Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 20:05

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 20:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Thats quite right. The smarter folk can ignore limits. The trouble being (for them) that the other drivers are not ignoring the limit. And overtaking is not possible...oh yes....and some prat decided to drive over the cones....which didn't do him much good since he went into the armco...it took ages to get him out.
I think 40 is about right, especially for the section of coned-off dual carriageway...since there is merging traffic from the left from the A6 (another congested road).

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 00:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Alternatively they could just drive within the limits as they are required to do. Wouldn't that be the most likely scenario?
There is as I have explained above the need to have safe and appropriate speeds applied to roads appropriately first. Once road speeds are altered with bad and inappropriate application road users have a harder time to judge and manage risk as well.
When inattention and frustration are the main accident causation factors why are speeds therefore being altered un-necessarily and adding to the problems?

It isn't the business of a driver to be assessing the suitability of speed limits on a road;

I never said it was however all road users learn about road speeds that are set. We can all form and opinion and that includes you and me.
When speed limits change we have to hope and expect that there is a just cause and that new speed is promoted to the public or is obvious. For example a new housing estate might well see a previous 60mph limit reduced to 30mph and no one is likely to see any issue with this al all and road users will understand the new conditions. BUT when a road that is suitable for 60mph one day and then is for no apparent reason reduced to 40 or 20mph with no alteration road users are left puzzled and wonder what was the cause.
We ask road users to try to be responsible and by taking explanations and reasoning away or at least not provide any it makes road users wonder (understandably) what is going on ? When those new reduced limits are then enforced rigorously enforced road users rightly question the true intent !
GreenShed wrote:
the limits are clearly indicated to drivers if they care to learn how this is done. If they do not then they have their driving priviledges removed or come nearer to that.
Showing a limit is not the same as explaining why a limit is reduced !
You are not very clear ... you do not
greenshed wrote:
learn how a speed limit is 'done'
which you seem to mean 'keep to the speed limit'. Well we do not condone exceeding a limit, but we have the intelligence and taken the time to learn, appreciate and understand, that there is much more to road safety than you appear to be comprehending here.
GreenShed wrote:
SPECS are used on road works, increasingly so it would seem. There are appropriate speed limits set on these, say 50 mph on a 70 mph road, yet we see much discussion about not observing these limits because they are inappropriate because no road workers can be seen from time-to-time.

There are so many areas to discuss within this bit alone that it may be worth taking this off into a new topic but for the moment :
1) road worker accidents include those that they themselves suffer with often no car passing vehicle involved at all.
2) many road works have massive cushions around the actual works going on, often by miles where no work is even going on and some sections are so long and like this that some drivers think that they must have missed the roadwork end sign !
3) I have seen roadworks with no cameras and minimal length too and people slow right down and even more so when there is actual workman in action, and then as soon as they have past the hazard and clear of the respected sensible marked off areas they correctly increase speed appropriately.
4) if people are not acting appropriately then education to help understand why it is important to slow at potential and actual hazards (time to react etc) then this is beneficial for all their driving where ever they are.
5) It is very short sighted to only alter a behaviour (and resulting in bad side effects too), and enforce when it is better to encourage and show why it is better for people to be responsible and act appropriately of their own accord.
6) the presence of Traffic Police is the very best solution so why substitute anything less !?
7) setting a standard 50mph is NOT always appropriate to some road works require a safer and slower speed fro short periods and then some could easily have a higher speed for the majority of the works too.

So the logic of why all road users need to reduce speeds in this uniform and regimented fashion, and has all the problems too such as ; tailgating, bunch up esp before & during, all frustrations at slightly differential speeds as road users all jostle in very close proximity to each other, inattention increases, mental fatigue, and 'zombie mode' turn good drivers bad.
This is not a good 'fix' but a fixation of a specific numeric value that is not necessarily making the situation safer or better.
GreenShed wrote:
It is easier and safer to simply accept what has been adjudged for all drivers to be the maximum by the Highways Authority, that being the maximum suitable speed at the posted limit, whatever that is adjudged to be.

