Safe Speed Forums

As requested by Site Admin, I am going to go through some of the paper "Speed cameras - the case against" and argue my points. I don't have time right now to do the whole thing, but I'll try my best!


What are the possible side effects? That people actually slow down and obey the speed limit?
What could their overall effects be on our road safety systems?


That doesn't prove that speed cameras are not reducing fatalities, because we can never know how bad things would be WITHOUT the cameras. We can be sure that many hundreds of thousands of motorists (including the ones who frequent these boards) would be speeding as often as they could get away with it.
Why do you want to speed? Why do you find it so hard to stay within the speed limits? Why are you always in such a hurry? What do you feel when you get inside a car, and can't break the speed limit?
Those are the REAL reasons you speed. This entire site is just a way of avoiding the REAL question: what FEELINGS cause you to behave irresponsibly towards other people, never mind yourself.
Taken to its logical conclusion, no upper speed limit should exist for any road, according to this site. But nobody here would argue that. So what precise speed should be the limit? "We know best", claim the members of this site. On what authority? And again, why would you want to speed? Because of the way you FEEL, that's why.
Continuing to pretend there is an intellectual reason for this is the reason you can't get rid of the EMOTIONAL reason for it.


But the number of people being caught speeding PROVES that there are far more aggressive, nasty drivers about. The fact that millions of people still speed, despite knowing that they could be caught on a speed camera, proves they don't CARE enough about being caught, but are being driven by something far more important to them: their feelings.


"Can" being the operative word here. They "can" be driven perfectly safely without reference to a speedometer, but very often AREN'T. People who are bad drivers almost NEVER look at their speedometers. I wonder if there is a correlation here? Of course there is!
Again, let's go right back to the beginning of all of this. Why would the creator of this site even have a problem with speed cameras, unless he routinely broke the law by speeding, and wasn't happy because he could no longer get away with it?

End of part one.

edited to add: The document in question is: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html - also available as a Word doc: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.doc

As far as I can tell, all those points you are raising are addressed WITHIN the document - although further on than the bit you are reading.

Save yourself some time and read the whole thing first.

Good luck and have fun trying to tear it apart. (no sarcasm intended)

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

Actually, just to point this out to you mosis, the better the driver, the less the driver needs to look at the speedometer.
Race drivers are safe drivers, otherwise they would crash at every corner. Yet speedometers in race cars are redundant. Race driver are taught and learn to judge their speed based on the input received from all their senses.
If driving without a speedometer makes you feel unsafe, I suggest you retake your driving exam, and never cross my path on the road. You would be just one of the thousands of inept and incapable drivers that cause accidents.
Learn to drive. Once you have done that, you will agree that setting an upper speed limit on a road is completely useless if the drivers on it are inept.
I would rather the governement invested in properly warning drivers of the possible hazards ahead, and by designing new roads with safety, not budget, in mind.

the case for -

if i go to a site 9am week 1 for say 3 hours, the speed slows, the phones go down, the belts are buckled the drivers are more alert, after the 3 hour period back to normal

later that week 5pm, the speed slows, the phones go down, the belts are buckled the drivers are more alert, after the 3 hour period back to normal

next week 2pm.the speed slows, the phones go down, the belts are buckled the drivers are more alert, after the 3 hour period back to normal

later in the week,the speed slows, the phones go down, the belts are buckled the drivers are more alert, after the 3 hour period back to normal

after a while the sheer threat of a van being there is enough, high visibilty , awareness (sod the figures), attention

_________________
now retired

the case against - damn inconvienient

_________________
now retired

The case against

You’re ignoring the real problem and only adding to the confusion.

You might be pleased to know that is what the Mafia does when taking control of a neighbourhood, they infuse fear

If you believe what you just said, I can understand how this nonsense has been going on for so long now.
Do you really think your presence has made those drivers more alert of the road conditions and made them safe?
All you have achieved to do is scare them. So what they do now is they are looking carefully for vans parked in sneaky places. When they see something, they slow right down and feel "safe": safe from prosecution. Never mind the possibility of accidents by driving erratically and unaware of the millions of other things going on around them.
You didn't teach anything to anybody by attending a camera van. What you achieve is the exact opposite of what your original intention was.

How about the fact that they tend to focus drivers' minds on a number. Can you be sure that this isn't a dangerous distraction from more important things?



