Safe Speed Forums

(Topic split from "About our Visitors" by PeterE as Deputy Moderator)


And? They only get caught if they're breaking the law. And every camera van location that I've seen is on a road that has numerous camera warning signs. The 'risk' you mention isn't to the drivers.....the risk is to other road users. You're a clever bloke.. you must see the imaturity of your argument?

If people are stupid enough to drive above the limit they deserve to get caught. If everyone was to drive at or below the limit the partnerships would be out of busines. That's what I would advocate if I wanted rid of the things. And if no-one got caught AND the accident rates stayed the same then you really would have won the battle.

Peter, you have to remember that I've been in both camps - and the ABD camp at a high level. I know that many ABD and Safespeed members want rid of cameras so that they drive around like at any speed without penalty. I want rid of them because they do not address the bad driving that I see.

And loads of other roads have numerous camera warning signs and never see a Talivan. It is crying wolf.


Not in the slightest. Virtually all drivers exceed speed limits during their routine driving, and are therefore at risk from Talivans, which can very often register your speed well before you have a realistic chance to spot them.


So we should all join Transport2000 then? I'm sorry, but more and more limits are being set at ludicrously and unrealistically low levels. And it is a key point of the SafeSpeed argument that excessive concentration on precise adherence to numerical speed is detrimental to overall road safety. Speed limits are a very broad brush and should be enforced in that spirit.


I don't think more than a tiny minority of ABD and SafeSpeed members want to drive around at any speed without penalty.

I'm a middle-aged bloke. I'm a member of the IAM, and have had no driving convictions for 25 years. I drive a car with 96 bhp. I am no fire-breathing turbo nutter, and I feel such people do neither campaign any favours. My interest in the issue stems from the wider politics of transport, not from any sense that my individual pleasure is being curtailed by current speed enforcement trends.

But to say the way to fight back is that we should all drive around within the limit - however totally stupid that limit is - is to in effect concede the battle to the enemy.

_________________
"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

How much driver attention does it take to ensure that they are always within the speed limit?

Is there any evidence at all to support the idea that 'routine speeding' by otherwise responsible motorists is dangerous?

And what about the false message, received by millions of drivers, that their speed is safe if it does not exceed the speed limit?

The truth is that cameras enforcement has promoted speed limits way beyond their level of competence from useful servant to cruel and incompetent master.

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

Ru88ell for what it's worth I'm not sure how you "know that many ABD and Safespeed members want rid of cameras so that they drive around like at any speed without penalty. I want rid of them because they do not address the bad driving that I see."

My interest is personal and professional, I lost my fiance nine years ago to a drunk driver, he was given a minimum sentence as he was not speeding, the fact that he was well over the limit and killed two people seemed to have escaped the judge.

I am ex RAF search and rescue, I attended many rta's as part of our air ambulance duties. I am now a Safety Engineer/Advisor and a trained accident investigator.

In both the above roles I have come across many serious inuries and several fatalities, so find the emotive arguments put forward by camera partnership staff somewhat pale.

The current 'safety' camera policy is not working. The camera partnerships are becoming a law unto themselves, I have had dealings with a camera partnership that have placed vehicles in a manner that is a real danger to other road users and they think it is academic, they no longer return my calls.

Traffic police divisions are being downsized and where downsizing isn't taking place officers are being given 'additional duties' as if they didn't already have enough to do on the roads.

My main H&S role is in the construction industry and I am involved with typically 30-40 projects per year, last year 20 of these were new residential developments, the speed limits were being set not on safety grounds but because the local authority wanted to get people to use a bus service that was non existant, on grounds of noise when they had an obligation to put in acoustic fencing, even when the developer wanted to foot the bill it was vetoed.

All these things are downgrading road safety and destroying the relationship between the public and the police.

In terms of your comments about if everyone drove within the limit it would be the end of cameras, I very much doubt it, speed limits have been reduced with inadequate signage, one can only assume that this done to catch out more drivers and swell the coffers.

Also in terms of changing law, sometimes it has to be broken and brought into the public eye.

I have found the individuals on this forum to be quite passionate about this potentially emotive subject and reasoned in thier views. I have looked at other forums but have yet to find the kind attention to fact that resides here.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

This is not true. I for one want somebody trying to reduce accidents by reducing bad driving. I do around 20,000 miles per year in and around the South East. I see hundreds of people on the phone, reading books and generally not paying attention to what they are doing. Last year I saw one police bike on the motorway. IN THE WHOLE YEAR!

Police cars do not cut it, how can they see as many drivers as a filtering bike?

I am sure the reason there are less police on the roads is that it is believd that cameras are all that is needed to make the roads safer. In the mean time we kill 3500 people per year of which 99% are mainly down to poor driving or riding.