Asking road users NOT to think could not be more dangerous. We need all road users to keep their eyes on the road ahead, and think carefully about all that they do, and ensure that every moment of travel is carefully judged and risk managed so that at all times they know why they do what they do and for all the right reasons. To make all road users blindly obey and not question is the saddest and most misguided phrase I think I have ever had the displeasure of hearing. How badly informed you seem and how misguided ! Very sad.
GreenShed wrote:
Time for assessment of safety can thus be used by the driver to achieve safe progress without the need to see if work is being done.
Do I LOL, or cry ! Oh dear oh dear oh dear, are you really serious ? You really want a single road user to NOT consider the conditions but just blindly follow a speed without thought !!? - You cannot be serious? That is the most 'unfit for purpose' statement about road safety I have ever heard. If you believe this then you truly have no understanding of what makes people safe on the roads at all. Or perhaps you really are hoping to turn each road user into a zombie and to merely and automatically just obey whatever speed is suggested for each road no matter what with no thought or consideration of road conditions whatsoever.
I wonder how you drive - if you do at all ? Do you drive or ride ?
GreenShed wrote:
I believe it is absured to suggest that drivers can assess the suitability of a speed limit and the speeds at which they drive whether above or below the speed limits in a safer way than driving safely and within the limits that are set and indicated to them.

Well considering all that is above this comes as no surprise what so ever. I think you must hate people and road safety to even suggest such a misguided and seriously dangerous statement. the sad truth is I think you actually believe this. It makes me wonder how you have possibly come to this extraordinary conclusion ? So how do you think this makes any sense at all ? where did you get you complete disbelief that people can make a competent decision? Who - if everyone ended up like this make the road speed decisions? Who would be competent - a computer ?
Did someone misjudge conditions and kill someone you know ?
GreenShed wrote:
If this is a source of frustration than the sooner a driver, so frustrated, is removed from the road the better it will be for maintaining and improving safety.
The frustration is not 'born' from merely retaining as near as possible a certain speed - it is the non-sense of a slow speed when conditions are clearly possible to drive or ride at a slight faster (within legal limits) speed. Keeping a driver or ride thinking and reacting and pro-acting to conditions is crucial to enabling road users to automatically think as they travel along and ensure at the first sign of any potential hazard, they immediately start to act appropriately.
GreenShed wrote:
While you contend that speed limits are changed unecesarrily I don't believe that any are so altered; it too is an absured suggestion.
Ok well lets take a certain road - please let's look at a road you know - you suggest a road where we can look at it on google and where a reduction has taken place and let's discuss it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Your post above assumes that I have suggested that motorists drive at the limit; that is not what I have suggested at all.

While you have invited me to suggest a speed limit change it is you and your members who are suggesting frivolous changes are made and they are made to be enforced to raise cash; I contend they are not. Your claims are the baseless ones; you bring the changed limits you claim have no good reason for their implementation, then bring the frivolous reasons given for the changes you have received from the highways authorities that show they are as you claim. I say you have none and will find none.

You can't keep on making this sort of claim in a road safety campaign ( :roll: ) then not show the evidence.

Where is all of the evidence for the repeated claims that there are a large number of drivers charging around with cloned or non-traceable plates? Do you have evidence of thsi or is it more baseless assumption? Do you know the number or percentage of all non-traceable plates, including cloned plates? Do you have the figures to show what that is? If you don't have it then you should qualify your assertions with a big "guess" symbol so we know the status of your claims.

"Q" Steve wih his RTTM, bias on selection claims. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
While you have invited me to suggest a speed limit change it is you and your members who are suggesting frivolous changes are made and they are made to be enforced to raise cash; I contend they are not. Your claims are the baseless ones; you bring the changed limits you claim have no good reason for their implementation, then bring the frivolous reasons given for the changes you have received from the highways authorities that show they are as you claim. I say you have none and will find none.

