Safe Speed Forums

Hello,

why do you guys have a problem with speed cameras?

There are over 3,000 people killed on the UK's roads each year. If 25% of those have speed as a factor, then that's 750 lost lives simply due to driving too fast. Even if it's only 10%, then that's still 300. And this isn't counting all the accidents resulting in serious injuries, ruining someone's life.

So assuming that you agree with having speed limits, then surely they have to be enforced somehow? And let's not get into the silly "so you think that driving 1mph over the limit is dangerous do you" argument, because there is always leeway given. But if we are going to have speed limits then there has to be a cut-off point. And if the speed limit is to be enforced, it's either going to be done by the police or by speed cameras. Bearing in mind that cameras (or scameras as a lot of you 'wittily' put it) work 24 hours, 7 days a week, then I'm sure they're going to be cheaper to pay for than police officers.

Now at this point I'm sure a lot of you will be dying to point out that cameras don't deal with other motoring offences. Which is why we need traffic police. And in my opinion a lot more of them. But that's the good thing about cameras - they free up the police to deal with other offences.

I'm a motorist. I drive in an area with lots of speed cameras. But I've never had any speeding fines. How have I managed it? What is the secret to my success? I keep to the speed limit. I'm sorry to be patronising but, well, in all seriousness, I genuinely can't understand how people get caught by yellow speed cameras. As for the police, because I generally keep to the limit, when I do stray up I'm still within the tolerated margins.

I actually think that speed cameras are great. If you're breaking the limit then you get punished. No nodding your head attentively at a lazy police officer who can't really be bothered to do anything. And I hardly think a £60 fine and 3 points (if that is what it still is) is a big deal anyway. We are incredibly lax about motoring offences in this country. And the money raised is tiny compared to the amount raised by fuel duty and car tax; about 0.1% I believe it said in a Times article. Having said that, because people get distracted by the money issue, I think that the fine should be dropped and the number of points given increased instead.

Finally, when you talk about driving at a safe speed, I (and I strongly suspect many, many others) simply don't believe the implication that you mean driving slower than the speed limit half the time and faster the other half, but actually faster than the speed limit 99 times out of a hundred.

Oh, just remembered - which party do you all support? I just want to know so that I can avoid voting for them!

Hello - and welcome.

Let me first of all say that we all agree that deaths on the road should be reduced, preferably eliminated. Let me also say that NONE of the core membership/supporters of SafeSpeed condone law breaking, nor wish to see speed limits abolished, nor wish to see the arm of enforcement (by trafpol) removed.

However, ask yourself this: A hazard as you drive along in front is developing, which (for whatever reason you cannot at this stage see). It is a known spot for problems, so a speed camera has been erected to enforce speed limit compliance. Where would the driver's eyes be best placed approaching this developing hazard. At the speedo a few times to ensure compliance with the limit, or up ahead throughout, even if the speed limit is being nudged by a little?

I will turn now to your points paragraph by paragraph, and hopefully give you a little food for thought. I have included the whole of your post for completeness in the text below.

Hello

In a nut shell, because they are increasing (in real terms) the death toll on our road, for a multitude of reasons, side effects if you like.
Every collision involves speed - momentum. However, free travelling speed and impact speed thanks to braking etc are vastly different. Nobody on here condones driving too fast for conditions, ie, exceeding a speed in a given situation where one can comfortably stop within the distance one knows to be clear. The report from which you quote has so much spin in it it is almost dizzy! Others will drop links to the analyses that have been carried out without the spin, but the long and short of it is that, of the 25% "too fast", only 3% were actually too fast and in excess of the speed limit. Too many, but only 3%. The other 97% (of the 25%) were too fast, but within the speed limit. Cameras will not catch such bad behaviour. What they will do is distract the driver who is already being foolhardy.
It is under 3%.

Absolutely they have to be enforced, but with appropriate discretion. Cameras cannot do that.Sure they can be set at a numerical value some distance above the posted limit, but this is not the discretion to which I am referring. I am referring to discretion taking everything into account. Take an example of a camera placed on a road that is 40 mph, and traffic has built up behind a slow-moving vehicle (say 25mph). An opportunity to overtake presents itself and one marches swiftly by. perhaps touching 50, then returning to just under 40. Provided the overtake is otherwise carried out corredctly and with due regard for hazards, this is the discretion to which I am referring. A camera would have copped the overtaker, yet a discerning police officer may judge this sensible and carry on with his duties.

