Safe Speed Forums

Hardcore petrol head site???? This is a Road Safety site my friend. I can understand your misconceptions as there are plenty people with hidden agendas, frightened of losing very lucrative revenue schemes, who would paint it as something else without even reading the information contained within, or worse still read the information and then seek to supress it or divert attention from it as it threatens their livelihoods - which they clearly prioritise over other peoples' lives.

However, if we have helped you come to an informed decision with respect to your own welfare and the welfare of others on the road then so be it, because that is our true purpose!! We are none of us too old to learn

Don't give up on the driving however. Just seek to become a bit better informed - you'll be glad you did The advanced driving training sounds right up your street.

This isn't a hard core petrolhead site. It's a genuine road safety site.

I don't believe that those of "below average ability" should be excluded from the roads. If we get our safety systems right the roads will be safe enough to accomodate the failings of those of below average ability.

Of course the proof of this is that we achieved the safest roads in the world without excluding those drivers.

On the other hand there are drivers who are dangerously inadequate, and we need proper roads policing to deal with them.

I don't know anything about your standard of driving, but before you give up, why not try the IAM or RoADA? They both provide excellent training at low cost. There's clearly a great benefit in improved driver training, so long as it is closely coupled with the right attitude.

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

All drivers have to start somewhere! Having confidence once you are driving is an added benefit. Once you pass your test you then start to learn to drive. I think this thread has certainly enlightened some contributors, which i tink is good. This is a safety forum rather than a petrolhead hangout! People with a keen interest in driving also understand or learn the bigger picture (with regard to 'Roadcraft') rather than just assuming if you break the speed limit you are dangerous!, as well as appreciating that driving should be carried out in a safe manner (safe does not necessarily mean slow and dangerous does not necessarily mean fast).

Fair?

EvilInky,

Some thoughts.

Some drivers are better than others. You will not dispute this as it is common sense. Speeding, in itself, is not dangerous. You will also not dispute this. Speeding at inappropriate times, on the other hand, can be dangerous. You will not dispute this.

Let us envisage a scenario whereby a good driver is travelling along a motorway at 85mph in a moderate flow of traffic where the weather is fine and the conditions are favourable. On the same stretch of road there is a poor driver (3 hours sleep the night before, talking on their mobile phone, changing CDs etc) who is driving at 70mph.

The two cars pass a flyover at the same point. Upon this flyover sits a "Safety" camera van. The van, seeing Mr Good Driver (who has been driving for 15 years, no accidents, drives 35 000 miles per year) driving at 85mph, is flashed and will shortly be the recipient of 3 pentalty points and a £60 fine. Mr Poor Driver (has been convicted of driving without due care and attention, bald tyres, children un-secured in the back) who is driving at 70mph, escapes this and smiles to himself.

I should like to ask you this : who represents more of a risk to other road users? If your answer is Mr Poor Driver then I would agree. If you accept that Mr Poor Driver is more of a risk then it is logical to think that Mr Good Driver's speed isn't as dangerous as Mr Bad Driver's bad habits. In effect, the simple fact that Mr Good Driver is speeding does not automatically make him a bad or dangerous driver.

But unfortunately Mr Camera man cannot make that distinction. He deals in speed. Nothing else. An indiscriminate machine has criminalised a normal, confident and generally safe driver.

Here is an analogy that I like to use. A man who earns £12000 per year is taxed 22% of his wages. A man who earns £35000 per year is taxed 40% of his wages. Why? Is it because the higher paid man can afford it? Would it not be fairer to tax everyone the same?
Let us say we taxed everyone at 22%. There would (correctly) be an outcry. "The well off should pay more" would be the cry from the masses.
What I mean by this analogy is that someone who is able should be treated differently by the state according to their ability. The government do this with regards to many things. Why should traffic enforcement be any different? Shall I tell you why?

1 Speed enforcement is lowest common denominator and is easy to catch.
2 The government make a fortune from it.

And that, my friend, is why.

_________________
cheers,
DM

Thanks for the support guys, but I've decided to knock driving on the head for at least a year or so. My current standard of driving isn't anythng like up to an acceptable standard, and it seems that my previous attempts to "play it safe" were simply making matters worse. I just don't seem to be able to cope with the tight safety margins required. I've considered further training, but it doesn't seem a pleasant prospect as I had such a ghastly time passing my test in the first place.

My girlfriend drives, so I won't need to sell the car, and looking on the bright side, at least I'll be able to put my hand on my heart and say I don't break the speed limit anymore

Anyway, this is no place for a cyclist, so I'm afraid it's goodbye...

I don't suppose we got through to him at all. I think he's "just saying that".

And it's also worrying that he thinks this is no place for a cyclist - cyclists are very vulnerable to bad driving, so you would think that raising the standard of driving would interest them greatly. Is it just the old thing about everyone thinks they know enough about driving? Including the Evil One?

If you're still around, Mr Inky, please tell us what you really think.

