Safe Speed Forums

Or a certain dossier....

Could be; the tone in places is indeed similar to websites promoting such books. Or it could be "Everyone should stop speeding, because then casualties will reduce, and cameras won't be economical and so will disappear". Either would be a disappointment. Anything else would hopefully be interesting. Fingers crossed.

_________________
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)

I still don't understand the concept that cameras are being too effective and 'that's their problem' maybe I'm working too hard!

Lets park the issue of whether or not they work and concentrate on Tom's point that we can only influence those things over which we have control....ie our own, individual, driving. Tom, I agree its all about personal responsiblity and that's the whole thrust of the Safe Speed message.

It is a fallacy, however, to suggest that if we (every individual driver in the UK) improved their driving and this resulted in a continued reduction in KSI figures then we would see the end (or at least a hiatus) in the camera programme. If KSI was to be reduced by whatever mechanism this would simply be taken as an excuse for more cameras.

In short it would be a case of....if the medicine doesn't work increase the dose, if it does......increase the dose and go after the SI's rather than the K's.

They also want you to think that as patients - you will wait less time to see me .. when the opposite is the case for many.

It's pure spin and part of the problem is that too many of us are not duped fools.

The "independent" evidence is as "independent" as the "Hutton enquiry" in real life terms.

The "indepependent" research did, however, pass comment on the fact that no data was standardised so they compromised by saying the "available data INDICATES that the speed cam programme works" which is not quite the same thing as "conclusive standardised data indicates a strong possibility... "

But it's when you look into the small print and appendices that you really appreciate what they are really saying in the context.. and they are not at all committing themselves in the same way as the high way robbers are - under some pretext. of "safety"

Wildy cat should reply to you over the 20 mph limites. These exist a-plenty on mainland Europe.. yet these are the places where most incidents occur.. and it's simply because of "high volume interractions between road users." per a German paper on this topic. (Heidelberg Uni - Wildy has claws on this from somewhere. )





We have more than enough cams - but I do not see any improvement in driving standards. I do have something to post for discussion courtesy of my sisters, the Bolton News and DriveSafe (Manchester Pratnership) .. more later.. on a new thread for discussion.





We have always maintained that the initial learning has to instil an ethic of constant learning and motivation to improve to best capability.

We say that this has to mean making the driving test in line with the German standard - which ironically is what is being proposed -though the tuition hours of 500 are way OTT in reality.

I have kids aged 20 and 18 years.

I have another girl who will pester to learn to drive in a couple of years as she's almost 15 years

I will do for Zoe as for her older brothers and sister.. she will have to prove to me and Wildy that she's mature enough and has some road and common sense and then we will book the lessons in blocks with practice with us .. followed by more lessons. Before that happens .. she will be trained to observe the road and other drivers so that she can anticipate and plan for any problem quickly. She already knows the Highway Code for pedestrians and cyclists and horse riders by the way - and is pretty well au fait with signs, signals and driver etiquette as well.. but then she also has karting sessions and spends time with us on family track days




Discuss your ideas. I happen to think teaching my kids courtesy and road sense from toddler stage is the way forward to a half decent society.


But I do treat a number of folk with problems a-plenty and I foster children from backgrounds which make me despair at times. Kids who look after disabled parents.. kids who are neglected by their very able but incredibly lazy parents.. (politest way to phrase it)

Sadly these people think society owes them a living and even more sadly ..society makes allowances for them instead of shaking them up with a dollop of common sense education.

We have discussed how to educate the rogues.. but .. I have an update on another tragedy too. hit and run leaving a cyclist dying.. on October 30 last. He has not been caught. Nor have the thugs who killed a middle aged mum and which car was discovered as a burned out wreck later that night. A SPEED CAMERA has been erected where Laura Entwhistle died.


Victim of a faceless coward same as Gordon Kaye the cyclist.

So Tom.. tell me how a speed cam saves lives again.. and do tell me how less police will find murderering yobs like these?

_________________
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'll try to explain it again.....
1. Speed cameras save lives
2. The government realise this and so no amount of lobbying them is going to make any diference. They are going to stride on.
3. Speed cameras only save around 100 lives per year.
4. Concentrating on education, not speed cameras, could save hundreds more lives than speed cameras ever do or will.
5. Focussing on speed cameras as a casualty reduction tool may prevent 100 deaths per year but because we a failing to address education the many more are dying that should be saved.
6. Yes I have written a book based on these principals and its not about cycling in New Hampshire.
7. I also have to give Paul and the entire speed camera debate some credit for it. I was once vehemently opposed to Paul but he made me study the subject closely for several years. And this is the result.
8. The government are saving 100 lives per year when they could be saving 1000. This is why I am against speed camera policy.
9. Some of you will no doubt know that I have had my own brush with the bereavement process recently which is the main inspiration for the book.
10. I also said that I will tell you if and when you are ready, not sell you.
11. I don't think that you are ready yet.
12. The book is not completely ready yet.
13. The idiots on the road account for 5% of all motorists, yet they are involved in 25% of all serious collisions.
14. That means that thay are 5 times more dangerous than the rest of us.
15. However, the rest of us are still responsible for 75% of all serious road traffic casualties. So we are a legitimate road safety target.
16. Improve the driver standard of the 75% of responsible motorists and they wont need to be policed. And the few that we have left are then able to concentrate on the nost dangerous group of motorists.

Finally



Absolutely, its pure common sence my friend for which common sence is the only qualification required.....reduce speed everywhere to 5mph and there will probably be no deaths at all on the road. Using this basic principal you can control the numbers being killed and injured.
Reduce all speed limits by 10mph and enforce them all and you would probably cut deaths by 20%.
However, educate the nation and you could cut deaths by 40% or 50% without touching the speed limits.

