Safe Speed Forums

I wouldn't argue with you there and I see where you're coming from.

You’ve made me think now... Of all the people I know who drive or ride I’m wondering how many of those drive so badly that they are the ones who should be picked up? The ones which you would want to target if you were a traf pol. The real dangerous ones we keep mentioning that insurance companies hate and make life so terrible for the rest of us.

I reckon it would only be one or two in a hundred from my circle of friends and acquaintances. I’m not on about small transgressions which never amount to anything, I mean those people whom we all know whereby if they offered you a lift you’d be reluctant to take their offer.

Now then, given that those two are not on the road all the time and also given that when they are they are not a maniac all of that time but only for, lets say, ten minutes or half an hour of their driving time, it’s made me wonder just how many traffic police you would need per head of driver population to keep order?

I don’t have any figures of course and I could be way off with my guesstimate but I’m not sure you need a silly number of traffic police per driver population. I don’t know what it is currently but perhaps 1 traff poll per 1000 would suffice? I’d be interested to know if we have any figures or what people think would be an ideal or minimum number and why.

I’m probably way off with my figures but I hope what I’m saying makes some sense. If not can someone tell me please and I’ll quickly delete it.

_________________
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.

Which raises another interesting question:

If you can only choose one, is it better to penalise the worst 25% of drivers for minor transgressions, or come down like a ton of bricks on the worst 5%?

A few quick thoughts on traffic policing:

1. Road traffic law should be largely self-enforcing - you shouldn't have to depend on the threat of prosecution to get most road users to adhere to it
2. Policing needs a fairly light touch, but there does need to be enough of it to give people the belief that they *might* be caught for offending
3. The "fine in post" approach is counterproductive and tends to alienate people who might respond to a talking to. It also violates the basic principle of justice that people shouldn't be made to incriminate themselves. In my view this should be scrapped or at least only used on a "decriminalised" basis
4. By definition, traffic patrols are unlikely to witness obvious examples of careless or dangerous driving unless an accident occurs; therefore they need to identify offences which are effective proxies for "bad driving" - I would suggest using a hand-held mobile, while not necessarily very dangerous in itself, falls squarely into this category
5. "Bad drivers" fall into two distinct groups of the reckless and irresponsible, and the dozy and oblivious, who to a large extent are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and need different tactics to deal with
6. Much more use should be made of driver improvement courses as an alternative to prosecution, but the police should not be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner and just finger people for these

_________________
"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

One potent argument for only penalising the "terrible few" rather than the "dodgy lots" is that it draws attention to the randomness of the application of the law.

The more people who are penalised, the less stigma is attached to it.

So - following my comment above about proxies - we need to establish what it is that the "terrible few" do but the "dodgy lots" don't.

_________________
"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

Wow, listening to the news the "for speed camera lobby" and general public really opened my eyes today. It also showed me how brainwashed people had become.

Did you know that speed cameras can do all of the follwing:

stop cyclists being killed

save children

stop hit and runs

protect vulnerable road users , apart from cyclists who are these?

stop speeding

stop death on roads

Any way I'm off now to watch out for that particular camera that can stop hit and runs, it maight be good at doing gardening as well,

gonna ask it when I find it.

I agree that we need to be VERY careful now. We (I've no idea how it could be done without huge resources) need to be absolutely scrupulous about all the other factors that are likely to come into play by mere coincidence.

I imagine that due to the recession, there will be a general reduction in vehicle-miles driven. That will help KSis and will clearly be nothing to do with cameras. On the other hand, I imagine that many raod improvement will be canned in order to save money - that will be bad. In my own county, Cumbria, the upgrading of the infamous "Cumbrland Gap" where the M6 suddenly turned into dueal carriageway for the last 10 miles or so before the Scottish border gave us a significant reduction in KSIs (which, surprise, surprise, the local Scamera partnership never acknowledged in their annual stats)! I be there are loads of by-passes that will not get built now.

Then again, the recession is likely to see older cars kept on the road for longer and with less rigorous maintenance - clearly a bad thing....

...and so on. The switching off of fixed scameras will be just one small piece of a much bigger jigsaw. Can anyone think of any other factors?

But that is the point - they are saying, without stating it directly, that the cameras never did anything but bring in money. There is no safety benefit, nor real worth while revenue stream either. By Government standards a billion over many years is small beer compared to their coffers. The disdain with which the Country feels towards them is clear.

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