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

Frankly, Paul, I don't think it's worth debating with EvilInky. If he actually believes much of what he writes, his critical reasoning capacity is so limited that reasoned argument is pointless. If, on the other hand, he doesn't, he's a troll.

I didn't get involved but that guy really wouldn't respond to basic reasoning.

_________________
The way the roads of North Wales are policed is WRONG and it must stop NOW.

BRUNSTROM OUT

Let's hope he was telling the truth about giving up driving - the guy's so stupid that he's a disaster waiting to happen. It's so frustrating that the powers-that-be come down like a ton of bricks on safe drivers who drift over an arbitary speed limit, but morons like him can bumble around the streets without a care in the world.

Ok, my turn to butt in here.

One thing you guys have to accept is that there exists an opposing point of view to the one you choose to adopt, a point of view held by perfectly reasonable people, just as you see yourselves in fact.

This point of view cannot be dismissed merely as shallow thinking or capitulation to the propoganda, to suggest others lack the perspicacity to think an argument through and achieve the same 'enlightenment' as you do is just plain arrogant.



This, quoted in isolation and out of context, is just the POV that those on the 'other side' will view as evidence that SS, ABD et al are nothing more than a bunch of selfish Jeremy Clarkson type petrolheads, more interested in using the public highway to show off their horsepower than their brainpower. NB: This isn't libel, it's a generalisation, and besides, I can see that there are a number of solid responsible drivers here who've taken the time to seek further driving tuition, hats off to you.

Calling people morons, meuseli eaters, pinkos or whatever will simply re-inforce the above idea and drive them out of these forums. Fine you say, but what do you have then? A platform for a one-sided argument and threads which everyone answers with the same agreement or tut-tutting....boring

I understand what you are saying, but

a) The pro-speed camera point of view is based on woolly thinking and appeals to emotion, while all the scientific evidence backs the anti-speed camera view. If someone insists on claiming that the world is flat in the face of all the evidence that it isn't, then they're not holding a valid opposing view, they're just being stupid.

b) The pro-speed camera aren't just ignoring all the evidence, they are ignoring the terrible effects of the devices themselves. Three people a day die because of speed cameras, and three people a day will continue to die until they're all removed. We've got to get the message across urgently, and if that means hurting people's feeling then so be it.

c) Any message can be twisted and distorted by selective and/or out-of-context quoting.

Rigpig

I am half a Yorkshire man and I say what I blewdy well like and I like what I blewdy well say! Tha's canot argue wi' a bloke even half from Yorkshire tha knows! And if I use the term "Muesli muncher" - then I am probably alluding to their "healthy" way of life!

Got impresson that Evil Inked Up One was enjoying winding me up as much as I was enjoying winding him up anyway! He certainly was not put off at all by my calling him a "muesli muncher" or any of the other endearing choice of words which are part of this family's standard and normal vernacular to each other ! He did not come across to me as deeply offended by this either! Oi! Evil Inked Up One - COME BACK! I am missing my daily fix of calling you "names" And if you are reading this, my friend, did you do that cycling proficiency test?

Some scams (very few ) are placed correctly. The others are not! The Mad Moggie Cats are all ex Brake members anyway! We still support the positive things they seek and have achieved, and we do actually like Aunty Mary! . We distanced ourselves because we disagree with the current OTT stance on speed cameras. The policy has gone awol, does nothing to improve overall driving standards, fails to "slow people down", and certainly does not "save lives". Cannot do -- as I do hear from colleques in A&E that RTAs have increased since the scams arrived on the scene! (And by all accounts - not due to speed per se either! )

Cameras are inanimate objects. They may threaten us with fines, penalty points and ultimate bans, but they do not save lives! If the aim and intention was to "slow us down" - then the scam would not be hidden (Lovely picture on PH "New Type Of Gatso where the scam in question is one of the new sky high ones - and they even raised the height of the traffic sign to conceal it!).

Cannot honestly see what is wrong about suggesting periodic driver skill assessments, nice responsible Smiley Sids (possibly backed up by PC Gatso at really dangerous spots), and jolly coppers on the road!

Trouble is - the "muesli munchers" cannot see that this is quite logical - hence the double meaning if you like of "mushy brained logic"

Well if that's not an emotive statement I don't know what is And besides, you postulate this as a fact when at the moment it remains merely a theory, albeit a compelling one granted.

Furthermore SS repeatedly suggests throughout their lengthy dialogues on this fascinating topic, that some people now believe that as long as they are driving at the speed limit then they are driving safely, slightly patronising I feel. But wait, in the next breath, we want to empower these shallow thinking individuals with determing for themselves what the safe speed for a particular stretch of road is. We can't have it both ways

Nice conversing with y'all..cya.

Paul Smith has spent over 4,000 hours researching this subject; nobody has even challenged his work; it can't simply be a coincidence that the trend in road deaths abruptly changed for the worse when speed cameras were introduced - it's surely more than a compelling theory.



