Safe Speed Forums

This really demonstrates a fundamental problem. Any arguments advanced based on this premise are destined to fail.

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

""This really demonstrates a fundamental problem. Any arguments advanced based on this premise are destined to fail.""

Sorry i dont understand, please explain?? ,

Would slowing trains down generally be a good idea?

Or aircraft?

_________________
"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

Trains, aircraft????? what ????? Is this a road safety site, what have aircraft and trains got to do with speedtraps hidden in pole's am I missing something here?

You seemed to be suggesting that, as a general premise, slowing people down was always a good thing. If it is good on the roads, isn't it good on the railways or in the air? If not, why not?

_________________
"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

No I think that you are not having a serious debate here this is a road safety site aircraft safety, rail safety is nothing to do with the subject under debate??

engines are at their most efficient at peak torque. To get to peak torque you normally have to put your foot hard on the floor and load the engine up to drag it back from high idle down to where ever peak torque is. But as Mole (I think) will doubtless tell you, you need to know the 3D fuel map for your particular engine to find the sweet spot.

The point being made about trains and planes is that on roads people always assume that any crash is caused by going "too fast", when a plane or train crashes an exhaustive investigation is carried out to find out the exact cause of the crash. So why is it OK to travel at 185 mph in a train, but not at 90 mph in a car, that would out brake it all day long? Why is it ok to travel across the Atlantic at 550mph?

My line of work has me judging forward speed very closely for up to 12 hours at a time, which is why my company vehicle has a far more advanced transmission and control systems than any car, not to mention a calibrated speedo, with displays on the dash and GTA terminal plus a radar. I will spend a long working day judging forward speed, maybe altering it by 0.2 of a kph to suit the conditions. Then I get on a 3 speed 7.5hp scooter to go home and am suddenly no long deemed responsible enough to judge speed, even though I have been doing it all flippin' day.

Because both the train and the aeroplane are the sole occupants of their immediate environment and entry of other vehicles to that environment is closely monitored and controlled. Trains and aeroplanes are driven by trained professionals with strict control of working hours and health.



Same thing. All day long you have been in an environment which is almost completely under your own control.

_________________
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

In the thread about dual carriageways you wrote:

You clearly do understand that going slower can be more hazardous in certain circumstances.

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

yes 20 mph, lower than the speed limit in good conditions ect would be silly, you woudn't do 10 mph in a 30 mph road if conditions allowed 30mph, the point been that for a good expierienced sensible driver the starting point of the risk assesment we all make in our heads is the posted limit.

we lower our speed from there taking other factors into account.

IF however we increase our speed because, (a) we know best.
(b) We don't care for others
(C) we are criminally inclined.
(D) we aren't bright enough to leave sufficient time, for our journey.

OR any other excuse or combination of excuses we will be dealt with by the law, the more speed cameras the better I say, and intellegent cameras, IE ones that can change thier detection speed near schools when the 20 mph lights flash would be welcome by safe drivers all over the U.K.

No. The posted speed limit is not relevant to an experienced driver's risk assessment. That assessment is done using his years of experience of driving in general and his knowledge of the road he is driving in particular. The 50mph speed limit on my road to work might be appropriate for the man who posted it but someone who has driven that road for many years knows that there are times and places on that road where 80mph is perfectly safe

_________________
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

illegal the fastest you can go is 70mph, look in the highway code, this is the begining of road safety, there is no cause for higher speed, If you do 80 you risk a fine, OK if youn do this dont cry when caught, and with regards to its safe tell it to a magestrate.

e) there's no need to spend unnecessary time on the road
f) drivers know there is increased arousal (less fatigue)
g) drivers get better mileage (if the limit is reduced below 50)
g) we may actually know better than bureaucrats who have fallen for illusions like RTTM, or who have vested interests in reducing (and enforcing) speed limits.


Having reasonable limits would be a great way to start.
Even better: having children taught the Green Cross Code as part of the curriculum would be welcomed by any safe person, but no, let's instead focus all our efforts on just the one road user group.

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

you could drive down to Kent at 71mph and be a dangerous child slayer, hop on the chunnel and 20 minutes later, drive on a french DC at 75 and be a saint. How does that work?

I am sorry to have missed this discussion ... been traveling to conditions !... there have been lots of very interesting points raised and answered too.
I find it sad that some of our visitors (deliberately or otherwise), can assume that 'Safe Speed' and our call for the removal of all speed cameras, this somehow implies a massive assumption that we all must drive over the posted limits everywhere, when this is far from the truth.