Case in point:
M3 J2 south bound, permanent 50 limit (was temporary), no roadworks. Permanent SPECS, a long way down.
And yes, thanks for reminding us that this site is indeed capitalising on the effects of RTTM (proven that cameras sites are) and bias on selection (the road has already been reengineered to be much safer). Everyone I know who travels that route believes that camera site is purely a cash raiser.

GreenShed wrote:
Where is all of the evidence for the repeated claims that there are a large number of drivers charging around with cloned or non-traceable plates? Do you have evidence of thsi or is it more baseless assumption?

We know 10% of drivers don’t have insurance (don’t tell us you need me to give you proof of what is common knowledge), so it’s a fair assumption that a large portion of those aren’t traceable.

Unsurprisingly, you’re asking the wrong question. The portion of drivers in general who aren’t traceable may be small in the scheme of things, but the real issue is the correlation of those untraceable who are caught exceeding the limit. This can be determined by the number of FPNs that went into the aether (oddly, this info is difficult to get hold of, I can’t think why - you like to portray that you are well informed of these type of things, can you tell us?).

“160 deaths belong to unlicensed, untraced drivers, who also caused a staggering 23,000 injuries.” Link

Now we have 10% of drivers who are uninsured etc, and about 6% of all fatalities involving drivers from that group – that is quite a significant issue. Now I’m quite sure a good 10% of NIPs are ‘lost’, so this argument is far from baseless! Besides, the logic is simply enough to understand (what can one do if they wanna speed but not get caught…), but only those connected with the SCPs fail to recognise that, and that this isn’t an issue with real trafpol.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
While you have invited me to suggest a speed limit change it is you and your members who are suggesting frivolous changes are made and they are made to be enforced to raise cash; I contend they are not. Your claims are the baseless ones; you bring the changed limits you claim have no good reason for their implementation, then bring the frivolous reasons given for the changes you have received from the highways authorities that show they are as you claim. I say you have none and will find none.

Case in point:
M3 J2 south bound, permanent 50 limit (was temporary), no roadworks. Permanent SPECS, a long way down.
And yes, thanks for reminding us that this site is indeed capitalising on the effects of RTTM (proven that cameras sites are) and bias on selection (the road has already been reengineered to be much safer). Everyone I know who travels that route believes that camera site is purely a cash raiser.

ASSUMPTION!
Your best information is "everyone I know" hardly good evidence.
Now let's look at the revenue raising assumption. SPECS costs will be significant as I understand it, then we have the high compliance/low number of offences for this system. Now consider the costs of loading and unloading the system, SPECS1/SVDD requires roadside attendance, add in the costs of processing the offences and the fact that the low level of fines go to the treasury with no additional revenues returned no matter what the level of offences. Hardly a recipie for "raising revenue"!
No, I'm afraid your ASSUMPTION is wrong and illogical and apart from your mates thinking the same as you you have no basis with which to make it apart from your dislike of the enforcement of a lower limit for which you have no idea why it has been implemented.


Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Where is all of the evidence for the repeated claims that there are a large number of drivers charging around with cloned or non-traceable plates? Do you have evidence of thsi or is it more baseless assumption?

We know 10% of drivers don’t have insurance (don’t tell us you need me to give you proof of what is common knowledge), so it’s a fair assumption that a large portion of those aren’t traceable.

Unsurprisingly, you’re asking the wrong question. The portion of drivers in general who aren’t traceable may be small in the scheme of things, but the real issue is the portion of those caught exceeding the limit who aren’t traceable. This can be determined by the number of FPNs that went into the aether (oddly, this info is difficult to get hold of - you like to portray that you are well informed of these type of things, can you tell us?).

“160 deaths belong to unlicensed, untraced drivers, who also caused a staggering 23,000 injuries.” Link

Now we have 10% of drivers who are uninsured etc, and about 6% of all fatalities involving drivers from that group – that is quite a significant issue. Now I’m quite sure more than 10% of NIPs are ‘lost’, so this argument is far from baseless! Besides, the logic is simply enough to understand (what can one do if they wanna speed but not get caught…), but only those connected with the SCPs fail to recognise that, and that this isn’t an issue with real trafpol.