Of course you have some form of solid evidence to back that statement up?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

No. They'd simply say that speeds must still be too high, and that would result in a wholesale lowering of speed limits once more.
And they'd continue to use ever more dodgy tactics (such as poor signage) to catch more and more people out.
The SCP employees rely on a continuing flow of camera revenue for their livelihoods - they're not going to give up without a fight.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Whilst (amazingly, to quote Monbiot) both SS and the ABD will have some members who might possibly be "extreme libertarians" and do indeed think they should be entitled to drive at whatever speed they like, I imagine the vast majority of even this small number would still argue that they would drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions.

The important point, surely, is that this view is NOT the policy of either SS or the ABD. SS has never, to my knowledge argued that all speed limits should be abolished, or even not enforced - merely that an overconcentration on speed limits as a means of ensuring road safety is not only ineffective but counterproductive. Most on SS, I imagine feel that speed limits need to be enforced by proper police enforcement used with appropriate discretion.

If only that were true.
Did someone say LTI 2020?
What about the gatsos that zap people doing 20mph?

So - instead of gunning for speed cameras, campaign loudly and vociferously for more police. Incorrect speed is one of the factors in poor driving or riding.

Leave the cameras there and go for more police. Campaign more against deaths and injuries. Look at seat belt use in cars full of youths. Mobile phone use = a ban. etc. etc. Campaign against speed cameras and more people will speed. Simple.

and one that can be policed by police.

As has already been said by Paul in another thread, speed cameras and parked speed camera vans are not hazards, it follows that the subconscious will filter out these non-hazards leaving the conscious self to concentrate on the task in hand (whilst negotiating the real hazards).



However, being as so many are being caught and the speed camera sign is the only one known by 100% of all motorists (as opposed to a slippery surface <50%, uneven road surfaces <25%; source: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=17292006 ) and the accident rate hasn’t fallen, then it could justifiably be said that the current road safety policy is already losing that battle.



Almost! It is policy to review speed limits which are deemed to be ‘inappropriate’, inappropriate meaning the limit for a given road is higher than drivers travel at. There will be a spread of speeds which people choose to drive at, due to reasons like: speedo error (EDIT: they are set to over-read by up to 10% plus 6.25mph.....that's a lot of tolerance!!), travelling at a few mph lower than the limit as indicated by the speedo (for peace of mind). Hence if no-one exceeded the limit, the actual average driver speed would be much lower than the limit dictates; this will be interpreted as the limit being inappropriate for the road and the limit speed will be lowered (yes, this is policy). This goes a long way to explain the prolonged rash of inappropriate speed limit reductions, usually to below the naturally safe driving speed, for no justifiable reason.




Depends on how you define many: 10? and how many of these are trolls/plants?
I think you’ll find that the great majority support the Safe Speed philosophy:
“Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits, but instead calls for proportionate and intelligent enforcement of all motoring laws. Speed cameras have proved to be far from intelligent and far from proportionate.”

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/index.html

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Isn't it now policy in some areas that the speed limit is set at the 50th percentile speed? This means that in the long term 50% of people are breaking the limit no matter what speed they drive at.

Yeah! that's the one. i couldn’t remember it fully when I was typing the post.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

In addition to what others have pointed out, think of the delivery drivers who do anything upto 100,000 miles a year. I used to do 70,000 and because of that I made every effort not to exceed the speed limit, but I certainly didn't feel any safer and the chances of me missing a 30 sign or simply making a small error of speed was quite large. If I did get caught(I didn't) I'd have had to drive 210,000 miles before it was removed from my licence.

I thought we were doing that.


Often within the speed limit.


Since cameras (which don't work) have been effectively replacing traffic officers (which do) they it makes sense to campaign to reverse the trend.

_________________
"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

If you think about it, if you drive at the speed limit in constantly changing conditions, you'll always be driving at an incorrect speed.

That's the trouble with cameras - false safety messages as far as the eye can see.

We believe that cameras are making drivers worse - they are a negative cultural influence, and since cultural influences are truly at the heart of road safety we can be very confident that they are making matters worse.



'Speeding" does not equal dangerous. "Not speeding" does not equal safe. While we have a single major focus of road safety policy as percieved by the driving public safety will continue to be damaged.

The cameras have to go and go soon because we must restore proper balance in the minds of the public. No other road safety issue is more important.

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

SafeSpeed: "'Speeding" does not equal dangerous. "Not speeding" does not equal safe."

You can be legal AND lethal at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what the camera partnerships would have the public believe.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

I do not disagree with cameras. There are places where cameras are entirely justified. I would not mind seeing cameras enforce 20MPH limits outside schools, nurseries, playgrounds and anywhere kids play.

But on motorways and dual carriageways / A roads type trunk roads 70/60 is too low, too high and just right every day.

Oh and frankly, I would ban people for talking on their phone forever. No excuses. The same for reading books and doing the crossword. Its simply not driving with the necessary care and attention.

I used to believe that too. But I changed my mind for two reasons:

1) http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedo.html
2) vehicle activated signs are proven to be far more effective than cameras at reducing traffic speeds in areas of special danger.

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