Safe Speed Forums

Hi all,

I'm on the "Jeremy Vine" programme, in the studio, tomorrow soon after 1pm (BST). I'll be up against Robert Gifford for about 20 to 30 minutes.

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

I usually listen to JV's show, I will make a special point of listening to this one, go for it Paul, knock them dead.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

I've just listened to the recording off the web, and would make the following observations:

Gifford fought his corner by deliberately over-simplifying any point made against him, so that he could apply the "party line". He came across as extremely patronising towards Paul.

Paul made some great points, or at least started into some great points, but I think the general style of the program was a bit too light-hearted to have any chance of reaching any logical conclusion. The presenter particularly seemed to be doing his best to turn any serious point made by either side into a light-hearted sound bite.

Where Gifford totally lost his credibility for me was when he started wittering on about digital speedos being a good idea and something that will make things safer in the future. It was a shame that was so close to the end of the piece (and no doubt such an unexpectedly ludicrous remark to make) so Paul didn't get a chance to rip into him about this. I guess it proves he knows as little about instrumentation as he does about road safety.

The guy from Brum who rang in shortly afterwards made some great common sense points, but when Dunwoodie got involved I'm afraid it annoyed me so much I had to turn it off! I can't believe the bare-faced cheek of her passing off the the rise in 2003 fatalities as a proof that "speed kills", and that more cameras are required. I know we've been expecting this coming, but it still comes across as particularly gut-wrenching to hear it actually said!

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

When aviation first embraced the digital age, analogue gauges were replaced by stark numerical readouts. It was quickly found that aircrews (and engineers for that matter) found it much more difficult to take in and analyse the readout from a digital instrument than from the 'sweep' of an analogue one. Modern MFCD's now replicate analogue instruments to overcome this very phenomenon.

Thanks rigpig - my point exactly. I once had a car with a digital speedo and it was dreadful. It probably took 3 times as long to read your speed, and also you had to read it twice to see whether the current trend was upward or downward. As recognised in aviation (and in motorsport), digital speedos are nothing but a useless gimmick.

There is also the laughable delusion that digital speedos are somehow more accurate. In reality accuracy is purely a function of the quality of the instrument, not how it presents the data. This was illustrated by a friend of mine who looked at my digital speedo and said "that's really good - when it says 30 you know it's exactly 30 now, don't you?", Err, no - it could still really be meaing 25...

For someone to be promoting this as a road safey argument is preposterous.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

JT<

I've got one of these speedos on one of my cars and it is a nuisance to say the least, it is constantly changing all the time, ironically letting you know the vast change in speed of the car even between 10 second speedo checks. Before the carrot crunchers get on their high horse and pronounce "it should be possible to stay at the same speed", I will say "not when you are on a raleigh my friend and in a road that was previously a 40MPH limit in a rural area".

Andrew

Hi,

Just to let everyone know,

The Jeremy Vine link to hear the report is only available 48HRS after broadcasting. THink this is to change soon.

Andrew