A newspaper report and more ASSUMPTION!
You are not doing very well are you. Putting the figures together as you have is again baseless assumption. You have nothing worthwhile to work with and are showing how little this campaign is based upon, or rather exactly what it is based upon ASSUMPTION!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
ASSUMPTION!
Your best information is "everyone I know" hardly good evidence.

No, I'm afraid your ASSUMPTION is wrong and illogical and apart from your mates thinking the same as you you have no basis with which to make it apart from your dislike of the enforcement of a lower limit for which you have no idea why it has been implemented.

All your flannel is nothing more than a diversionary tactic and no one is going to fall for it.
I gave you a clear and exact example of what you requested – job done.
The stretch in question was modified such that each merging path now has its own lane (as opposed to two M25 slips fighting for the M3). The limit was lowered and enforced while the change carried out (itself possibly not a problem) but the change took 1 day and the reduced limit and enforcement remained even though there was signs clearly stating it was temporary (like the closure of the CSCP forums).

You claim it is “illogical” yet you didn’t say how, please explain how you came to that conclusion, in a logical manner of course.

It doesn’t matter what you think of that junction (and you haven’t commented on it anyway), it’s what everyone else who uses it reasonably argues it to be - remember, they were in a position to assess a safe speed at the 70 limit. The limit reduction is needless in itself and became utterly needless when the layout changes were made. Don’t forget, the enforced 50 limit continues on a flat, dead straight motorway well after the junction slips end ... do you want to try and give a possible reason for that 50 limit?

I guess you can’t understand the difference between assumption (simply taken for granted) and deductive logic (reasoned and reasonable judgment).

GreenShed wrote:
A newspaper report and more ASSUMPTION!
You are not doing very well are you. Putting the figures together as you have is again baseless assumption. You have nothing worthwhile to work with and are showing how little this campaign is based upon, or rather exactly what it is based upon ASSUMPTION!

Are the figures given within the newspaper report invalid? (surely that can be easily confirmed)

Assumption: without a basis in reason or fact; unfounded.
I have demonstrated reason supported by fact, so your summing of my argument is clearly wrong. Deductive logic is not assumption.

“How little” ? What about the three main confounding factors regarding illusions of speed camera effectiveness that you keep dismissing? All those must be baseless too right? :roll:

GreenShed wrote:
costs of processing the offences ... [Hardly] a recipie for "raising revenue"!

Ta daaa :D
Who gets those processing costs ;) That was my point from the start :roll:


Face it: you’ve been given logically reasoned arguments; in return all you’ve given is <panto> On no it isn’t! </panto> :lol:
Indeed I feel one can derive a certain irony within your post.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 07:15 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
Where is all of the evidence for the repeated claims that there are a large number of drivers charging around with cloned or non-traceable plates? Do you have evidence of thsi or is it more baseless assumption? Do you know the number or percentage of all non-traceable plates, including cloned plates? Do you have the figures to show what that is? If you don't have it then you should qualify your assertions with a big "guess" symbol so we know the status of your claims.