On the same road, the traffic coming the other way and activity at the side of the road may be high, with ptotential risks of carriageway incursion. Travelling along at 45 - still within the camera's "discretion", may well be absolutely too ofast for the conditions (perhaps 25 - 30 may be right taking everything in to consideration). A traffic officer would rightly stop this and have words, and have the option of prosecuting under the absolute speeding offence depending on how the stop progresses.

This is the camera's argument, not ours. Whatever number it is set to, 35, 36, 38.... exceed it, no matter how safe, and land a ticket. Stay below it, no matter how dangerous, and do not land a ticket (although possibly risking life and limb).

From a safety perspective, the cut-off point is so very dependent on conditions.
In numerical (£) terms, yes, but in life terms, sorry, no. Enforcement by camera is so laced with side effects....

Correct - and I agree with your opinion that we need more.
Another camera side effect. What's actually happened is that the camera has displaced traffic police in several areas on to non-traffic duties. Accordingly traffic policing (and all the culture messages) have a speed limit bias. Gone is the education we used to benefit from by class 1 police presence and exemplery driving.
A few questions:
1) Do you do this because you can tell the speed (numerically in mph) that you are progressing at in your car, or do you regularly look at the speedo?
2) What about when you are in a strange (to you) car?
3) Do you believe your driving would change for the better or for the worse, or not change at all, if the speedo were not there?
Most don't. Most see them and either brake autonomously to a speed lower than they were travelling at irrespective of what that was and the posted limit, punctuating laminar flow and causing bunching. Often this will be accompanied by long periods of speedo-gazing.

The tolerated margins by police are sadly tending to emulate those set in the machines, ie, they are converging from the condition-dependent wide range of latitudes varying from 0 up to perhaps 30% above in a blip) to the rigid ACPO guidelines. Further delivering the totally fallacious and dangerous message that travelling at the speed limit is always safe.

They are catchnig the wrong people.
The precious few I know do not fit this mould.
I agree. However, the little penalty goes further to enforce the wrong message as well as causing much resentment.
Agreed. I would like to see a more appropriate enforcement of things like dangerous parking, construction and use offences with bad lighting, fog lights left on etc etc.
Again I say, the wrong people are getting caught and such an action will further enforce the wrong message that numerical speed is more important than safe speed for conditions (which of course it is not).

For my part, it typically means travelling slower than the posted limit in towns and on busy roads, and at or a bit above the posted limit on open roads in good light traffic conditions. Since I do most of my motoring on the open road, I'm proably nearer the 99% figure. Others (and me too if I change my regime) may be the other way around.

That has been discussed in the past. You'll find that of those who declared it was split pretty much in accordance with the national split.

Hi jr135 welcome to the site

If you take time to read and understand the Safespeed web site. You may begin to understand the problems many on this forum have with "Safety Cameras".



You will find all the main political parties supported by the members on this site. So I hope you are happy voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party

Hi jr135,

The only thing I could add to Roger's reply is that there is a distinct difference between how people should drive and how they do drive. OK, this may appear to be a rather trite remark and its an argument we can carry too far. But with millions of motorists showing little if any sign of modifying either their attitude towards speed cameras or their behaviour (in a positive direction) when driving around them, then one has to ask whether they really are working?

Edit - For an example of this see Scanny's entry, which he must have been preparing at the same time as mine, below...

although Roger seems to have nailed it, i would like to add a relevant example to the debate.

