Safe Speed Forums

Yes - for a moment I rather thought you might be tired and I had you but again, you want prosecution to be based on per-case specifics rather than a general catch-all speed limit rule. I'm sorry you are furious, but you can see that if speed limits are productive when enforced intelligently, then it is easy to extend that to 'consistently', because it is hard to enforce limits inconsistently AND intelligently at the same time, depending what you mean by "intelligently".

_________________
I stole this .sig

Because whenever there is an incident involving a train or aircraft the media goes on a story grabbing frenzy.
What happened?
Who is at fault?
Why could this happen?
Why isn't it safer?
Who can be the first to find a greiving relative who wants to sue, sue, sue.

Concorde was effectively talked out of the skies by a hysterical media that gorged in the aftermath of one utter tradegy as if it was inevitable that one of these 'ancient machines' (they were built in the 60's you know, most cars are long on the scrap heap after such a length of time) would eventually wind up this way.
Meanwhile the public seems to have little pity with those on whom the unrelenting beam of publicity centres, demanding that heads must roll.
Yet some chap runs off the road in his landrover whilst utterly knackered and the tune changes. Uh oh, the public thinks to itself, I can relate to that, go easy on him eh?
The hypocrisy is pathetic.

Chainsaws? "As dangerous"?

Are you sure the pedestrians aren't wielding red herrings?



Anything?

Domestic accidents?
Smoking?
Alcohol?
Mountain climbing?
Medical accidents and MRSA?

And that's just off the top of my head.

But even that is completely irrelevant. Why? Because we are all agreed that we'd like safer roads. We're discussing how that might best be achieved.

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

We have at least one current and active opposition in regard to speed cameras and I do not believe he has been met with distrust and derision because he provides balanced views and is prepared to listen to the us even though he supports cameras. I am talking of lawman of course and he, unlike yourself, is warmly welcomed to this forum.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Sorry, I can't see the link at all. How can the two be incompatible? You argue that:
:? You're introducing an assumption here that driving is fundamentally unsafe, or at least more so than dozens of other activities. It's an assumption that can be either spot on or a million miles off depending on the individual and their driving.
Perhaps, but is risk taking the only form of enjoyment? If you believe that then you are lumping the careful driver who likes to go for a spin (no, not literally ) with the zit faced No Fear stickered hot hatch owner who canes it up and down the road. I can only speak for myself but I really don't need to have taken unnecessary risks on a drive to have made it enjoyable. If anything a near miss spoils it, so I drive in a way that (hopefully) will be incident free.
Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong adverts, because I just don't see that. A lot of ads and cars seem to be pitched at the terminally married and sprogged up. "Fit even more kids into our latest model, with easy PukeAway upholstery coating as an optional extra" ... okay, an exaggeration, but you get the picture. Car ads now seem to have got all p.c. and fluffy. It's not the 70s anymore. "The car you always promised yourself" has given way to more practical things like economy and safety.
As for being potentially dangerous machines, what machine isn't potentially dangerous when misused? Not many. It's not as if the motor trade are actually promoting misuse of their products. They are promoting them for what they are - a means of transport.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think that's a bit strong. You may not agree with basingwerk often, or ever - but he's entitled to express his views. Mostly he does so reasonably and courteously - even if the substance of his remarks is infuriatingly irrelevant.

Observer's right, Ross. basingwerk ain't so bad. I even agree with him on a few things, just 47,982 to go . Besides, we've caught ole' BW using terms like pratnership and scamera. Either he's coming round to our arguments or we're having a bad influence.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

When I say "intelligent" in this context, I'm really talking about assessment of risk with regard to the conditions. Only those cases involving risk are worth pursuing.

But I think the problem really is in consistency.

You think "consistent" relates to the number of miles per hour over the limit.

I think consistent requires estimation of the risk in the circumstances.

Do you really find it consistent to enforce at 36mph on a wide suburban road outside a school at both 3.45am and 3.45pm?

I find it absurd. We're going to make 3.45pm traffic faster and 3:45am traffic slower. It's anti-safety and anti-utility.

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

Sorry Ross, can't agree here. You only joined in November after all; it's not up to you to say who is and isn't welcome anymore than it is up to me.

Quite easily. This forum exists, predominantly, because of the presence of speed cameras on our roads. Opponents believe they constitute a road safety hazard (for various reasons), the government and partnerships believe they aid road safety.
Both sides want safer roads (only a real hard-nosed cynic would believe the partnerships want otherwise), one is wrong at least in part. Thus, both want safer roads but by their diametrically opposed views, both cant have it.

You've shown your colours, BW. Your first priority isn't safety. You are mainly interested in social engineering - mistrusting of the abilities of the man or woman in the street, and giving up on the need (or not willing to invest in the resources) to improve the general level of competence.

Your talk of 'motor lobby' and your nanny-state thinking proves this! You seem to have an irrational prejudice (equating motoring enthusiasts with unsafe driving) and wish to punish and regulate the subjects of your prejudice.

I disagree. The partnerships may have TWO aims, one of which they allege is safer roads, but the only one they are committed to in documentation is raising a 5% surplus over expenditure - the latest ACPO handbook says so!

