Safe Speed Forums

What do I win?

Joking apart, do stick around Tom.

Opposing opinions are always welcome if presented in as civil a manner as yours.

I am afraid he might have been. And never trust someone who says: "I'll be off now, then! You'll never see me again!" And then stays to see what people are saying about them, then responding in the thread in which the made their announcement of departure...

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

Sorry, but much of what you have said in this thread is vague to the point of meaningless. Most of the rest basically amounts to "You're wrong but I'm not going to tell you why, because you're not ready for it". You can't just come onto a forum and repeat that over and over. A forum is for open discussion, where people contribute their ideas freely without putting a premium on them and threatening to withhold them unless they hear the "right" things. If your theory is so wonderful, it should stand up for itself, whatever we might currently think.

And we don't give people a hard time just for disagreeing. It's true that a high proportion of those who come on here and disagree with us are vacuous trolls, who get the treatment that they deserve, but as I and many others have said, we would just love some intelligent, stimulating opponents to join. I really thought you were one such person at first. Unfortunately I've been disappointed, at least so far.

It appears more and more that such opponents don't exist; that there are no out-and-out camera supporters (I wouldn't really call you an out-and-out supporter BTW) who will consistently debate properly, fairly, reasonably and intelligently. Some are obviously cretinous and antagonistic from the start (and if I had my way, the worst ones would be banned immediately, so that they couldn't waste our time and pollute the forum with their tired, poisonous rubbish and lies). Others do a fairly good job of pretending, but they all fall short in the end; eventually you get to the continued refusal to answer certain questions, the dubious discussion "tactics", and all the rest of the predictable nonsense.

I suppose it's hardly surprising; for example, you're unlikely to find any members of the Flat Earth Society who debate properly, and there's about as much evidence for cameras working as there is for the Earth being flat. Some points of view are so totally wrong that it is simply impossible for someone to defend them without sooner or later resorting to childishness, underhandedness and deceit. When logic and truth can't win the day, only cheating is left.

Please, tell us your theory, and I can promise you that we will give it a fair hearing, because contrary to what the aforementioned trolls say, we really do care about road safety rather than being able to "go as fast as we can" (whatever that actually means; it's a typical ill-thought-out emotive statement). But until you tell us, you really can't expect us to change our minds about anything just to please you.

_________________
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)

www.lulu.com/content/2005777
Hope you enjoy it folks..This is the only way to bring speed cameras to an end...
Tom.

I did think this worth thread on own in "Chat" - but was going to post up in Members first as ist in French original.


Zut alors! English ist not the "language of the internet" after all

BUT this article from a Toulouse area newpsaper show the difference in attitude after a smash. UK version? Whack up a scamera immediately und this road would fit UK criteria as it currently stand.


I will summarise gist of each paragraph.

http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/02 ... ortel.html








After any accident there has to be investigation to establish the causes. In this case they have road engineers, gendarme, specialist in infrastructure, medic, driving experts und pyschologists



So what happened//






RN 21 ist a black spot if the accident spate ist anything to go by.

5 accidents.. 3 fatal und 4 SI in 7 years.

But they say in relation to traffic at 14K cars per day rising to 20K in the holiday season.. this ist " not that many"





Quite different then to UK




The prefecture (council) ordered the enquiry as they need to "understand how these accidents are occurring in order to work out a remedy to this black spot.

(How refreshing from "whack up a scam und lower the speed limit und there .. ist sorted




This inquiry will last about 6 weeks und every single aspect of this road und the past accidents will be gone over with fine toothcomb with results
und recommendations going up to the relevant Ministry in Paris.


Publié le 13 février 2008 à 09h27 | Auteur : Hélène Dubarry.


http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/02 ... ortel.html



I provide the link so that folk can access this site which has some rather interesting articles about roads.. cyclists ..

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

I post the above article here because I would like Tom to read this und explain why France lead the way in actually reducing the number of deaths on the roads per 10k Km travelled und UK has sunk down to 8th place per the latest league table in the ECHS whatever chart.

Could it be that they actually think a little first?