Is this because they assume that because a camera specifies the numeric value to that road, that therefor anything over this value is therefor immediately dangerous and therefor immediately unsafe ! ?
Yet for years, this Country had the World's safest roads without any cameras whatso ever - so how did we do that then - by magic ?
We had many Trafpol who understood and knew that drivers travelling at or close to the 85th percentile were the safest inspite of it being over the speed limits, and would only stop a road user if they thought a tug was necessary for various reasons.
What used to be safe is now considered dangerous, in spite of solid statistical facts and truth, yet many drove / rode faster and slower as conditions permitted and were totally safe.
The total lack of good attitude, understanding and responsibility and that we must now be told how to act and when to slow or speed up shows a massive rift in road safety comprehension. All road conditions will stipulate many variable 'safest speeds' many faster or slower that any posted limit but teaching all road users that only through reading a sign will now make you operate safely is bowing to the lowest common denominator or the lowest 20% of road users. Better to improve the middle road user abilities than attempt to 'control' everyone which can make the best drivers and the above average drivers worse !

Last night on my way back home there were two incidents, and my speed was appropriate for each, enabling me to very easily stop long before I reached either.
Now if I had been as some accuse of of doing so - 'recklessly driving' or 'speeding', then I might have approached far too fast, but I don't.
I try to always be the best contentious, careful and safe driver that I can be, I might chastise myself (since Paul isn't here) over small errors that many probably do not even recognise.
One car was about 50 off the road on it's roof and had gone over the fence and small embankment, I reckon he overcooked it on the bend and lost control, and was flipped by the embankment, but there were 4 cars parked that made it hard to see, the ambulance was still oncoming after I had been directed through and about 2 miles up the road. The next was a lorry broken down at the end of a bend on a two lane overtake section.
This assumption that we always travel faster than the posted limits, and that we all must travel recklessly is a false assumption. it in fact only goes to show their own lack of understanding and how little they understand, the use of speed, car control, driving safely to conditions, road safety, and proper understanding of real research.

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

No worries, I haven't exactly been rapid in my responses!



I would agree with this, where I think we differ is that I believe the chances of the effect of cameras being negative are far lower than you do, and the chances of cameras providing wider benefits other than 'saving lives' are potentially greater. Unfortunately this latter point isn't widely picked up and publicised by the media. I guess it doesn't provide the catchy soundbite that 'saving lives' does.



It guides the uninformed and apathetic reader, I'd like to believe that most readers have enough experience of these matters not to be taken in too much by the soundbites. I suppose it boils down to how much truth you (as a reader) glean from whatever your source of information is.



Yes, and no. It wasn't a subject I was particularly interested in, until my work made inroads (albeit very slightly) into the subject of road safety. I don't think I ever really considered whether the claims made by the SCPs where true or false. If I had cared to look into it in more detail I'd like to think I could view these issues objectively and critically.I still believe cameras can have a safety benefit despite the claims made by Safespeed. I've never really considered speed cameras to be completely about safety, they are about enforcement and safety is one of the major side benefits. The revenue generation side of things is an interesting distraction for me, but not one I take seriously because it really isn't difficult to avoid being caught! All IMHO of course.



I'm not sure that the level of support would've reduced that much. I know about RTTM and BOS and I'm still a supporter of cameras, though I recognise that their use should be reviewed (not shelved). It would've made sense to include the aspects Safespeed has raised into an analysis (and subsequent publicity) of their effectiveness though.



I had a feeling you'd disagree! I guess we're just looking at the same situation from differing viewpoints. From my perspective the roads have been an area with little law enforcement for a very long time, as soon as a solution to one aspect of this lack of enforcement comes along the status quo is changed and suddenly everyone is up in arms because the stuff they've been able to get away with for years is no longer so easy to get away with. True the majority may not go out with the intent of breaking the law, but the roads have operated this way for years and that behaviour has become the norm. It doesn't make it legal though. Of course this does raise the question of whether these behaviours should be illegal, but that's another debate...


Now we back to opinions I'm afraid Steve, you say greatly exaggerated, but we don't really know how much, do we? Then there's the other benefits associated with the use of cameras which always get overlooked in these discussions.



I'm trying in this thread!



Does the 550% apply to every single camera?

If the current set of SCP claims don't take into account RTTM and BOS then they may be (very?) inaccurate but it doesn't mean that all cameras are useless and need to be ripped out. It means that the SCP claims need to be objectively pulled to bits and the whole thing reviewed.



Lobby for honest reviewing, pull to shreds any dishonesty that you encounter. It suggest to me that the procedures in the SCPs for making these claims need a lot of work and a lot more analysis carried out. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy to wring yet more money out of the beleagured-British-motorist (an oxymoron if ever there was one!).




Yes, again something that needs to be looked into because, as you say, no real study has been done on this link. The assumption therefore that a link exists is a dangerous one to make.



In this example, I don't think the nose analogy works so well! But I agree with your underlying premise (and I'm paraphrasing here so please forgive me) - Society should be striving towards the best solution for any given problem and this includes open, honest and objective reviewing.

