Safe Speed Forums

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 202w11.htm

Mrs. Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to which elected bodies the Safety Camera Partnerships are accountable in two-tier local government areas. [47896]

Dr. Ladyman: Safety Camera Partnerships are comprised of representatives from local authorities, the police, the Highways Agency and the magistrates courts and optional representatives from the Crown Prosecution Service, national health service trusts and the health authority.

Safety Camera Partnerships are not however a legal entity, and they complement, not replace, existing local authority and police statutory responsibilities in respect of road safety. Safety Camera Partnerships are not therefore directly accountable to any elected bodies. However each member of the partnership does remain locally accountable to its parent body.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

and who is SafeSpeed accountable to?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

But Safespeed doesn't scam fines and give you points!!

hmmm ...

[checks deep and dusty areas of memory]

... nope, that's right, but I've never been given a fine or points by a camera partnership either.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

That's a daft question for two reasons:

And who are you accountable to?

Safe Speed isn't an 'agent' of government.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Depending on what I am doing I am accountable to different people - if I am speaking on behalf of my family, for example, I am accountable to them. If I am representing my company, I am accountable to that legal entity. On this forum I think it's quite clear that I claim to 'represent', and thus be 'accountable' to no-one but myself.

You are not an agent of government but you portray yourself as an adversary to the camera partnerships. If they "should" be accountable to "someone", then it follows that you "should" also be accountable.

As an aside, it would make it a lot easier to have conversations with you if you didn't refer to yourself in the third person. Handy believes that this is an obstacle to communication. Good grief, it's catching. Handy would also like to point out that answering a question with another question isn't actually answering the question.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

edited

Paul posts a comment that the evil partnerships are unaccountable, I ask to whom he is accountable. How is this starting a pissing contest?

I still don't know who gives Paul a mandate to speak, be quoted, get onto "Dave Doubledecks Local Radio Chatshow" or other things that he does. If he claims to speak on behalf of a group (I'm not sure if he does, unlike that Rutherford chap who claims to represent ALL motorists, but any of them with any views left of Enoch may disagree) then who is that group, and how do they give him that mandate.

Real journalists take their mandate from the people who buy their rags, real pressure groups (as opposed to individuals) take their mandates from the organisations that pay for their existence.

Do I enjoy antagonising people? Not really. I don't like the core tenet of this site - that cameras are evil things and should be torn down. I do like, and learn, a lot on this site, in terms of road safety initiatives and discussion. I don't enjoy antagonising people but I do like discussion, who knows, I may even learn something!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

And SafeSpeed takes its mandate from the people who have donated to it, as well as from Paul himself who has invested a lot in it.

The point is that an organisation which has the power to effectively fine and give license points to the public should be accountable to the public, in the same way as the Police and other enforcing agencies are.

who are those people? Is a list published, with the amount they donate? I have toyed with joining myself, but I just can't quote get over the basic ideological problem. Which is a shame, more my loss than anyone else's I suspect.



and those parent bodies are



Which could be summarised as a "Federated Accountability". If the camera partnerships had a single mandate it's not without the bounds of possibility that they would become better at doing what they want to do?

(just to make this clear, I don't use the term "Safety Camera Partnership" as I believe they should be described as what they are, i.e. "Speed Camera Partnerships", nor do I use any of the terms in common use on this forum as I don't particularly like them).

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

This is approaching the level of silliness of "peer review".

Safespeed doesn't need to be accountable to anyone. You read the site - you make up your own mind if you agree or not. Safespeed has no power to make you agree with it. Safespeed doesn't need to have its ideas peer reviewed - you make up your own mind whether to support it or not. There is no penalty for disagreeing.

This is entirely different to a Governmental body set up to police the public with powers to impose fines. This must be prepared to justify its work and position.

As for Paul referring to Safespeed in the third person, well, you don't think Safespeed is a person do you? It's a campaign.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Handy

Paul is accountable not just to his members but also under the laws of tort. If he states anything that is defamatory, slanderous or liableous he can be subject to legal action.

Perhaps you would care to explain why he has not been subject to legal action from any camera partnerships ??

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

edited

You have a large number of people who disagree with large parts of the Govt view on road safety policy and a large number of people who agree with Paul Smith's view on road safety policy. I think that where these groups intersect that is safespeed (IMO)

I am SafeSpeed and Paul Smith has my mandate.

on the contrary, I don't find it boring at all. I wouldn't vote for a candidate in an election, for example, without knowing who has funded them?



it's actually 'safespeed' that refers to Paul in the third person. Have a look at his PR's ... "Paul Smith said" etc.


I'm only here for the entertainment value! Larf, I nearly spilt my mint julep on the dashboard!

Technically the free country only gives him the right to speak, not the mandate. Gopher has given him his mandate, so we knock this on the head now. Pauls mandate is less clearly defined than the federated mandate that the partnerships have, 'cos the partnerships publish who their members are. IMVHO.

Anyway, I do enjoy reading the site, I do support safer roads, I just don't see why so many people think being allowed to choose your own speed limit is so important?

As for the 'peer review' debate ... I didn't think that was particularly well resolved, I would support Paul getting his work peer reviewed as I think a large proportion would come out of it quite well. Except the anti speed camera bits! THAT would also give him a large, unshakeable mandate. Except the speed camera bits.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Gents - reading that - the crossword clue "what lives under a bridge , and likes to stirr" comes to mind.

_________________
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

Perhaps Handy would like to explain in what way George Monbiot is "accountable".

Or any other newspaper columnist whose views influence people and gets interviewed in the media. Jeremy Clarkson, say

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I'm not really that bothered, I vote for policy not funding.





If you had any idea of what is involved in a press release you would know why this is important, although I suspect you you might.






I don't think I've met anyone quite that anal and I work in IT, if you find this entertainment can I suggest cure?



Not just me, in fact enough people to keep a deposit at a general election I reckon. Not important?



Absolutely, the difference is they have failed, we are just gaining stride, and the Safespeed also publish the members, what do you think the avatars mean?



It's quite easy, it's the fundamental part of road safety, without it KSI's would go through the roof, how many schools would you pass at 30 at chuck out time?



I agree that per review could be useful, we will have to agree to disagree on the speed camera bit especially with the Govt agreeing they do no dam good what so ever.

Cheers

Paul

I agree with this somewhat in principle and generally (with a few exceptions) have no problem with any speed limits . However, I think I am "fortunate" in this regard as I live and drive within the jurisdiction of two of the more sensible groups who tend to set limits based on common sense and do all the better for it (Merseyside and Greater Manchester.)

I for one would be happy if they scrapped all fixed cameras and used purely mobile vans manned by Police officers which could be hidden for all I care, but enforced at a sensible margin appropriate to the conditions of the road and the level of danger present. If that happens to be 32 mph in a 30, then so be it, but penalising someone for doing 35 on a dual carriageway* when there is no danger whatsoever present does absolutely nothing for safety and everything for frustration and dissent.

*I quote this example a lot, but it's the A34 Handforth Bypass in Cheshire.

Whoops - Pete - are you an exorcist - get your collar and lead out and take trollie for a walk- then deposit him, securly to the post under his bridge.
Handy - prove me 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