Neither does it prove that they are. And neither can we know how good things would be without the cameras. That's because proper trials, with proper controls and proper data were never conducted. If a pharmaceutical company introduced a new drug with such a criminally irresponsible lack of validation, they would be closed down and the directors sent down - even if the drug happened to work miracles.
What can we tell given the lack of robust data? Well, for starters, a change in the long-term trend line coinciding with the introduction of cameras should set alarm bells ringing. Secondly, given that there are around 6000 cameras, and they're supposed to save lives, how come the fatality figures have stuck at around the 3500 mark since the introduction of cameras? How many years does it take for one camera to save one life? 50 years? 100 years? Never? Thirdly, and most importantly, nobody as yet has offered a plausible mechanism by which cameras can reduce casualties.



You really don't have a clue about the people on this forum, do you?
We have doctors, professors, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, statisticians, paramedics, police, road safety professionals, highly qualified and highly-placed people - who all question the effectiveness of speed cameras. Many people on this forum will probably have forgotten more about road safety, physics etc than you will ever know - so you'd best be very sure of your facts before making any assertions.



You come across as being very emotional about this. Why is that, if you don't mind my asking?
I will admit to an emotional motivation for being here.
Seeing one's own mother turned into a vegetable, unable to recognise her children or care for herself, and dying before her time - as a result of a brain injury sustained in a low-speed collision by an inattentive driver, who got off with no more than a slap on the wrist - tends to make one a wee bit emotional.



It 'proves' nothing.



Don't make assertions which you cannot substantiate.



You make an awful lot of assumptions, don't you?

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

Maybe if camera van operators actually DID more motorists for "having phones up, not being alert and not being buckled", the public would have a bit more time for them. Unfortunately, I don't get to hear about these. All the cases I seem to hear about are people doing relatively trivial excess speed that wouldn't be illegal (and therefore presumably not dangerous!) on the continent. I have never met anyone who has been done for 79 on a dry, lightly-trafficked motorway in excellent visibility in the middle of the day by a traffic patrol but I have met people who have been done for the same by a sacmera van! - Either that or giving the 2-finger salute to a camera van or trying to warn other oncomming motorists to slow down (surely the very thing the van is there for! ).

I think that's why the majority of the motoring public think camera enforcement sucks!

As you say (effectively) in your tag-line, let's be reasonable about this!

Funny that - as I said in an earlier post, when I see a police camera van parked at the end of my road, I feel much SAFER, as I know how people SPEED down the road I have to pull out onto.
Now, why do you think that you feel fear, but I feel happy?
Could it be because I have nothing to fear, except dangerous drivers?

Obviously! Putting your mobile phone down: safer.
Putting your safety belt on: safer.
Slowing down to the speed limit: safer.
Drivers no longer thinking about anything but what's actually around them, instead they are concentrating on driving properly: safer.
What am I missing here? Are you saying that drivers using mobile phones, with their safety belts off, who are speeding, are better left to carry on as they are?

Again, another speeding driver who claims that any driver who slows down is automatically either:
1) So busy reading their speedometer that they magically can't concentrate on the road, or
2) Suddenly start to drive "erratically" because they are slowing down. Can you explain why?

As usual, no substantive reponses from the speeders here. No real justification, just "I like driving really fast because I'm more important than everybody else, and I have to come up with excuses for breaking the law."


Funny that, accidents on the stretch of road that joins mine have gone down since the police started camping out there!
I love watching drivers' faces as they come round the bend at 40 and see the police car...

Don't think that you speak for 'the public', you don't. Most people don't want to see their loved ones killed in a road 'accident' caused by a selfish, aggressive driver. Do you?

So move to the continent if you wish to drive faster. Or try to get the majority of the population of this country to agree with you. Until then, you either obey the law and keep to the speed limit, or suffer the consequences. Which part of that don't you speeders understand?

Well, I'm asking you all to slow down, which will have the same effect (prevent you from getting a ticket), but you don't seem so keen when it's in a forum...
Giving a two finger salute is threatening behaviour, and you should quite rightly be pulled. Or do you think it's acceptable to do that to anybody you don't like?

What are you basing that fantasy on?
Try visiting a few graveyards or A&E wards before you make out that most people are against speed cameras. If you want to risk your life by speeding, go on a race track, it's very simple.
STOP RISKING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES.

Like going over the speed limit?
There obviously IS some sort of problem that speeders have with the simple act of reading a speedometer! I've seen three speeders bring this up as a 'distraction' in one day!
So you're saying that checking the speedo every ten seconds means you are so focused on a number (a two digit, simple number) that you can't cope with driving? I'm not even focused on a number, I look at the dial, see the '30' and see where the needle is. Is that that hard for you? Apparently so.

Of course we know how "good" things would be without the cameras! Do ALL roads have speed cameras on? (If only). Therefore we can look at those roads. Before and after. Ask residents. You know, the people whose lives and children you obviously don't give a stuff about.

