Safe Speed Forums

As someone with a professional interest in road safety issues, I believe Paul's research into the effects of speed cameras is second to none. However, I do take issue with his aggressive and condescending tone to those still saddled with out-of-date views on road safety. He reminds me of Richards Dawkins, a brilliant scientist, who has an unfortunate tendency to bully and belittle anybody who doesn't accept his views on the theory of evolution. It particularly saddens me that Paul has managed to alienate a lot of cyclists. It would be great for cyclists as a group to realise that they are potential victims of the powerful distracting effects of speed cameras, and to "cross over" to our side of the debate. I can't see this happening in the near future, and I think some of the blame must be laid at SafeSpeed's door. ( Although I must point out that Paul has done the country a great service through his research, and I applaud him for that. )

Donny

Thanks for the compliments, and the recognition of the value of my work.

By nature I'm neither aggressive nor condescending, but I agree that there are "communications problems" - perhaps it would be better to say that there are belief problems.

For over a decade the road safety establishment and the government has been telling us we have to slow down as guided by the speed limit. It's not an unattractive view because it seems "obvious" that it should deliver a road safety benefit.

When an obscure bloke with a web site comes along and says: "No, wait a minute, that's all wrong", we shouldn't be surprised that many dismiss him without consideration. This has resulted in false rumours and deliberate smears. It doesn't help that I was involved in debate (forums etc) after I had set up the web site but before I had done much of the research.

The bottom line is that I think it's inevitable that folk are not prepared to listen and try to brand me as "anti-safety". I don't really accept blame for this, rather I believe that it's an inevitable consequence of the major authorities getting it wrong.

Folk in your position could do much to redress the balance by saying: "Wait a minute, Smith might be onto something here." I'd be pleased if you joined up to the forum and contributed. I give you my word I'll protect your identity if necessary.

I'm afraid that abuse of this forum means that you cannot reply unless you register. If you feel unable to register, yet you wish to reply, please start a new topic in this forum - that's normally against the rules, but I'll waive them in this case.

Thanks for the comments.

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

Sometimes people's words can seem more abrupt than intended when seen in cold print.

I have heard Paul give several radio interviews and he has never come across as aggressive and condescending there.

_________________
"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

I agree entirely with PeterE's comment above. I've found how easy it is to be misinterpreted after swapping e-mails with my ex wife recently!

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

This topic moved from "Anonymous Submissions" before it expired.

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

Has Paul alienated them?

Or have they alienated themselves?

During the cold war many supposedly intelligent people visited the USSR and returned still believing Stalin was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Before that many Western intellectuals were so prepared to believe in communism that Lenin labelled them his useful idiots.

Where have all those useful idiots gone since the collapse of the Berlin wall? Has that suddenly convinced them they were wrong all along?

Or are these people still finding "activities" to occupy themselves with?

And are these "activities" more, or less, likely to be in such "active" spheres such as, hmmmmm, cycling, perhaps?

And if they are, are you ever going to convince them with polite debate?

Or, when you deal with them, do you need to demonstrate to the powers that be that, however loud and angry they might be:

Giving in to them will result in a backlash that is even louder, and even angrier.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Get help.

Even if the cylists are to blame from our persepctive, it still makes sense to try to engage them in rational dialog, and try to encourage them to see things from a motorcar's point of view.

Thanks to a thread somewhere on this site I recently decided to buy the book 'cyclecraft' - this is more or less the only road related forum I subscribe to, as I don't have the time to look at others.

It makes absolute sense to engage with any road user group with a rational opinion.

Many of the opinions I encounter are founded on very flimsy false assumptions. This results in two main reaction styles. Some get angry, abusive and incredulous. Some quietly reconsider.

No one has yet offered a broad-based welll argued counterpoint to the Safe Speed views. No one has yet found an error in our data or analysis.

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

You are of course forgetting that the vast majority of cyclists you are referring too are actually motorists too. We know what it's like to be a motorist!

Perhaps the problem is the exact opposite to what you believe: that motorists do not see things from a cyclist's point of view. Sitting in a car and saying you understand what it's like to be a cyclist doesn't count. You can only know if you get out and ride the road

The problem with most motorists is that they think they know enough about the subject to make road safety judgements. But the standard of driver education is fairly minimal and most motorists actually know comparatively little about driving.

This is a huge modern problem with road safety because those making the decisions (ministers etc) are basing them on a very limited understanding of the subject.

!5 years ago this wasn't a problem because the decision makers used to consult the Police driver training establishment for "best practice" advice. That's not happening any more.

I believe that most folk tell themselves they "know enough" about driving because otherwise they wouldn't be up to the responsibilities involved.

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

Such a wonderfully well reasoned riposte, sucky.

Interesting to see what kind of post will arouse you from your slumbers under whichever nuclear free zone you dwell.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

And most pedestrians either ride bikes or drive cars as well. Given the numbers of people I have seen park up or padlock the bike somewhere - and then saunter across a road without looking - it would seem to me that people forget to see things from motorist's perspective the minute they get out of the car. You see this in supermarket and the Lakeland carparks .