M9 j1 (newbridge roundabout)
2 lane motorway which is the safest type of road in the country but the inclusion of a speed camera underneath the junction between the offslip and onslip causes great danger. its a 50 limit due to the offslip before the junction which creates a third lane for approx 1/4 of a mile at the end of which becomes the offslip for junction 1.
this is the reality of it:
drivers who are both familiar with the area and are passing both junctions are staying at 70/80 MPH rather than slow down to the posted limit of 50 (which i do not condone) until he/she comes up to the gatso at which point, brakes are heavily applied. once passed the camera, the accelerator is put through the floor and these drivers are back up to their previous speed. all it would take is for one person in the left hand lane to pull out in front of the maniac and you have a serious accident on your hands. why? the antics of the speeding driver combined with the presence of the speed camera. they know where it is so it becomes routine to slow down for it and speed off again therefore concentration and anticipation is drastically reduced beyond the point of reacting to a possible scenario as i have already described. need more? throw and artic into the equation and you have a fatality (or several) to deal with. as an artic driver, i see close calls every day and speed is rarely the cause. poor driving skills are the problem ie not looking, not indicating, not thinking etc etc etc and these are things that the cameras are incapable of picking up on

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

I think you need to read up on the definition of a "contributory factor".

I think a lot of the antipathy towards speed cameras is that they have supplanted other road safety and enforcement methods. This is clearly evident from the collapse in conviction rates for virtually all other motoring offences since cameras were introduced. Oh, and the levelling out of the decades-long decline in road casualties.

Assuming for a moment that your very simplistic analysis above was spot on, the obsession with speed enforcment to the exclusion of all else seems to imply that the other 2,250 road deaths are an unavoidable fait accompli.

I smell two trolls or the same troll in disguise.....but since we're playing games ill tag along and play too...





Because they dont address the problem.



Yerrrs typical example given all based on an "IF".....well IF the 3000 deaths DONT have speed at the root of their causation, then you can see why we may have a problem with speed cameras being used to address these "accidents" ....oh btw, the word "accident"...: "Unforeseen and an unwanted event".....



More hype. The first person ever run over and killed was killed by a car doing 4 mph....maybe the red flag act should be reinstated?
Most accidents occur entirely within the speed limit (95%), thats why theyre accidents....theyre accidental.



Im one of the few visionaries that dont believe we need speed limits due to most drivers already being well capable of selecting a safe speed to drive at and evidenced by the large scale flouting of speed limits for billions of vehicle kilometers resulting in no accidents crashes or deaths.



Why not? To coin a phrase " Its 30 for a reason"......not 31......



Which is why we dont need them. Drivers already travel largely at speeds that are conducive to safety. "limits" are there simply for easy prosecution. Nothing else.



You entirely miss the point. They dont "work", but they DO make a handsome return on the investment. Sadly the return isnt in the form of saved lives.



Cameras dont deal with other offences. See i was dying to point that out.
No speed limits would mean no scameras so the extra police would still be freed up. Youre not very good at this are you?



Awww thats easy. Youve got no number plates.?


The cars unregistered?



You do what? Are you stupid or something? if you do 30 in a 30 zone, youre likely to kill someone. Remember, as long as you dont go OVER what the sign says, youll be safe.....but no one else will.



Pride comes before a fall....



Tolerated margins???? Its 30 for a reason bucko, not 31 or 32.....thats not an acceptable position to preach from. Youre not "thickyricky78" are you??



Good for you, why not marry one? Then you and the new missus can pump out lots of NIPppers....



Punished for otherwise driving safely.....youre speed fixated arent you?



In that case you wont mind giving your £60 to the Safespeed campaign will you?


Just as well theres so many scameras all saving us then...



If the money is such a small amount then let me have it....ill donate it to cancer relief or such worthy causes, not your lovely scp managers back pockets.



Youll believe anything it would seem.



Good idea! Then you change the name of it to congestion charging or maybe Road Tax.....



Some kind of convoluted mis-argument going on there...nope didnt get it , sorry.



I vote labour cos theyre SO in favour of scameras.....(there that did some damage to em) ....

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

jr135 when you get falsely accused of doing 90mph and get dragged through the courts, because of the improper use of the unreliable and inaccurate LTI 20-20 laser speed gun, particularly when handheld, as I personally know has happened in at least two cases, then you might then see things differently, but don’t bother crying to Safe Speed about the injustice of it all, since if you were caught “speeding” you deserve what you get.

Exceeding the speed limit only causes a very small fraction of accidents, which speed cameras are powerless to reduce, as the genuine data has shown. In comparison the causes of the vast majority of accidents tends to be neglected, because of the cost and effort it would require to treat the causes.