As to which is the higher priority?? Well, let's just say that a partnership that turns in a loss will be disbanded regardless of any safety improvements, under the current guidelines.

A target figure of cost+5% seems OK if it costs 5% overhead on top of partnership admin to run this. In fact, a target of 5% operating margin is pretty good by most standards, given that some will go under if they fail the test - 0% to 5% is a narrow band. So taking that into account, the overall figure seems as near to cash neutral as you can get without undue risk of going under. No tax bailouts!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Umm, that can't be right, can it? People were opposed to the mandatory wearing of seatbelts, but the seatbelt doesn't care if you like it or not, it'll do its job just the same in an accident. Get the right safety systems in place, and whether you like them or not they should work just the same. So it should be possible to get safer roads for everyone, no matter what their individual opinions are as to the best way to achieve it.

Well surely further proves my point! People may have been opposed to seat belts but they (in their own minds at least) will at the same time have wanted the roads to be safer surely?
The govenrment also wants safer roads and decided that imposing a mandatory seatbelt wearing law was one way to achieve this.
So the aim is the same - wanting safer roads. Do we achieve this by wearing or not wearing seatbelts? One view is correct, the other not, both cannot be right.
Ergo, wanting and having safer roads are not necessarily compatible if the methodology chosen proves to be incorrect.

NB: The last bit is the important part, I don't wish to argue the minutae of seatbelt wearing as its only acting as a vehicle through which to demonstrate the point.

Within an extremely narrow remit. A distinct lack of accountability then when it comes to overall savings on the Treasury with regards to healthcare post incident, and to the economy as a whole in terms of loss to the workforce, delays due to accident clear-ups, insurance claims etc. etc. etc.

I don't give a flying fig about cash neutrality of the partnerships if their overall benefit within these other areas is negligable, or indeed detrimental.

I go back to my point about investment in genuine improvements, rather than looking for something for nothing.

Speed cameras are a relatively inneffective solution to road safety. They are, however politically and fiscally expedient.

Priorities??!!

Exactly the point I was making, and exactly not the point I thought you were making before Absolutely, pick the right method (or the least worst of those that are available), and everyone should benefit. The problem is in deciding which method is best, without allowing all the various personal biases, pressure from interest groups, and the desire to avoid government/authority embarrassment by potentially having to reject something which has previously been pushed as the holy grail of road safety, to interfere with the decision making process...

I’d like to see an 80mph limit for motorways (even a trial period), with routine enforcement by cameras in the 90+ range. FWIW I think that even now, cameras should enforce only the higher speeds (90+) on our motorways and allow us to deal with whatever offences below (and above) those speeds. I think this would allow our competent considerate drivers to make safe progress, (as I said earlier on another thread, an 85mph driver concentrating fully will not cause an accident on a motorway). This slight discretional shift would in my view have several benefits.

It could enable the concentrating safe driver not to feel too hampered by the 70mph regime on a quiet motorway.
It would encourage a sense of individual responsibility in many of our better drivers, who feel that some of that has been taken from them.
It could reduce the effects and frequency of aggressive tailgating
It would enhance the PR of the camera partnerships.

In my opinion this slight relaxation could allow a little less journey stress, because there is the opportunity for some reasonable progress to be made when it is safe to do so. This in turn might make our drivers slightly less pressurised on the less safe roads which form part of their planned journey.
I agree with an earlier poster that it’s an impossible task even for police, nevermind cameras to conduct fully intelligent enforcement. The Bib often does not know how safe a driver is if he is travelling in a straight line at a high speed. We’d love to have a crystal ball in our kit! The cameras don’t know either, but there could be a vast difference in the safety spectrum between two people who on the face of it are committing an identical offence.
I believe that there is a dual responsibility with the enforcers and educators to recognise this wide ranging ability, but at the same time there is a requirement for responsibility among the better drivers to accept the limitations of the enforcers for the greater road safety benefit.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

In principle I have no problem with that concept, and indeed that is how it used to work before the consensus was broken by the twin policy of zero-discretion camera enforcement and constantly reduced speed limits of the past ten or so years. I don't see that the cause of genuine road safety is served by people bragging about doing 130 mph on public roads (even if, under some limited circumstances, that may not be particularly dangerous).

However if the better drivers are to accept the limitations of the enforcers, then those limitations must be perceived as reasonable, and in particular must not be seen as being driven by what is fundamentally an anti-car rather than pro-safety agenda.

Also there is a widespread perception that enforcement activity too often seems to be targeted on the better drivers who maybe push the envelope of acceptability a bit, rather than the worse drivers, whose speeding may be less in percentage terms but in far less appropriate locations. An example of this is the way Talivans so often seem to be placed on bypasses and rural main roads rather than on urban streets.

_________________
"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

Some contributors to this thread (well, one in particular) would hold that these aims are one-and-the-same, arguing that cars are dangerous and therefor lessening their use is pro-safety, while ultimately disguising a prejudice against those who see good driving as a skill to be proud of.

Hijacking one aim in order to promote another!