Safe Speed Forums

I have looked at this site and forum for some time now and following the Radio 2 showing and hammering that P.Smith took from Gwynneth Dunwoodie I have been prompted to respond to what I think is a fundamental error that P.Smith has made.

In the J Vine show he spoke of the driving public being made to assume that "if they drive at the speed limit they are safe".

Does anybody really thing that the driving population is so dim that this is what they would do. A lot of the safespeed arguments against speed cameras assume this and it has been repeated many time by him.

It is my suggestion that they are not, so they dont, the reduction of the amount of traffic exceding the speed limit would reduce death and serious injuries especially when combined with an improvement in driving standards. There is no way driving standards would be improved to such an extent that speed can be allowed to be at the discretion of the driver judging the conditions so speed limits go some way to helping the poorer or average driver. They cant be so effective if they are ignored.

If they are abolished or speed is left to the judgement of the driver then to get drivers to this standard would mean that many drivers would be removed from the road because from standards I observe on a daily basis they would not have a cat in hells chance of passing the assessment. Just watch the public reaction if this was made policy!!!

Speed limits when observed by the majority of (better if it was all) drivers seem to provide a good palliative measure to reduce the number of serious and fatal stats on the road.

Drivers blindly driving at the speed limit and thinking they are safe. I dont think this is happenning at all. Its nonesense to suggest it is and nonesense to base a whole anti camera campaign on.

You couldn't be more wrong. For a start it's happening everywhere. Haven't you heard people say: "It wasn't his fault, he wasn't exceeding the speed limit?" That's one part of it.

We are gradually replacing essential drivers' judgement with blind obedience. But I don't think this is an effect that all drivers suffer - I certainly don't. The drivers who do are in the (say) bottom 15% of skills and experience - yet these are the ones who most need to reduce speed in areas of danger.

But there's no way on earth that the Safe Speed campaign is "based on" this particular effect. There's an 18 point list of negative side effects arising from speed cameras on this page:

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

For a good summary of Safe Speed's case read this document:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.doc (you will need to follow the references to understand the full argument.)

(edited for typos)

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

Managed to hear most of this programme - as I was taking Wildy to hospital for a scam (Mama to be and "kitten" in great shape so far! )

Ms Dunwoody (who does not drive )- came on after Mr Gifford of PACT and Paulie had finished! She was on about drivers killing children (and no-one else -as as Wildy has already posted on PH - no mention of Green Cross Code to help children and pedestrians cross roads safely



Quote from A&E departments up and down the country "I was not speeding - I checked my speedo" and this is becoming worryingly frequent!

Sadly gameboy - we live in land of numpties - and a lot of numpties are believing that if they drive at the speed limit without any deviation - they will never have an accident.

Sadly gameboy - lot of people are unaware of what the NSL lollipop really means and perceive a speed limit as a target speed

So yes - I would have to agree that there are a lot of wooden tops out there who do just as Mr Smith suggests!

This family had a set to with someone posting as "Annoyed Motorist" on a forum before Xmas. He was bemoaning the fact that old geezer in front was driving at 40mph on 60mph road. He alarmed us by saying he "alleviated his boredom by changing a CD and swigging water" He was most upset when the gang flamed him!

So yes - numpties exist! And contributors to this forum, PH and Mr Smith himself have debated ways to improve numpty behaviour!




Well - we agree on something! We do need to improve driver standards beefore we could even contemplate raising motorway speed limitss to German standards. Most, arguably, would be perfectly safe with limit raised to 80 mph - and thaat would only be to harmonise with rest of Europe!



Paul Smith does not advocate abolishing speed limits. In fact I heard him say as much on the radio show. I would disagree about IAM/RoSPA being able to have "licence to drive faster" as cannot see how that could be administrated - and we cannot restrict numpty from L3 - as he may need it to get out of trouble. But the point is - gameboy - we need to raise the level of our easy peasy L-test and make sure it covers motorway drive, and make a compulsory night drive lesson. Then - we follow through with assessments which we grade for incentive purposes - such as cheaper insurance. That could at least ensure on-going input and conversance with modern safety features in cars. Too many do not know how to use them proplerly



Most are capable. In any case - driving is privilege and not a right. The sooner we all realise this - the better! The assessment path is, in my opinion, the right way because we do not necessarily preclude people from driving - just make in in their best interests to improve themselves as much as possible.

And we need to remove the really dangerous don't we?



But we have scameras all over the place - and nothing is improving. The Swiss do indeed hide theirs. KSIs in Switzerland have not decreased at all. They have remained static though. But - with draconian measures - and they only allow 3mph above a posted across all limits from 20mph to 80mph - one would expect zero accidents! It is not happening - according to Swiss data!

Much better to insist on training - which incidentally - the Swiss are just starting to introduce.

A few contradictions there, methinks

Regards
Peter

Gameboy, welcome to the forums, openly, instead of anonymously, it would appear you are here to have a debate, and you will surely have one.
Unfortunately, I missed the JV show today, despite promising to listen to it, mea culpa.
What the hell Gwyneth Dunwoody was doing on the show, I don't know, she is a non driver, must be missing out in the house, or just jumping on the nearest bandwagon to get some airtime.
There is a huge need to have a debate, not just here, but in the house, but only with ALL the information on the table, not just what the anti car lobby want.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I just listened to it on the web, here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/

The speed camera bit starts about 1h5m in...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

There are unfortunately a lot of people who are fundamentaly unsafe to drive. The 'Maureens' who take 20 odd attempts (I recall a woman who took 40 odd) to pass their driving test are such examples. When the pass their test are they suddenly safe to drive...not bloody likely!
Telling them so, and banning them, is of course a modern taboo akin to questioning their birthright.

So if these, and other numpties, believe that they are driving safely if they are within the limit because thats what the propaganda tells them, how would they react if this idea were removed?
This is where I personally believe a dichotomy exists in the SS argument; if drivers are being suckered into thinking the 'speed limit' is a safe speed to drive at, how can they be trusted to react correctly to other messages? How would they interpret the message that they, not an arbitrary limit set by a local authority, are the ones who should decide what is a safe and appropriate speed for the road and conditions ahead? I suggest that many would mis-interpret this message as well, and drive far too fast.