Speed cameras are mostly used against perfectly safe and careful drivers going about their business as lawfully as they reasonably can. They are used to pay the Safety Camera Partnerships to keep then in their well paid and secure jobs at the expense of motorists, without any contribution to improving road safety. If anything they make the situation worse by making motorists focus their attention of the wrong issues, in particular their speedometer, rather than the road ahead.

Hello jr135

If I may add my 2p:

"why the fuss?"
We're making a fuss of those who make a fuss about speed cameras.


I would like to point out that in my near 10 years of driving I have never had or faced a speeding penalty (yes I have a squeaky clean license), yet I have never used any form of camera detection or jamming equipment. In fact I used to be pro-camera until around 3 years ago; so why on earth am I now such a strong supporter of the SS campaign?

I’m not against speed cameras per se (at least not as much as some others here), what I do object to is how they are being used, their justification and their ineffectiveness. Then there is the risk of inaccuracy of the equipment and the refusal of the SCPs to admit it. Their whole system stinks of self-gratification – at the cost of countless innocent lives. The SCP staff already know this (unless they are all really, really stupid) yet they continue – which I find absolutely abhorrent.


The SCPs are using all manner of dirty tricks to try to get the public to support their efforts. To name a few:

* Regression to the Mean: where the camera are portrayed as being substantially more effective than they are (by a factor of 3-4). The phrase “The cameras are responsible for the 40% reduction of KSIs” is utter nonsense. Read up RTTM. This alone should be ringing your alarm bells.

* Bias on selection: where other safety measures are placed at speed camera sites are having a substantial positive effect on KSI reduction, but all credit always goes to the cameras. Can you tell me the KSI reduction factors for pedestrian barriers, cycle lanes (arterial), pedestrian crossings, junction re-engineering, car design, etc? If not then you must ask yourself why.

* Speed limit drops: a more cunning ploy where the SCPs drop limits to add to the perception that drivers are needlessly speeding. An activity which was previously safe is now a technical infringement; also, this will increase the ratio of accidents occurring outside of the speed limit. Both these add to the SCPs false case that more cameras should be deployed to stop the lawbreakers.

* Contributory factors: as Roger has already highlighted, casualties resulting from exceeding the limit are surprisingly few (dft_transstats_612594), and there are multiple causation factors per accident. The few that are will include drivers under the influence (who can’t assess speed anyway and would likely still have an accident if they weren’t speeding), the unregistered (the underclass who don’t slow down because they are immune to the subsequent penalties), the unlicensed who are usually too young to handle their ego (and shouldn’t be on the roads anyway); the list goes on.

* Equipment inaccuracy: those accused are not given a reasonable chance to defend themselves because the full evidence is usually withheld. You must ask yourself why so many cases are being dropped where the accused opt to commit to fight.

Then there are the indirect negative effects (already covered by Roger), such as panic braking when drivers spot camera sites late, attention diversion (speedo gazing), resource diversion (there are far better ways to spend the resource than speed cameras), as well as the poor safety message given to the public.

You may believe ‘well if all of this saves just a few lives it will be worth it’, unfortunately the resource given to the SCPs will have been much better spent elsewhere.



You really should have a good look around the forums; you will find many of the posts are dedicated to principles of safe driving – with no mention of speed cameras.


Please forgive us all for jumping on you, it is not done to drive you out; there are so many aspects to your question that to give a proper answer summary requires such responses (for which many of us are well versed). Much of my own post is intended for further discussion.

Have you nothing better to do on a Saturday night?

Hi ricky, welcome back!

We welcome differing points of view here, and I hope you sill stick around long enough for us to really thrash out the numerous and seemingly valid points you raise.

What would be of great help would be if you could take the time to go and read the main SafeSpeed sitethrough, since this will avoid you having to ask questions that are already answered there, as well as giving you a good insight into where we are coming from.

As a caveat, due to a rather high number of people we have coming on here 'trolling', I would ask that you remember that pretty much every one of the people on here are interested in road safety first and foremost, and almost as many have, and always have had, fully clean licences. I would request that you remain respectful of those points.

Three thoughs:

Firstly on a local NSL road is a camera on a straight, and regularly cars I'm following will brake, sometimes dramatically, on sight of it even though they aren't doing the limit (and its a Gatso pointing at them!). So we have many and I mean many drivers who haven't paid enough attention to know the current speed limit but are endlessly looking for cameras. How is that safer?

