Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 06:00

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 19:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Something has been bugging me for a while now, and I can't work it out for myself! Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

My dilemma:-

Why is it that people of seemingly similar intellegence and driving experience, can exhibit such diametrically opposed conclusions on the validity of Speed Cameras?

We all have the same information available to us, we all drive, we all want the same objective - why do we not agree? If we were just a bunch of computers being fed the same data, we would all reach the same conclusion. It must be the way different people view things. (Like, we don't all agree on what's the best music).

Up until recently, I really believed it was the difference between those with advanced driving tuition and those without. If you have developed your observation and hazard awareness skills etc, you would increasingly realise the irrelevence of cameras as a safety tool. I'm now sure this is not the case.

So what is the difference between us? Is it as simple as Regulation v. Education? Is it between those who value the freedom to be in charge of their own destiny and those who are happy to be controlled?

I'm sure it's pretty deep, whatever it is.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 19:30 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
I think the whole speed vs safety argument is a fairly difficult concept to understand.

"We" have 2 main arguments regarding cameras:

- "It's not fair" (for such a level of technical criminalisation)
- The psychological effect of the control on the driver

Those who have not thought it through with an open mind, simply see speed as safety & it's very difficult to explain that an "unfettered" driver, just might be a safer driver at a higher speed. Try explaining that to the mother trying to cross a road on her housing estate, or the cyclist buffeted by cars every day.

We start by being perceived as law breakers who just want to go faster without penalty & it's hard arguing with "but why not just drive below the limit?"

The other thing I think is very engrained into people is the control aspect, we are by nature not rebellious and if "they" tell us something is bad or necessary people tend to believe them, although I think (hope!) there's a distinct increase in the questioning that people are now willing to do - eg ID cards, CCTV, FPN, greenhouse taxes etc.

A few years ago I would never have given "Liberty" the time of day, but now, whilst still not comfortable with a lot they come out with, I'm pleased to see them taking a stand on a lot of things.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 19:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Graeme wrote:
Those who have not thought it through with an open mind, simply see speed as safety & it's very difficult to explain that an "unfettered" driver, just might be a safer driver at a higher speed.


The other thing I think is very engrained into people is the control aspect, we are by nature not rebellious and if "they" tell us something is bad or necessary people tend to believe them


I know what you're saying, Graeme, but isn't it a bit unfair to suggest that, those in favour of cameras are so because "They have not thought it through with an open mind" Unless, of course, their mind is clouded by something else.

I am inclined towards your second point that some people have a desire to be controlled and view the camera as taking responsibility away from themselves.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 20:01 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Graeme wrote:
Those who have not thought it through with an open mind, simply see speed as safety & it's very difficult to explain that an "unfettered" driver, just might be a safer driver at a higher speed.


The other thing I think is very engrained into people is the control aspect, we are by nature not rebellious and if "they" tell us something is bad or necessary people tend to believe them


I know what you're saying, Graeme, but isn't it a bit unfair to suggest that, those in favour of cameras are so because "They have not thought it through with an open mind" Unless, of course, their mind is clouded by something else.


I didn't mean it in any disrespectful way, but people for a long time have been brainwashed with "safety = speed". And to be fair it's a very simple argument. No-one can argue that if someone is hit at 40 it will be worse than if they're hit at 30, that's just common sense.

The bit that needs "out of the box" thinking is that just maybe, the likelyhood of being hit at an "unfettered" (but safe) 40 is lower than a controlled 30, so overall it's a better option.

Quote:
I am inclined towards your second point that some people have a desire to be controlled and view the camera as taking responsibility away from themselves.


I don't think this is a deliberate desire but I guess a lot of people prefer to be led rather than to lead & are happy with controls?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 20:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
Another thought - I'd bet that most people came to this site initially from a sense of injustice after getting a NIP & only later became converted to the "safespeed" take on things?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 20:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Graeme wrote:
Another thought - I'd bet that most people came to this site initially from a sense of injustice after getting a NIP & only later became converted to the "safespeed" take on things?


Yeah, I'm sure that's the case, but I'm really intrigued by the people who think long and hard about all the arguments. Who read all the data, Who have years of driving experience. Who know about advanced hazard perception and all the other stuff and then conclude with aggressively differing views.

Can we never rid ourselves of preconception?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 20:37 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Some people fall for false illusions from RTTM and bias on selection, others don't.

Some people fall for these false claims from the SCP simply because they are regarded as the specialists in the subject, other's don't.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 20:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
smeggy wrote:
Some people fall for false illusions from RTTM and bias on selection, others don't.

Some people fall for these false claims from the SCP simply because they are regarded as the specialists in the subject, other's don't.


But why are some people more gullible? Why are they, apparently, unable to make up their own minds given all the information.

Is gullibility the answer?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 20:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Possibly! One born every minute after all!

I certainly didn't come here out of bitterness, I have never been done for speeding (touch wood), but I do not take things that matter at face value, without first collecting the facts and forming my own opinions. It just so happens that my opinion largely concurs with the SS take on things.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 21:01 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
RobinXe wrote:
It just so happens that my opinion largely concurs with the SS take on things.


Sorry to be tenacious to the point of boredom about this - but that's exactly my point. How can it just "happen" that your opinion concurs with SS, and others don't?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 21:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
smeggy wrote:
Some people fall for false illusions from RTTM and bias on selection, others don't.

Some people fall for these false claims from the SCP simply because they are regarded as the specialists in the subject, other's don't.


