Safe Speed Forums

I warned you but you're still painting yourself ever further into this corner.

The TG article was a light hearted celebration of the begining of the end of mass camera enforcement.....the el alamain of the camera war if you like. of course those of us are against automated speed enforcement are going to be nervous, after years of campaigning the first cameras may be removed and the spotlight is going to be on Swindon. The Pro Camera lobby will jump on anything to highlight failure. Against this it is entirely reasonable that the TG three make a light hearted appeal for drivers to 'be careful' and it is in no way inconsistent with the view of many here that speed cameras are more of a hinderance than a help.

My concern for you Handy is that seizing on this comedy moment on Top Gear and using it as some sort of evidence that the removal of cameras will result in higher KSI's (and that by inference 'we' knew it all along) makes you look opportunist and more than a little desperate. Its rather embarassing to be honest. If you continue with this arguement there is a danger that you'll lose a lot of the credibiliy you quite rightly have on these fora.

Your concern is noted but really not required, thankyou very much.

If I am guilty of a post that may "look opportunist", then what describes this post?

Dredging up a thread that really was done to death to try to score a cheap (and misguided) point?

Swindon IS an important test, sadly not a good test:
1) It is not likely to become anything serious, as it's a story from a politician. Politicians lie, it kind of goes with the territory.
2) There has been no talk of reinvesting the money in traffic police; the proposal is to use speed humps and other traffic calming measures (which are cheaper). So only part of the SafeSpeed manifesto has been met.
3) It's fairly obvious that if everyone on the roads drove carefully with or without cameras being removed the outcome would be that road safety (by whatever objective measure used) would improve.
4) The only way to prove the "campaign" is right would be for cameras to be removed without any exhortations for change in the driving community.

As I said, it's a shame that the message "drive safely" hasn't been in evidence much on Top Gear until now.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Maybe you'd like to bank my concern for another day.

You can hardly accuse DeltaF of opportunism. The main crux of this campaign is for a removal of automated speed enforcement, MPaton made a remark that the campign was over and then the Swindon thing came up. The leader of a local authority publicly stating his antipathy for speed cams and agreeing with the Safe Speed themes that they are a: at best inneffectual and b: revenue raising devices. The Swindon announcement is directly pertinent to this campaign and testament to the work that Paul, others and and indeed other disparate but likeminded campaigns have undertaken over the years.

Ok, the main drivers behind the Swindon announcement may be unclear and some celebrations may be premature but in no way was DeltaF an opportunist.

Can this thread be locked now? I think after 6 pages we can conclude that the CAmpaign is most certainly ot over.

You missed one, handy.

Option 3: scrapping the cameras could make no statistically significant difference at all (except to govt. revenues ).

Well, since you mention skewed results, if you or mpaton are such an advocate of ‘Hit me at 30mph and there’s an 80% chance I’ll live’ then you must also believe at 30mph there’s a chance that 20% will die in an impact, de facto.

If you are so passionate about this speed kills ‘fact’ then you would surely never do 30mph because of this 20% chance of killing someone? When you travel at 30mph you presumably accept you’re part of the problem who could add to this 20%?

Now why would you want to chance killing someone or anyone? Do you rest easier knowing that the odds are less or is it that you secretly agree that the circumstances and your experience also dictates what a safe speed is - more so than any sign could ever possibly do?

Well what a revelation that would be coming from you or mpaton!

I don’t believe you are about to add to that 20% any more than me so which is it I wonder – happy to chance killing 20% or happy in the knowledge that you are capable of moderating your speed to suit the conditions? You can't have it both ways and I'm sure we are both very good drivers who don't drive around on egg shells.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

oh, Tone, Tone, Tone,

You know I don't use that line in any of my posted opinions. In fact the only time I recall discussing that particular campaign was to say that it was misguided by ending in "It's 30 for a reason". IIRC my statement was something along the lines of "if it ends in slow down a bit, keep your eyes open for potential hazards" then it would be more appropriate" (I could go back and check exactly what I said but I can't be bothered).

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Okay, sorry if I took your name in vain but you're a hard one to pigeon hole See, I'm big enough to apologise Maybe I should have directed it towards the OP.

For myself, I believe it’s more likely to be nearer 5% of bad drivers are causing >20% to get killed whilst scameras catch ~90% who are not the problem along with maybe <1% of these bad drivers!

How’s that for a skewed opinion?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

hardly 90% - the Direct Line Survey in March 2007 found that around 16% of drivers had points for speeding.

Insurers believe that people with 6 or more points for speeding are a worse risk [*] than those with no or 3 points. Insurers probably have more data on the subject than anyone else, be they government or pressure "campaign".

[*] worse risk = higher premiums. Of course the chorus will now leap up and say "yeah but, no but, yeah but, insurers see people with points as an easy target, they load premiums to make loads more profit", but having worked in the insurance market I can be fairly confident when I say that insurers put a lot of stock on the data they have and they do not load premiums without good cause.

[edit] I don't understand the need to pigeon hole me, so I can't help there.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I would suggest that the 6 point 'loading threshold' is somewhat arbitary. pretty much everyone will have 3 points on their licence at some point so to load at that would create civil unrest the pragmatic answer is therefore to load at 6.

Away, the campaign is not over so I think the thread has run its course.

you don't have figures to support that opinion though. As I said, the insurers do have data, and to load premiums at 6 points onwards is their choice.

As for "everyone will have 3 points", it will take some time for that to happen. As found in the Direct Line survey, people with points are in a small (less than one fifth) minority of motorists.

Regardless of the health of the "campaign" (1 solitary post in the "Onwards & Upwards" forum suggests little future planning is going on), luckily the discussion is going on, and enjoyable it is too.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

enough now

Safe speed is a way of driving and is not exclusively about cameras to be or not to be, our campaign lives please be totally assured.

This topic has more than run it's course and so will be locked.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.