Secondly cameras often appear with a reduction in the limit - usually NSL to 50mph - and there's a logic to this. But we all know a local road that got a new reduced limit that left us wondering why? Another thread is discussing the A515 - 31 miles of flowing rural highway that is about to go 50mph. Councils have to do little to justify such changes and though we can object in real terms it will make no difference. So one day it is safe to do 60mph and the next only 50mph despite no changes to the road. In go the cameras and then we wait because off course if the accident rate weren't to reduce (assuming that's the justification) they'd put the speed limit back to NSL and take the cameras away

Thirdly even chief constables can't agree on them - aren't some areas still a camera free zones? And a mate who has been a traffic cop for 20 years and now investiges fatal RTAs says he thinks most don't do the job they were put up for. And if he doesn't know who does?

It's not the cameras as such I object to its the claims they work, there use seeming to justify dismissing other alternatives (a self-financing 'safety' scheme is a very big incentive, some would say corrupting)
and the number of prosecutions being used to justify cut to traffic police depts when we desperately need more.

I also have a real problem with thoses who think that rational objection to them suggests we're inveterate speeders who don't like being caught and don't care if people die in RTAs. Too many road safety campaigns and campaigners take the George W Bush attitude'you're either for us or against us'. So much for democracy and cogent arguement.

Barkstar

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

Roger explained this pretty well ricky/jr whatever.




I suggest you do a search on all the posts made by In Gear, Stephen and other BiBs on board.

You are making an assumption that all these are "speed related"

Well ..

Mary Williams started BRAKE because her mother was killed when struck by a lorry with defective brakes. Her fiance died when a car collided with him on a bend. He was not charged with anything other than "speeding". Oh.. he was above the speed limit.. but what the media failed to add was that the road was closed to the public as a new model car was being test driven at the time. Her fiance failed to observe this sign.. and it's no slight on him.. the sign should have been more prominent in reality. But the road was closed temporarily and a diligent driver should have seen the sign anyway

I know this .. because.. er.. errrr

We helped fund BRAKE in the beginning. The Swiss are ex BRAKE members and this entire family were very active in early years PR and fund raising.

Why we are now polarised?

Well . we blow a bit hot and cold with Mary .. and she is a nice lady in reality. She does care .. but we think she lets personal hurt cloud judgement.

Look .. we think BRAKE do sound work on tightening up garage work.. on fatigue and dangers of drink/drug/prescribed medicines/ and duty of care by employers.

No one disputes this.

But views differered to beyond reconciliation on the speed cam policy.


You see.. we happen to want police officers and no automation.

Because tolerances and lack of maintenance, slip shod signing and settings have more or less eroded all reasoned faith in such a scheme.

These cams do not even cop the downright illegal.. and even when police officers tow a car which records show to be "illegally on the road" .. we then find a database has not been updated and some poor person finds him or herslef well out of pocket and very resentful of gross mockery of justice as a result.




Lancs has clusters of speed cams.. metres apart.

We became very concerned when we read of the person pinged at a steeady 34 mph along the Blackpool sea front. He saved his licence by accepting a place on a Speed Aware course .. but had 9 points on licence anyway.

This was an abuse of the Speed Awareness Course and brought a good idea ..and perhaps the best of the courses on offer (it's a COAST preaching course ) into significant disrepute.

So no,... leeway is not always given. You should not swallow all the Grauniad and the spin merchants tell you

They tell you that closing wards is "NHS success" .. that waiting lists are "down" and that "since they came to power.. they increased.. spent .. blah blaggard and spin"! and yet reality of life as we know it exposes this as a big fib





But at the expense of justice. A road passing a school or hospital or old folks home at dawn willl not be the same as the orad a couple of hours later. A police officer would ignore 35/38 mph in that circumstance. A speed cam will not judge a situation.

Also .. those pinged in the small hours.. usually drunk chavs anyways .. We know this from what gets brought in dead or near death..



IG is Durham based.. they do fine without the prats. Their record and N Yorks are beacon models of good practice in real terms.

But if police time is "freed up".. then perhaps you might like to explain why police do not turn up to any incident even if the person reports the other party is drunk and a bit potentially violent..

