Safe Speed Forums

We have plenty of drivers who were raised in the belief that we won't stop them no matter how much they speed on a road. Cameras are changing that, as well.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Wrong, they were raised in the belief that the roads they drove on would be policed in an intelligent way with discretion for the time of day, weather conditions, volume of traffic, state of the vehicle, general manner in which it was being driven... There was always the risk of being caught, but at least you knew back then that, unless you happened to be spotted by a complete jobsworth of a policeman, you'd not be pulled unless you were doing something that made you stand out compared to the other traffic around you. We're now raising a generation of drivers who are being conditioned into watching over their shoulders every time they get behind the wheel, just in case there's an automated, unintelligent, discretionless, robot about to ping them for a totally insignificant indiscretion.

However, your comparison is valid in the sense that speed cameras and traffic calming schemes are both having a negative effect on the way all road users behave.

It's a bit cold blooded that, but I can see your point. However, if all humps do is make the traffic (and the problem) go somewhere else then you have to wonder if the effort was worth it. Have a look at these graphs showing the before and after effect of humps on a couple of roads in Portland, Oregon:


First thing to note is that they have only measured number of vehicles and 85th percentile speed. There is nothing to say whether or not driver attentiveness has improved, deteriorated or remained unchanged. Harder to measure I admit, but surely of great interest when considering the safety of road users. Next, look at the changes in traffic volume. The first location ended up with 20% less traffic, the second with 16%. Their summary says "Traffic Calming on Vancouver Boulevard and Baldwin Avenue, has successfully reduced the 85th percentile closer to the posted speed limit and reduced traffic volume on Vancouver Boulevard. These changes have enhanced pedestrian safety around Applegate Elementary School." That may well be true, but we don't know if the redistributed traffic is having the same number of accidents elsewhere.

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

I find whenever I travel over a speed hump that a large amount of my attention goes to the hump itself, as I want to know exactly which moment I am going to be jolted. Looking into the mid - far distance takes a back seat.

I have even tried to consciously not change my attention and drive as if the road had no humps, but I find this very difficult, if not impossible.

It would be folly for someone to cross the road near a hump assuming that drivers were paying attention to anything other than the hump, IMO.

So you don't know then.......I think you have answered my question.
We don't know for sure if humps save lives in the UK.......we do know that they cost lives !

Draw you own conclusions. Where would you focus your resources.??

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It is the automated, unintelligent, discretionless robot which does it's repetitive job in a cheap, non-judgemental, incorruptible and reliable way come rain or shine that is the main advantage! When will you list some negative points?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Meanwhile back in reality...

we have...
Calibraion problems
Radar "shadowing"
Car cloning
Police abuse of the legal process
Incorrectly place cameras
Incorrect signs
etc..etc

incorruptible....if only
Reliable...no chance

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

40,000 for a Gatso, plus all the costs incurred by the SCP office. Might still be cheaper than a fully-trained trafpol, but I'd say the trafpol gave much better value for money.



How can a device which decides whether or not to set the wheels of prosecution in motion be non-judgemental? If it wasn't passing its own judgement on the driving of each vehicle as it went by, no-one would ever be flashed. The difference is, it has no latitude to decide the basis on which it will pass judgement.



As Gizmo suggests, we live in the real world... I suppose it may be possible that you've never heard any of the reports of speed cameras generating incorrect readings leading to innocent, law-abiding motorists being prosecuted. I suspect, however, you know perfectly well that cameras are not the infallible devices you suggest.

For the most part it measures an entirely trival quantity. It sends penalties to people convincing them that they must pay attention to trivial quantities. The vested interests compound the problem by trying to convince everyone that the trivial quantity is in fact vital and exacerbate the distortion. Thousands are dead as a result.

You want more? I got more. Lots more.

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

If this simplistic logic was valid it would mean the death of a 47 year old man is better than the death of a 10 year old child. Remember this, Alexander Fleming was 47 when he discovered Penicillin and as a consequence saved the lives of millions of people across the world of all ages and continues to do so. Hitler almost died as a child, had he done so the world would have been spared 50 million deaths in the second world war.
With the above in mind is it really as simple as basingwerk imagines to value people by age alone.
RJ

_________________
Too much of our money is being wasted on supposed road safety improvements that are actually making driving more dangerous.

