Safe Speed Forums

The following PR went out at 12:41 this afternoon:

M4 Protest issues list of demands

News: For immediate release

The M4 Protest group today issued a series of demands intended to
improve road safety and end the oppressive and counter productive
overuse of speed cameras.

Paul Smith, road safety spokesman for M4 Protest (www.m4protest.org)
said: "£700 million of fines issued by speed cameras have not made the
roads safer. We believe that the speed camera programme is dangerously
flawed and causes more problems than it solves. Officials are not
looking at the big picture and prefer to rely on narrow and misleading
statistics. While they do this road deaths are rising. Enough is
enough."

The demands are:

We demand the immediate suspension of all speed cameras on open
motorways because we do not believe that they improve safety.

We demand an end to the greedy camera partnerships. The partnership
structure is cash driven and works against genuine road safety.

We demand that no road safety policy penalises safe and responsible
driving.

We demand road safety policies that enhance, rather than destroy, the
relationship between responsible members of the public and the Police.

We demand that the major political parties make very clear their
policies on speed cameras and road safety in the run up to the general
election.

We demand a fair, impartial and statistically sound review of all
speed camera operations giving proper consideration to side effects as
well as main effects.

We demand an immediate end to the deliberate abuse of statistical
data. For example, camera partnerships and others ignore regression to
the mean effects to fraudulently claim benefit for their cameras.

We demand open and accurate public debate on the issues surrounding
speed cameras. Our spokesperson will meet anyone - head to head - in
any national media.

<ends>

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Excellent.

Hope for some positive, intelligent response for a change.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

Good luck with the protest. I support your aims and I hope it sends a clear message to all the lying, greedy scamera pratnerships. I hope it rattles the cages of the Nazi, car-hating ecogeeks. Talk is cheap. I'm delighted that someone finally has the nerve to do something.


"The gentlemen of England now abed shall think themselves accursed that they were not here."

William Shakespeare, King Henry V

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Hi Paul,
I dont know where you get the energy from. All the demands seem fair and reasonable. I would have an overall demand that goes something like :-

We Demand 1000 lives are saved every year by changing policy to SAFETY and NOT speed cameras.

The fire service have achieved a massive reduction in fire deaths and injuries following similar policies ( STAFFS from 300 to 50 in 15 years ).

Its difficult for people to argue against saving lives.

Should I ( we / anyone ) Try to open a dialogue with the fire service(s) to get their opinion and support for change.

Keep up the excellent work

Richard

Such a demand cannot readily be proved to be reasonable. We shouldn't be risking credibility when we've already got plenty to support a winning position.



Brilliant Richard. Yes, please do open a dialogue.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

One thought, would it not be worthwhile to protest the unreasonably low motorway speed limit? in addition to your other aims.

I've seen many posts here and elsewhere saying that cameras are ok if, for example, they were enforcing a 30mph limit outside a primary school at chucking out time.

If the motorway speed limit was raised to, for example, 155 (with reductions for bad weather) then I dont think too many people would object to the cameras enforcing it

Enforcing a stupid law is not good, but surely getting rid of the stupid law that makes safe drivers into criminals acheives more than just getting rid of one bit of enforcement and does nothing to stop a bent copper getting annoyed that your car is faster than theirs and pulling you for speeding even after the cameras are removed.

It would also help the increasing state of paranoia that I see many drivers suffering, wondering if the car that is following them is really an unmarked copper. (I have this problem after getting done in 2002 by a tailgating copper in an unmarked battered R-reg Chavalier on the 3-lane bit of the A50)

Several points -

First, the SafeSpeed view, that I share, is not that the motorway speed limit (or, on the whole most speed limits) are stupid or wrong but that they should be enforced with discretion - that is where the speed or manner of driving constitutes a safety violation, not merely an infringement of the speed limit.

Second, although there may be individual cases of corruption or simply mistaken priorities, our police force, on the whole, comprises honest and well-intentioned individuals who deserve our support.

Third, although tailgating by any police vehicle is wrong, you should consider whether you could have dealt better with the tailgating incident you described. See this page.