Why my Aunt (aged 80 and down in the GMP 'burbs) had to wait three hours after being burgled.

To be fair.. my sister Julie reported to Cheshire police a flasher in a cemetary .. (he exposed himself and was erect. and apparently a recent release from a mental home to which he was returned..

The fact she mentioned bereaved, elderly witnesses may have helped in this case .. But they responded within hours .. and copped the bloke driving dangerously in an auctioned chuckaway which he bought with cash provided by social services.. but did not insure..

He was copped returning for more cheap thrills apparently.. Julie was asked for her opinion.. but decided that his return to mental ward where he was removing his undies and pyjama bottoms was enough to "justify barking mad and sectioning"





You may have shocks like a lot of folk if in low tolerance region. Lancs was pedantic. Swiss bloke called Willi who lives there .. with Wildy and self and a number of other protesters kept up an "aka aka aka aka" attack. which resulted in a better margin of 10% +5 over each speed limit instead of offer of course to 31 -35 mph brigade. These now get a letter requesting more attention to speed limit signs. I think it is starting to show some dividend.. though Lancs still lament the drink/.drug drive incidents .. which seriously undermines their stat returns



My own licence is as clean as when issued as is my wife's and rest of a large family.

We attribute this more to taking a pride in our driving skills, being keen to learn and develop.. .live and learn and evaluate as constant. We do use the useful gadgets to forewarn of schools and congestion charge zones.. the advance bleep of scam is a bonus perhaps .. but we can always guessby instinct anyway.. as in where cash can be grabbed /i]

Quote:

I actually think that speed cameras are great. If you're breaking the limit then you get punished. No nodding your head attentively at a lazy police officer who can't really be bothered to do anything.

Police officers are not lazy. They are pressured by far too much paperwork, legislation and political interference .. like the medics and the teachers

Majority as Steve Callaghan () local prat manager and whilst I do not support his point of view on many issues .. I am fair enough to acknowledge his support on daft cycling lanes, tourist traffic concerns, and I will accept his point that people [i] manipulate the rules as in slow for the scam and accelerate beyond reason thereafter. I and the Swiss are fair and we play fairly.

Police do all they can .. and like me as medico.. usually thankless task. My wife of course is well overpaid for what she does for a living.. despite producing the lifesaving medicines which people demand as "their right to have and stuff any one else's claim to a medication from a very tight budget"

I am a lurgy man. Sometimes lurgies attack the heart muscle .. and I place my patient on a transplant list and pray and hope with them. Unfortinately .. they think they alone have a right to whatever comes "available" .. and we have to make hard and serious choices.. playing God perhaps to some.. but viability of outcome features and we cannot make decisions based on person's potential contribution to society ,.. but on .." will patient survive and have quality of life thereafter".


So .. not all decisions seem "fair" on part of police and medics.. and my wife is "toppest scientist for major leading blue chip in pecking order of pharmaceutical companies" ... and whilst her work is very justified .. we have to pay for that specialised expertise .. and it cannot come "cheap" if we are to be realistic here...



It affects already extortionate insurance premiums. The guys who did Lancs Speed Aware course reported back to us that the ADIs admitted that once pinged.. chillingly this results in licence loss.




German /Swiss system fines first at low levels .. and awards points from 2 points depending on the offence. Licence lost at 18 points in the German speaking countries.. and they have to write and encourage better behaviour at half way stage. If they fail to do this.. the driver vcannot be banned if he reaches tot up points.

So ... perhaps we need something like this?




Me and my wife do attend church and have a God in our lifestyle. This does not mean we are religious nutters to the rather odd folk who lurk on this site and cannot refute what we post .. and get a bit puerile and demented as a result

We thus could place hand on bible and swear on oath that safe speed is per condition and very often will be below posted limit

We admit to driving rather fast in Germany .. where it's legal accordingly and on track bookings.. where we learn more and have some FUN!



How I vote is a secret between me.. my conscience and a black box - a secret ballot box


I will considers a vote for the candidate who states what he or she will endeavour to achieve for Cumbria.

