Safe Speed Forums

Yes, I am against the monitoring, but I also disagree with the revenue gathering whilst hiding behind a lie about reducing accidents - traffic police are capable of that, speed cameras are not. Then again, trafpols cost money, whilst cameras reap money

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

AH - I see... it's a bit like the fox hunting argument then... It's tradition, and they're vermin, and and and.

I think it's better to have one clear reason to be honest.

_________________
freedom is knowledge of one's necessity

I think you will find it an interesting read. I agree, there has to be a limit, but commonly these limits are clearly the acts of politicians, then propped up with revenue partnerships - KSI statistics do not fall, and therefore do not support the scammers spin.

Also a limit has to be reasonable, and I do not think a variable limit is feasible like you said, but sensible enforcement by traffic officers is feasible (yet expensive).

I do not think that your statement about the people of this forum is correct either - the majority just want sensible limits, and sensible enforcement.

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

Oh?? How do they do it in France then?

You are also taught to drive safely, not to keep your eyes glued to the side of the road in anticipation of one sign amongst many which we already have to deal with,

Are you telling me you check the limit every time you drive one of your regularly visited roads?

I have the feeling we have triggered the reaction of many in authority who are desperately trying to prevent or dishearten us from protesting on the M4, they have been sent to this site to monitor on behalf of their managers at the 'Safety Partnerships'

incidently have any of them read the statistical facts?

Cheers,
matt

Or it could be the outraged Miniclub mobilising their forces!

Or it could just be that there are always two sides to every argument and the more extremist the view the more it'll attract the attention of the opposite side?

To Fred, Byny and others of similar mindset:

I'd like to ask you a couple of hypothetical questions.

There's a general election just around the corner, and a change of government isn't completely out of the question, so

1) If the hypothetical new government raises the motorway speed limit to 100mph, will you then drive at 100mph, or will you continue to drive at 70mph? Is it because of safety, or is it because the law says so?

2) If, on the other hand, the new government is rabidly anti-car and they reduce the motorway limit to 20mph, will you then stick to 20mph and criticise all who dare to go faster, or will you become like the rest of us?

Cheers
Peter

Peter
Get real - you know as well as I do that the limit is not going to be raised to 100 or reduced to 20. If it is raised to 80 I probably still wouldnt drive faster than 70 as I am happy at that speed. The point is that there has to be a limit which should be strictly enforced 70, 80 or whatever. You only have to worry if you break the law and exceed it. Stick to the rules and you wont have a problem.

Again we have this problem where people assume that because we do not like the use of speed cameras it is entirely because we want to speed, nothing could be further from the truth.

The speeds on our roads used to be set at the 85th percentile, this was judged by real road safety engineers as the appropriate limit for a road and road traffic police enforced these limits as appropriate. As a result of this KSI figures on the roads fell from year to year as roads got better, education got better, cars became safer.

However this has been thrown out of the window in favour of lower limits and rigid enforcement of those limits and the removal of traffic police. The result was that the trend slowed and has now reversed for the first time in 30 years (Paul, correct me if I am wrong).

If this policy had the benefit of reducing the number of KSI's on our roads and people simply driving slower had a genuine benefit for all road users then SafeSpeed would not exist and would not have so much support, but from the Governments own figures it has been proven not to work - that is why we protest - All we want is to reduce the number of people killed and injured on our roads, tell me what is wrong with that?

At the end of the day, the unfortunate fact is that road deaths have gone up, Cameras are therefore not effective in what they supposedly aim to achieve.

Cheers,
matt

Can't make my mind up whether byny or fred is basingwerk!

There is nothing wrong with saving lives - an well enforeced 70mph limit will do that. You do not seem to accept the fact that you might have to pay a fine when you have clearly done something that is against the law.
I am all for safer driving and life saving, and I am for catching people driving like idiots or drunk etc. I also perfectly accept the fact the if I exceed the speed limit I may get fined so I obey the law -why can you not do that?

But that is the whole point - it hasn't - the cameras in wiltshire have been in place for a week - how many KSI's? and how many happened above 70?



I am more than happy to pay for any law breaking I do, fortunately I have not had to do this, and I have not had any collisions.



And the scamera van is going to do this how?



who said I don't?

Fred mate,

Can you honestly say, hand on heart hope to die and all that, that you never, ever, ever break the speed limit?
Not even when encoutering a slight downhill gradient?
Or entering a change of limit?
Or when your eyes are scanning the road ahead looking for potential hazards?
Or when the road surface changes?
Or when the majority of traffic around you is travelling faster than you are and you find yourself naturally keeping apace?

No?
Never?

Then you are truly the Ned Flanders of driving sir

OK lets get something straight, contrary to what you may think the majority of people on this board do not advocate that speeding is safe, nor do we believe that any form of dangerous driving should be ignored and that includes speeding.

This campaign is about road safety and the fact that the current policy of speed camera plorification has reduced the safety of our roads and not increased it on jot. Cameras have led to a removal of policemen from our roads in fact most forces in the UK no longer have a traffic division and this is as a direct result of the Governments obsession with speed cameras.

I want to see the deaths on our roads reduce, I have had the dis-pleasure of investigating too many fatal accidents in my time and have over the years seen too many friends die on the raods a trend that started when I was 4 years old and watched my baby sister be run over and killed by an ice cream van carrying out a reversing manouver into where we were playing.

Yes people do die in accidents caused by speeding, the actual percentage is a single figure percentage (3-5% according to those forces that report on it). Speed cameras only focus on speeding and not the other causes of carnage on our roads which account for 95-97%.

This forum stands for the forgotton majority, the people who die on our roads as a result of a misguided policy, which although started with the best intentions was initially fuelled by the greed of technology firms and is now contuinued by the machine of the Pratnerships whose very existance relies on the lies contnuing.

Yes I know that the profits go to the Government but the wages and the pensions are paid for by the fines and its the people who are in receipt of this who are lying their arses off to make sure that their personal cash cow does not end.


What do you do for the forgotton majority? What are you doing to try to force
our Government to start to actually do something to reduce the deaths on our roads and to stop them constantly lying to preserve face?

You have no ideas what we stand for or even who we are, we are not what your puppet masters portray, unless of course your own livelyhood relies on the machine

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

God its so easy to wind you lot up about these cameras! In all honesty I fear your protest with have the reverse effect and actually make the authorities more determined and stubborn - well at least I hope it does. I also hope that the police slap a fine on anyone who takes part in the protest. A freind who is a police officer from Swindon tells me you can be charged for driving too slowly and casuing frustration to other road users.

May be it would be a more convincing argument if you could separate the issues a bit here? It seems you object to three things:

1) Lowering speed limits.
2) Rigid enforcement of those limits.
3) Removal of traffic police.

As fas as I can work out, only one of these is going to change the safety of roads, the traffic police issue.

I was under the impression that a lot of motorists supported the changing of some speed limits (e.g. 20mph zones in dense resedential areas, around schools etc...), and I wasn't aware the limits were going to change on the M4 anyway.

As for the rigid enforcement issue. Well it's the law, if we apply the same logic to other laws we could in trouble. How much am I allowed to steal before I get done for theft? How much can a beat someone up before I get done for assault/GBH? Respect for the law is an important issue if societies are to function.

Just a couple of initial thoughts to mull over anyway.

Yes I can

So you expected to be able to make your points without anyone actually attempting to explain what the flaws in them are then?

I have explained them many times, you do not seem to have the intelligance to understand them.

Its simple:

Speed limit 70 mph
Exceed it = fine

Get on with your lives - you wont change anything here!!