Non-speeders derive some benefit from cameras due to reduced risk, but paradoxically, speeders themselves are the main beneficiaries of enforcement, because they are addicts and need help to be weaned off their speed fix. The penalty point system and minor fines help to do this by providing small disincentives and second, and even third chances.

I'd agree that in the initial stages, cameras weren't the cheap option. That is because the money came from central funding. Nowadays, revenue from speeders finances the schemes, which is right because speeders are now paying for their own treatment. Even if (God forbid) cameras were abandoned, the principle of transgressor pays is now so well established that it could be used to finance more sophisticated detection technology without cost to the general tax payer. An almost perfect system!

In my view, it is this aspect of "transgressor pays" that most inflames speed addicts. As with most addicts, they want a free lunch.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Well, Rod, it is not quite so simple as you may think. Think on and you will see that a 10 year old who is saved may become a 47 year old eventually. In other words, if you save a 10 year old, you may be saving a 47 year old as well!

If, on the other hand, you save a 47 year old, that is all you can save. And if you don't know whether the next Fleming is the 47 year old or the 10 year old, your proposition is futile.

In general (although the National Institute of Clinical Excellence will never admit it) we should and routinely do ration on the rule 'maximum years of life'. This is right, because there is no point in wasting resources in a constrained system.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Oh come on. "Speed fix" hardly applies to many people speeders. Doing 60 on a formerly NSL dual carriageway that the PC mob have had reduced to 50 isn't indulging a speed fix. Blipping over the limit because, in the words of the song, your beady eye is on the road ahead isn't indulging a speed fix. Paradoxically the ones who really are getting a speed fix, and like you I wish they'd just go to a theme park or a kart track instead of using public roads, don't seem to worry about cameras much.

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

Why I want to see on-going training - instead of focus on one area of driving.



1. If you have heart attack - speedy approach of ambulance is of paramount importance. Life and death difference.

The life saving equipment in the back of the ambulance does not take kindly to jolts either.

2. If you fall off ladder or downstairs - a break of neck, back, or even leg require smooth transport. You do not get that with road humps.

3. If you have haemorrhage of any kind - speed is necessary to reach you and again a smooth unhindered drive to hospital decides your surivival chances.

4. Illness and Kismet do not respect age, suburbs, road humps or speed cameras. Young and fit, old and weak - all are equally vulnerable.

5. All treatments are rationed - and your NHS treatment takes account of the likelihood to survive and my budget. (My wife is too darned expensive with her "recipes" and "hell brews" as we call 'em! )

But you stand more of a chance if you arrive non-shken up by journey and in reasonable time!



Not much chance of making a packet if

1. You died because the ambulance did not reach until too late, and then jostled you around on way to hospital.

2. If your house burned down because the fire engine got stuck in the chicanes, and had difficulty negotiating speed humps.

3. The burglars manage to leave with all your valuables because the speed humps delayed the police car.

4. The burglars managed to kill you because the speed humps delayed the cop car.....


Think you might find it a bit difficult to sell onces this is made clear to the punters.... whose sports cars dislike speed humps as well.....

Basingmate - I fight for every patient's life. Each one is important - regardless of age, intelligence, profession......

Each patient is important to their family - who want them to survive and not suffer either.

Each patient is important to me because a long time ago - on qualifying I took an oath which I abide by at all times - which was to do my level best to save life and improve health - no matter what.....

I take a lot of things into account when I am deciding course of treatment. My budget... what NHS will allow me to prescribe, quality of life for the patient, patient history, idiosyncrasies, reactions to prescribed drugs... etc, etc....



Too many children die in house fires....almost each report I read in papers cites very young children who dies in these fires.

Children have accidents in the home... can bleed to death in the home. Most road accidents occur near a child's home - they run out from local parks, from between parked cars, fall off bikes, skateboards and hit their heads.

Delay in ambulance/fire engine/plod car from road humps claims their lives.

But on the other side of the coin ... children grow up. We do not know what they will grow up into.....after all our politicians were children once upon a time .... and look what they grew up into ...

I provide basics of good education and guidance for mine. I encourage them to learn, explore, and keep a firm ethical and moral input into their lives. I can only hope I have set them on right path.- and they lead balanced, healthy and useful, productive, enjoyable lives and keep the family name and reputation sound ... I cannot know for sure.....time will tell.....

