to see if the fake camera may have had an effect but none is shown to have been found.
The Police investigation is not printed in the article how can you therefor state that, this is not shown.
GreenShed wrote:
A quote from "The Newspaper.com" Isn't really going to be a convincing or accurate source;
Yet you use it above - hummm.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 02:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Neither link shows that the camera was the cause of the death.

Not at this stage no.
I am aware of more information but I need to try and source what I have understood to be true however I will request the Police Report which is likely to be more conclusive. However we can debate the likely causes of the accident ....
Camera's are renowned to cause distraction - do you agree ?

Extract from Link 1:
GreenShed wrote:
"Asked if the artificial camera could have distracted the 19-year-old driver, Mr Wright said: "I can't see how - there were no skid marks."
You do not have to have skid marks to show distraction !
GreenShed wrote:
Other residents said the badly- injured driver told people at the scene that she crashed after swerving to avoid a rabbit in the road."
Inconclusive and unreliable.
GreenShed wrote:
The police said they would look to see if the fake camera may have had an effect but none is shown to have been found.
The Police investigation is not printed in the article how can you therefor state that, this is not shown.
GreenShed wrote:
A quote from "The Newspaper.com" Isn't really going to be a convincing or accurate source;
Yet you use it above - hummm.

The link I have used is from "thisishampshire.net I wouldn't quote thenewspaper.com unless I was prepared to believe that there are chimpanzees on Mars developing nuclear weapons or some other such true story.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 03:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
The link I have used is from "thisishampshire.net I wouldn't quote thenewspaper.com unless I was prepared to believe that there are chimpanzees on Mars developing nuclear weapons or some other such true story.
OK well you didn't need to quote the whole thing just to tel us that you accept that one report you have decided to accept that there has been a fatality at the location of a fake camera.
So then I re-ask - so you agree that camera's can cause distraction to motorists ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 03:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
GreenShed wrote:
...I wouldn't quote thenewspaper.com unless I was prepared to believe that there are chimpanzees on Mars developing nuclear weapons..


Substantiate or remove: libellous accusation against thenewspaper.com.

Well done for again disregarding the inconvenient facts. QED.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 09:36 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
GreenShed wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:

Neither link shows that the camera was the cause of the death.


But it does say

Quote:
A spokesman said: "Generally we wouldn't recommend people to put up signs or artificial cameras, but if people can't drive without being distracted by roadside objects they shouldn't be behind the wheel.

"There are all sorts of potential distractions and part of safe driving is being able to cope with them."

This is a view echoed by the Hampshire-based motoring organisation, the AA. A spokesman said: "Fake speed cameras are a distraction, but how do you compare them with eye-catching adverts or photographs of pretty girls promoting films? Drivers have got to learn not to be distracted."


A sentiment with which it is difficult to disagree and which is very much in line with COAST

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 17:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
dcbwhaley wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Neither link shows that the camera was the cause of the death.
A sentiment with which it is difficult to disagree and which is very much in line with COAST
Not quite - no immediate report will show and answer to any traffic accident as it is the investigation that we need to obtain and that rarely comes to light.
The article may well mention about distraction as a cause sure ......
But the problem that cameras cause is a distraction to the 'road ahead'. When you look away to ensure that you are legal and that your speed is correct you may well miss a vital early potential hazard indicator. I suspect this may well have happened here. When we choose times to take a glance to check something we do so when things are safe. Any camera presence takes out attention at times that may otherwise be less than favourable to take that crucial glance. Hence something is missed and an accident occurs. :(
Then there is another problem, many drivers now rely on Sat Nav's to tell them where the cameras are, and if they then suddenly see one they have not been previously alerted to then they may well panic brake even before they check their speedo just in case they may have been over the limit by a few mph.
Since camera's are not helping people to drive better or more safely, nor is speed the 'big issue' that it has been made out to be, then issues like good driving and ensuring COAST and safety as a default, are becoming defunct and lost in a sea of speed adherence.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 01:28 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9238
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
I note that Greenshed has chosen to ignore my request to PUT UP OR SHUT UP and defend m y allegegation that he is SCP . I further submit that he is Steve Calaghan (AKA the ancuent submariner ,also known on PH as Pitmansboots ) ,unless he can prove otherwise .I claim as my prize that Greenshed ) unless he can prove otherwise ) be awarded an avature of a red camera ( to warn all of his intent) .Mind you - now shown up ,said ex submariner ,in the true tradition ( unless depth charged into oblivion) will surface under some other wirede colour.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Neither link shows that the camera was the cause of the death.
A sentiment with which it is difficult to disagree and which is very much in line with COAST
Not quite - no immediate report will show and answer to any traffic accident as it is the investigation that we need to obtain and that rarely comes to light.
The article may well mention about distraction as a cause sure ......
But the problem that cameras cause is a distraction to the 'road ahead'. When you look away to ensure that you are legal and that your speed is correct you may well miss a vital early potential hazard indicator. I suspect this may well have happened here. When we choose times to take a glance to check something we do so when things are safe. Any camera presence takes out attention at times that may otherwise be less than favourable to take that crucial glance. Hence something is missed and an accident occurs. :(
Then there is another problem, many drivers now rely on Sat Nav's to tell them where the cameras are, and if they then suddenly see one they have not been previously alerted to then they may well panic brake even before they check their speedo just in case they may have been over the limit by a few mph.
Since camera's are not helping people to drive better or more safely, nor is speed the 'big issue' that it has been made out to be, then issues like good driving and ensuring COAST and safety as a default, are becoming defunct and lost in a sea of speed adherence.

You have described what very bad drivers would do.
Alternately compliant, lawful driving is not at all difficult to achieve and be safe.
Why not promote a method that does both?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
You have described what very bad drivers would do.

So, "good drivers" would forever be looking at the speedo? You didn't expressly state that, but that is the inevitable conclusion from your claim, especially in these days of needlessly low limits (such as motorways where the great majority of users say the limits should be increased).

GreenShed wrote:
Alternately compliant, lawful driving is not at all difficult to achieve and be safe.
Why not promote a method that does both?

"safe" - well that obviously eliminates the camera option :lol:
This campaign is promoting a more effective method that really does do both (1, 2); ok the main focus of that method would be on the safety more than the compliance, but isn't the former the important factor?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 : 0.320s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]