Safe Speed Forums

I'm on the verge of giving up. To be fair to them, the can hold an argument without resorting to insults. But several times it has come down to the bare bones of the argument, and I can conlude that-

1)They want to be able to drive as fast as they want to.

2)They don't want to be penalised for doing this.

3)Arguments are aimed mainly at speed cameras, the obvious main responsibility for their penalisation.

4)These real issues are wrapped up in a 'campaign for safety'.

5)Paul Smith bases all of his campaign on his theories. These are largely unsubstantiated, but rather evidenced by theoretical charts.

6)Members support Paul Smith's theories because of 1) and 2).

7)Some of the members themselves struggle with Paul Smith's theories, the biggest being our BC.

8)There is no substance to the campaign.

9)Most worryingly, Paul Smith has avoided all reasonable questions about the 'old pages', aside from a very vauge denial that can't be specifically pinned down.

10)The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from 9) is that he is in fact the author, and so it follows that....

11)The undeniable reason for the creation of SafeSpeed was to enable points 1) and 2).

12)Paul Smith takes personal credit for positive policy decisions on road safety. A worrying delusion.

13)The final conclusion, as you will no doubt be reading this Paul, is that you are completely wasting your time. Both the Government and the press are aware of the 'old pages', and so you will clearly never be taken seriously for either. The only reason that you are regularly asked to contribute to the debate is that you make yourself closest to hand. This is not an indication of success.

Of course, all of the above is purely opinion and conjecture.

So whose self interest are we talking about?

Bad attitude?

I don't pretend to know, but certainly it seems to me that driver attitude is declining. It's all me first, get there quickly, never mind anyone else - exactly the same attitude as you see in pedestrians cramming themselves through little old ladies to get on a bus, cyclists RLJing or increases in other areas of petty criminality and bad judgement. Is any or all of this directly attributable to government policy? I personally don't think so... and as you say, we can't prove it.

I agree, but speed cameras won't, and never will fix bad attitude.

Of course not, any more than the new Oyster 'touch-in-touch-out' system will fix people spitting on the floor of the underground, swearing at staff or puking on the platforms. But it can insist that people actually pay for their journeys, you can't bum a fare like you used to be able to. Similarly, cameras can get people driving more slowly, which if they are driving with a stinking attitude is an improvement, albeit a minor one.

(Incidentally I'm not convinced of any system which invades our privacy but that's another story.)

The self interest allegation is born out of the pages that used to be on this site, and were endorsed by their inclusion, which suggests ways of evading punishment for speeding. Such as way of obscuring your number plate, and picking a name out of the obituary in the local paper and declaring that dead person as the driver of your car when you were photographed. Of course there was the worthless disclaimer at the top of the pages, but this was followed by thanks and credits given to people who suggested other methods.

Not much safety campaigning there is there?

Of course not, any more than the new Oyster 'touch-in-touch-out' system will fix people spitting on the floor of the underground, swearing at staff or puking on the platforms. But it can insist that people actually pay for their journeys, you can't bum a fare like you used to be able to. Similarly, cameras can get people driving more slowly, which if they are driving with a stinking attitude is an improvement, albeit a minor one.

(Incidentally I'm not convinced of any system which invades our privacy but that's another story.)

Wrong. People can speed at camera sites and still do, obviously you’ve not been considering my posts properly. And yes it does matter how the accident rate went down; if a method is successful then it should be rolled out, if not then it must be ended such that the resource can be allocated elsewhere which could yield real benefit..