Safe Speed Forums

Even Manchester Evening News has carried photos of some rather dodgy parking practices of their cam vans... und Ernest has posted up some rather compromosing photos of our submarinated ones in the past.

He tend to like parking in foliage.. near entrances to other junctions.. thus causing a SMIDSY situation. Probably the only hazard in the area ist caused by the van itself parking in such a way as to cause the hazard .. We note they try to conceal themselves. Ist rather pathetic.

If kittens in car .. they pull funny faces at the van. They never seem to target anywhere else .. und now they even wave at us with a smile . But what I cannot get over ist the fact thaat they always zap the car. We are not even speeding anyway. They seem to just point at anything which move without forming any prior opinion of speed of approach in vague hope they get ticket. I do not trust them one little bit... und speed cruise control ist always set on that stretch

_________________
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!

But that remove the skills again... und take away responsibility.

People become over -reliant.

In any case .. satellites can freeze lock .. or not lock at all on high ground .. in passes.. under bridges .. in tunnels.

Und look at the errors in the wars .. those satellite guided bombing raids did not exactly reach the correct target in too many cases

I do not have such blind faith in gadgets.




Und another piece of research found that this starting part was flawed.. BMJ - Pilkington. Not peer reviewed piece by the way.. But basically.. he started off supporting the cameras ..but then found the data collated was too variable und not scientifically consistent enough to make such claims per his follow up piece .... but you now have to pay to view BMJ articles .. or subscribe to view.

Thus.. if the data ist inconsistently collated .. then you cannot base a fair set of stats or any useful information regarding efficacity of these cameras.

Thus you cannot und should not conclude that these gadgets "are useful in saving any lives und build a whole road safety policy upon it"

My work has to be a lot deeper than that.. more detailed with each i dotted ... but then ,.. if I get it wrong .. people would die und firm's reputation on line.. und worse than hell to pay for it.




Because you cannot really accept any of these figures. But you look at what ist really happening .. und you should be intelligent enough to draw your own conclusions.. namely that KSI ist increasing.. appears to be increasing everywhere .. apart from the few regions which rely on policemen still... und driving standards are not very good .. but marginally better in the old fashioned style areas ..

You also look where these yellow tins are situated .. where the vans are.. und observe the silly ways in which they try to conceal.. behind bus shelters.. removing line markings in Lancs for example




You quote a DfT document. Ist going to be biased .. und Pilkington even commented in first article that he could not draw a definite conclusion due to the non-stratified, non -standard data collated for these scameras.

I suggest you read a bit more from other sources




Most are. They are surprisingly well trained und not necessarily out to get you. IG und Ian says a good officer will use judgement und punishment should be last resort when all other measures fail.. or act was so bad that there was no other option open to them




If everyone drive on these roads at 50 mph.. perhaps that ist the limit?

I do not see people driving at more that 35 mph on 30 mph roads up here. 38 mph ist speed cut off for the Lancs course these days now too I see the odd one which I judge to be closer to 40 mph though. I am usually at 27 mph per the origin though!

_________________
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!

That is understandable. Perhaps your hindsight will tell you that you should have simply stated that in a polite manner and rise above it.


Yes you have been relatively calm, but I’m afraid it doesn’t take away from my original point. It is best not to focus on such aggressive responses. Yes you were only responding to a more aggressive post but you are fanning the flames. Your first post in this thread was itself a little strong - interestingly you’ve calmed down a lot since.


In my first post on this thread
You are addressing others members now, I hope we can continue on with informed and polite debate.

Not wishing to steal Roger's thunder but this overlaps something I've already covered:


This is classic RTTM, something I covered in my first post in this thread.
It is a statistical phenomenon which the SCPs knowingly capitalise on to make speed cameras appear much more effective than they actually are.

KSIs used to justify the installation of a camera at such sites are atypical random clusters (of location and time). These clusters are a short term effect, which obviously have a substantially higher casualty rate than the overall long term trend. Hence one can expect a substantial casualty reduction at such sites where there was such an unusual spike, even if no road safety treatments were applied.

Does that make sense to you?

As requested by others and for the sake of forum harmony ill bite my lip on the subject of "insults" and concentrate entirely on the subject matter....




Theres one vital difference between the statistics quoted on this site and from most other sources, ie; from the scp's, pacts, dft etc.

That difference is quite simply that ALL of them are open to public scrutiny.
No hiding behind freedom of info requests needed or payments made for info that should be in the public domain like with the others.
Theres even an honesty page where if you feel something is wrong you can query them for ALL to see.
Youll not find such openess when dealing with any of the other stat peddlers, as no discussions are allowed or will be entered into.
Do an FOI for "hard to get" info off of any of the scammers, pacts or dft, trl etc...its like milking a gnat.