Is gullibility the answer?


I'd say that goes a long way towards the answer.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 21:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
There are two way to believe you have good information:

- First is to examine the information, put it in context and see if you really believe it.

- The second is to decide whether or not you trust the source of the information.

And this, I think, is the crux. When I did the 'Stone Report' thing it came out very clearly indeed. My opponent Robert Gifford trusted the content of the new speed camera report on the basis of the qualifications of the author. I knew it was rubbish on the basis of the content.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 21:22 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
It just so happens that my opinion largely concurs with the SS take on things.


Sorry to be tenacious to the point of boredom about this - but that's exactly my point. How can it just "happen" that your opinion concurs with SS, and others don't?


I guess a lot of it also comes down to the willingness to accept on faith that our lords and masters, and those placed by them into positions of responsibility, altruistically and unerringly both want, and know, whats best for us.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 21:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
There are two way to believe you have good information:

- First is to examine the information, put it in context and see if you really believe it.

- The second is to decide whether or not you trust the source of the information.

And this, I think, is the crux. When I did the 'Stone Report' thing it came out very clearly indeed. My opponent Robert Gifford trusted the content of the new speed camera report on the basis of the qualifications of the author. I knew it was rubbish on the basis of the content.


But most of us don't have the means to be able make a decision on whether or not we believe facts presented to us. It's either a gut feel or we accept until proven otherwise. Initially, we only have an opinion on the validity of the source. (Which can sway our opinion on the truthfulness, I guess).

Anyway, facts and figures are only one part of our overall judgement. Can it really boil down to whether we trust the Government and their servants?

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 22:05 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Can it really boil down to whether we trust the Government and their servants?


Well my answer to that would have to be yes, and I'm affraid I've lost all trust in any of them :( .

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 22:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:

We all have the same information available to us, we all drive, we all want the same objective - why do we not agree?


I find it is often that people just have not thought about the subject past the obvious (but wrong) idea that driving more slowly means you will have a less severe crash. When you actually discuss the subject with people in depth you either get a gradual dawning realisation or you get the stonewall refusal to change because it would be an admittance that they were wrong.

Most people deep down know that speed cameras are wrong and that there is no problem with driving over the speed limit if conditions dictate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 23:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
There are two way to believe you have good information:

- First is to examine the information, put it in context and see if you really believe it.

- The second is to decide whether or not you trust the source of the information.

And this, I think, is the crux. When I did the 'Stone Report' thing it came out very clearly indeed. My opponent Robert Gifford trusted the content of the new speed camera report on the basis of the qualifications of the author. I knew it was rubbish on the basis of the content.


But most of us don't have the means to be able make a decision on whether or not we believe facts presented to us. It's either a gut feel or we accept until proven otherwise. Initially, we only have an opinion on the validity of the source. (Which can sway our opinion on the truthfulness, I guess).

Anyway, facts and figures are only one part of our overall judgement. Can it really boil down to whether we trust the Government and their servants?


Well, of course, it isn't just the government. It's the poeple who believe the government too, and those researchers who reach the same conclusions. But of course the government and those supportive researchers aren't skilled drivers either. So the sets are approximately:

{government folk with a vested interest AND those they employ AND those researchers who DON'T have driving skills AND those who believe the rest of this set on the basis of their qualifications or positions}

AND

{folk who think for themselves AND skilled drivers who DON'T take the government case at face value AND folk who understand our case}

I suppose there are also those who are undecided.

I expect this general description could be firmed up a bit too, but having been fighting this fight for five years, I'm absolutely certain about the general description.

I will say it was quite a revelation, for me personally, when I realised that some folk determined the quality of information by looking at the authors rather than the information itself.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 00:10 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
I will say it was quite a revelation, for me personally, when I realised that some folk determined the quality of information by looking at the authors rather than the information itself.


This is the basis on which we accept our education, some people will not 'grow out' of it's use as a knowledge acquisition tool. Quite literally: if you do not understand the reasons behind something, accept the opinions of someone who you believe does.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 04:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
RobinXe wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I will say it was quite a revelation, for me personally, when I realised that some folk determined the quality of information by looking at the authors rather than the information itself.


This is the basis on which we accept our education, some people will not 'grow out' of it's use as a knowledge acquisition tool. Quite literally: if you do not understand the reasons behind something, accept the opinions of someone who you believe does.


I guess that's right - but I was amazed to learn that policy is determined on this sort of basis. There just aren't enough scientifically literate MPs - too many of them have their degrees in arts, humanities or law. We need them to have degrees in science, statistics, engineering and mathematics.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 05:10 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Graeme wrote:
Another thought - I'd bet that most people came to this site initially from a sense of injustice after getting a NIP & only later became converted to the "safespeed" take on things?

I came here after the CSCP site shut down. Until that point Paul was just another poster on their site.

I think personal experience has a lot to do with it.
The more miles you do, the more your take on what constitutes safe driving changes.
If you believe the cameras cannot do any harm, even if they dont dissuade drivers from speeding, then you'll likely support them as relieving you of some tax burden - just as some non-smokers see their opposites.
If you have to share a room with a smoker, you might feel differently, and think the tax thing doesn't offset the stink of stale smoke on your clothes!

I once got a ticket for speeding when I was not in the country at the time, and the vehicle in question was off the road, so I knew from that point on that CAMERAS had a fatal flaw - they could be fooled!

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.020s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]