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Free to download, I notice.

Hire a proof reader next time.

Hi Wildcat and everyone else,
I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but I completely agree.
I don't know what the French policy is in relation to trying to figure out collision causation stats, but it does not surprise me that if they are using this approach, that they are leaders in the field and my hat goes off to them.

The problem with the people guiding road safety in the UK is that they have absolutely no idea of true causation factors, they only partially understand contributory. Because there are no causation statistics, it seems as though the contributory factors get exaggerated and fluctuate wildly..

We know the main causes of collisions, the main cause by far being 'lack of awareness' due to low or poorly directed concentration levels. Use of speed is a contributory factor however, I believe that if you remove the causation factor, then speed no longer remains a factor. This is what I have attempted to explain in the book, but I am no Jane Austin.
As for speed cameras being a 'quick fix', I absolutely agree and that is the problem, why investigate the hugely complex issue of collision causation when you can ignore causation and just bang up a speed camera. That is why I said that "speed cameras work and that is their problem" We have a reliance on them that is preventing us from tackling the real issues and that reliance is set to spread massively.

What I have attempted to do with the book is to look at the discussion from a non scientific but qualified point of view and offer corrective exercises to prevent us from killing each other. The upside is that as the reasons for killing each other and getting caught out by a speed camera are by and large the same, then as casualties reduce, so should the number of camera activations.

Imagine that speed cameras and road traffic fatalities are balanced on a set of scales, increase speed cameras and casualties go down, reduce cameras and casualties go up. I have effectively broken these scales and as a result, hope to see the numbers of speed camera and casualties reduce at the same time. But there are still so many who can't accept that speed cameras work.

But, and like me, its a big but, the only way this can succeed is if we have massive numbers participating. Small numbers will only provide protection against the speed camera with no visible reduction in casualty. Massive participation would create massive reductions in KSI.
And all this without ruining the real driving experience, sounds too good to be true doesn't it and thats what I'm afraid of. The book is not all that complimentary towards the motorist and that is why I believe that the motorist is not ready for it yet. It opposes many of the self beliefs they have about their own ability. I don't mind upsetting several hundred million motorists, what concerns me more is the alternative vision of the future for motoring and the legacy we leave behind for future generations...
Anyway, the book is my contribution to road safety, forget the arguments as no one is ever going to win and I have no need to remind you that the next generation of digital cameras are already on their way. The future of road safety rests with either the government or the motorist, them or us. Its your choice which route you choose and you can imagine the outcome of both. Personally, I can live with either, I know which one I'd prefer but that choice is out of my hands...

Good luck all
Tom...

Hi Wildcat and everyone else,
I'm sorry to have to say this to you, but I completely agree.
I don't know what the French policy is in relation to trying to figure out collision causation stats, but it does not surprise me that if they are using this approach, that they are leaders in the field and my hat goes off to them.

The problem with the people guiding road safety in the UK is that they have absolutely no idea of true causation factors, they only partially understand contributory. Because there are no causation statistics, it seems as though the contributory factors get exaggerated and fluctuate wildly..

We know the main causes of collisions, the main cause by far being 'lack of awareness' due to low or poorly directed concentration levels. Use of speed is a contributory factor however, I believe that if you remove the causation factor, then speed no longer remains a factor. This is what I have attempted to explain in the book, but I am no Jane Austin.
As for speed cameras being a 'quick fix', I absolutely agree and that is the problem, why investigate the hugely complex issue of collision causation when you can ignore causation and just bang up a speed camera. That is why I said that "speed cameras work and that is their problem" We have a reliance on them that is preventing us from tackling the real issues and that reliance is set to spread massively.

What I have attempted to do with the book is to look at the discussion from a non scientific but qualified point of view and offer corrective exercises to prevent us from killing each other. The upside is that as the reasons for killing each other and getting caught out by a speed camera are by and large the same, then as casualties reduce, so should the number of camera activations.

