Safe Speed Forums

But you're cherry-picking different motoring costs to suit your argument. The fact that the price of new cars has fallen in real terms certainly isn't irrelevant. It's the total cost that counts. People have a total budget, not one that is allocated to different things. If you want to buy a similar standard car now as in the past then it will be less.

And as I've said to someone else, it really doesn't help your cause to be negative, in this case to not look at things honestly yourself and pretend that others are being dishonest. Sure, I know about the London congestion charge. The charge that covers just a part of central London. I support it (and have voted for Ken in the past and will do so again in the future).

Oh, and you even carefully talk about car tax for "family-type cars".

Come on now. You're not going to persuade anyone like this.

Firstly, you really need to get away from your arrogant belief that I'll "never understand the arguments". I understand them perfectly well. As for an upward trend in prosecutions, if people refuse to slow down, then there is an explanation. As for fatals, you do know that the number of vehicles on the roads has been going up don't you? So you simply can't say "they obviously don't work". And anyway, I've already said that we need more traffic police. What has been happening in recent years is that the numbers have been going down. You need to remember that when you look at the stats.

So please, get away from any belief that the "truth" is only on your side, for want of putting it in a better way.





"Proven"? But why do so many people and organisations not believe him then?







My calibre of argument is prefectly fine, thank you 'my friend'. For example, I didn't even say anything about "one-third" anything. Perhaps you are seeing things. You say that I believe a lot, straight after you have spoken about something which I have never mentioned.

As for rules, you seem to be changing the subject, but if you want to talk about them, I have to say that having speed cameras is completely fair.





Firstly, why do you persist in throwing insults? Secondly, I'm not actually saying that being in a minority makes the argument any less compelling or 'right', simply that even on this site you are in one.




Why don't you just tell me the facts as you believe that they are?






I don't have a closed mind at all. And I'm not misguided - quite the opposite in fact!





For goodness sake, stop with the insults already. I don't have a closed mind. I do have an ability to see other aspects.

The point, which you seen to have completely missed, is that you said that I'm "not very good at this", with an argument that I wasn't previously talking about! In other words, if you want to argue about something else, then fine, but don't accuse me of not being very good at it before I've even seen the argument!





Firstly, I haven't been taking a bad attitude, so how can you say "neither do you"? It doesn't make any sense.

And I'm not interested in scoring points either. So why say that? But what I was responding to with that comment was this comment of yours "Awww thats easy. Youve got no number plates.?"

As for a "failed road safety policy", I disagree that it's failed so naturally wouldn't want to get rid of it.





So why did you say "Remember, as long as you dont go OVER what the sign says, youll be safe.....but no one else will."?





Oh, what rubbish! Where was this then? What police force? What road?









My "speed cameras are great" comment wasn't a wind-up one but was completely genuine. I just hope that we can replace all the spot speed cameras with average-speed cameras as quickly as possible.





Again, you really need to stop with these insults because they do your cause no good at all. I have lots of sense, and I haven't fallen down on my face. I'm not speed fixated. But obviously it's all I've spoken about because I was asking why people didn't like speed cameras. Naturally, the issue of speed is going to come up a lot. What would you prefer I did, spoke about what type of music I like when driving?

As for my arguments that "the rest of my kind use" (what a silly comment), I'm sorry if you see it as emotional blackmail, but that just makes it sound like want to ignore the deaths and injuries on our roads.

How do you know that it isn't going to work? I never expected when I came on this site that I would suddenly persuade anyone. I came on here to ask why people didn't like speed cameras. What I did expect was that there would be people like you are who not interested in having a mature discussion about this, but are more inclined to throw insults.

As to my cause being "already damaged beyond redemption", what would you people prefer I did? Said that I was a robot and always kept my car prefectly to 29? I'm just being honest. If I said that I kept 100% to the speed limit then you would doubtless accuse me of lying, just like another poster has as his strapline. The simple fact is, if everyone did as I do, which is try to keep to the speed limit, then we would never have ended up with loads of speed cameras.