You're totally missing the point here. Your rant was something that git Guy Chapman might have come out with! The reason certain drivers believe that as long as they are under the limit they are driving safely is a consequence of the speed cameras. If we got rid of the speed cameras, these drivers would take the responsibility to select a safe speed, rather than relying on someone else. I take it you've never heard of the 85th percentile rule ?

No I'm sorry WWJD, you can't glibly dismiss a bit of healthy criticism as a 'rant', quite clearly it isn't. It's a different point of view and I have thought long and hard about this believe me.

On cameras causing so many deaths..it's still only a theory not a fact. Much of Paul's good work centres around challenging the 'facts' that the pro-camera lobby put forward. He concludes that, in many cases, they are only theories. The same applies here, no matter how strongly you feel about it it's still a theory.

On my second comment, No sir YOU are missing my point. If some drivers are puportedly so shallow of mind as to be duped by the 30mph (or whatever the limit) is safe message, then what is to say they will suddnely gain the perspicacity required to be able to safely judge a safe 'higher' speed if permitted to do so. NB: I don't actually believe the latter because I don't believe the former either!

Look, I agree with the general slant of SS's argument, I just query the tack taken to challenge certain points and so-called facts. In some cases a challenge is issued using one line of reasoning, whilst, elsewhere the same raitioanle can be used to bring subjectivity to theri own arguments.

Thanks for hearing me out.

JD

Rigpig

Trouble is the fleecers make the equally dubious claim that scameras save lives. Lancs is classic example of this: More scams and more KSIs on their roads.

Now these scams probably are sited at fleece spots as opposed to blackspots, and because of the draconian enforcement (1mph over and you are in bother!) perhaps people are becoming more mithered about keeping to speed limits than other hazards Who can say for sure?

Lancs does offer Speed Awareness Course, and rep from wife's firm was "invited". He spent his 2 hour "drive" in McDonalds! Others on PH have reported similar experiences. Easy money for the ADIs who are paid a reported £200 per session. Led to believe from the rep at wife's firm that there are four classes of 25 per day - each paying £85-£95 each.

If the scammers were really interested in road safety - the revenue raised would be invested into meaningful road training courses for all. And they would be continual courses which would deepen the shallow minds of certain drivers who see limited speed as target speed, and by gum, they will stick to that speed come what may - even if the road conditions dictate a lower speed

At present - the so-called safety policy is ill-thought out, superficial and fails to address the real issues of road safety. And as stated on another thread - they get away with it because they know the majority suffer from the anti-social disease of apathy!

Mad-Moggie,

Yes I agree with all that, 120%. No arguments, absolutely.

The minor point I wanted to make was that you cannot fight a dubious argument with the assertion that one of your own (albeit compelling) dubious points is a fact.

I'm not trolling here or trying to wind people up, however the Anti-Scamera argument is not the flawless crystal castle of an argument some would like to believe. It may be a wonder to behold from the outisde perhaps, but I reserve the right to be the irritating twat who strolls inside and points out that some of the cut crystal and diamonds are in fact cheap glass and cubic zirconia And no I'm not pointing fingers here either, there are many who like to see their side of an argument as being totally bombproof - it seldom is.

Thanks for the conversation.

I do believe that we have deluded some drivers with false propaganda. I do believe that some drivers now consider that their primary duty to road safety is to observe the speed limit. But there's no conflict whatsoever with Safe Speed views. Here's why:

1) The fact that we have poor and stupid drivers AND we already have the safest roads in the world should give us some considerable hope. If our road safety system is already "best" with a bunch of crap drivers, just think how good it can be if we improve the average standard.

2) It isn't about the imperfections in the system of which there are many - it's about making small incremental changes to the system to improve things. We have to nudge it (and keep nudging it) in the right direction. Presently we're tending to nudge it in the wrong direction by giving false messages to drivers.

3) It sounds like a valid objection to suggest that we shouldn't trust crap drivers to drive safely (and frequently, in particular, to set safe and appropriate speeds). But trust them we must - there is simply no alternative, It is our responsibility to make them as trustworthy as possible, and also to create an environment where the odd mistake does not result in immediate death. We've done that - it works almost every time (30,000,000 near misses against 3,500 deaths annually).

4) If we look at crap drivers and speed setting abilities in particular, we soon find that most "excessive speed" crashes take place entirely within the speed limit. If we undermine drivers' abilities to set safe and appropriate speeds, we risk increasing excessive speed" crashes within the speed limit. This appears to be actually happening:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/burbeck.html

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

Perhaps you could point out the flaws in Paul's work, rather than making very vague criticisms.

I reckon we're pretty close to bomb proof for anyone who actually wants to examine the arguments in detail.

If you can find anything at all that might be dubious (let alone incorrect), I want to hear about it. I give you (and everyone else for that matter) my absolute promise to correct any error as soon as possible. Such promises exist on the first page of this web site, and there is even an empty forum topic for just this purpose.

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