Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 16:36

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 08:52 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Ernest Marsh wrote:
kendalian wrote:
Or tell us how many lives you have save since commencing in business?

It's wrong to take any one months figures and try to base results on it - or even a quarterly result.
However on the defunct CSCP forum, Steve did just that, last April.

When Kevin was on Radio Cumbria, he quite rightly said it was wrong of me to point out figures were alreadt worse THIS year.
But why stop at a quarter - it is wrong to take any one YEAR and say deaths are up or down - you need to look at the long term trend, which is..... Oh Dear :oops:
July is really going to spoil the figures - last year there were NO fatals, while this year, there have been at least 7 already.

I guess Steve will have to double up on the Horlicks at night. :( or convince himself that since the accidents were not at camera sites, or did not involve speeding, he could not have saved those lives... so why not make way for somebody who CAN?


I take it you are offering Ernest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Why wont you meet Paul for a debate JJ ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 13:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:44
Posts: 485
Location: Glos, UK
DeltaF wrote:
Why wont you meet Paul for a debate JJ ?

I hope that's rhetorical, because the answer is clearly that he knows he wouldn't stand the first chance in any kind of reasoned debate like that. He'd get walked all over by Paul and would end up looking even more foolish than he does with his rants on here.

_________________
Carl Prescott


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 19:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
JJ - Steve - as Ernest has pointed out - deaths are up. I've lived in this area now for over 20 years and whilst I can appreciate that news reporting is a bit quicker due to computer publishing technology - I find I reading about increases rather than decreases in the county. Admittedly - not where you enforcing the speed limit - but then - you are only enforcing where the BiB used to guarantee finding speeders but no accidents anyway! :roll: :shock: :? :roll:


JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
But you already knew how many sites are listed on the CSC website so why bring the matter up


When official figures are in conflict I ask questions.

Remind me, what percentage of crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit?

You don't answer difficult questions do you? (Please prove me wrong).

I'll tell you what Paul, as we are responsible for enforcing the speed limit at accident hot spots and not for imposing or deciding upon speed limits, why don't you direct your campaign towards those who are responsible for setting the speed limit?
p


errrm! 7 men in the pub! :roll: Don't actually recall accidents until you lot started there anyway. Now I hear of many - only outside the 40 mph - just - and not exactly speed related either so I hear. :roll:

As for the rest - as mentioned: you station at the places where we know the BiB used to cop folks - lucrative but not exactly accident hot spots. :roll:

JJ Steve singing and dancing into a into a lather again wrote:
As your campaign is largely negative, i.e. trying to stop something being done, why don't you concentrate on what you consider to be the positive side of your campaign, i.e. the increase of some speed limits and a reduction in enforcement?


I would sign any petition to raise the motorway speed limit :lol: :twisted: :lol: I would like it to be unlimited but I'd settle for a mere 80 mph for starts provided there is scope for review - :listenup: UPWARDS AND ONWARDS! :lol: :twisted:

JJ in a male menopausal strop wrote:
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
If you have the courage of your convictions regarding this, this is surely the action a reasonable campaigner would take but it isn't is it?
The reason you don't do this is because you know very well that there is a large majority of drivers and the public who simply regard you as a crank and quite wrong as did the presenter and the studio guests on the Bannister programme last Thursday night. Oh I forgot the 2 rerspondents who didn't agree also.


Hmm - I mention Paul's campaign to a good many and they do support him. When I have heard Paul on National Radio - like Radio Two a bit back and Radio Five and once on Radio Four - and on GMR - he came across well and people phoned in their support at the time.

The people I have mentioned this site to have told me that they support and I am hoping they will put money where mouths are.

I also think it reassuring that there is a thread on here proving the site is making people think about driving and we even encouraged Cyclist to do and succeed in an IAM test. I try where I can to include our cycling pals as I ride a bike myself! I look for things which will interest them and hope they will add their views. Road safety includes everyone after all!

Plus IG and Ian plugging the COAST message and numerous good practice tips all over this sitte from Paul and contributors to the forum - this does more for road safety than a speed cam as it promotes awareness Steve, Kecin and Jan. Awareness saves lives - and awareness and COAST observation means we drive PROPERLY amnd SAFELY ALLL THE TIME! That's the real safety message and I think Paul is achieving a great deal via a forum which attracts input from yourselves, belladonna, and policemen such as IG, Iam , cotwold et al.

I know you may take my playing with your name in fun (and given my job I think I am entitled to some bantering fun - and don't take i the wrong way - Steve) - but the bottom line is that we are all committed to the same goal: SAFETY!


You know darned well that this site is more about road safety but we cannot pretend that a speed camera is adding much to saving lives - can we!

Could you explain why IG's patch is 24% down on a rate already below UK average - all via BiB enforcement, discretion and fair play?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 19:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
just one of the JJ's wrote:
I take it you are offering Ernest.

Whilst I was stood with the Radio Cumbria reporter at the talivan refuge at Ings on Monday, a coach passed the cameras, clearly in excess of the speed limit - pointed out by the reporter, Martin Lewes.
Aside from the fact that he would only appear on film if the cameras were turned on, it is worth considering that a coach driver prepared to flout the law at Ings, will probably flout the law in Windermere, Ambleside, or anywhere else he passes through, while carrying 30 - 50 passengers, especially in areas where you cannot place speed cameras.
What on earth have the cameras done that improves safety? What was done to prevent the coach from speeding in the 20 limit at Waterhead?
What was going to prevent the coach from knocking a cyclist over along the A591? What was done to prevent a possibly serious accident at Bannerigg?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. SAFETY Cameras? Dont make us laugh - it's too serious for that!! How come the signs at Ings say SPEED cameras?