To show you part of the problem and how the dft is trying to takle this - apart from this being TOTALLY off topic here - goto this link ....
Here
Quote:
DfT announces new theft-resistant number plates
2nd June 2006
Roads Minister Stephen Ladyman unveiled a new weapon in the fight against car crime this week - number plates which are resistant to theft, making them less attractive to criminals and helping to combat car cloning and car ID theft.
According to police data, an estimated 33,000 number plates were stolen during 2004, with many more thefts going unreported. Many of these plates are subsequently used to disguise vehicles used in serious criminal activity.
The DVLA has worked with number plate manufacturers to agree an industry standard for ‘anti-theft’ plates. Plates will only meet the standard if they cannot be removed within three minutes or cannot be reused after removal.
Hills Numberplates Ltd., which supplies 3 million plates a year, claims it’s the first company to meet the DVLA standard and will have the new-type plates available from July.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Isn't Hills the company that adapted the rfid tag to be fitted into number plates ?
So it looks like the "anti-theft" plate will be the tagged ones.
In any case, stolen plates are not the issue. The issue is that it is EASY to order plates without presenting any id. Just buy "display" plates....sold at an inet site near you...I can get them made on the local market most weekends....in fact most people do just that....I should pay 20 quid for a "legal" plate when I can get one for 7 quid....and it looks the same...and I don't have to find the passport....utility bill...granny's ration card...
It is very hard to work out just how much of the LCG that is unpaid is due to false-plate vehicles....since the procedure for recovering unpaid CG is extremely onerous...the first you will know will be the bill...about 120 quid....and things get worse from then...very rapidly you end up as a bad credit risk, with bailiffs arriving (if you live within town you will get clamped)...so many people end-up paying just to get the clowns off their backs....
One thing that is certain is that over 30 million is owed by foreign embassy staff....so how much is from false-plate vehicles ?

We are ruled by a corrupt, dishonest and immoral civil service....

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 18:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:08
Posts: 48
Location: Cambridge
I certainly hope that sanity prevails before these things make a significant appearance. I DO NOT WANT to be told how to think anymore. I decide how fast to drive, no-one else. I am sure many people will find a way around the tech, but why shoud they have too? Actually with a bit of luck the recession and the Copenhagen bollocks will limit funding enough to put paid to these liberty stealing monsters, but in case they don't, consider this:

These are our roads and its our country. We should be able to make THEM listen to US, enough is enough etc etc.

Trouble is I have no idea how to do it, 'they' are so smug, arrogant and hold every card at present.

So I guess I'll have to sell my M3, buy an X5 and spend even MORE time travelling for no good reason. Although I do enjoy the occasional blast in my M, mostly speed is important cos it saves my LIFE for better stuff, and keeps me awake when I am driving too :)

_________________
Enjoying the twilight years of personal freedom in the UK (and my M3) :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 20:16 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 20:00
Posts: 4
Now we have 10% of drivers who are uninsured etc, and about 6% of all fatalities involving drivers from that group – that is quite a significant issue. Now I’m quite sure a good 10% of NIPs are ‘lost’, so this argument is far from baseless! Besides, the logic is simply enough to understand (what can one do if they wanna speed but not get caught…), but only those connected with the SCPs fail to recognise that, and that this isn’t an issue with real trafpol.[/quote]


You do realize that the figures you quote, (for which you refuse to provide any evidence,) show that the 10% cause less ftalaties than one would expect at 6 %. I conclude that you really dont know what you are talking about do you??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 21:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
the truth monger wrote:
You do realize that the figures you quote, (for which you refuse to provide any evidence,) show that the 10% cause less ftalaties than one would expect at 6 %. I conclude that you really dont know what you are talking about do you??

I didn't refuse to do any such thing :roll:
The 10% figure is common knowledge, just Google it if you don't know :roll:

As for the representation in accidents: you've made a bad assumption.
Those without up to date docs aren't going to let themselves have the same exposure as those with, simply because they don't want to get caught.
They're going to leave their cars in secluded areas then only come out when 'needed' or desired.
Those who drive a lot won't think twice about making sure their docs are up to date because of their significant exposure (such as commuters), added to that chances are they'll be on an income anyway so they can afford the proper upkeep. Many of the longer distance drivers are fleet/company vehicles anyway and they will be up to date.

Put simply, you're not going to expect those with out of date docs to do as much driving as those with up to date docs, by quite a large measure. Hence on a calendar year basis, they may well be under-represented in accidents, but things are very different on a per-mile/second exposure; that's when you can expect over-representation. I'm sure most people will understand that the exposure basis is the correct one to use and that on that basis that group are indeed over-represented as expected.

After all that your point is irrelevant anyway. We're talking about ticket evasion, not accident involvement.
:roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 21:23 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 20:00
Posts: 4
Steve wrote:
the truth monger wrote:
You do realize that the figures you quote, (for which you refuse to provide any evidence,) show that the 10% cause less ftalaties than one would expect at 6 %. I conclude that you really dont know what you are talking about do you??

