Safe Speed Forums

There is. It might have started out as something else, if so it has certainly morphed into a campaign with safety of all road users as its ultimate goal.


Perfectly possible, It depends on the speed she was caught at.


That’s your case?

What on earth has helping others you don’t even know got to do with “self-interest”?

If you meant Paul then why use "they"?

Just as a point of interest, I have long been unhappy with government "safety" measures, and yes I detest those yellow boxes. When I found & joined Safe Speed it was quite a while till the issue of cameras came up & I actually had to ask Paul what he thought of cameras. There's no way this organisation is (just) about speed cameras.

I can't see why you keep going on about some 5 year old web pages (which I've not seen but get the general point). My comment would be "so what"??? It's a fact that most people feel wronged when the "NIP" arrives in the post & would do almost anything to get out of it. I would.

If you take the time to look round this site you'll see many posts from people asking for help to "avoid" points. In every single case the answer they get is directed to another site - NEVER "blame your dead granny".

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Does it matter what I did for a hobby in 2001 or why? Especially compared with the FACT that modern road safety policy is based on bad science, false assumption and misinterprited statistics?

Don't you care that life saving resources are being mis-allocated?

And anyway you're wrong. I did nothing to support the lady. And neither was she the motivation. More the trigger. The largest part was to promote the importance of safe speed. That's why it's called Safe Speed.

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

As I recall she had 6 points from two years earlier for a technical document offence.

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

Of course it's an opinion. I stated it as an opinion. All phrases that start "I am absolutely certain..." are opinions.

However, my opinion is based on very extensive and very careful evidence and analysis. The evidence and analysis is published and wide open to review by anyone who cares to bother. The review facilities are right here for anyone to use. So far this month, more than 60,000 Safe Speed pages have been viewed (I just checked the logs). And what do you know - we're involved in reviewing the evidence.

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

Same here..


Fair enough.Are you assuming that they are blips then, or have all the other possible factors been clearly discounted?

I haven't just done a course on RTTM, so there is no wahay about it.



So it is actually more correct to make the suggestion that they bring some people below the speed limit, may slow others down and doesn't do a lot for another group. That is something different from saying "speed cameras don't slow people down". It is always better to move forward from something realistic, than basing part of you argument on an incorrect statement.

<Aside> The road that I mentioned before, where the KSIs went down after cameras were installed is a pretty good, exciting bit of road to go fast down. It was a very regular occurence to have cars travelling at over 90mph. I have acquaintances that have driven the stretch at over 100, and enjoyed comparing notes. The limit is 40, and it is in the suburbs. And there are several scarred trees as evidence that they weren't the only ones. This wasn't isolated drivers. Now that the cameras are in place no-one is stupid enough to do those speeds, and it just doesn't happen. Sure, people misjudge what they can get away with, or don't notice the cameras, and that is where most of the tickets come from these days, but we don't get scarred trees with flowers strapped around them any more.



Now we are getting somewhere. You are questioning the effectiveness of speed cameras. Now you just have to accept that they are effective in some situations, and have some affect at slowing people down.

The cost effectiveness issue is of course a good discussion, and may have some value. I have no idea what the running speed cameras is against the revenue raised. I'm sure others here do.

Not the sole reason for being here, no.

Think about it. You don't like the fact that you are being penalised for how fast you want to drive. Of course you have some cameradery with those who agree. The bond is there, and on you go.

A technical document offence? And how fast was she driving past the cameras?

Nope!

What I don’t like is being prosecuted and facing disproportionate penalties, for driving an a completely safe and considerate manner, on an unfairly and unnecessarily overly-restricted road, all in the name of safety yet so obviously doesn’t achieve its claimed aims, when the resource would have been better utilised elsewhere.

We have “cameradery” not just from each other but also from the majority of the general public – otherwise Paul would never be presented by the national media as being a road safety expert. You only need to examine recent public surveys to realise that.

And require a certain leap of faith.