Imagine that speed cameras and road traffic fatalities are balanced on a set of scales, increase speed cameras and casualties go down, reduce cameras and casualties go up. I have effectively broken these scales and as a result, hope to see the numbers of speed camera and casualties reduce at the same time. But there are still so many who can't accept that speed cameras work.

But, and like me, its a big but, the only way this can succeed is if we have massive numbers participating. Small numbers will only provide protection against the speed camera with no visible reduction in casualty. Massive participation would create massive reductions in KSI.
And all this without ruining the real driving experience, sounds too good to be true doesn't it and thats what I'm afraid of. The book is not all that complimentary towards the motorist and that is why I believe that the motorist is not ready for it yet. It opposes many of the self beliefs they have about their own ability. I don't mind upsetting several hundred million motorists, what concerns me more is the alternative vision of the future for motoring and the legacy we leave behind for future generations...
Anyway, the book is my contribution to road safety, forget the arguments as no one is ever going to win and I have no need to remind you that the next generation of digital cameras are already on their way. The future of road safety rests with either the government or the motorist, them or us. Its your choice which route you choose and you can imagine the outcome of both. Personally, I can live with either, I know which one I'd prefer but that choice is out of my hands...

Good luck all
Tom...

Johnnytheboy wrote:


Thanks for the advice but the books not finished yet (just incidentals that I want to add) and like I said, I'm no Jane Austin..The great thing about lulu.com is that you can remove, edit, tweak, add and so on. This is a pre production copy that I have done especially as a free download. There are a few errors granted and they will be corrected....eventually.
It's not costing you anything so you'll just have to live with it for a while.
To be honest I have proof read it several times and every time I spot something new, you should have seen it two months ago. Anyway I've had enough of proof reading for now so talk to the hand...
Tom.

Agree to a point Tom; certainly about the establishment placing importance on that which s easily measurable/enforceable/changeable rather than measuring/enforcing/changing that which is important.

Looks like a load of thinly-disguised pro-camera propaganda to me, despite you saying that you're on neither "side". It seems to me that you are in favour of cameras, but you think there should be other road safety devices as well. That's hardly revolutionary: it's also the line of the likes of Hughes and Brunstrom. I haven't seen you say anything that contradicts their ilk, so I have to wonder just what your motives are.

You say both sides of the debate are "stubborn" (despite seeming to agree with the other side), but if we're right, surely we have every right to be "stubborn".

And I don't see anything about "beating" hidden mobile cameras. If all cameras were as easy to spot as you make out, people would indeed have to be unobservant to be caught. But that's not the case. It's just one of a series of assumptions in the book which are incorrect and strangely charitable towards cameras.


No, they're placed in areas where a certain proportion of drivers exceed the speed limit, which is not the same thing at all. In fact it's more or less the opposite. Surely only someone who was in favour of cameras would be so generous towards them when it is obvious to any half-decent motorist that they're all in the wrong places.


Who do you work for?

I could go on with other quotes but I don't see the point. I won't give a mark out of ten.

Oh, and even the title is ungrammatical. You may think I'm nitpicking but I'm sure many would find that offputting.

_________________
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)

Hallo Tom


Merci vilmal for your reply. We probably will never agree over speed cams

But I will post up some of the articles I find on idle googly over lunch breaks this week.


These prove interesting - I have German/Swiss/Austrian/French/Italian. ... I am .. er ... better at these lingos than confounded English But the English teacher.. I mucked about in her class


I post them up as you might find them of use in research for your book ... as it seem current research in motor industry look at how to design car to ensure whoever you hit at least lives und in-car devices too. However, one of the pieces I have from Austrian Motor section of paper.. think it was Kurier .... but I see in their version of "Autocar" too. that Opel und Mercedes und BMWare all looking at driver behaviour patterns too to try to devise some doo-dah which kick in if driver in day-dream I will post up this link in due course. I think I will place in "Improve" as it belong here

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Thanks for the replys guys,
I make no effort to disguise the fact that speed cameras work and if it comes down to it, I will support them and I also appreciate that many of you hold a different point of view.
I do believe that they work, but I also believe that this simple fact has caused an over reliance on them in the UK, which is why I am working towards better methods of reducing casualties without using camera enforcement. However, if the route we choose is that of carrying on as we are then I am prepared to live with the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands more cameras that PACTs are campaigning for.
Like I said the choice can be ours and not theirs, but its up to us to do something about it.
The starting point is accepting that cameras work, until we can get passed this hurdle, we can't even get started.