I still stand by my initial point though Steve!

What possible benefits do you find to attribute to cameras? What evidence do you find where ?
I agree they love their catchy slogans just a shame it is not true !

When Paul studied this there was no prior preference in either direction, he was totally open to what the facts gave him. We were very horrified to find all the facts hat showed all his findings. Why does the authorities have such biased - that is a very serious and concerning issue.


I cannot agree that safe is a benefit at all never mind a major one. Why would you think this ?
With ever more sneaky ways to try and 'catch out' road users, many think that they will never be caught but it can take time to learn new techniques to help and many inexperienced drivers have less experience to draw upon still.
For a system they claim is good why bother to hide it if they think it is so good ?

Makes me wonder why they didn't do this to start with ? They have all he facilities people and money .... ?


Let's not forget that with as you describe 'lawlessness' we had the safest roads in the World, now we have had 17 yrs of cameras we have fallen year on year and are now the 17th ! So was 3% of accidents that can be attributed to speed as a factor really the whole issue ?
So when road users 'got away with 'it'' we had safer roads and people had less SI accidents and were taught to pay attention to the road, as the prime road safety message, now we are told to just stick to a specific number! I know which one I would choose if I had to select just one.
What about all the bad side effects?


Many experienced driver believe they now drive blind, at road black spots and especially vulnerable areas they now have to watch their car instruments and look out for cameras, so feel they are driving / riding blind than have their eyes and full concentration on the road ahead for all manner of potential hazards etc. We can drive / ride totally safely without using a specific speed measurement, so how come now it is herald as the most important factor, and especially in the light of statistics and facts.


Which bits do you not understand or 'believe'?

What benefits ? There is only one small one I can think of and that is unproven.

You think you can argue for it ? OK how ?

I disagree they (cameras) are not defendable in any way - when you look at how cameras have been used and their apparent illusion benefit shown there is no true or real benefit, no lives 'saved' no better or safer roads or drivers?

So if your doctor said your operation was only proven ok in a few you would be happy that they are acting appropriately and in your best interest ?
I agree the whole system must be looked at in a totally unbiased manner and the facts and figures properly understood and rethought totally.

How are they a useful tool and where ? What do they actually teach and to whom?
Do you believe everything that they report ?
Anyone acting dishonestly having spent public money have to be answerable to the public and the authorities fully answerable.

The latest dft info on the next years on road safety clearly states that cameras replace the police. It is widely announced that traffic police have been reduced even some units removed, and many trafpol have masses of extra paperwork like 80% paperwork and 20% action.

Absolutely !

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

I know it’s not possible, (yet), but if it was physically impossible for any vehicle to break the speed limit does anyone honestly believe we would see the massive drop in KSI that speed is meant to be responsible for? I don’t, not at all. I actually think it would cause many accidents. We have to get away from this false notion that speed always kills when we all know the weakness is the driver, not the speed.

I could play a game called 'Guess the Speed Limit' and post pictures of roads I know. Posters here assign what they think the speed limit is, or should be, and I’ll tell you what it actually is as you scroll down. I'll also tell you what I know about the road in question.

I’m making a rod for my own back here but I’m happy to do it. It’ll be a first, I think, but I have absolutely no doubt I can very easily demonstrate how absurd and nonsensical a posted sped limit is using photographs from real situations; from real life!!!

It’ll take me a while but I’ll see if I can do it for the weekend, maybe as a new thread, and perhaps others may want to post some equally absurd ones they know of too. Could be interesting...

_________________
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.

Thank you for your thorough response. It is rare to find an opposer who responds to all the points raised (without resorting to convenient quoting). Apologies for the longer post in return.


That's fair enough. In the absence of hard data it will be difficult for anyone to agree on a quantitative level. However, we agree that it is plausible, for me that’s enough to cast doubt on even the adjusted claims of camera effectiveness. Don't you think it odd such data/studies still isn't available after so many years, even though there are 43 sets of professional, paid, full-time SCP PR and analysis staff working on it? What have they been doing for the last 9 years?


What do you think these wider benefits are?
There are so many more negative side effects to consider too.


Not wanting to pick on you, but I would think it fair to say you're not apathetic (well you here for a start), yet you fell for the illusions, as did I (and I’m hardly apathetic). I think it reasonable to say that the majority of the population has fallen for it too. After all this time the SCPs haven’t changed their ways even after their errors has been proven. Isn't that enough to damage the credibility of the SCPs?


My mum thought that until recently - the limits were dropped (40 signs removed) and a mobile unit was sneakily deployed. Given many of today’s ever reducing and needlessly low limits (especially on motorways and previously NSL roads), it is actually quite easy to be caught out. Millions of drivers will agree with me.