I didn't refuse to do any such thing :roll:
The 10% figure is common knowledge, just Google it if you don't know :roll:

As for the representation in accidents: you've made a bad assumption.
Those without up to date docs aren't going to let themselves have the same exposure as those with, simply because they don't want to get caught.
They're going to leave their cars in secluded areas then only come out when 'needed' or desired.
Those who drive a lot won't think twice about making sure their docs are up to date because of their significant exposure (such as commuters), added to that chances are they'll be on an income anyway so they can afford the proper upkeep. Many of the longer distance drivers are fleet/company vehicles anyway and they will be up to date.


Put simply, you're not going to expect those with out of date docs to do as much driving as those with up to date docs, by quite a large measure. Hence on a calendar year basis, they may well be under-represented in accidents, but things are very different on a per-mile/second exposure; that's when you can expect over-representation. I'm sure most people will understand that the exposure basis is the correct one to use and that on that basis that group are indeed over-represented as expected.

After all that your point is irrelevant anyway. We're talking about ticket evasion, not accident involvement.
:roll:


Evidence?? Do you really just make all this stuff up?

As to you rlast sentence, you introduced the figures into this thread. They show the exact opposite of what you purported them to show, when this is pointed out you say its not relevant. Muddled dear boy, muddled.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 21:35 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
the truth monger wrote:
Evidence?? Do you really just make all this stuff up?

Given. Read the post again!

the truth monger wrote:
As to you rlast sentence, you introduced the figures into this thread. They show the exact opposite of what you purported them to show,

Only to those who don't understand the simple concept of exposure; did you understand that concept and the explanation given?
One more time: "You're not going to expect those with out of date docs to do as much driving as those with up to date docs, by quite a large measure. Hence on a calendar year basis, they may well be under-represented in accidents, but things are very different on a per-mile/second exposure; that's when you can expect over-representation."
If you dispute it, please explain how.

the truth monger wrote:
when this is pointed out you say its not relevant.

That's correct. The underlying issue was the rate of circumvention of automated speed enforcement; I raised the fatality figure as further support for the numbers driving around without up to date docs. Do you understand this now?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 01:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
Now let's look at the revenue raising assumption. SPECS costs will be significant as I understand it, then we have the high compliance/low number of offences for this system. Now consider the costs of loading and unloading the system, SPECS1/SVDD requires roadside attendance, add in the costs of processing the offences and the fact that the low level of fines go to the treasury with no additional revenues returned no matter what the level of offences. Hardly a recipie for "raising revenue"!


OK well show us the prove of this please?
To specify - how often are the SPECS 'roadside attended', and their frequency please?
What is this cost - proof please?
The full cost of how many offences? - please prove.
How many NIP are not processed? - all proved please for even 2 specific locations if you cannot manage a whole partnerships accounts.
You are welcome to send these by PM or email if you prefer not to post it in here for any reason.
Proof that the fines go to the Treasury?
And then perhaps you would be so kind as to also supply the applications to he treasury for the Road Safety Fund available to you from the Government ?
And you had also better provide proof of this too please... :)
That would be excellent :) TY.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 01:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
DavidMC wrote:
I certainly hope that sanity prevails before these things make a significant appearance.
We are winning in many areas. Many reports still show that people are still admitting to speeding in spite of all the cameras, so the public are not swallowing this non-sense. This is NOT to say that we condone going over the legal limit, but we recognise that when the hard facts show that when the 85th percentile of drivers are the least likely to be involved in an accident, that road safety is more involved. Reducing road safety to a numeric value is not the way to go, but education, understanding and research is. Understanding what happens prior to accidents and what good driving behaviour consists of, so that road users can be better prepared and understand how to make themselves safe, which far more useful and far safer for everyone. (I could go on!)
DavidMC wrote:
I DO NOT WANT to be told how to think anymore. I decide how fast to drive, no-one else. I am sure many people will find a way around the tech, but why shoud they have too? Actually with a bit of luck the recession and the Copenhagen bollocks will limit funding enough to put paid to these liberty stealing monsters, but in case they don't, consider this:
These are our roads and its our country. We should be able to make THEM listen to US, enough is enough etc etc.