As for my "tolerance" argument as you put it, or "leeway-as-we're-not-robots point" as I prefer to put it, it's not an attempt for absolution for my own "speeding behaviours", because I don't have any speeding behaviours. I try and keep to the speed limit. But again, you and everyone else on this site needs to get away from the idea that someone can't be for speed cameras if they sometimes go slightly over the limit. Again, I'm just being honest with you, but you're never going to win any converts by pouncing on that honesty.

Finally, when I mentioned someone running out into the road I meant a child. But if a 38-tonner was doing 15mph, the vehicle would be able to stop in a far shorter time than if they were doing, say, 45.





Never learn what exactly? Anyway, where does this arrogance of yours come from?





Why repeat something that I've just said? I said "I really don't understand that response" and then you pointlessly said that I don't understand the response! But I do understand the subject material. And I'm not admitting to speeding and in the same breath condemning others doing the same! Only a fool would think that that was my argument! You really need to slow down and read more carefully what someone says.

What I have been saying all along is that people should stick to the speed limit, but because we're not robots we should have a bit of leeway. Which is what we do have. I try and stick to the speed limit but am not a robot.

And I have never said that the numbers on a sign indicate the safest speed you should travel at. If the weather conditions were really bad I would certainly slow down. So if there is fog on a motorway, no, quite obviously I'm not going to drive at 70. And of course discretion is allowed in the other direction.

Finally, as I keep saying, you really need to drop arrogant points like "am I getting through to you yet", because they don't somehow win you the argument, nor win converts to your cause.







Still throwing arrogant insults I see. If you want to give to cancer relief then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that I think the fine part of the punishment should be dropped.





Why not actually answer the question instead of throwing yet another needless insult?





What are you on about? I said that I believed in dropping the fine and assumed that you meant that if the government still wanted to raise money from motorists then there it should be for some other reason. Perhaps to clarify you could explain what you meant by your comment.





Let me try again: what I am saying is that this site implies that half the time we should be doing less than the speed limit, and half the time more. But I don't believe that. I believe that 99 times out of a hundred you actually want to be able to do above the speed limit. That the 'safe' speed that this site promotes is almost always above the speed limit. But it doesn't say that of course.

As for driving at 100mph, no, I don't have any objection to doing so where its safe and prudent to do so, why would I? But the only place that I would think that it was safe and prudent to do so (in other words, why it didn't threaten non-consenting members of the public), would be on a racetrack.

I cannot speak for everybody, but I have a budget for motoring, and the price of a new car is irrellevent to me. I can only afford the car which fits my budget.
I now own a slightly better secondhand car than I did two years ago, but that was just luck - spotted a bargain on the forecourt.
4 years ago I had a far better vehicle which I could no longer afford to run or maintain.

On the whole, you make some very interesting points, but you actually point out the pitfalls yourself.
Your opening post was entitled SPEED CAMERAS - WHY THE FUSS, yet you admit that a few mph briefly over the limit is not a bad thing, and that average speed cameras seem more fair!

Ten years ago, speed cameras used wisely would have done some good - but the manner in which they have been used has cost them any respect, and driving standards have modified to suit the appalling manner in which they have been used.

Might I point you to this BBC item, AND the discussion which took place at the end - you start at the bottom of the replies, and work your way to the top, then they make sense: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml
The program was about flaws in the device (LTI 20/20) and the camera partnership manager who responded steadfstly refused to admit or consider that the device should be tested. WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE HE WAS AFRAID OF?
He refused to consider my explanation of how the device worked, then when somebody else posted the same info. he was forced to conceed that it was correct. This is the sort of attitude which has brought cameras into disrepute, AND the reputation of many police forces who are arrogant enough to belive that they are perfect, the devices infallible, and we are all speed freaks!

How do you propose to detect a seriously speeding motorist with an average speed camera, and then stop him before he kills somebody? YOUR only hope is that either they get put off after the first ticket, or that they dont kill somebody BEFORE the NIP lands on the door mat.
And what if they are one of the growing underclass who has an unregistered car with cloned plates?
Maybe they will tailgate a wagon in the hope the camera wont see their plate, and end up squished when another truck gets too close doing the same?!!