So you see, not only am i a little sceptical, cynical even (No!? Me?) of what "they" say im firmly of the opinion that they cant be trusted to give an accurate and unbiased response as theyre operating from a position of hidden motives, all backed up by the failure to answer searching questions. The opposite cannot be said for this site, its as open as youll ever see.
The "thing" they fear the most is the truth, because once it becomes widely accepted that what theyve been doing has had no positive effects on the roads, given the amount of deaths still ocurring, then theyre finished, and they dont want that, theyre making a good living out of prosecuting ordinary drivers doing ordinary speeds.
How many of the scp have a vested interest in keeping this scam going?
All of them. If deaths and injuries ceased overnight, theyd have no reason to exist, do you think theyre going to allow that? Never, its money for old rope..."buckets of money".

Oh btw, "the one third lie". Its a lie that the whole speed camera policy edifice is founded on, "a third of accidents are caused by speed".
The dft had been questioned on this repeatedly and always stuck by its claim until a while back when it was quietly dropped, thats the reason people were believing they hype, only thing is it wasnt and isnt true.
Check the site, check the facts, ask the questions, then try it with the opposition and see where it gets you.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I have just trawled through some of the statements by DeltaF and the other guy and quite frankly I am amazed you 2 took up so much time debating the pros & cons of speed cameras and trading insults when there is a simple and logical argument to all this and for EVERYONE to drive as the highway cade says and quote "Drive at the right speed for the prevailing road conditions at the time" because to travel @ 25mph in a built up area at say 0830 in the morning MIGHT be far too fast for the traffic density but to travel at the same speed at say 8.30 pm would be totally legitimate due to low traffic volume !
But as we know in the real world that will never happen!
Another thing you have not pointed out is that (as a HGV1 Driver with over 30 years experience and I am not be condescending with that statement) I drive a 44 tonne vehicle and it is fitted with "cruise control" but to also make things easier (sic) for me I also have a "Manual Speed Limiter" fitted which means that I can SET the MAXIMUM speed I can drive at, say 40mph for example on a single carriageway (40 for HGV,s & national limit of 60mph) and unlike "Cruise Control" I can,t overide it except by re-setting the max speed or turning it off (whereas cruise control can BE overidden by pressing the accelarator pedal) a simple question is "WHY DON,T CAR MANUFACTURERS FIT THIS SYSTEM?
Put simply if a "manual limiter" is fitted to a car it then renders useless the argument that to concentrate on the "speedo" removes concentration on what you should be doing i.e. concentrating on the road ahead !
Obviously anything that HELPS to reduce the risk of breaking speed limits is a bonus because as one of you said (and I have also said previously) the "PERSISTENT SPEEDER" is the one who will always speed irrespective of what equipment you put on the road including more traffic police (albeit YES we do need more traffic police to be a VISIBLE DETERRENT because as I have again said cameras DO NOT CATCH BAD / DRUNK DRIVERS or UNINSURED VEHICLES POLICE DO!
Speed cameras only catch drivers who may have strayed over the limit for approx 1/2 second in a poss. 20 yd stretch of road and they might not be over the limit for the rest of the section they are in!
To quote a well known saying "There but for the grace of god go I!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

Spannernut

I'd be perfectly happy with a manual speed limiter, so long as I can override it pretty damn quickly (a button perhaps?) on the odd occasion that my need to stay alive overrides my desire to obey an arbitrary speed restriction.

The extra time it would take you to override a manual speed limiter in order to feed your need to stay alive could be the difference itself between whether you live or die.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Stormin, whilst I can certainly see the pros to a manual speed limiter (correct me if I am wrong here anyone), doesn't the Renault Laguna have such a system? Certainly one can be assured that the vehicle will go no more than the prescribed max, regardless of how much lead is in ones boots, allowing the driver to observe the road rather than the speedo.

Possibly a moot point in a 44 tonner, however, do you ever find that you tend to lapse into foot planted to the floor driving? Knowing that you can't exceed the prevailing limit, but is that limit safe at present.

Big Caveat - not suggesting that you would do this, kind of a hypothetical question.

Manual speed limiters are fairly widely available now, especially it seems on French cars. The Citroën C4 has one as standard, and you can get them as options on Clios and 207s (standard on high-end variants).

Of course they're not much use when your journey takes you through a speed limit change every mile or so, which is often the case.

And if you set it at 30 because your journey is entirely in 30 limits, might it not encourage you to drive at 30 when not appropriate - which would be a far bigger problem if speed limiters were mandatory.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Another night, another headache! I will respond, but the quality here deserves considered responses - which it is getting from others (and will from me I hope in due course).

