Safe Speed Forums

I have no idea who anyone is here, the arguments presented ought to stand or fall on their own merits. I merely posited that it is unlikely that a real, serving police officer would be so profoundly ignorant about the law. Cyclists cannot have points added to their driving licence even if they cycle past Her Majesty firing laser death rays at the corgis whilst drunk, on fire, cycling the wrong way up a one-way street with no lights, brakes, clothes or eyesight.



If you disagree then feel free to explain why in gear is right.

I agree that all road users who break the law should be punished in the manner laid down by parliament. But you cannot put points on the driving licence of someone who, quite legally, does not possess a driving licence.

The concept would punish cyclists who are also motorists more severely than cyclists who are not also motorists. That's why it's a load of untrue bollocks that any real copper would know was a load of untrue bollocks.

They are to 'blame', strictly speaking they contributed to their own demise; the graph shows this. I have never said anything to the contrary. your misrepresentation knows no bounds does it!


Related does not mean implicated. When someone fails to judge the speed of a vehicle which is travelling within the limit and in a predictable manner, it does not mean the vehicle speed was a contributory factor, in fact it won't be.
For anyone to say it is is illogical disconnect of breathtaking proportions, or simply disengenuous behaviour!


That's because they were not asked. The pro-camera lobby are very well known for asking loaded questions.
Do you believe residents would have different feelings if they were asked to differentiate between boyracers/joyriders and those who accidentely creep above the limit (the latter especially within non-residential areas).


Boy racers have been defined IMO; I doubt many would disagree.
It is my opinion that the few boy racers/joyriders are massively over represented in terms of perceived annoyance, threatening and intimidating behaviour.
You are free to try to prove or reason otherwise.


No I don’t, I only have to demonstrate that most speeding is a minor infraction (detection and penalty rate is irrelevant).
Are most drivers likely to want to partake in behaviour which is dangerous to themselves and others?
Are drivers most likely to go faster through busy crowded streets, or on clear fast roads?
7+ mph on fast clear roads (where drivers are most likely to go fast) is a minor infraction.


Residents are indeed annoyed by boy racers/joyriders who wantonly speed; they are not annoyed by those doing 80mph on motorways and DCs.


I haven't said B is untrue, I've agreed with it all along; this is more misrepresentation on your part. I merely differentiated accidental creepers (and within non-residental areas) from boyracers/joyriders who indeed wantonly speed in residential areas (yet again you ignore that critical differentiation).

Isn’t it funny how those who are pro-camera are those who so repeatedly and so blatantly misrepresent figures and statements?
Note how I directly quote and address statments, but the behaviour is never returned!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Please feel free to do so.

Sixth time.

This means nothing. On what type of roads were these cameras triggered: motorways or residential areas?
This doesn't detract from my point, boyracers/joyriders are most likely to be noticed by those irritated, threatened and annoyed, certainly more so than those who accidentally and momentarily creep slightly above the limit – certainly per offence. Do you disagree with that?


Causality!

Errrm, exposure?
The more drivers drive, the more likely they are to be caught above the limit (all else equal) due to increased exposure.
The more drivers drive, the more likely they are to be involved in an accident (all else equal) due to increased exposure.
So much for that correlation!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Certainly, since, despite repeated requests you have failed to demonstrate that most speeding penalties are imposed for momentary lapses, and because the ACPO guidelines specifically exclude such minor infractions.



Can you show me where in the report it says anything about drivers with higher mileage being more likely to receive speeding tickets? Here's a clue- it doesn't, you've plucked that out of thin air.



And, despite seven polite requests, you have failed to do so. Minor infractions are not detected , nor do they receive a fpn. This doesn't mean it has zero negative impact.

This ... was ... my ... point !
Yes it wasn't accounted for, yet it's pretty obvious is should be, yes?
Until it is accounted for no one can make a direct link between detection and accident involvement, yes?



Most drivers likely to want to partake in behaviour which is dangerous to themselves and others.
Drivers most likely to go faster through busy crowded streets, or on clear fast roads.
7+ mph on fast clear roads (where drivers are most likely to go fast) is a minor infraction.

Either rebut or accept them.


