Safe Speed Forums

I have been unaware of the speed limit to to defective signage, but thanks to my road angel warning me of both the speed limit and an impending camera, I have never been flashed.
Interesting side point, my road angel makes me slow down and tells me the speed limit, but according to the pro-camera lobby, that is a bad thing - discuss.

Of course it did, freak. And it may well be true. But it doesn't justofy you contention that the people of Millom would be happier if more people were speeding

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It is if you use it to speed, only slowing down where it tells you cameras are.

I think it's being suggested that a longer monitoring period would be a better idea.

I'd also suggest they should do covert monitoring, no prosecutions, with a big van sitting there I imagine many drivers who are speeding slow down just in case (although clearly some don't), this a classic case of measurement affecting the result I suspect.

By the complaint that not enough people were caught - QED

[Edit to add]
I notice that your arguments are so monumently weak that you have to resort to ad hominems in every post simply because I made light of your rainfall post. Very sad, and shows the lack of any true reasoning, but then my hopes weren't very high, and you consistently fail to meet them.

So they are good if you use them to ensure compliance with an arbitrary legal limit, rather than driving to the conditions that prevail on the road - hmm interesting!

[quote]I notice that your arguments are so monumently weak that you have to resort to ad hominems in every post /quote]

It isn't an ad hominem attack. It is just "Freak Pointing" which you claim to enjoy.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Rememebr it's only your opinion that it's an arbitary limit.

The route would most certainly have been assessed with speed monitoring equipment after the complaint and before the speed enforcement took place so there will be speeders on the road, the equipment also shows the time of day against speed and volume; that is that dealt with.

The best enforcement is a mix of overt and covert with short visits made frequently over short periods rather than long periods of enforcement; this increases efficiency and deterrence especially when targeted at peak speeds.

Does the speed monitoring system work? Take the example of monitoring a rural road for 2 days and a peak speed being detected of one vehicle at over 100mph on a rural road at 0200ish on more than one occasion in that period; police deployed next day at 0150, driver apprehended at 0200ish; result.

You all seem to be displaying how little you really know.

I'd be very surprised if the highest average speeds were at rush-hour, purely because traffic density would make this harder to achieve. I'd love to do 30 - where it's safe - in my village at 17:30, not a hope!

Can I also ask DCB to stop calling Odin 'Freak'? It's really quite childish, even by his usal standard.

That's a lucky example (based on only 2 recorded occurrences, having assumed it was indeed the same vehicle on both occasions) of a sample size of N = 1. I wonder what kind of rural road that was, a DC? Are there usually complaints on rural roads? Even if it's true, that seems like a non-typical cherry picked example because it gives a best possible scenario to report.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

it is one example of many

why is it that those who give an example of a practical methodology are criticised by those who have no experience of such things?

what would be the purpose of making this up?

it happens and is practical, live with being informed, it makes for better reasoning in the end.

Representatives of speed enforcement methodologies knowingly misrepresent their own figures by capitalising upon and deliberately not accounting for illusory effects such as RTTM, long-term trends and 'bias on selection'; this is already beyond question. So what would be the purpose of their mi$repre$enting that data?

Don't take this personally: I've learnt not to take any claims at face value, especially from anonymous posters, no matter how informed they claim to be (but your personal opinions are welcome).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It would seem that you have some pre-concieved ideas that are not allowing you to accept a well intentioned contribution to inform the debate.
While I see the source of those pre-conceptions, I don't have to read far in here to see them, they are not serving you or the SS campaign. To work from a "best-guess" rejection, as your reply is, is not really helpful is it?.
What would be the problem with using speed survey data to direct enforcement? it surely has to be the way to observe and then reduce the higher speeds on the road network while maximising the efficiency of the effort in doing so. The methodology helps in the capture of the likely contribution of speed to problem areas as well as having the added benefit of a preventative measure rather than waiting for collisions to occur then chasing the collision sites around the network. Of course preventing collisions and injury through speed enforcement would destroy the RTTM argument wouldn't it, then we would have the "revenue raising" calls from those who have only their "best-guess" road safety knowledge to work with.
Your reply quoted is falling back on an uninformed pressure group sound-byte and is worthy of note only because it reinforces my suggestion above that many who are willing to comment here do so without the requisite information to support their suggestions; yours is a perfect example of that trait.

