Safe Speed Forums

C.O.A.S.T.

Thankfully COAST doesn't involve being able to spell...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Thanks for the welcome
Sure I can see your point, all I'm trying to get across (and getting blasted from every direction for) is that there are other points of view out there, and just because one may be more popular here doesn't automatically dismiss the rest as clap-trap.
I fully realise that speed cameras don't catch those who really need to be caught, but by the same token even if we were lucky enough to be given more BiB patrols many of those drunken/uninsured 'arstards would still be on the roads.
I do however agree with S/camera deployment in areas where little tin signs are not working and the area has a need to be speed regulated.

I DON'T believe cameras should be arbitrarily deployed (Arbitrarily...that seems to be a popular word here) and I don't believe they are...someone somewhere has done the math and decided that despite a particular stretch of road being a virtual graveyard...drivers are still exceeding the limit there...Now rightly or wrongly they(the L/A or highways authority etc) decided that because they were deploying them in areas where deaths and serious injuries had occurred in the past, and the intention of the deployment was to slow drivers down to perhaps reduce the incidence of future casualties...they dubbed them SAFETY CAMERAS
Now I'm not denying that some areas may have or may still be using cameras as a way to bolster revenue, but my understanding is that L/A's can only claim back operational costs so they are not money spinners for L/A's or police services as the bulk of the dosh goes to the treasury.
I don't know about anyone else but I wouldn't be busting a gut trying to catch as many speeders as I could just to feather the nest of someone else who, in all probability wouldn't return any of the revenue over and above my costs to help put more BiB on the roads! It isn't logical (to my mind) why any LA would act in such a manner.
I maintain however that in order not to feather anyone's nest with your hard earned £60 or sully your licence with 3 points all you need do is be in control of your vehicle (and although some may dispute my meaning of 'control' I have a suspicion they really DO know what I mean) an occasional glance at the speedo to make sure that Mr Gatso doesn't glean another pay day from you isn't such a hard thing to do.
The 'O' in COAST just doesn't apply to observing what is happening outside of the vehicle...I was always taught it applied to that which is happening INSIDE as well..the speedo is 'happening' inside a vehicle and should be observed and taken into consideration along with everything else.

You would think, wouldn't you? Sadly they have got it comprehensively WRONG at every point.

See, for example:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html

I've got lots more if you need to see just how far out-of-whack they really are, and allow me to assure you that they are MILES out-of-whack. If it was a ship it would have sunk right off the launch slipway. It really is that bad.

I honestly couldn't believe how bad it was when I started discovering this stuff, back in 2001.

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

Paul, I have no doubt whatsoever that you have 'more' and you are confident that your findings illustrate how 'out of whack' you believe the system is.
Unfortunately I'm not a well educated fellow...(state school education 11 plus and school leaving ('O' level equivalent) exam passes in English, Geography,Science, Art, and History is all...failed the Maths ) and merely looking at those three links you provided gave me a headache!
So please no more

I'm sorry, but to actually form an opinion that something isn't working I have to SEE it in real life...all the graphs, letters and arguments in the world won't change my point of view one iota...visual evidence of something not working is what I require.

Although I believe you (and many of the membership on here) to be sincere in your assertions, I feel I cannot subscribe to the beliefs you hold so dear. FACTS AND FIGURES can and are manipulated to suit any particular agenda, I do not and never will trust mere statistics.

As for myself I have nothing to gain or to lose if speed cameras are increased or decreased in numbers. I don't drive fast in places they police so they really pose no threat to me or my licence.
I have no agenda. All I have is my own beliefs and my honesty to tell the truth as I see it.
If it clashes with the established belief here don't take it as a challenge to your beliefs but rather as a difference of opinion. I'm not looking for confrontation I'm just telling it as it is from my personal point of view. I'm a Yorkshireman that calls a spade a spade and to hell with the PC of that statement!

I'm not a sheep (and despite rumours to the contrary, not all of us 'up north' are on first name terms with those animals) I form my own opinions based on what I see to be so...not on what someone or something else says is happening.