As for CycleCraft - same points of OAP are raised in this book as well. Common sense dictates that one minimises the risk when cycling or driving - and reacts to prevalent set of circumstances. Have very little patience for anyone who claims that "it is the motorist's responsibility to see a cyclist in dark clothing and with out lights in the dark!" as was posted by one person on the cycling forum (and this twit has said this more than once. Those who read the site will be aware that our Tame Cat attacked over this.) Cars are bigger than bicycles and you have difficulty seeing these if they are not sporting lights, never mind a person on a narrow bicycle! Common sense dictates all road users regardless of how they choose to travel obey traffic systems such as traffic lights and choosing the safest option.

To call for automatic compensation (per same daft lad on there) for any cyclist involved in a collision is stupidity as well. As our girl pointed out - in a less than honest society - places a temptation for cause a minor incident for purposes of a compo claim.

Less the Richard Dawkins and more the Timothy Spall, in 'Life is Sweet', I'd've said: serving up unpalatable dreck and wondering why the public won't bite.
Paul's work is the 'kidneys in lager sauce' of road safety analysis.
Dawkins is, by all accounts, quite bright..

I'm not saying that all cyclists are some kind of fifth column trying to strangle the arteries of the nation through which the life blood of the evil capitalist military-industial complex is trying to flow. Or even that all cyclists are unreasonable.

Neither am I saying that engagement in rational dialogue or encouraging them to see reason doesn't have it's place.

After all, if you engage the enemy on equal terms and then bring up a secret weapon like reason that puts you at an advantage!

What I'm saying is that the lentilists haven't got where they have today by reason and logic:

But by being a hysterically noisy thorn in the side of the establishment.

Look at any anti-hunting letter in the press: full of anthropomorphic emotion.

Look at any road safety letters from the "road safety" lobby: full of hysteria about thinking of the children and "logic" about Speed Kills and cameras cure.

And as for the environMentalists and cars killing the planet!

There's no mileage in reason and logic if the government (who are probably fully aware of the truth) are convinced that a few hundred loonies will sucessfully paint them as paedophile child killers if they listen to reason and logic.

And the man in the street isn't going to pay much attention to you if the government (with it's access to the "facts") has ignored you. That's assuming they even considered listening to a speedophile in the first place.

Reason and logic doesn't grab attention. For how many years did divorced fathers complain about their plight without anyone taking a blind bit of notice? Since Fathers 4 Justice started campaigning people have sat up and started taking notice. They may, or may not, listen to Fathers 4 Justice, or even take them seriously, but they DO now take notice of divorced fathers when they complain about lack of justice!

Similarly most people don't take animal rights terrorists seriously.

But they WILL now pay attention to more mainstream animal "care" organisations when they want to bring up the issues highlighted by the activists.

When was the only time the press took an in depth interest in fuel duties and their effects on society?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Interesting points Bogush, but similar arguments could be aimed at the Motoring Lobby and it's activities in keeping the cost of motoring low while siultaneously wrecking any Public Transport sytem in this country and making the roads unusable for the more vulnerable private transport folk.

Bit of an extreme view I know, but I'm sure you get my gist!

Ah but Peyote.... fuel costs need to be kept down as we use HGVs to transport goods around the country. More viable to transport from ware house to retail outlet in one truck than by transporting to rail station in truck and then reloading again at another station. That's wages for despatch and lorry driver to station. Then two lots of wages to handlers at the train stations, and then another lorry driver's wage. Not to mentionother overheads.....

Public transport? Already charged more per child for school bus than it costs to run a car for my eldest son to do the school run and drive the whole brood to school with him.

Also - with small children - not that easy to be tied to a bus timetable - and the ones we have - my wife discovered how "un-mama-friendly" they are! She had a "bright idea" - she thought she'd try out a bus! After a lot of messing around - she decided that bus and baby are not a good mix - especially when our youngest decided to give her voice and lungs a deafening practice! Not breeding out!

Also - there is a cost aspect. Have relatives (my own relatives - not the Swiss mob) who live in town. They say buses are not frequent, run very infrequently from 6 pm, involve a lot of changes and waiting around at bus stops and work out not far behind cars in terms of expense.

Sorry MM, I think you misunderstood. My point was that it IS cheaper and more convenient to use a car rather than use Public Transport!

As for the transport of food around the country, you're right HGV is the cheapest way, but this is a symptom of our culture more than anything else. The trick is to buy as much as you can locally (keeping transport costs and distances low), and accepting that the cost of foods that do need to be transported should be higher.

Very easy to type, very difficult to persuade the general populace!

[quote="bogush"][quote="suck_my_tailpipe"]Get help.[/quote]

Such a wonderfully well reasoned riposte, sucky.

Interesting to see what kind of post will arouse you from your slumbers under whichever nuclear free zone you dwell.[/quote]

Did you take this sound advice Bogush?

George, You just can't resist making personal remarks about Bogush can you? You have been warned, and now you're suspended.

I'll consider lifting the suspension in a week if you send me an email or a PM agreeing that you'll stick to the issues in future.

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