"past" not "passed"

"Jane Austen" not "Jane Austin"


There's hope for you yet !

_________________
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

But Tom.. not read all of this thread through -yet!

But how and why do you reckon these cams work - when we have so many deaths.. poor driving standards overall and have slipped from our top slot to a close 4th with France and Germany set to overtake us from joint 5th. Switzerland is currently in "poll position" on 2007 stats - but likely to lose it for 2008 as they had a major disaster in the ice at Chur per Wildy's newspapers. (Yes... the driver who caused it was too fast for icy conditions .. but not speeding per the press

But even with these stats - we have various claims. Swiss say overall their KSI stats have increased by 8%. Three Swiss Kantons report a whopping 8% increase for the Zurich area and 10% for Solothurn whilst Italy (15th in the motorway safety charts (with the 90 mph autosrade completely accident free per this same report from the actual ETSC report - available on line) - yet a 19% overall drop on all roads nationwide.


Only all hospital A&E stats across the EU - and I have access to them via medical journals seem to indicate that road traffic injuries are increasing.


This - along with declining skills and standards does not indicate to me that anything "great" is hapenning out there.

In fact - we have two areas in the UK which consistently reflect fewer disasters on their roads. They use policemen to control this and not fixed cameras. North Yorkshire and Durham do cover a fairly wide and varied area as well.




Our starting point was to consistently ram COAST down throats in every post on every message board Large family - and we got them all "at it"

But COAST is a simple message and I think easy to keep in mind too.

We also have Steve Haley's "Mind Driving" - excellent piece of work and a very valuable addition to our bookshelf here.


But without undermining your work - can you tell us a little more about your ideas for reducing KSI without more scams? We have already discussed the idea of a graded assessed drive every 5 years or so.. with the cost offset by some carrot of voucher to use against car running costs as an incentive as most things work if folk think there is something "material" in it for them as opposed to the relative "immaterial" of the thrill of improved skills and personal satisfaction in this achievement.

We have discussed the graded licence idea.. etc etc..

But one thing is clear - we do have to educate better and return to plain old courtesy and common sense values.

_________________
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.

Speed cameras. Obviously they would be placed at accident blackspots, outside schools, that kind of place. And the first speed camera would be place at one of these locations.

Well, no. In our area the first speed camera was place somewhere with no history of accidents (in fact I can't recall there having been any accident there in 20 years) but on a slight hill, on a good bit of straight road, not far from traffic lights.

I think the buggers actually do calculate how much revenue such a scamcam can rake in...

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

It's often surprising how many crashes do take place that you don't know about.

I bet if you did some research you'd uncover several fatalities.

Truvelo where in-law lives. Only death was the man who had heart attack und mounted pavement .. narrowly missing a pedestrian pushing a pram.


The other? Woman dashed across dual carriageway towards bus stop.. und was hit by the bus coming into the stop.


Then Liebchen.. there was the one as highlighted by Kev Delaney on A40. 4 died at the site in question. One single accident. But it met the criteria required for whacking up the scam.

As he drily point out on the telly und on a R4 prog last year (which did have an input from the late Paulie who put his case across well ) - this cam site boasts a 100% saving of lives.. but this only because no accident occurred before or ever since.

Ach.. but how did it happen? How did 4 lads aged 15-17 years die that way?

because they had stolen the car.. had no driving licence und were running from a police car at the time - per Kevin Delaney's own words on both these programmes investigating speed cam fever

Perhaps if we tried to prevent theft.. taught the kids better, re-introduced genteel polite manners, sense of pride in self und achievements, und actually found some activity which challenge und not stint senses of adolescent "adventure" - are legal und supervised..


What do you think weepej? Und Tom?

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!