In my experience should I see cameras working I will have seen people slowing down to abide by the limit imposed where once they didn't with the effect of death or serious injury being the result ..then I believe them to be working.
I can only base my beliefs on what I see in the area where I live as I KNOW what conditions are like here...I am not merely passing through and being held up by speed restrictions or speed cameras.
I know why the restrictions are there, I have seen the carnage before they were implemented...unlike the visitor who cannot see the point of the cameras being there.

I speak of that infamous stretch of road that is the A1079 that I travel on a regular basis...that is my part of the world, and that is where I see speed cameras working ..the road itself I believe is not the problem but the people who drive on it.
Especially the inconsiderate farmers in their tractors who refuse to pull over and let people past and the 'late for work' jockeys who take far too many chances with their lives and others in their haste to get to work, or just the mere impatient ones who won't wait under any circumstances. It is those who are adding to the over congestion of this major artery between Hull and York.
Hah! 'major artery...it is little more than a blood vessel nowadays as the traffic on it has increased immensely as the population of the area it serves has grown. Yet for all this 'growth' the road remains single carriageway for most of its length, bottlenecks form where dual/c reduces into single/c and high risk areas created where dual becomes single and visa versa. You always get one who wants to get ahead of you right at the point where one melds into another.
Speed cameras here are slowing down these idiots and the late for workers who can ill afford another £60 or 3 points but they alone cannot raise this road out of the 'Most dangerous' category...only major upgrading will do that.
But until the funds are available we will have to trust the cameras to do the best they can in reducing the KSI numbers.
Speed cameras on the A1079 are not a cure, they will never save the lives of those who seem intent on killing themselves and or others by their bad driving. I believe however that they are a 'band-aid' that can stem the flow until 'proper treatment' can be procured( ie. the major upgrading of the road itself into dual carriageway or even motorway status throughout its length).

But with the amount of scamming that goes on, motorists have paid many times over for the upgrading of the 1079.


And try driving 'Heartbeat' country with even half an eye on your speedo.

I'll give you 5 minutes.......and all NSLs.

Honestly I have driven the length and breadth of this Septic Isle and never yet fallen foul to a speed camera, BiB or Safety partnership. Luck? Good judgement? Patience of Job? Whatever...You decide ...and I have held a clean licence throughout the full 35 years of driving thus far.

I was on about your chances of staying on the road. And from what you say, if you have driven these roads safely, then you've ignored your speedo. Simple!

Two speeding fines, one BiB and one mobile scam, in 50 years and 3-4 million miles as a trucker isn't a bad average if one considers the 'exposure' time.


And we ain't got no scameras!

Non sequitur .....how can driving in Yorkshire (up hill and down dale) have any bearing whatsoever on my looking at my speedo (or not) or indeed staying on the road?

So in your world...

- Cigarettes don't cause cancer
- There was no Holocaust
- There is no global warming (!???)
- And the Eastenders are alive and well and living in Albert Square?

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

No..that's my world according to YOU

My father died of cancer...he smoked 30 fags a day.
I have visited and know people that survived Auschwitz
I witness every day strange weather phenomenons
And I know Eastenders is make-believe

So is the Hogfather and Harry Potter.

Although, depending on the rumours, that last one may not be true

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I was just pointing out that it is entirely necessary to make judgements according to the evidence. If our evidence seems too complex, then feel free to ask for an explanation - don't just dismiss it.

We're not here 'for nothing'. I didn't give up work because I hated speed cameras - I gave up work because according to the evidence they are killing us in large numbers, albeit indirectly.

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

Paul I am not dismissing anything...honestly I do...I really do understand where you are coming from...but make no mistake, I do not agree with your stance...I reserve the right to form my own opinions and not have opinions of others thrust upon me just because everyone else and his dog wants me to.
If perchance I ever fall foul of those objects you all so vehemently reckon are not working, or witness an occasion where they are not..then my opinions may change...until something affects me I'll not give it any mind...selfish outlook...perhaps but it is my outlook to have.
You are happy with your stance on the matter and I with mine, so lets agree to differ and move on.
There are no winners or losers here...just opinions...get over it...I have.