7MPH+ is indeed detected and people are FPNed for it. The creep is less on slower roads.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

stevegarrod wrote:

So they don't get a fpn below 10%+2 do they ?
They do in Lancashire! Speed awareness is an ALTERNATIVe to prosecution! i.e. ACPO guidelines (That LRSP operate under, well documented 10%+2)
and they don't get prosecuted neither do they!!!
Read on and stop talking Garbage!


http://archive.asianimage.co.uk/2006/1/19/882906.html

http://www.southportforums.com/forums/s ... p?p=638810


http://www.southportforums.com/forums/s ... p?p=638810
Plait your sawdust over these two instances!

Steve, unless you have data that shows what the average percentage above the posted limit is when a driver is caught speeding it is impossible for you to assert that the vast majority of speeding penalties are for minor infractions.

yimitier, as I explained, you keep posting a CLAIM that someone got a fpn for driving at 31mph in a 30mph zone.

My mate claims he's shagged Denise Van Outen, doesn't make it true.

stevegarrod wrote:

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS YOU KEEP COMPANY WITH!
& extremely uncouth!
However court records indicate differently!

You haven't linked to court reports, you've linked to an anonymous geezer on a forum who claims he got a fpn for doing 31mph in a 30mph zone.

I place as much creedence in your 'evidence' as I do in my mate's boast that Denise likes to have her Hawaiian Love Muscle twanged from behind.

stevegarrod writes:


Your explanations are not worth a carrot without support!
They are just your opinion!
8 court appearances are recorded and can easily be shot down.
So....................
YOU contact the publications,
You get evidence to support your unfounded opinions and blow these CLAIMS out of the water.
It's easy!
I await your investigations of these published claims.
Until then I and many others will believe them.
However both gentlemen that took/paid the SAC can easily be traced through the records held at LCC and should not prove a difficulty to somebody with your vast experience & undoubted connections!

Uh?

You made a claim.

I asked you to back it up.

You posted a link to a forum where someone makes a similar claim.

I point out that this is a long way from verifiable proof that you're right.

You respond that it's up to me to prove your claim??!!

There is no data (not that I have found anyway), but I have explained the reasoning for my claim; the lack of data doesn't invalidate my reasoning. You are free to rebut that reasoning.

The lack of data for RTTM didn't make that effect (or argument explaining it) any less valid either!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

stevegarrod writes:

1. you can't link to court records.(Edited: UNLESS YOU ARE POLICE CONNECTED!)
2. 2 GEEZERS (Your description very copper like) 33mph & 34mph, the latter conned into supporting the SAc when he didn't even qualify! 35mph ONLY in Lancashire!
3. your mate obviously gets some strange thrills probably rolling up the left leg whilst bearing his chest and declaring allegience to some obtuse wood GOD!
You should really keep better company!
Please read the replies to your fantasies FULLY!

Thanks.

With the fact in mind that there is no data available as far as we know, can you explain why you're repeated seven times now your contention that 'most' speeding convictions are the result of' minor infractions'?


It's a central tenet of your argument, yet you have nothing to back it up, which leads me to conclude that you made it up to mitigate drivers' culpability, I'm happy to be proved wrong if can produce anything that supports your claim.

Unless you can show that most speeding penalties are indeed for minor breaches then I can't understand why you keep saying they are!

steve:
You have been asked several times:


I'm not sure of the ACTUAL source but LINDA SANDERSON LRSP Communications Officer has gone on record as saying:

I'm sure the Partnership that operates the Camera Scheme in Lancashire would not LIE! Would you.
However others just might.............................

Yes, and I have, repeatedly. Here it is again:

Most drivers likely to want to partake in behaviour which is dangerous to themselves and others.
Drivers most likely to go faster through busy crowded streets, or on clear fast roads.
7+ mph on fast clear roads (where drivers are most likely to go fast) is a minor infraction.

The data being unavailable doesn't invalidate my reasoning (which does indeed back it up).
Likewise you have nothing to disprove it, but unlike me, you haven't logically reasoned against my explanation, nor have you given an opposing one.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

stevegarrod wrote:

Well you won't have will you?

Only two days on safespeed as a member(THIS TIME) now with 53 inflammatory postings, you can't have any time for research!

stevegoddard:
He seems to be a stats man.
Here's a few:
joined (THIS TIME)April 27 12.14pm.
Last post April 28 12.26 pm
24 hours 53 posts
roughly 20 minutes a post reading, digesting, typing, posting, etc
17.5 hrs
sleeping say 6 hrs he gets up early.
total 23.5hrs.
No food no social life etc.
Hardly time to take a CR*P.
OH sorry he doesn't need that!
HE JUST SPREADS IT ALL OVER SAFESPEED!