Safe Speed Forums

Published today:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 610336.pdf

It contains ALL the old lies. Amazing. Are they trying to undermine themselves?

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

All the same old mealy mouthed propaganda certainly.

I like the "if it is estimated that for each 1mph reduction in average speed, accident freqeuecy is reduced by 5% then...."

So that discreditied statistic isn't even an estimate now, let alone based on any obsevations!

What aout "if it is estimated that each 1% INCREASE in speed decreases accident frequency by 5% then...." They don't bother to develop that equally valid speculation (which might be inferred by the well known fact that motorways are both our safest and fastest roads) I notice.

Perhaps they just believe that if a lie is repeated often enough, people will believe it. Unfortunately that view appears to have some justification.

The camera figures on page 16 are a sick joke.



Is it a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Oh this is a good one.... ROFLMFAO

First thing I spotted is that the 'kill v injury' at the 20/30mph was done HOW many years ago...(Ashton & Mackay 1979). Has it EVER occured that the design of what hits you might have changed just a tad in the last 26 years?

Also page 7. If only 10% of driver exceed the limit on rural roads why are there a) 60% of the national fatalities on theses and b) virtually no cameras/gatsos etc on these. (Certainly not to save lives on the statistically dangerous roads - Lack of revenue huh?)

Page 8. It goes up, then comes back down...looks like the next one on the list will be 2006: All vehicles limited to 14mph. 2010: 2mph limit and red flags carried in front.

Page 13. Claim: Road humps reduce speeds by upto 10mph. Depends on the vehicle width. I can usually float over them at 30 comfortably. Busses can go over with impunity at ANY viable speed, only compact cars (no offence to anyone) slow significantly to ride over them. How does this contribute to road safety? Reductions in MEAN speed means diddy-squat as a justification for installing these if indeed 'speed' did kill.

Page 15. Being influenced by motoring mags & programs for the weak minded. Sorry, but I've yet to see 'Average Joe Soap' pushing the limits of his car. I enjoy these programs etc., but to suggest that I or anyone else could possibly be influenced to drive at 150mph ish just because my car is capable is ludicrous!

Page 16. Just what was the cross section of the population that 'made up' (pun intended) the 79% that support camera use. School children? The bed ridden? Partnership employees?

They didn't state what they support camera use for!! Some of us who would like to see the removal of most speed cameras might still think that there are some rare situations where they might be useful, perhaps as a temporary measure in road works for example, where SPECS in particular seem very effective at reducing speeds. Even those who think that can be construed to "support camera use". That doesn't mean that they support the use of cameras to raise revenue though!

But I like to take holiday snaps too. Perhaps that is "supporting camera use" in the twisted statisitical world in which these people seem to live.

Some of it's quite funny...

You're certainly going to run into the back of a lot of other vehicles if you do!

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Looks like a rush job doesn't it? Do you think they are getting rattled?

Well, at least they're at pains to point out that there are times when even the speed limit is too fast. Trying to head off the old, "The message is that if you drive at the speed limit you are safe" accusation oft heard within these walls perhaps?

it certainly contains lots of patronising nonsense. The page with speed hump, vehicle activated signs etc seemed to show better speed and accident reductions from the vehicle activated signs (backing up Paul's research). Is it possible to get hold of the quoted TRL report - No. 548 ?

It may be a little pedantic, but the pamphlet is incorrect in stating that 40 and 50 mph limits were introduced in the 1970s. As I understand it, 40 mph limits were originally introduced in the late 1950s (generally for roads that were previously 30) and 50 mph limits in the 1960s.

It is useful that it defines a dual carriageway which is a frequent source of confusion.

I found the following particularly risible:


Meanwhile, back in the real world, inappropriately low limits are set by malicious, pig-ignorant councillors in defiance of advice from their professional officers and the local police.

_________________
"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