I have no intention of converting anyone around to my way of thinking but I would expect a little courtesy in reciprocating that feeling....rather than everyone arguing the toss each time I stray from the accepted path of belief on these boards. A simple "I disagree because..." statement is all that would be required but no...we get into personal attacks and ridicule levelled at the posters of such blasphemy. It really is not the way to win friends or influence people having an "If I want your opinion I'll give it to you " kinda attitude.

It would seem that Elandgone is waging a one-man saturation blitz on SS and has yet to discover the wisdom of the statement that 'less can be more'.....

I've refrained from joining in thus far, but here goes:

I think cameras DO have an effect on peoples driving around urban areas, in that:

a) people who INTENTIONALLY drive at an excessive speed for the conditions are constantly on the look out for them (mainly boy racers) and rarely get caught by them

b) I suspect many of those who don't really think about their speed normally also look out for them, but tend to still think "30 is safe"

c) people who DO drive at a safe speed for conditions (frequently lower than the limit) also find themselves otherwise distracted when there is the possibility that, at that time, a safe speed might be higher than the posted limit

What interests me is WHO DOES GET CAUGHT? In urban areas I suspect they are the rest of category b) above, ie people who don't pay attention to what is going on around them!

BUT, as far as I can see:

a) there has been no massive reduction in urban accidents (and an increase in those involving children)

b) the boy racers are still happily racing around between the cameras in a lethal manner

c) experienced and aware drivers (who might well otherwise exceed the limit) are not getting caught because, like the boy racers, they are paying attention to the cameras

(This ignores all the stolen cars, drunks etc as well of course)

I suspect that out of town a fairly similar state of affairs applies, but with many more drivers in category c) being prosecuted due to mobile cameras etc. However many drivers have sat navs etc with cameras and mobile sites in them and put up with the distraction caused. SO, again it is those in category b) - not paying attention - who get caught most. (These are NOT usually the "speed maniacs" but "joe and julie soap" who are doing 68 in a 60 limit) Again where is the evidence this helps?

Lastly, I think I'm right is saying our safest roads are still the motorways? There, "mild speeding" is endemic, and most enforcement is targetted at those who drive inappropriately for the conditions - where cameras HAVE been used on motorways, no real benefit (at best) has been shown.


"Needing to speed" implies a conscious decision to break a limit. I'd suggest that category c) drivers don't do that consciously, but just drive safely, category a) drivers DO speed consciously but try really hard not to get caught, and category b) drivers - who get caught the most - are caught because they are not paying attention, not because they "need to speed".

That's why I support the view that fixation of numeric speed is ineffective as means of improving safety, as driver inattention is our biggest threat - and they are the ones who keep getting done for speeding (without impact on their negative - inattentive - behaviour)

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Because if you take your eyes off the road to 'glance' at your speedo in a lot of places, even with your impeccable record, you'd be in a ditch!

Up hill and down dale?You make it sound idyllic! More hairpins, blind bends and even blinder summits!

Oh yes, like the complete prat in a Porsche and their equally idiotic mate in the BMW who thought racing each other around the A406 tonight would be a smart thing to do - as a rough guess I'd say they were both doing up to 70-80 along the stretch of 40 limit near Brent Cross, tailgating and slaloming in and out of the other traffic with maybe a couple of feet of clearance at best. Still, at least they slowed down just long enough not to get caught by the Gatsos along that bit of the road, so that's alright then...

_________________
Chris

"In a lot of places"...true..but the other side of the coin dictates there are also a lot of places where a glance at the speedo does no harm whatsoever...especially on approach to such a place as an hairpin bend or blind bend/summit.
I would like to apply the A in COAST and anticipate such things ergo a glance at the speedo every now and then (when I'm not busy avoiding that ditch of course) would prepare me for further eventualities.

remind me never to get in a car with you if you think it's even remotely useful to look at your speedo at such times.