Patch wrote:
Why do I feel like we are being Trolled
Unfortunately, that won’t matter in the eyes of those who are open-minded or new to these sites; these being the people we are trying to educate. Attempts to tarnish anyone who (politely) disagrees or questions our overall philosophy will be interpreted very poorly by those who matter, even if our intentions are good. All we can really do is demonstrate that our arguments stand up to scrutiny (it may also dissuade some real trolls from continuing).
martin* wrote:
I acknowledge that you promote 'safe speed' which may be above or below a limit, but I still feel there is an obsession with excess speed - why is it such a big issues?
You tell us! We (Safespeed and its members) didn’t make speed the issue; we only responded to those who did, those who also so obviously neglect to proportionally address other sources of danger.
martin* wrote:
Why can't you drive within the limit (and observe COAST)? Then you don't have to worry about cameras or fines, they are no longer an issue.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=9405&hl=http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 239116&p=1(you may need to register)
Not forgetting the Shutter Effect and Notsoaccurate!
martin* wrote:
Yes, you will say that some limits are not appropriate - then question them with the authorities.
Which is what Safespeed is doing, but we have to fight the will of those against, those with interests and the means of keeping it that way.
martin* wrote:
I understand if there is a feeling that 'innocent' people are being penalised and restricted in some way. Isn't that the case in many walks of life - paying taxes where others evade, or subsidising uninsured drivers? The difference is though, that speeding motorists are not technically innocent whereas tax payers and insured drivers are.
No, the difference is whether the offender is posing danger, being negligent or depriving others. This is supposedly why we have rules.
martin* wrote:
Most of you have clean licenses, excellent! And no doubt you are all good drivers and are capable of making the right judgement of an appropriate speed. But what about those people who can't? Don't we need limits for those?
Unfortunately, speed limits are sometimes set higher than safe/appropriate for sections of a road (neglecting conditions and other factors). Those who can’t judge appropriate speed will continue to be a danger. Do we really need to over regulate our country by accounting for the lowest possible denominator?
martin* wrote:
I agree that this site is raising the profile of road safety, but is it really all in a positive way? Again, with many 'road safety professionals' (the exact people you should perhaps be positively engaging with?), I am afraid that there is a danger of you coming across as purely extreme anti-camera lobbyists, and therefore barriers are immediately raised. The bigger picture of a common interest in road safety is lost.
Who says Safespeed isn’t ‘engaging with road safety professionals’? IIRC, memos were sent out to such professionals advising them to ignore Paul’s correspondence.
I believe preparations for an independent peer review are also ongoing.
The Safespeed front page reads:
“
Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits, but instead calls for proportionate and intelligent enforcement of all motoring laws. Speed cameras have proved to be far from intelligent and far from proportionate.“
which doesn’t sound particularly ‘extreme anti-camera’ to me.