In Windermere, where I live, we have a local policeman, who monitors traffic near my son's school with a hand held speed camera - at school times. As soon as he spots somebody speeding, they are pulled up within site of the school, and lectured as to their behaviour, a very effective message. A camera would merely send out a NIP in the post a week or more later.

At the same time, he pulls over cars of parents with unrestrained children in back seats, and warns them, as well as stopping motorists parking near the crossing to nip into the adjacent paper shop.

THAT'S WHY I MAKE A FUSS ABOUT CAMERAS - give me a REAL policeman any day! If a policy is working, the government dont have to lie about it!

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

I must say thank you to Ernest Marsh for a very nice, polite response.

I don't agree with everything you've said, but if only everyone could be like you then an awful lot more people would support your cause.

Your'e welcome! I used to think cameras were a good idea too, until I saw how motorists were being "set up" for money, and "lies" told about accident historys in order to justify having the cameras there.

I protested, and found myself being threatened, and called a liar by the perpetrator of one of the worst SCAMS in Cumbria!

When I tipped off the press about one little scam, the person concerned had his butt kicked on local radio, then tried to explain that he was there because he had made a press release - which never happened until AFTER!!
He has just overseen a massive leap in fatalities - which puts the previous increases in the shade! And to think he draws a wage for this, yet has never actually STOPPED a dangerous speeder in his life!

The local safety camera partnership even boasted in the media, that motorists were driving at 70 mph through road works on the M6, which had a temporary limit, in FOG which was so thick, the camera could not read the plates!
Instead of whinging, they should have had a patrol car stationed at the end of the road works pulling over the maniac drivers!
Of course if the police have to stop somebody, the penalty money goes straight to the treasury, not skimmed off by some jumped up sprog in a suit running a scamera partnership.

The way I look at it is the speed camera is like the toll on the Forth Bridge - they'll always want more, BUT at least on the Forth Bridge, you have to slow down and STOP to pay!!!

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

Delta F's tone was less than subtle, and your response predictable, and was generally (but not exclusively) concerned with the tone of debate as opposed to content. You certainly have the high ground in that regard. I think it is unfortunate that that takes the highlight, but entirely understandable in the circumstances.

I would appreciate your views on my own comment if and when you get time.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Firstly, to all the new posters,

Now, in no particular order...

I first started posting here because I had a problem with speed cameras. I didn't know what it was, just that I didn't like them. In the time that I've been using the forum I've learned some shocking and worrying things about automatic speed enforcement, along with massively improving my own driving standards by learning from others' mistakes and discussing the issue with some hightly skilled and compitent drivers. I've held a licence for 8 years and haven't even received a parking ticket.

To address some of the questions asked by the OP. I strongly suggest you take the time to read the DfT report mentioned throughout this thread - not just the forward, but the whole thing. The term 'speeding' is unfortunately rather misused by the media to meen any form of speed related issue, from exceeding the posted limit to driving at excessive speed for the conditions. I'm sure you appreciate the difference between the two. As has been noted upthread, the raw statistics from said report state that only some 5% of ALL deaths and injuries had exceeding the limit as a contributary factor, whereas some 25% had excessive speed for the conditions as a factor. Thus speed cameras can only actually prevent 5% of ALL injury and fatal accidents.

You keep talking about 'sticking to the posted limit'. The phrase in itself is dangerous as it makes the assumption that its always safe to travel at the posted limit. From reading though some of your posts I don't actually think you believe that statement to be true, but I feel you need to be more precise with your language.

To address the question of travelling at 50mph though a 30mph limited village. If the potential were there for a child to run out into the street at a proximity where travelling at 50mph would not allow adequate braking time, then 50mph would NOT be a safe speed for the conditions. Thus no member of this site would advocate travelling at that speed. If visibility were adequate and it was was genuinely safe to travel at 50mph then by definition there would be no chance of a child running into the 'hazard zone'. (Oh and BTW I'd rather chance my luck with a car travelling at 50mph than a loaded 38 tonner travelling at 15mph. Pedestrians have been killed, without the driver realising, by LGVs moving off from stationary).

