Safe Speed Forums

Indeed. Moreover, the answer given was a straw argument, based on a hypothetical/impossible example whilst conveniently dismissing the real and total failure of our road safety policy; the question was not answered (not to my satisfaction anyway).

How can anyone possibly call for a wholesale reductions to below the default 30 without first calling for a return to initiatives like the Green Cross Code? The other extreme would be to enact jaywalking laws. I wouldn't support it, but it would be even more effective and would redress the balance of responsibility.

We not at loggerheads with any other road user group und as your fisrt post down in cycling forum (was going to reply but then heard the sad news und Claire's needs must come first. She coping ... but I must ask you to refer to Paul with more respect all the same. Use the word "Mr Smith" or "Paul". It more respectful und would make you come across better.


Ja.. we agree that any initiative to get a child's or any bum onto a saddle ist a good idea... but we also have to concede that it not for all und sometimes ..it just not possible for some. We do our best as family group to get cycling und BIKEABILITY as ESSENTIAL part of EDUCATION FOR ALL into the pysche of folk out there. .. along with GREEN CROSS CODE und COAST skills.







You are right on the first one.. but wrong on this one. You need proper policemen uind not automation to solve a problem.

People will learn to manipulate any camera und I would rather strong police presence und an immediate learning curve to a NIP to someone 14 day later when the even ist forgotten or they have been continuing to do so in the meantime too.. und may even be dead before they get this NIP if their action so dangerous.

It this.. mix of decent education und police presence which deter the person who smoke fag at wheel whilst texting und eating a burger at same time. By the way.. I think this same rule of not using phone should apply to cyclists as well You not in control with one hand on handlebars und given the state of the roads with so many darned potholes . .. you cannot afford to ride with "look no hands"





COAST take care of the "speed adjust to condition". It never has been any "recipe for driving too fast or above lolly even"

It the training required to apply the correct speed to suit the road conditions you find yourself in whether on a bicycle or in a motor car on on a motor bike.





Only we all know they will not be on residential streets und if they are .. the only ones getting copped will be the residents as proven over und over by local village speedwatch schemes which resulted in abandoned schemes in Cambs und I gather local village here ist not having a meeting over it as rumours of loggerheads in the village pub.





Automation does not work. Folk will stilll manipulate und it not matter about "nothing to fear" - something not British about constant surveillance - which why the objection over ID cards und the fear from some cyclists over any move to make them be registered, traceable und accountable for their illegal acts such as pavement cycling und jumping red lights.

But.. we live in a nanny state.. und as numbers in the saddle increase - so too will the need to implement legislation to keep tax coffers bulging - disguised thinly as "elfin safety" - which mean tests/registration.. ID cards...

Und these same cams will be used to stop them cyclists from riding at 20 mph und above down these same residential streets.



Richmond Park.. Ooooh.. that was really Those naughty policemen nickin' cyclists for speedin'

_________________
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!

A camera is - a robot, pure and simple. It's set there to perform a single task which a machine can do: observe and identify someone breaking a certain rule. A mundane task, but it does it well, as I understand things. We employ robots for other mundane tasks where a human element is not necessary. Who would want to rip out the thermostat in your home, and replace it with a little man (whose wages you would have to pay) with a thermometer in one hand and an on-off switch in the other? If the police are still out there patrolling and watching for things that a robot can't identify - like aggressive or inconsiderate driving - why good luck to them!

I've had some conversations with others who are most definitely not of the cycling camp - and keen motorists too, many of them. Do I hear ranting diatribes from them about the safety cameras? Far from it: they're there to do a job, they perform a service in reining in the few really idiot motorists out there, let them get on with the job. That seems to be the broad mass of opinion out there. Amongst motorists. By all means post a MORI or similar poll that shows the general public do not want cameras- I can't find any.

It's a sign of a healthy democracy, perhaps, that we have, and allow to exist, a vociferous but minority argument out there, in the form of the organisation to which this thread refers. Let it be, I say. But it will remain a minority forever, so I believe. That's the point.

You have a viewpoint, I have another, you should really be able to withstand polite opinions that differ from your own without abuse and threats to delete me from the forum, "Open Review" is rather a hollow boast if quoting Smith's own words result in a "Final Warning!" Nor can the dead be libelled, but if the price of remaining on the forum is to pretend he never wrote those words then fine.

Don't other road users have the right to use the road without the intimidating behaviour of speeders ?


Do kids and OAP's have the right to cross the road safely ( even, perish the thought, miles away from schools) ?