Trying to ensure that drivers understand how best to be the most responsible and safest they can be, is good basic education. Further guidance and advice given regularly helps to improve all levels of road users and increase abilities, skills and knowledge. These processes are slow and results gradual but they become consistent and provide excellent foundations to work from.
Reducing people's responsibility is no way to increase road safety as they then increasingly drive as they are told blindly believing in instruction and stop thinking for themselves and making no good judgments and cannot manage risk.
DavidMC wrote:
Trouble is I have no idea how to do it, 'they' are so smug, arrogant and hold every card at present.

Well supporting this campaign is one way of course. :) I would not say that they hold every card this campaign has made significant steps over the years and I expect will continue to do so and try to bring common sense and good policies back onto our roads.
DavidMC wrote:
So I guess I'll have to sell my M3, buy an X5 and spend even MORE time travelling for no good reason. Although I do enjoy the occasional blast in my M, mostly speed is important cos it saves my LIFE for better stuff, and keeps me awake when I am driving too :)
We always try to encourage every road user to drive / ride so that they can always stop in the distance that they can see to be clear. Do have a look around the website and the forums I hope you find a lot of useful and sensible information all backed up with facts and figures where appropriate. :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:08
Posts: 48
Location: Cambridge
Hi all,

sorry for my rant earlier and thanks for the well thought-out reply. Over the years I have 'got used' to the situation regarding the treatment of drivers. The SPECS3 thing just really got to me there. The image of 70mph down deserted MWays (like the real-world situation now of 50mph for several miles of empty roadworks ala SPECS2) and nervous corrections on A-roads 'just in case the average is too high coming up to this village' is a future vision of hell to me. I drive 30,000 a year some years, and cars are STILL my passion. These ideas really HURT. Even worse: the wedge of traffic all moving at the same speed, sat in blind-spots and tailgating continously will make all trips far more dangerous in my view. This is how traffic behaves in avge scam zones now. Dare I say it even the mobiles are a safer option. AND Its clearly the mechanism for ANPR roll-out leading to toll roads everywhere.

The speed-kills brainwashed public will 'buy' the SPECS3 system, it will start in 20mph zones (I have little problem with that myself), but quickly appear on MWays, taking a bit longer to cover Aroads, but once their installed its C'charge-everywhere at the flick of a switch. How else can they ever pay for themselves? Even the new 'cheaper' system will be expensive...........

Calmed down but still depressed :(

I have followed the Safespeed campaign for years and it does excellent work, but I fear the decision makers do what they like regardless. I think the findings of the IRAQ war enquiry is a clear demonstration of how modern democracy has failed.

_________________
Enjoying the twilight years of personal freedom in the UK (and my M3) :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 00:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
DavidMC wrote:
The SPECS3 thing just really got to me there. The image of 70mph down deserted MWays (like the real-world situation now of 50mph for several miles of empty roadworks ala SPECS2) and nervous corrections on A-roads 'just in case the average is too high coming up to this village' is a future vision of hell to me. I drive 30,000 a year some years, and cars are STILL my passion. These ideas really HURT.
The SPECS systems are a tragedy to road safety. The policy of road safety is a mess and it needs to be returned back on track.
There are many people in this Country that do not approve of what is going on and do not agree with this 'spd kills' policy. We have proved that it is wrong and they keep trying to wriggle. The truth WILL out.
DavidMC wrote:
Even worse: the wedge of traffic all moving at the same speed, sat in blind-spots and tailgating continously will make all trips far more dangerous in my view. This is how traffic behaves in avge scam zones now. Dare I say it even the mobiles are a safer option. AND Its clearly the mechanism for ANPR roll-out leading to toll roads everywhere.
The av spd cams are not and never were the answer to road safety.
Driver responsibility is an essential understanding of road safety.
Reducing driving down to specific speeds creates lack of interest in the subject, and plays with driver psychology and people's lives, this is a fundamentally flawed and dangerous process.
The bad side effects that reducing responsibilities brings to road users, from the camera control policing policy has brought is immense and many fold.
There are no quick routes and reducing policing on the roads to cameras instead of at least using them as an aid is a serious flaw. The rift is ever widening.
In your 30,000 miles of travel how much is mostly within urban environments? I find as I travel about many varied driving abilities and skills, from the self centered and selfish to great courtesy, understanding and empathy. I find empty roads to packed stationery traffic, and everything inbetween.
We must concentrate road safety firmly with every road user and help each to constantly strive to inspire and encourage improvements to their skills, abilities and knowledge.
DavidMC wrote:
The speed-kills brainwashed public will 'buy' the SPECS3 system, it will start in 20mph zones (I have little problem with that myself),