It may well be well intentioned, but how can anyone know that it is? All I did was scrutinise the logic of the comment, what’s wrong with that? It is my opinion that the example given is so far from typical that it doesn’t ring true.


By logic isn't based on mere guesswork. I gave my reasoning, you are of course free to rebut it and I will digest and reply as appropriate. This is a forum, right?


It is at best rare that camera supporters mention the limit could be too low.


True, but then again such RTTM compensation would destroy the claims of effectiveness of camera enforcement, and that's still without accounting for long-term trends and 'bias on selection'. If such policies continued as is but with corrected facts being given then people would be entirely justified to claim they are for "revenue raising".

You have just proven my point perfectly: you "are willing to comment here do so without the requisite information to support their suggestions; yours is a perfect example of that trait."

Safe Speed is an evidence-based campaign.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Putting aside that a "rural road" can be a wide straight dual carriageway, do you feel this is a cost effective use of police resources? How dangerous actually was this?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Yes, I agree it does seem to be a bit OTT deploying a police car to stake out a road just to catch one errant motorist.

My mate had his car and keys (and a lot of electrical equipment,stolen) a few years ago (keys were in his house at the time, he was in bed), we found the car parked up on a local council estate where we half expected it to be. He couldn't move it because no keys. He rang police to notify half expecting fingerprints to be taken and maybe even a watch to see if the culprits used it again...highly likely. Police weren't interested and said, something along the lines of.. " it's your problem now, you move it and if used in a robbery it's down to you".

And yet the "really serious criminal" that was caught on that road at 2AM was obviously more important than a gang of youths breaking into an occupied house at approx 2AM.and removing many items worth thousands.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

How would that be so?

One asset was acting on intelligence received and made the intercept within a normal shift but on this occasion instead of patrolling and attending to other tasks simply attended to this while he was out anyway by adding it to his tasking.

What is OTT is flooding the area with police in the hope of coming across something or providing an aimless deterrent visibility.

As SS is an evidence based campaign you would be aware that there are single vehicle speed related deaths on rural roads at night...or are you?

The single activity is not necessarily important however the capability is a significant deterrent without having to carry it out frequently.

We usually do a a full audit before sending the van or even a "basking bobby" along This audit usually determines where to park up safely (and even stealthily ) and we use the intelligence gained from said audit to determine or risk assess the "danger times". We cannot allocate a resource 24/7 - but we can get a message across and would continue to monitor regularly - yet not necessarily to a set time-table until a message filters through the grapevines. And yes - we do allow a fair margin to an a agreed ceiling as regards -<cough> discretion, We would not be allowing discretion to takers.

When we do send the van - we may make one day of pulling and warning without any prosecutions (unless 15-20 mph above). Then do the PR in the press with a full warning that we are monitoring and will prosecute at over 35 mph if a 30 mph (usual). We have noted that those warned on the original audits remained compliant though to be fair to the drivers and perhaps that may be one positive carrot before using the stick

Howevr, I am reliably informed by one of our "sources down in Manchester" that GMP did employ this same tactic over Easter period and nicked 40 drivers AFTER warning in the press a week before their blitzing So it's a tactic we are all using perhaps

dcb..I have taken a liberty of editing your post just slightly

Odin's point was quite valid in that he was suggesting traffic density usually slows up traffic. I do not know if their choice of "enforce site" was near a school or a village shop or approaching a residential cluster - in which case late morning could be a time which a previous "intelligence" audit revealed as potentially hazardous - but was quiet on this occasion Or perhaps sight of the van or village jungle drums may have kept some ways

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.