Or is it right and proper that they have to dive out of the way of anti-social motorists doing 40, 50 or whatever you et al unilaterally believe is 'safe' on urban roads. Clearly the rights of other people figure little in many drivers' moral vacuity. I do not mean anyone here, I mean the drivers I see tearing up and down my road- behaviour modified by the installation of a camera. Latest stats show that the UK has one of the EU's lowest levels of trips by foot and cycle married to one of the highest casualty levels for such 'vulnerable users'. Looks like a great chunk of the our Mr Toads simply can't stop themselves driving dangerously once they've left the expensive, 'idiot- proof' trunk road/motorway system.


Anti camera lobbyists are generally motivated by indignation at being caught, not a desire for road safety. If their argument was truly about safety they would advocate slowing down, not getting out of prosecution.

I'd hardly call one of your earlier postings polite!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Really? I have a squeaky-clean licence and have never been caught by a speedcam. I'd love to know how many forum members have been caught by speedcams? In fact, wasn't there a poll about this?

Road Safety is about soooo much more than 'speed' alone. Hang around for a while - you may learn something?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

It would help if you were polite. But Mr Charlton you have not been. And that is why you are on a warning.

In any grown-up arguement if one party or the other resorts to insults and jibes they have lost the arguement no matter how good the veracity of the claims. And you have called me, by association, a crap driver, an anti-social terrorist. a bully, a thug, idiotic and aggressive. Yet all I have done it try to put up reasoned reposts to your sweeping generalisations and rants. None of which you have replied to, save to repeat your beliefs with increased invective.

You might not like me but don't have me for a fool.

Incidently I generally support Safespeeds aims and I've never had a speeding ticket or a point on my licence, which I've held for over 25 years. So Nurrr!!!!

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Wrong! You'll find very few here have been caught by cameras, or have anything other than wholly or mostly clean licences. No points on mine, never have been. Another gauche failed attempt to pigeonhole Safespeeders.

Analogy with thermostat is bunkum, wrong temperature is not going to routinely cause death, failed road-safety policy already is. How would you like to replace armed response police with rifle-wielding robots?

These "anti-social motorists doing 40, 50 or whatever" are not in the majority, whereas almost every other motorist will break the limit at some point. It is a horrendous strawman, and disingenuous misrepresentation to suggest that Safespeed consider those doing 50mph past a school as automatically safe. It is the truly dangerous, excessive speeders and inconsiderate, unsafe drivers we want to see removed from the roads, speed cameras are not delivering that.

So, meet the anti-camera lobbyists who are not motivated by anything other than a desire to make the roads safer!

In any grown-up arguement if one party or the other resorts to insults and jibes they have lost the arguement

I've been called a shithead and a charlatan for expressing an opinion, yet the only warnings handed out on this thread are to two posters who support speed cameras. Have a policy on insults by all means, but please don't pretend this policy is not only ever invoked against dissenters, or issue final warnings to the peurile posters above, or leave the hypocrisy on this thread for all to see.


A child walks into the road the road without looking. That's what children do, the punishment ought not be death.



The cause of the accident is not the speed of the car, it is the child's lack of attention.



The car is travelling at 15 mph and the child is badly bruised but back at school in a few days.



The car is travelling at 30 mph and the child never returns to school.



So, although speed may not have caused the accident, it does decide the outcome; and it will always be so: the relative speeds of the objects involved, determines the damage, injury, deaths.



It's a clever sleight of hand to claim that 'speed is not a factor' but I would challenge those who make this claim by asking them to describe one single road accident - and there are millions from which to choose - in which the relative speeds of the objects had no influence on the outcome.



When the mother hears the screech of brakes outside her house, her concern is not the cause of the accident, it is the outcome. The outcome after the installation of cameras on a road near my house was increased safety in reality and in perception. People "feel" safer when the menace of speeders is removed. This is my experience, my own personal opinion reaffirmed by what I've seen with my own eyes.

Some good points there, Steve.

Agreed.

Agreed.



Agreed.

Agreed.

Wouldn't it be far better if the accident didn't happen in the first place?
This is what I'd like to see. I believe we need to educate drivers better and take away this belief that "if I'm only doing the speed limit, therefore I'm driving safely". We need to tackle the problems at source, not outcome.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

No, I'm pretty sure you elicited a strong response for maligning our recently deceased friend with an utter lack of sensitivity, and leveling accusations against someone who cannot defend themselves.

The gadget in the house monitor all the time. My heating system does not manipulate him.