The sad truth is that the average motorist has become so blinded by the 'speed kills' message that it appears that nothing else matters. Tailgating, lane hogging, lack of use of indicators and general poor driving are on the increase because the sad truth is that in many areas there just isn't anyone around to catch and punish such behaviour. I think you'll find that most members of this site take a great deal of pride in driving well. It is saddening and frustrating to see so many motorists not taking any care at all of their driving. The perfect example was on Thursday morning following the snow. I have to drive some 25 miles to get to work each day and on Thursday morning (even on virgin snow) managed the whole journey without so much as a lightening of the steering. However, apparently it was appropriate for the driver behind me to sit 5 feet off my rear bumper. Had I lost traction then there would have been a multiple pileup as a result.

I'm sure you can appreciate that we get an awful lot of trolls on this site, bent on catching us out as the speed merchants that we obviously are. I would suggest that if you are genuinely interested in debating the issue, you take the time to read at least SOME of the main site, which Paul has spent much time and effort compiling. The information is there to answer most if not all of the points you have raised and quite frankly its rather insulting when people join the forum and begin questioning ideas and facts that are already laid out for all to see.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

because they serve no purpose other than revenue!

speed cameras detect those who exceed the speed limit.
police officers can detect those who are exceeding the speed for the conditions (which in many cases IS still legal).

3am, empty motorway, camera catches you doing 80MPH. its perfectly safe but its illegal.
3pm, windy country lane in wet weather. camera WILL NOT get you because its legal although highly dangerous

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Thanks for the lecture.



Oh dear its going to be one of those days.
If people refuse to slow down, then speed cameras cant be acheiving the stated aim, now can they?



And the engineering of in car safety, including such things as bonnet and windscreen rake angles has nothing at all to do with injuries coming down then.....explain the fatals UP situation we're now stuck in.
The numbers of people being prosecuted for exceeding a speed limit is at an all time high, sowhy arent the cameras slowing them down?



Absolutely i can! If the numbers of fatals dropped through the floor when garden gnomes were introduced as a road safety method youd agree they were effective, wouldnt you? So why dont you believe the opposite?
Its that blind faith thing in operation again.



The trouble with the "stats" is that theyre being put together by the very same people who preside over the awful mess of road "safety" policy thats currently responsible for the levels of death we see today.
Its obvious you dont feel a need to question them or delve any deeper than being spoonfed them by the scp's.



Why didnt people believe Galileo when he said the earth was round?
Same reasons. Dogma, not wanting to believe something because theyre minds arent open to the possibility, vested interest in promotion of their own ideas.
Simple as that.



No its not, its flawed. Its based on a belief that speed is a major causation factor in accidents when its proven not to be. Thats why the obsession with "loving up" speed cameras is so prevalent in your arguments.



Scuse me awfully, can you quit with the insults? Theres nothing wrong with my eyesight thank you.
The fact is the speed camera policy is based on the "one third lie" and has been since its inception.
When questioned the DFT uses terms such as " around a third"....not very scientific is it? Indicating they dont actually know. And the proof of the pudding came when they quietly dropped the claim later...years later!
Damage done.



I have to say thats just plain silly. Fair for who? Fair for those they fail to protect? Fair for those who die in plain sight of one of these monstrosoties?
Who are you kidding?



What are you on about? Do you see an insult in everything everyone says? Grow a thicker skin for gods sake.



Ahhh i see. Judge me on my size do you?



Ive got a better idea, why dont you do your own digging and come up with something to support your viewpoint thats NOT been paid for by the pro scam lobby? Now THERES a challenge for you!




I disagree. Youre not only misguided but youre conflicted.



Dear oh dear, still seeing an insult where none appears.....
Demonstrate the other aspects that youre capable of seeing....come up with something....."visionary".....surprise me....prove me/us wrong...silence me.....it shouldnt be hard, speed kills. Make the claim now prove it.