I will then measure this against national criteria

I then vote according to my consience and belief as to best for County and Country ... and I will hope I made the right decision there


No one on this board is against the law

All want a fair and equitable approach. and we are not getting fair play .. either as motorist or cyclist or pedestrian

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Greetings to the group. I've lurked on here for many a moon and have learned a great deal of how the motorist is being penalised off the road by some means or other. I've really enjoyed reading the mostly reasoned arguments against the draconian enforcement now evident for even minor transgressions of some PC law.

As to the poster jr135 - I have to say that I'd have more regard for his stance if every time he stepped over what is an absolute speed limit, he would report himself to his local nick demanding the customary fine and three points. The same goes for all those involved in the unholy partnerships, solely formed in my view, to drive many off our roads.

Kind regards,

Les

Les

Well jr135 let’s hear if you are still so cocky and cock-sure of what you have to say.

Most of are just as keen as anyone to see road casualties reduced, but when you get your speeding tickets, and staying within the normal allowance won't help as the speed camera errors will take care of that, then let us see if you are still so sure of yourself.

I didn't know which post to reply to first, so I shall start with this first because it seems to be the most aggressive.



I'm afraid I'm not a troll. I realise that you won't accept that now, but hopefully in time.





Yes they do, they deter people from speeding, or penalise them if they do. But I do think that all the spot speed cameras we have should be replaced with average-speed cameras.





Um, well IF the 3,000 deaths don't have speed at the root of their causation, then yes, I could see why you have a problem with speed cameras... (By the way, I was actually suggesting 750 or 300.)





I simply don't believe that that statistic is right. And I've seen this argument before, that accidents are accidental - in which case why bother with any rules of the road?

A lot of people get killed and seriously injured on the roads each year and I believe that by reducing speed you are reducing the risk of accidents occuring, as well as reducing the severity of any accident.





"visionaries"! I hope you're not being serious! Anyway, you seem to be in a minority even on this site.





Because the police and, I assume, speed cameras, give you leeway.






You probably won't believe this, but I'm not missing the point at all. I don't want to get into an argument over statistics, but stats have shown that cameras do save lives. But yes, I'm sure that you will say that stats show the opposite.





Speak for yourself. Only based on your argument for no speed limits could it be said that I'm "not very good at this". And that's not an argument that I agree with.





You really don't win any converts to your cause by taking this sort of attitude.




See above.





You're making the (mistaken) assumption that I don't also pay attention whilst keeping to the speed limit.





Firstly, I'm afraid that I'm not this other poster that you insult. Secondly, "tolerated margins", or perhaps just calling it leeway, is how it works, as you well know. So I am perfectly happy to preach from this position. When was the last time you got prosecuted for doing 33 in a 30-zone?





As above, you really don't win any converts to your cause by taking this sort of attitude.





I'm no more speed fixated than anything else to do with driving. And driving at far above the speed limit isn't driving safely. Presumably, in your world, you feel happy driving at say, 50, through a village because you are "driving safely". What about, due to no fault of your own, someone runs out into the road?





I won't mind giving it to some anti-speeding site.





Er, I really don't understand that response. I stick by what I say about being incredibly lax - the vast majority of the time you can drive far above the limit without being prosecuted.





Why even bother writing that when I say below that the fine part of the punishment should be dropped?





No, not at all. But if you don't believe The Times then which paper, or other source, do you prefer?





Well in support of the environment, and for reducing congestion, why not?





What I mean is that this site wants rid of speed cameras because it says they distract from what is actually a safe speed. The implication is that half the time we should be doing less than the speed limit, and half the time more. I don't believe that implication. And I have to say, it wasn't convoluted so if you still don't understand then please give up.

You make two crucial mistakes. The cost of motoring has actually been coming down. Secondly, there simply isn't draconian enforcement for minor transgressions of some "PC law" - I could go out and drive at 50 in a 30-zone probably 99% of the time without being prosecuted if I so chose. And what "PC laws" are you talking about?



It may be an absolute speed limit, but until cars are capable of being set not to drive above a set limit, it is important to remember that we're not robots. And by the way, if everyone did no more than a few miles per hour over the limit then I would be absolutely delighted.

Oh yes, the price of petrol has plummeted, hasn't it? Likewise insurance. Parking charges are generally less too. Plus road tax for family-type cars is much less as well. And driving into Central London still doesn't cost a bean

The fact that the price of new cars has fallen in real terms is irrelevant - people simply have a budget and buy the best car they can within that.

