Safe Speed Forums

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?

Yambo works for LCC Accident Investigation and Prevention team and does some work with the LRSP (Lancashire Road Safety Partnership).

Well yes, it may have slowed them down, but I seriously doubt it. Why didn't you mention whether he was speeding or not, because if he wasn't the camera would do absolutely nothing.

Oh, and is that "our" DIY?

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?

Why does Yambo find this surprising. Clearly the speed is going to be a factor in the result but it's perfectly possible for speed to have absolutely nothing to do with the cause, even if the vehicle does slide 50 yards on it's roof through someone's garden wall and into their neighbours washing or whatever.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Like a spill of diesel across an unlit wet road?

So we get speed enforcement because 'the public' want it? Forget about developing a reliable evidence base, forget about the science. Just how are 'the public' measuring how many speeding vehicles really pass through their streets? Are they worried about accident risk or increased & noisy traffic levels?

What else is public opinion going to bring us? Hanging and flogging?

Are a handful of angry locals, with little understanding of the subject and a considerable vested interest representative?

Nothing like an angry local to act in a calm , rational manner ...

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3750771

An apt illustration Greengoblin.

thing is that they're probably complaining about cars driving too fast down residential streets but all the speed traps are put onto major roads to ensure a good revenue flow.

Has anyone else noticed the figures seem a bit 'suss'?

at 40... 9 out of 10 DIE

seems all the did was reverse them...

at 20... 9 out of 10 SURVIVE

while at 30... it's split 50/50

I'm not maths genius but something doesn't seem to add up here

The thing that doesn't add up is that in the real world, in all speed limits 49 out of 50 survive.

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

Iddiots, yet more evidence that these anti-speeding loosers are more interested in reducing the speed of an accident rather than trying to prevent the accident in the first place!

_________________
www.clubrwd.com - For all things rear wheel drive

Chances are a driver with a car in such a poor state of repair would care little about speed anyway, never mind a "speed camera"...

Having a speed camera on a road merely makes sensible aware drivers who probably already drive quite considerably for the prevailing conditions, slow down a little bit more (perhaps already under the limit and slow further), and as a consequence probably take more care about their speed and the camera for a few hundred yards, than the dangers on that road that the camera is there to help "prevent" causing accidents in the first place.

It's a big bad contradiction.

And the drugged up driver in the knackered car, they are going to slow down for the camera? And if by a miracle they do, how will it prevent an accident half a mile down the road.
Would the camera see the badly driven car, the poor state of repair, and notify the police?

No.

Speed camera's do nothing for *preventing* accidents in my opinion. All they do is slow drivers down who are aware of them, and it is these drivers that are probably already aware enough to not have an accident there in the first place.

This is probably why speed camera's have done nothing for reducing accidents at all throughout their service.

I don't dispute going slower means that accidents occur at lower speeds, and perhaps mean les people die, but that is the most stupid reaction to a problem. Why don't we try prevent accidents altogether, and for doing that camera's do nothing.

As Tony Bliar once said, "education, education, education"

Dave

Was the vehicle correctly registered in the first place?

Two thoughts

First the cars and bikes passing her home of no danger to her or any other pedestrian until you jump out in front of one travelling in a legal and safe manor. So it not the bike that was a danger but the mad woman. I hope she gets charged with attempted murder and her action in no way could be described as an accident.

Second thought
Any one know if she died as I would like to nominate her for a Darwin Award for try so hard to remover herself from the gene pool

Looks like this idea of "the public want" is a new tactic by the pratnerships.
Warwickshire "Smile camera" one is using the words "a hundred people asked us ........" --- sounds more like the wording on a tv show "we surveyed a hundred members of the public" ---and we all thought that the "camera partnerships" were about road safety - wording like this makes them seem like the comedians they are, or is this just another scheme to slip in a van or bike where they couldn't before ??

Our local community were asked by the police what their major concerns were. This is an excerpt from a posting on our local web forum on May 25th by the area Police Inspector - it has a certain familiar ring to it:

"On 26th May the first Poynton Community Action Meeting was held. More than 120 people attended ! The sole purpose of these meetings is for you to tell us what you see as the local policing priorities.

The people of Poynton voted for speeding and parking as the number one priority."

At the time the "village" was plagued with illegal parking on double yellow lines during the day and "boy racers" at night. Over 3 months on, and guess what? The "village" is still plagued with them. The police appear to have taken no action whatsoever against either. But then we are talking about Cheshire here

Managed to find one of their quotes -- Communications Manager Stephen Rumble added “We have received more than a hundred requests from Warwickshire residents for speed enforcement within the last 12 months. These residents are all fed up with the drivers who speed in their neighbourhood and recognise that cameras are an effective way of slowing traffic down. We hope that the cameras will encourage motorists to stay within the limit. It is just a pity that it takes the threat of penalty points and fines to slow some drivers down.”

Do we have a clone factory turning out partnership managers called Steve, who all talk/think the same way??
Also amazing how in law it's only a police officer who can judge that a vehicle is speeding and chech it's speed - but 100+( who possibly can only see accross the road) can complain and immediately all cars on this road are guilty, or are they just trying for another drop in the limit.
But poetic justice works well - according to an old sgt when the speed traps go on in a local area the locals are more than guilty.