That's curious? I can see a host of problems with the average speed enforced 20mph zones. The d-cam enforced 20mph zones will also retain many of the current gatso problems. 20 mph home zones have their problems too.
DavidMC wrote:
but quickly appear on MWays, taking a bit longer to cover Aroads, but once their installed its C'charge-everywhere at the flick of a switch. How else can they ever pay for themselves? Even the new 'cheaper' system will be expensive...........

The SPECS3 needs fiber optics which is extremely expensive and is not 'everywhere'. many Councils and people 'out there' are beginning to realise that there is more to road safety than specific speeds alone.
It is a travesty of justice that we have to point out this to Government, the route to road safety, as they should never be biased nor need to be remind of their own stats and information. I am quite sure that there are some very good guys trying to follow the right road safety policies and there is no denying that this is tough, we are up against a huge, very rich and embedded system, but if we were as big and as rich as they are just think what we could do ! :)
DavidMC wrote:
I have followed the Safespeed campaign for years and it does excellent work, but I fear the decision makers do what they like regardless.

Thankyou :lol: and I accept that on behalf of Paul. Thank you for coming forward it is great to hear from you. We always need to stand up and be counted in our beliefs and when we have truth and understanding behind us our message is out there.
Directly after one of the recent radio interviews a driving instructor called in and commented that he couldn't have agreed more with the lady from Safe Speed. :) Always delighted to get feedback - good and bad ! :) (Both can help me improve !)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 09:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
SPECS3 does NOT need fibre-optics.
Each SPECS3 camera operates as a networked Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera, feeding back
encrypted numberplate information to a remote central Instation, over a public communications network (ADSL,
3G, ISDN, WAN, LAN).
The central information installation may need a higher bandwidth BUT unless you have not noticed the highways agency has, for the last 5 years at least, been installing fibre the length of the country.
The local installations will cope quite well with either GSM/ADSL/3G (etc)
I said quite a while ago that WHATEVER was said by WHO would make no difference...roadpricing IS going to arrive NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE THINKS, and NO MATTER WHO IS ELECTED TO POWER.
A change of political direction may hold things back for a few months...but the problems of transport are not going away anytime soon. And no amount of money is going to solve it.
Too many people.
Too many cars.
There are too many conflicting needs in society for you to expect the government to build loads more roads for loads more cars.
The utopian society where every car is non-polluting and non-damaging (to anyone/thing) is never going to be realised and the sooner you change your thinking to encompass that the better.
All policies are being tailored to less cars and less drivers.
No matter what we want.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 09:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
20 mph home zones have their problems too.


And 30mph "zones" don't?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SPECS3
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 17:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
weepej wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
20 mph home zones have their problems too.


And 30mph "zones" don't?
When you stop cherry picking what to reply to so as not to give credit where credit is due or concede that someone other than yourself just may be right on a matter of road safety you may start to be taken more seriously.

If I am wrong then tell me why. If I am right then please have the decency to say so, just as I would to you.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.524s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]