So you feel that making an inflammatory statement such as " i think speed cameras are great", announcing it in a gleeful manner to irritate those who have maybe lost livelihoods because of them is a good attitude?
I find such comments crass.




When you make comments like this you invite insult, you really do, but since youre such a sensitive soul ill do my best to break this to you gently.
"Data released by the DFT (those people you get your stats from) shows 3210 died in road accidents in the 12 months to september last year, compared to 3177 in the same period in the previous year".
Deaths UP and you call that a success. Failure, abject and total to any reasonable person.



west midlands police. B4176. circa june 1997. Mr P.W**********
Name blanked as i dont have permission to name him.
Offence excess speed 33 in a 30 zone....i wonder if hes still got the nip.....



More failure to appreciate the subtleties of what you propose.
Average speed cameras detect average speeds, not peak speeds, so if do 130 mph in such a zone, then parkup for a while, my average speed when i exit the zone will be what exactly? Lower than the mandatory maximum on the signs.....ooops!



Now youre getting tiresome. Point out the "insult" for me please.....



Au contraire. Youve fallen down so many times you need a trip to casualty to get all the damage fixed.



Ahh yes good idea, something in common. I find that "thrash metal" usually puts me in the best frame of mind as i carve up lesser mortals,(below the speed limit) how about you?


Not at all. I see no reason in debating the issues while some hysterical ass points a finger at me while crying the words " child killer"....thats the level it drags the argument down to; who can cry the most convincingly.
Leave the emotional stuff out and youll find the debate goes much better.
And no i didnt call you an ass, but id like to.....



Well now you know why theyre universally despised.



Oh boy, this ones hard hard work. Still perseverence is a virtue so.....
You would favour your arguments muchly if you desisted from crowing about the virtues of speed cameras, and admitting to being a speeder, while decrying any counter arguments from people on this site who have already analysed and debated this issue to its logical conclusions, namely that speed cameras arent worth a light.
See i didnt insult you, i never even said the word "hypocrit"......


Yes you do. You admit to going over the limits! Speeder!


I take serious issue with someone that admits to doing what everyone else does in one breath then says "its all your fault if you get done" and " i think speed cameras are great" in the other....the word conflicted again springs to the fore...



And youll gain no converts preaching from an untenable position!



The example given clearly confuses you. Its meant to relay the importance of mass of the object and the fact that its speed although lower can travel just as far as a vehicle with less mass going faster and yet still doing a similar amount of damage.
You also fail to grasp the importance of distraction effects of scameras. If your eyes arent on the road then they may as well be shut.







Stick around and find out...prepare to be amazed...

My arrogance as you put it is carefully cultivated, nurtured and is fed by constantly answering stupid questions by stupid people... usually of the sort that think speed cameras are "great".



And why is that a problem? As long as its safe and prudent to do so, whats the problem with it?



Good for you buddy, good for you. The whole point is that on one of those days that you briefly exceed the speed limit and find a NIP on your doormat 2 weeks later, will you really not feel aggrieved that you were just driving safely and yet here you are with a £60 fine and 3 points? Cos thats JUST whats happening to millions of others doing JUST what YOU are.



Im an individual, who are you to tell me how to debate? The way i do it elicits responses that being nicey nicey would never do.
You do it your way, ill do it mine.





What insult? Show me.


You suggested that fine money should be used to fund congestion charging and the environment was how i read it. I simply pointed out that safety was supposed to be the motive not revenue raising.



Got it in one and it only took 4 pages....




No it dosent! Wheres it say that?



Rubbish! This site is about promoting a SAFE speed to travel at 100% of the time, something that speed cameras are incapable of ensuring!



Tell it to the Germans. Your arguments busted wide open.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

editted

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Blimey, all that twice over

Lol yeah it wouldnt let me delete the second one...arggghh!

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Can you edit the second one down to <Duplicate-deleted> or something like that?

unless anyone has a problem with it, I'll delete the duplicate post and all those down to and including this one?