All the real, day-to-day costs of motoring have substantially increased in the past few years.

_________________
"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

You're arguing with the wrong person here, because I've already said that I think that we need many more traffic police. But the thing is, why not have speed cameras (preferably averge-speed) to deal with speeding, with the police freed up to deal with all the other offences? As for the levelling out of the decades-long decline in casualties, I believe that there is a reason for that; unfortunately I can't remember what it is, but it's important that you don't simply think that it's some widely-accepted fact that this is down to cameras.

Aggressive? Moi? Dont mistake passion for agrression. The troll comment is becuase your pov and the aforementioned "thickricky78"'s just seem to both have come along at the same time, with the same identical (almost) theme. Youll just have to excuse the cynic in me.



See, this why youll never understand the arguments. If they work by penalising drivers then explain the continued upward trend in prosecutions?
This shouldnt be happening if they "work". Also fatals should be down not UP if they "work" as suggested.
They obviously dont WORK,. Why dont people like you see that for what it is? An abject failure to deal with a root cause by wilful, incompetent dogmatic stupidity, to concentrate on a minor causation factor.




That IS the case. Proven by Paul Smiths efforts on this site. try reading some of his work, it may enlighten you somewhat.



Puerile argument to say the least. You dont "believe" that statistic but youll believe the one third lie on blind faith. Proven to be a complete fabrication, yet you "believe".
Rules are only any good when theyre sensible and seen to be fair.
You "believe" a lot, but belief is no substitute for fact.
Your calibre of argument needs to get a whole lot better my friend.



Since when did being in a minority make the argument any less compelling or for that matter "right"?
Your belief system is working overtime.


When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. Dont do it, get the facts.




So, youll believe the stats churned out by a pr machine thats designed to keep the cash rolling in by scp's that count suicides from motorway bridges as "speed related" to prop up their cases, yet youll not even bother to examine the case against thats been built on this site by people, who quite frankly run rings around scp's and misguided people such as yourself. The sign of a closed mind.



Arguments are there to be debated. Whether or not you agree with mine isnt really the point, but ive not seen any real arguments against what ive said, or any real problems that would result from adopting it....or at least giving it a try, but thats the trouble with a closed mind, no ability to see any other aspect.



Neither do you, but im not interested in scoring points i only care about getting rid of a failed road safety policy. Why arent you?



Ive not assumed anything. I dont know enough to make one regarding your driving.



Me? Ive never been prosecuted for 33 in a 30 limit, however, a friend was. Whered the leeway you talk of disappear to in his case?









Neither do you with your "speed cameras are great" wind up comment.
Id suggest if you think theyre so "great" maybe you should get the old brown shirt on and go join the scp's.



This is always where people with your lack of sense fall down on your faces.
You definitely are speed fixated, its all youve talked about since you opened this worm can. You use the same pointless arguments the rest of your kind use, the emotional blackmail tricks....guess what? It aint gonna work. Your cause is already damaged beyond redemption due to your admittance to speeding. I dont buy into your "tolerance" argument its an attempt at absolution for your own speeding behaviours.
What if someone runs out in front of a 38 tonner doing 15mph? Splat. Speed didnt killl, no stupidity did.



Then youll never learn, will you?



You neither understand the response nor the subject material. Only a fool would admit to speeding and in the same breath condemn others doing the same! Since when did the numbers on a sign indicate the safest speed you should travel at? Fog on a motorway, sign says 70...still wanna try it? Discretion is allowed in that case, why not allow it the other direction? Speeds dont suddenly become dangerous, its situational changes that determine it, weather conditions at the locality etc.
Am i getting through to you yet?





Thats an easy one to answer. By giving scp blood money to cancer relief it would actually do some good by saving someones life. Still need a clue?



Well im sorry, but if all your info comes from sitting on your butt while reading what some pro scamera hack's written, then i cant help you.



Youre jesting? Surely its supposed to be about safety not raising taxes?



This site is about promoting a safe speed ALL the time. You dont believe that? I do! And if that safe speed happens to be above the current speed limits then so be it. I dont travel everywhere at 100mph thatd be idiotic, but where its safe and prudent to do so, what could possibly be your objection?

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.