Burps - that 10 year old could grow up into the next Hitler, terrorist suicide bomber...or develop some kind of fanatical disorder. Middle aged men and women have written books in later life - which we have enjoyed reading.

You do not know who or what that 47 year old has achieved, his knowledge, his contribution to the economy, his family....

The 10 year old may be bright, talented or a chav in the making. We cannot know ... therefore both lives are of equal worth - and we do our best to ensure life goes on ....for them regardless of their age.




Like said in previous post -my mate, have obligation and bounded duty to treat and improve quality of life regardless.

Um... we do take certain things into account when placing on donor list. Prescribed drugs is different. People have this odd idea that latest most expensive is best....

Not so ...... People react differently to different treatments - and they can have adverse reaction to any drug/surgery - no matter the cost.

I take people's medical history into account when I decide on prescribed drugs - as well as what my budget and Trust will allow.

We do have certain issues on availaibility of cancer scans, certain prescribed drugs in some areas ... but these are issues between NHS and the government ---

Similarly, we have issues with Government over prevailing traffic laws and issues over standard of education and university courses, top up fees, etc etc.....

I accept those choices are difficult at many levels, but in essence, it sounds like a COST/QUALITY/PERFORMANCE trade-off. The treatment costs X pounds, and the patient may have Y quality of life for Z years. So then you choose. It is not you who rations care, it is the bigger system, which imposes those constraints on you. I mean, look, the cash doesn't last forever. If we didn't worry about cost, any chance of a positive quality of life for any period might be better than death. But cost is important, because we can only afford a limited number of Mad Moggies.

That must be so because money makes the world go around. We live in a resource constrained world, and money is used to manage that. Gordon Brown cuts you a slice of cash and you do what you can with it. You need more, but so does everyone else. That is just the way it is, and most independent observers of the NHS would not want to throw massive resource into saving a 90 year old (unless it is the Queen?) when there is a shortage for children. I’m not being horrible here, just realistic. There is no place for fuzzy stuff when important things need to be decided. I watch with amusement as NICE turns itself into a pretzel to try not to be seen as a rationing body, when everyone knows that is exactly what it is. Hush, don’t use the R word!

_________________
I stole this .sig

So a speeder speeds because they like speed. Okaaaaaayyyyy. So a speeder who likes doing 80+ on a motorway would also like to do 80+ on any other road given half a chance - if it's just as simple as craving a speed fix, it shouldn't matter what road they use, right? So why is it that the vast majority of "speeders" are people who'll do 70+ on the motorway, only to then get caught out doing little more than the 10%+2 ACPO tolerance on other roads? Surely if they were THAT addicted to speeding, they'd be tearing around all over the place as fast as they could go.

But they don't, do they. When I break the speed limit, I don't do so out of some base desire to obtain a rush, I do so because I feel the limit in force is stupidly low - 70 on a clear motorway in good weather conditions, 40 on a beautifully maintained dual carriageway which used to be NSL, and so on. I DO NOT deliberately speed in built-up areas, or on any road where the legal limit is set at, or higher than, the speed I feel is appropriate at that time. However, nor do I drive on such roads with one eye glued to the speedo to make sure at no point do drift over the limit by even a whisker - I'm far more concerned about looking OUT of the car for genuine hazards to my and other road users safety. And I strongly suspect that the majority of other "speeders" behave in the same way. But all it takes is for one of those short-term non-deliberate overspeed blips to coincide with a camera site and, kerching, you've just been branded a serious criminal, on a par with knife-wielding child-killing thugs.

So yes, there is undoubtedly a hardcore of drivers who do speed for the buzz it gives them, but chances are they won't be the ones that the cameras catch - either they know full well where the fixed sites are and get their fixes on other roads, or they're driving a car with cloned/missing plates, or a car not registered to them, and are thus completely immune to the braindead robot sat by the side of the road.




Unless the person caught speeding by a police officer is a non taxpayer, then they're still helping to pay for their own prosecution. In my view, what most inflames those of us on the anti-camera side of the fence is that the SCPs are funded primarily through the revenue they generate by catching speeders, so they have a very strong interest in catching as many people as they can, and that leads to accusations of foul play.

You need a new keyboard.



It is a sure sign of your addiction that you are in denial!

_________________
I stole this .sig

If we're going to play that game, then are you addicted to heroin?