Of course it does. Because it makes clear your initial motives. And publishing and approving tips on how to illegally evade punishment for breaking the speed limit says very little, quite the opposite in fact, about concern for road safety.



I am very interested in the debate about this, yes.



So the trigger for you starting the campaign was your feeling of injustice towards a woman who was penalised for breaking the speed limit. So you went on to list illegal ways of evading prosecution. Again, nothing about safety there.

And this is the important bit -you have yet to make any statement declaring that this was wrong, that breaking the law is wrong, and completely distancing yourself from the pages that you removed from the site because you knew they would do your cause harm. In fact, a couple of days ago you were blatantly lying about them.

Until you do this you cannot say that "It's the loss of life that drives me now" and expect anyone to take you seriously. People will continue to think that it is only about being able to drive as fast as you decide, and not be penalised for it if it is illegal.

We're going backwards again. Unless everyone is able to drive in your safe and considerate manner and maintain safety, then you are just going to have to do as you are told. You really are making far too much out of it.

You are stalling

Many more people are doing what they are told but this isn't increasing safety, so something else must be done instead.

It is government policy to site (85% of) speed cameras at sites where there is a blip (where the short term trend is greater than the long term trend, hence the rather inherent presence of RTTM).

I don’t discount other factors in the mix; in fact I have been claiming these other factors all along, like the A12 example I’ve given you.


I didn’t say that; my actual words were “People can speed at camera sites and still do”.
Don’t forget, some people will emergency brake, others may not notice because they are watching to make sure their speedo falls lower.



As I have already stated, there is a place for speed cameras and speed camera enforcement, perhaps in your example a speed camera really could be of benefit – but – if people really want to race down such roads then any form of automated speed enforcement will not stop them, not at all.
The rise of crippling insurance for inexperienced for fast cars could also have been a factor in that case.

Here’s an example for you:
Local to me is the M275. People have been crossing at the mouth of this motorway
There are also another 2 lanes parallel to this, resulting with 4 consecutive carriageways. There have been a few pedestrian deaths in recent times (I think I knew one of the boys from school). What was done? They put up a speed camera and dropped the motorway speed limit to 50mph. Oh, just literally a few tens of meters away is a pedestrian underpass and pedestrian traffic lights…..

Fence?



I’m not questioning the effectiveness of speed cameras, I am actually proving the ineffectiveness of speed cameras based on real world conclusions by investigative professionals. It is you who has to accept the argument that speed cameras cannot be anywhere near as effective as they have been claimed to be and that it is possible that their benefit could possibly be negative.


I once discussed this with the infamous Steve Callahan (Cumbria SCP). He goofed by admitting that the running cost of a gatso is actually greater than the installation cost, the latter being circa £40k

eeek

Before you get suspended, at least give a decent direct response to this:

Eh? I've never been caught by a speed camera. So much for 'being penalised'.

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

I don't remember - but I well remember the sense of outrage that the full force of the law was being applied with drastic consequences for extremely trivial offences allegedly committed by a highly responsible member of society.

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

I haven't made a leap of faith. I don't want anyone to make a leap of faith.

I do want those who are equipped to examine the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

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

This little lot takes the biscuit. You're fresh out of ideas and writing nonsense.



It does no such thing. You're guessing based on libel and guessing wildly wrongly. Pathetic.



Ah yes. You're saying that people should support road safety policies that they believe are completely ineffective, which is ridiculous.

And I wrote this to you: "I make no apology for exploring every aspect of the speed camera programme and publishing my findings. I NEVER advocated nor recommended, nor conspired with others to interfere with the process of justice. If I had I would have been arrested - and I wasn't."




Then why mess about with ancient misquotes, misunderstandings, libels and trivia?



Clearly there's something wrong with your comprehension.



- You seem to be the only one who thinks it's important
- Produce your evidence regarding that statement about 'blatantly lying' which is false and deeply offensive.



You have to be joking.



If people can't be bothered to find out what we're about then that's their problem. There's nothing I can do about it.

Now do you want to talk about road safety or not?

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