Last one for a bit....40-1 is not good odds for me....



It's not that they are too effective, I never said that...The problem is that they work and the government have developed an over reliance on them as opposed to other, more productive methods.
Educating the nations motorists would cost £millions, in 2006 speed cameras had a turnover of around £126 million.
The government are not going to let go of that industry and as such it is pointless asking them to do so.



That is my point also but unlike Paul I don't believe that we have the skills or are (on average) responsible enough to take total on that responsibility.
3201 people killed in 2005 only areound 5% of those were actual genuine accidents.



It is a sad picture you paint but may well be true. If we all improved our driving standard then we would massively reduce our chances of going through a speed camera at speed. More importantly we would massively reduce our chances of being involved in a serious road traffic collision.
In effect you are attacking speed cameras in two ways.
1. Preventing them from making any money
2. By not creating casualties you are not creating new sites for more cameras.
Bit of a dream eh...fewer speed cameras and fewer road traffic casualties.
That is my particular vision of the future. It may be hugely optimistic but it is what I am working towards. If it fails then so be it. What we will have is PACTS vision of the future with speed cameras everywhere. When they need to reduce casualties a little further they will just keep lowering the speed limit until technology catches up and drives our cars for us (thats around 20 years or so before that technology is widely available).

If that is the direction we are heading in then I will cope with it. I have no fear of speed cameras, but I wont like it and its not the direction I want to go down.

....and, thank God, I'll be too bloody old to care!

Bombus you're ok, none of my work actually deals with speeding its not speeding that catches out speeders but something infinately more dangerous. Over 90% of motorists admit to speeding but only around 6% each year get caught. There is a clear divide in driver skill and attention.
I believe that speeding is a contributory factor not causative. Remove the causation factors from the collision equasion and a little excessive speed (within reason) becomes irellevant. Thats why I said earlier that in the most optimistic of circumstances, at sometime in the future, there may even be a case for increasing the speed limits.
Hit someone at 40mph and you'll probably kill them, reduce the speed limit and they'll probably get badly injured.
Improve basic standard and you'll probably avoid the collision completely regardless of travelling at 30, 35 or 40mph.

By the way, do you know who wrote the first and best anti-speed camera book?
It was written long before speed cameras ever saw the light of day on our roads and the authors themselves still don't even realise it.

Likewise -BUT looking forward, some of our great/
grand kids will no doubt pose the question "Mummy - how did people in 2008 drive around safely without the state safety system ??"

_________________
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

Yeah, but is that the legacy that we want to leave for our Grand kids.
They'll be asking why our generation destroyed the fun they should now be having instead of being driven around by the commodore 64's grandkids.

Perhaps that is a very good reason to start asking our next lot of MP's at interview ( after all that is what the election process is all about ) what they intend to do to make motoring safer and cheaper , and telling them that happy motorists mean votes.The election process is us interviewing them to make certain that they are fit for the purpose. Time that was put into perspective.

_________________
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

Solution please?

Sorry, I'm not being antagonistic. I'm genuinely interested.

_________________
Simon

Wrong. Speed cameras take photographs. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now since your first premis has turned out to to fundamentally flawed, do you seriously expect us to believe that you can develop a coherent and rational arguement?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Lets take the situation with a child - junior breaks window - mum says "wait till dad gets home " - dad gets home and gives kid smacked bum - does kid know what it was for ??( too far in past )
New scenario - kid breaks window - mum grabs kid and administers sore rear - kid now knows what this was for .


Repeat in terms of camera ideology ---and see what is wrong.

_________________
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

I'd love to believe that we COULD attack cameras in that way but (as some of your other posts seem to suggest), we are close to a "no-win" situation.

If road casualties go down, the government will believe it is BECAUSE of cameras and will try to use it as a justification for more of them.

If road casualties DON'T go down, they will believe it is because we don't yet have ENOUGH cameras!

So either way, the government will have it's "justification" for them. as you so rightly say later on; it's the "...around £126 million" justification!


I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that: "...The government are not going to let go of that industry and as such it is pointless asking them to do so".

I even believe it goes further than casualties. They want to make motoring such a miserable experience for as many people as possible to reduce the amount of driving we do. They want to do this for all sorts of reasons including reduction in CO2 emissions and congestion.

A CCTV camera might save a life.

"Hello, police control room? This is camera monitoring here. We have just seen some idiot driving through a 30mph road at 80mph. He's just gone through Acacia Drive."

The police go to the area, find him and arrest him.

However, this is the same scenario with a "safety" camera.

FLASH! Car registration XXXXX photographed in Acacia Avenue, speed logged at 82mph.

Three days later the film is processed, the evidence noted, the NIP is drafted and sent out.

However, the NIP is returned, unopened, several weeks later with this written on the envelope: "Addressee deceased."

After he drove through Acacia Drive, later that day, he drove into another car.

His life would not be saved, nor would that of the occupants of the other car...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

This sounds like it could get interesting...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Or...dad gets home and is just about to give kid smacked bum when he notices a neighbour at the window with a camera.
Dad now has a choice, and chooses not to smack the kid otherwise could get himself arrested.
No-one got hurt.

Sorry....closed mind.

You mentioned twice that the arguement was flawed but have not yet clarified your point.
Please feel free to do so....

ping! That was the sound of an analogy being stretched beyond breaking point.

It is not, as yet, illegal for a parent to smack their child.

And whilst court rulings have stated that it is not illegal to take photographs of people whilst in public, I feel the police would take a very dim view of a neighbour, presumably standing on private property, taking a photograph through a window, of a child.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/