Now if Tiny Tim P (TrafPol) from Kendal traffic had been there with HIS speed camera, he would have had it pulled over, and a verbal lesson in driving safely given which I can guarantee would last weeks after in the mind of the driver.
A few weeks ago, Tiny Tim pulled a coach for exceeding the NSL limit down Ratherheath Hill. I know for a fact that passing motorists ALSO took on board the hazardous nature of the offence at that location!!

In MY opinion, the coach we saw on Monday was NOT driving dangerously - and I would expect a trained TrafPol to use his judgement as to whether the driver was worthy of a stop on SAFETY grounds or not.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:32 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Now if Tiny Tim P (TrafPol) from Kendal traffic had been there with HIS speed camera, he would have had it pulled over, and a verbal lesson in driving safely given which I can guarantee would last weeks after in the mind of the driver.

There is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't do so and I positively encourage him and his colleagues.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 15:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 18:38
Posts: 396
Location: Glasgow
JJ,

Why do you think that fatalities are not falling?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 20:08 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I feel I can answer that fergl100. 8-)

It's because the causes of the accidents which lead to those fatalities are not being addressed. All the possible road improvements by engineering have been made, so now it's down to improving the standard of people's driving.
Actually, why bother, let's just make them all drive slower.
And why bother with a £48,000 PELICAN crossing at an accident black spot ZEBRA crossing, when you can just fob off people's concerns with the statement "None of the accidents has been serious enough to cause death or serious injury".
The JJ's are just little cogs in an awfully big Government spinning machine! :x Others such as weasly Nick Raymond keep pooring on oil so you wont notice the squeaks!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 17:30 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 18:38
Posts: 396
Location: Glasgow
fergl100 wrote:
JJ,

Why do you think that fatalities are not falling?


This is an honest question, not cheeky, I would like to know your thinking on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 18:44 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 17:33
Posts: 108
Location: North Lancashire
JJ wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
JJ wrote:
But you already knew how many sites are listed on the CSC website so why bring the matter up


When official figures are in conflict I ask questions.

Remind me, what percentage of crashes are caused or contributed to by otherwise responsible motorists exceeding a speed limit?

You don't answer difficult questions do you? (Please prove me wrong).

I'll tell you what Paul, as we are responsible for enforcing the speed limit at accident hot spots and not for imposing or deciding upon speed limits, why don't you direct your campaign towards those who are responsible for setting the speed limit?
As your campaign is largely negative, i.e. trying to stop something being done, why don't you concentrate on what you consider to be the positive side of your campaign, i.e. the increase of some speed limits and a reduction in enforcement? If you have the courage of your convictions regarding this, this is surely the action a reasonable campaigner would take but it isn't is it?
The reason you don't do this is because you know very well that there is a large majority of drivers and the public who simply regard you as a crank and quite wrong as did the presenter and the studio guests on the Bannister programme last Thursday night. Oh I forgot the 2 rerspondents who didn't agree also.
So come on, stop the negative actions, it will get you nowhere, concentrate on what you (not many others) regard as the positive side of your case and see how far you get.
You seem to have developed into a one-trick-pony with a single track record that is trying to defy the laws of the universe and convince others that you are right. There must be a name for that condition surely.


Sorry, but you should really step out of the boots that pay your wages, and into the real world................... Blinkered comes to mind . Cameras only 'help' prevent accidents where they actually are (maybe), what about the rest of the road.....................or should we have continuous cameras on every road???????

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 15:52 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
belladonna wrote:
Cameras only 'help' prevent accidents where they actually are (maybe), what about the rest of the road.....................or should we have continuous cameras on every road???????


'Help' in quotes indeed, as even that is unlikely. Oh, hang on - didn't Steve/JJ once trumpet the deterrance factor? So, even assuming people are slowing down where they think cameras may be, or are simply complying in respect to the 'speed kills' mantra, why aren't we seeing any real benefits??

PLEASE don't suggest more enforcement as some people will want to try it (especially those who see some money to be made from it.....)

r11co (enjoying Italian roads at the moment - speed limits up, deaths down.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 21:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I dont know - the DfT, the Scamera Partnerships, the Road Safety minister - they all seem to be singing different tunes!! :o
You'd think they would get their act together, but when you've told so many lies and twisted so many statistics, it must be hard keeping track of your own, let alone your bedfellows!!! :oops:
the Times Online wrote:
The DfT claimed that in 269 of those locations, cameras had not been in place long enough to judge their success [so it takes time to have an effect?].
Information on another 229 sites was inadequate [why? they spent £54 million, collecting £69 million - surely they should be experts for that sort of money - or perhaps they are all like Steve "I'm no legal expert" Callaghan?].
But the DfT was unable to explain why casualties had risen at the remaining 245 sites.

A spokesman said: “We will flag up those 245 cameras to the partnerships and ask them to go away and look at them and report back to us.

“We want to know whether it was a road accident involving a minibus which skewed their figures. [is that a speeding minibus, or a minibus driven by a driver having a heart attack?]

“Or it may well be that the camera has been there for a while and the accidents have started to creep back [so having taken effect, it soon wears off!!].
They may need to change the road layout, put an island in the middle of the road or a pelican crossing.” [That'll look good in the middle of the M6 at Shap!]

The DfT’s comments contradicted a statement made by David Jamieson, the Road Safety Minister, in March. He said then: “All camera partnerships have written back to us and the indications are that the cameras are in the right places.”

Surveys conducted by the partnerships found that 79 per cent of the public supported cameras as a means of reducing casualties.

However, the same surveys showed that an increasing number of people believed cameras were an “easy way of making money out of motorists”, up from 45 per cent in last year’s report to 52 per cent this year. :idea:

The partnerships collected a total of £69 million in fines from motorists in the year to March 2003, keeping £54 million to cover their costs and handing £15 million to the Exchequer.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

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 : 0.374s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]