To answer the moot point 1st yes I do actually drive with the proverbial "boot on floor" as you say simply because as the limiter is set manually I cannot override it without re-setting or switching off and to answer the point about the ability to (should the need arise) clod it to get out of a situation then the answer is with a 44 tonne vehicle you (hopefully) won.t be in that position as you will just not have the power to do it even unladen at approx. 16 tonnes.
With a car though that is a different scenario completely but put simply the idea of using the limiter is to ensure you don,t exceed the limit which also gives you time toswitch off the limiter as and when required purely because you will be spending more time concentrating on the road and prevailing traffic conditions which has the knock on effect of not having to watch your speedo consistently to ensure you don,t "unintentionally" exceed the limit and therefore it is one less problem to have to deal with!
I would say like all gadgets and gizmos there are pros and cons but in my view anything that can improve road safety by whatever means must be a bonus but no doubt someone will find drawbacks as well.
As a member of the IAM (tests passed Car/ M/Cycle/ HGV) I do fully understand the "need" on occasions to use speed as a method of passing someone quickly and safely and "making progress without being a danger to others" as on my M/Cycle test I always remember what my examiner said when I passed his "Golden Rule" was if you have to say "Can I , Can,t I yes I can" twice in a situation you are to late to carry out the manouevre!

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

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

Spannernut

Hi jr.. I think I already answered you as ricky

Just to re-iterate...

We do not have forests of speed cameras in our patch. but we do have one van and all cars in the fleet are well equipped

We tend to go after the most dangerous first... and sometimes we even pull someone travelling at an inappropriately low speed too. Depends on the situation and what we see and observe.. but generally .. we will go for the most dangerous first and perhaps have a little word or two with those who will benefit from such a tug.

We call it professional judgement. Usually - we have made up our minds within the first two seconds of a pull as to how we will be dealing with it in any case.

I can assure you that "no one pulls the wool over any eyes or doo-dahs in the cars here" .. We have a good safety record and crime solving record too. We intend to keep it that way .. and do it OUR way .. nice,m easy old fashioned, tried, tested and true! Plenty of COAST lectures delivered too


As for speed limiters.. like any other gadget in the car - you have to use them wisely and not be lulled into any false sense of security. I do have a little gadget in our private cars which bleeps at schools and black spots. It also .. er .. does bleep at the odd speed camera .. but I like it because if in a strange place.. it will bleep up to a mile away from any school I can also set this same gadget to bleep at an overspeed too. It does not limit the speed, but does keep the control and responsibility firmly in the hands of whoever is driving our private family car (me, wife or our young driver kids)


Work wise.. Well it is calibrated ... I am on "business" .. but that only means I can speed if emergency dictates .. but NOT otherwise... and most certainly NOT to get me doughnut and chinese takeaways

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

All very good, but:
The safety camera partnerships hold themselves above the law.
It has long been held (I think this is right) that posting a summons is taken by a court as proof of service.
Identifying yourself may, or may not (it has not been decided yet by the euro court of human rights) be a legal requirement.....to date, you are required to identify WHO THE DRIVER WAS by law. If it was yourself, you may have a case to fight with, but if anyone else, you don't.
In the US you are in conflict with a system based on the citizens rights being held above those of the state. We have a system (now) that holds that the SUBJECTS rights are subservient to the requirements of the state.
You can take your pick here...we are either subjects of the monarch, or european citizens. The state picks whichever suits it at the time.

It is unfortunate that the SCPs only need proof of service, not reception.
You may even find yourself setup where they can gain proof of reception (has already happened).

Failure to return the NIP with the appropriate detail is a separate offence.

"piratenews" was a spammer. Now deleted.

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

How on earth can that be legal? I've had 'dealings' with the local council and when they said they sent me a letter have had to back down as they have no proof of receipt. The post office won't give a 100% guarantee on delivery of normal mail - every few years a rogue posty seems to turn up with a house full of undelivered mail. It would be interesting in a courtcase to call the local Royal Mail manager to confirm that delivery is 99% (or whatever the figure is). I can't see where that would leave the court go in relation to proof. If the company charged with delivery can't say 100% they delivered how can proof of service stand? This way madness lies.

Barkstar

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

Service of summons, requisition etc.
(1) Service of a summons issued by a justice of the peace or service of a requisition by a public prosecutor on a person other than a corporation may be effected –
(a) by delivering it to the person to whom it is directed;
(b) by leaving it for him with some person at his last known or usual place of abode; or
(c) by sending it by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known or usual place of abode.

So, though the chances are slight, if goes missing, or they have the wrong address (You moved), or the posty put t through the wrong letterbox, or its a communal letterbox and someone accidently picks it up, you're liable for not answering the summons and all the aggro that can bring you. That is just plain wrong.

And if it ever happened to me I'd call that Royal Mail manager as a defence witness - anything less than 100% guarantee on delivery (ie put in your hand or you signed for it) simply isn't good enough for this sort of thing.

Barkstar

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

Welcome to the desert of the real.