A cam stay static. Locals act as Steviebabes point out .. they manipulate the system. He still places his vans in high revenue spots und not where the incidents occur .. und he cop the tourists und novices mostly really.


Does not then work und folk slow like Pavlov dogs whether legal or blipping over by small to medium margins too.





We need more of them because we have noticed that this aggression increase more inthe scam infest zones.




We reported up when Manchester Evening News report on set up of their pratnership. The MEN usually pro-cams .. but they reported that there was a "poll" showing 75% in favour of the scams.. but then revealed in the press (ca Nov/Dec 2003 when the paper publish location of every cam in the area) that those included in this poll were a "target group who had participated as part of GMP approved "pollsters" in the past.. The editor commented that he found this "alarming" at the time.

Any on-line or phone in poll set by any newspaper does not reflect the published version und since I once live in Moscow (as student on an elective option - bad decision really ) und spent 3 month in Leipzig before the wall fell on some other wild project .. I know how "polls" can be manipulated to deliver the aim of whoever make the enquiry.


You ask the right question or phrase in such a way .. you get the result you are looking for

I think Zamzara once targetted for one such poll. He disclosed the wording of the questions.. they loaded to lead towards "desired result" They in the archives somewhere on here





A minority bring down the Berlin Wall. I was in Leipzig just before this happen..

I had nothing to do with it.. All I said in the pub was.. "ein Bier und ein Schaps Liebchen" ... und then everyone started shouting a lot..




He called MR Smith or Paul. You givin' yourself away here I am only asking you to refer to him more respectfully whether you agree with his views or not.. und people did take notice of him. The log book idea most certainly came from this site.. und that was Paul's in discussion as to how we might drive up overall standards out there.

Sure you cannot "libel" the dead .. but who accusing you of "libel" Then there the matter of not offending his wife und his Papa who are completely numb with shock und grief too.


As said .. me und mine have the right not to be attacked by SPEEDING PAVEMENT CYCLISTS und we have fallen victim to these.

What ist being done about them? Anyone on a cycling forum debating how to deal with these idiots?

No.. thought not...

You can kill an OAP with a bicycle just as much as a child ... because they are frail und easy knock over-able. If they hit heads.. they can be killed just like the man MOWN DOWN by a cyclist. "Slow learner?" He managed to get up through a complicated gearing system... that was an excuse used in the court when all said und done

So I will ask you again Liebchen (to show I not asking aggressively .. or anything.. )

Do speed limits ..remember you want 20 mph in the residentials .. yet moan about enforced 20 mph limit in Richmond Park .. und some militants defend a cyclist who KILLLED A MAN whilst riding a 25 mph ... NOT apply to cyclists.
?

20 mph in a residential roaad applies just as much to a person on a bicycle as anyone else .. just as the 20 mph limit applies to any car travelling in Richmond Park

Does a legal requirement not to jump red lights? NOT to ride on a pavement? To ensure bicycle meet legal requirement for lighting und reflectors APPLY to cyclists or not?


Ist it right that a pedestrian has to dive und jump out the way of these people or that a car has to emergency stop when light on green for them to avoid one of these ignorant "law not apply to me" militant morons?




Urban roads come across the speed range right up to 50 mph I can list a few despite the lowered limits of some.


It up to each road user to use responsibility, Green Cross, available safe crossings und for those on wheels to use COAST skills all the time.





I confused.. were the chicanes before or after this camera und all cams require 3/4 KSI.

They will still only slow for the cam und then speed up again anyway. Und besides .. the housings share cams too. Not all are "live" either. Und there are ways to know but .. I am not saying




Ach.. you English! You just lazy.. und you have lousy public transport too It not clean.. it not to time.. it not go where you need to go either Und as for getting a pram on board

But does anyone try to sort it? Manchester try to flog congestion charge .. but this mean digging up green belt to make Park n Ride.. there no plans to upgrade a station which completely inaccessible to disabled with severe walking impairment or mama with pram.

Bendy buses .. but services still not linking or integrating to where folk want to go.. One of family got hold of the plans here Manchester folk being sold poopy on this one




We are advocating driving to COAST led principles as established in Road Craft und graphichally pictured in CycleCraft. Und discussing safe cyclings und healthy lifestyles too..

_________________
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!

It is rather unfortunate that there is a strong correlation between those who are pro-camera (and anti-car) and those who are antagonistic.



Oh do shut up.

You've been rumbled by the moderators; those words are those of a troll.
Whatever good points you have has been dulled by your total insincerity.