Like you I was a supporter, then after digging (deeper than you) I turned totally against; at least you're now wanting a review and are now open to the principle that cameras may not offer any overall positive benefit at all. The rest of the population will most likely be a bit of both (depending on how much of our arguments we get out there), and I think that's enough to justify my point. I would be happy to have a fully open review (oh god yes, I know where it will lead) – this is an obvious must, it has been for a long time, so why hasn’t it happened? I won't be surprised if such a review never happens; I've dug really deep (deeper than most) and I've directly tested SCP staff with my arguments - you can see that outcome for yourself if you've been following these forums.


I’m looking at the safety aspect and reasonably expected behaviours; you’re looking at compliance of just one behaviour.
You may feel there has been little law enforcement, you might be right, but that level has been falling since cameras were introduced (when considering enforcement of all behaviours of all road users).


You didn’t understand me, the cameras are at least part of the reason for that lack of enforcement; the only solution is to return that level to where it should have been (and we’ve already paid for it through ever increasing taxation on driving, so it’s not like we’re not entitled). But it’s even more than that: this misrepresentation we’re discussing has also resulted with many drops of speed limits, so its not so much about 'getting away with what we used to', it’s more like now can’t do what we safely and legally did before. On top of that, cars and roads are and have always been designed/engineered to be safer, so to maintain the effective status quo we’re actually entitled to higher limits (such as on motorways where the majority want higher limits).

The most dangerous drivers have it really easy now. It is much easier for their bad behaviours to evade detection and for them to evade capture even if detected. Remember, the campaign isn’t against speed limits or the enforcement of them.


Sorry but you are wrong. The SCPs claims are not opinions, they are quantified statements – we know the minimum level of exaggeration. Their claims were of a 55% drop; it is actually a 10% drop (that’s not accounting for 'bias on selection'). You cannot deny that the SCPs claims (of the tools they promote and benefit by) are greatly exaggerated/misrepresented at least a factor of 5.5 times.



I have to say that so far you haven't succeeded. I've proven to your satisfaction that there is a strong exaggeration (or at least wanton misrepresentation) and that the exaggeration must be even greater than that already quantified.

Remember, there's exaggerating an existing benefit, and there's claiming one where it might not exist at all.


It was an average of all the 216 cameras used within the analysis (they being urban cameras). That figure is estimated (and logically reasonable) to be higher for non-urban cameras. It's all there within the analysis.


I can forgive inaccurate, but, the SCPs claims are more than that: they’re deliberately (knowingly) inaccurate!

It also means that there’s no proven benefit from cameras, so why is there talk of having more? This is leading to drivers being needlessly penalised for no proven good reason (especially given the needlessly low limits they enforce), as well as having to accept shoddy traffic policing.

The lack of any open analysis, scrutiny or review from the SCPs even though there is quite obviously a case for it, and after all these years, means the SCPs must be held to account. At the very minimum, the SCPs should be disbanded for their repugnant behaviour (remember, they're full time professionals, we shouldn't know better than them, but evidently we do).
Do you agree that the SCP claims aren't defendable and haven’t been for many years even though groups such as Safe Speed has been broadcasting these errors?


Disprove claims, expose dishonesty, lobby for honesty! Been there, done all of that! Yet they're still spouting the same crap without acknowledgement of confounding factors, even after all these years!
The fact that after all these years the SCPs haven't done the work they obviously should have done does very strongly suggest there is a level of conspiracy on their part. Remember, these counter arguments are hardly new!


It is not an assumption. It is clearly stated by the DfT that the cameras are there to free up police: "It [cameras] would free the police and the courts to concentrate on other offences" [DfT.gov.uk]. Coincidentally, levels of road policing has fallen even though the increased taxation on drivers means they’re entitled to more real police.


I completely agree. However, we haven’t had any of that, even after so long.


Being fair: the only relevant point you can stand by is that cameras may have a (slight) positive impact even after accounting for the three confounding factors.
I stand by the facts that the claimed quantitative effectiveness is exaggerated/misrepresented by 550%; that exaggeration will be higher thanks to BOS; cameras can have an overall negative impact; a benefit has never been properly proven. The fact that's there has never been any review, or analysis, or acceptance, or even a mention of such an obvious factor as BOS, even after all this time and visible lobbying, indicates those who make the claims really are dodging the issue.
Here's an example of such disingenuous behaviour from someone who quite obviously works for SCP/SCP support (something I have already confirmed). Look how he responds to the BOS factor; despite my repeated prompts elsewhere, this user has never accepted the possibility of BOS being a factor which should be considered. This is typical of the group we are drawing attention to (which isn’t surprising considering that user is part of it).

I’m happy for a full and open review. That would be a great step towards disbanding the SCPs.

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