Done.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I like speed cameras !
They give an estimated 80,000 people jobs (of a sort)
They give the police jobs (of a sort)
They pay for themselves (sort of)
They [automatically] enforce the speeding laws...otheriwse we would have to have more police, and they cost money (can't have that....they also investigate politicians....can't have that either)
You want to change to average speed cameras...ok...no problem. Even as we sit here typing insults "they" are designing average speed cameras to overcome "surfing" (slowing down to come within the average speed over the distance)...the software accepts information from units over a larger distance...ie: not just from two cameras....say you've got three seperate measuring distances (6 cams)...each car will be not only calculated over one spread (2 cams) but averaged over the whole distance covered as well.
All good fun.
In any case, being hit by a car travelling at 29 in a 30 limit is not going to be affected by all this arguing....the same way it isn't going to be stopped by speed cameras.
Mr jr135 seems unimpressed that in 95% of accidents his speed camera fetisch would make no difference, so it seems obvious (to me) that Mr jr135 is a put-up job.
Now, me. I have never been flashed by a speed camera...yet. Probably because I am in no great hurry to get anywhere....I'll get there eventually, and driving fast needs much greater concentration than driving as I do...not slow, but appropriate !
That said, I have a problem with speed cams, of a sort. I wish that others wouldn't brake so hard when they see them....even if they're only doing 40 (in a 60 limit) it makes me think their speedometer doesn't work !

Something to ponder on ref: "The Mail on Sunday"
An article in the paper today says quote"speed cameras are costing lives"
They "the paper" have issued figures showing that speed cameras "ARE" costing lives and lo & behold what is the response from the powers that be "these figures only represent a quarter of the last year and must not be accepted as true figures overall"!
A very distinct way of getting out of the truth but should the figures have gone the other way and deaths were lower they would be trumpeting on about "THEY DO SAVE LIVES" here are the figures to prove it!
As the saying goes "There are non so blind as those that cannot see" and no disrespect to visually impaired people is meant by this sentence.
Let us face facts if your job is on the line and you are facing possible unemployment because the government have got it TOTALLY wrong you would say anything to save your own job wouldn,t you and there is also the arrogance of these people that "You don,t know what you are talking about" and as always the figures can be "manipulated" just like statistics!

Oh well.
You remember the old saying: There are lies, damned lies, and government statistics.

Or, maybe, you remember that even older quotation:

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

We'll just change "attacks" to "being killed by speeding drivers", et-al.

Same stuff really, people have got so used to being lied to by government (of all sorts) that is is an accepted fact.

As I see it, the facts are a bit different. Shortly, the "attack" will change from speeding and congestion, to why should the majority (whether or not "they" are in the majority...it matters not a lot) fund the despotic car owners and subsidise their driving addiction (oh, sorry, it has already started...remember Tony Blair saying "why should people subsidse the buiding of roads")
Now, this site seems to believe that it can change the system...I think not, the system can absorb a lot of attacks. It also believes in democracy...
We have achange of leader soon, and then an election soon after that. The 'papers are going to be running stories to get who they want elected....
We'll see......

Can some people not have a sensible discussion on this forum without throwing insults at each other ?
The thing about speed is yes higher speed means simply that there is more risk of injury or death but not solely because of speed, there are lots of other factors to take in to account of an accident than just the closing / impact speed, ask any investigating police officer.
There is the manner in which the vehicle was being driven for instance i.e. road conditions as just one factor or the condition of the road surface.
When cameras were introduced theydid seem to be a deterrent to excessive speed but now the main priority seems to be "REVENUE FIRST SAFETY SECOND" as the governmemnt decided it was a political "vote loser" so this government did what they always do with "vote losing ideas" they passed it on to "Private Enterprise" and let the local police / councils take over the running of the camera sites so as to distance themselves from any flak and as the police are more cash strapped "they to be fair" saw the cameras as a "Revenue Earner" and in the process lost all respect as they also reduced the traffic patrols accordingly with the reason to free police to do other duties and if this is the case then WHY are the crime rates still rising when to use their terminology there are more police on other duties so the next obvious question is WHAT ARE THEY DOING!