On this one "Final Warning" are you advocating that everyone should drive at 15 mph everywhere where there is a 30mph limit just in case someone who may be drunk and incapable might step in front of you, remember the person who walks out in front of an approaching vehicle does so of THEIR own accord ( and I,m not talking about children in that statement) so why should an innocent motorist like the case quoted below be penalised for an absolutely innocent act

We are now going in to the realms of the driver being in the wrong place at the wrong time as this is the culture (so I am told) of the middle east where if you hail a taxi and the taxi is involved in an accident it is YOUR fault because the taxi was there because you hired it


Unfortunately people have accidents through no fault of their own so why should the motorist be blamed for the accidents when it is no fault of theirs (ref: the young kiddie killed on a quad bike last week) that poor driver had no way off avoiding the collision so are you saying she should have been driving at 20 mph

Where do you draw the line at no vehicles whatever on the roads then no accidents

We all have a responsibility to drive safely and to answer for our actions / inactions but to blame a motorist for an accident just because they were driving at an appropriate and safe speed for the prevailing conditions does not make them a careless or dangerous driver

Obviously driving past a school at say 3pm at 30mph (even though it may be the limit) would or could be classed as dangerous but the same speed at 3am would not be or do you think that is dangerous as well

Pedestrians & cyclists alike have a responsibility as well as drivers to use the roads and footpaths safely so why should the onus always be on the driver to look out for every one else

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

I like Lord Bingham.

Lord Bingham expressed it in the Privy Council in the case of Brown v. Stott (see paragraph 31 above), that “All who own or drive motor cars know that by doing so they subject themselves to a regulatory regime. This regime is imposed not because owning or driving cars is a privilege or indulgence granted by the State but because the possession and use of cars (like, for example, shotguns ...) are recognised to have the potential to cause grave injury”

Those who choose to keep and drive motor cars can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom, these responsibilities include the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of road traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.

End quote.

Rail against laws you perceive as "unfair".

Choose to ignore those laws. (I don't mean anyone here who clearly respect speed limits)

Get fined and cough up like I did when a camera caught me, I thought:

"That was silly, I must try not to do that again".

And I never have, it served as a wake up call.

Can you see what I mean?

I accept the responsibilities and obligations as part of my social contract with others, a contract bound by both the laws and, I hope, the sensibilities of those using a heavy vehicle on public roads.

Now, aside from KSI rates, hospital admissions, RTTM and so on and so forth, I've put forward my view, shared with others, that speeding is anti-social and aggressive. This is my opinion, I hate it when idiots blast along congested roads for no good reason. It intimidates other people and demonstrates a lack of humanity. These drivers refuse to accept the responsibilities and obligations commensurate with being granted a driving licence and they should be punished and take their punishment like a man (or woman, but most speeders are middle-aged males.)

Clealry posters here feel otherwise, I think a major difference is that they can get away with calling me a shithead with impunity- a level of aggression I hope they do not demonstrate behind the wheel.

why should the onus always be on the driver to look out for every one else

Because drivers are the people capable of inflicting the greater harm.

I walk along the pavement when I'm dog tired.

I do not drive when I'm dog tired, surely you can see this?

Driving has been made more comfortable and sedentary so that even the impression of travelling fast is diminished by suspension, noise suppression and so on. This can cause a false sense of security demonstrated ably when accident rates increased after seat belt legislation. The "transferral of risk" is borne by those outside the vehicle.

And, one again, it's not just risk, it's perceived risk.

Weepj et al.....If the vast majority of the public are in favour of speed cameras, if this is nothing but a minority pressure group or web hidout for irrelevent boy racers, if the 28000 signatures on the downing street petition represents an abject failure....then why are you all so scared of the anti camera message?

So you believe that not being caught twice by a speed camera means you are a safe driver?

If I drove down your street at 20mph in 1st gear, engine screaming, I'd probably be making more noise than anyone doing 31mph in 3rd/4th. Who would you consider more antisocial?

The onus should be on everyone to look out for one another, but ones own safety first and foremost, that includes pedestrians.

Steve are there any posts on this forum from the late Paul Smith refering to you as "Charlton" (assuming that is your surname) I doubt it.

Well couldn,t you treat Paul,s name with a tad of respect?

Whether you disagree with his views or not is irrelevant as there is something that is called common courtesy as if people wish to call you foul names then you have the right to reply in the manner you have been addressed but the chap isn,t here to defend himself so a bit of politeness and courtesy isn,t to much to ask as if you can,t get your point across without resorting to abuse or foul langauge then as one post says you have lost the argument already.

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Either justify that statement or it will be considered as trolling.