Please explain why you find it necessary to speed, and what you think makes your life more important than that of everybody else, who doesn't want to be killed by the likes of YOU.

What trend line?

Because there are more and more aggressive people like you around, who shouldn't be driving?
Since the number of people caught on cameras is huge, we can safely say that there are millions of aggressive, selfish drivers around, don't you agree?

Here's one: kinetic energy = mass x velocity.
The greater the speed, the more damage done. Or do you think that isn't so, because you want to carry on speeding.

Seriously, please explain to me why you want to speed, and what you feel when you have to stay within the speed limit.

I can guarantee that every single speeder in this group will, when stuck in a traffic jam, be sitting there fuming with rage. I've seen hundreds like you. When are you going to grow up and get over yourselves?

Highly-placed people speed just as often (probably moreso) than us mere mortals. Policemen even.

Yes, I'm very sure.

You're totally wrong, and you've all avoided my statements about the EMOTIONAL reason for your speeding, which you seem at pains to avoid talking about...

Why exactly do you feel the need to speed? What do you feel when you travel at the correct speed limit? Constrained? Constricted? Tied up? Suffocated? Ever thought of psychiatric help if you feel so bad just because you can't break the law? Ever thought of feeling grateful that you actually have a car and it's working? No, I thought not...

What has that got to do with speed cameras? Two wrongs don't make a right. You enjoy speeding, because you don't care about other people. How fast was the low-speed collision? When did I say I was against locking up people who assault other people with cars? I'm totally for locking them up, for a much longer time than the ridiculous sentences we currently have.

Well, what does it prove then? That all those people weren't really speeding? Despite being aware that there are speeding cameras all over the country. It proves my point.

You've already confirmed this at the beginning of your post!
I see bad drivers all the time, in my rear view mirror. (Unlike some people here, I can watch the rear view mirror AND the rest of the road, and unless the psycho behind me just happens to check his speedo every time I'm NOT looking at him, they NEVER check their speedo. They don't even glance at it, because they're too busy THINKING about getting past me, or driving through me. Notice I said THINKING. They're driven by THOUGHTS, not awareness of what's around them. And that's why speeding drivers are more dangerous than non-speeders (on average). Speeders are speeding for a reason, and their thoughts are what drive them. Why else would they speed? They are thinking about getting somewhere more quickly than they are at the moment, they are thinking about the boss, a business deal, etc. anything but actually being attentive to the road in front of them. As soon as I hook up some cameras, I'll have ample footage of nasty, aggressive drivers behind me, which I can put on line for you. I should be able to get about five a day if I drive for an hour a day.



You don't seem to have any answers, do you?
Why would he make the site?

From what you say, I am guessing you don't drive much, and don't drive very well either. Which worries me since I may one day share the road with you and hae to avoid an accident or congestion you will have caused.

If the crime that those drivers are committing is so dangerous, why are they allowed to carry on for up to two weeks after the crime is committed? Why aren't they stopped immediately?
What if the driver didn't see the camera, was driving way above the speed that was safe for the road and conditions, and although successfully caught on camera, still managed to cause an accidente due to his/her inability to drive safely in that particular instance?
When caught speeding, why isn't the evidence automatically sent to the allegged offender, together with an explanation of why that stretch of road required a lower speed limit than the driver was travelling at, together with an option to attend a course to improve their driving skills?
The reason is simple: budget.
It is far cheaper to install a completely deprived of intelligence speed camera rather than employ a patrol car and invest in making that stretch safer using signals and other road devices aimed at giving the proper warning to the driver by means of multi-sensory inputs: road surface, higher visibility signs, and proper road layout characteristics.
In most circumstances, speed deterrent devices are much more effective at actually slowing the traffic progressively and in a safer manner.
Speed cameras are cheap remedies to somebody incompetence.
For example, a dual carriageway with central reservation that used to be NSL, has been lowered to 40mph due to the incompetence of the local authority: the road was obviously designed to increase and speed up traffic flow, in order to reduce congestion and increase the locality's profitability.
Unfortunately two bus stops were placed on such stretch of road, and no clear markings, and no subway or bridge connection, or indeed zebra crossing or traffic light was placed. It is quite obvious that since the pedestrians trying to get to work or home have no means of crossing the road, they try their best to negotiate the traffic, failing miserably.
Unfortunately, instead of building a subway, a bridge, or traffic lights with warning signs and appropriate road layout, the decision has been made to restrict the speed limit, and place a repeater sign in correspondence of the bus stop.
As it was obvious, that was not enough to actually warn the drivers, especially in coditions of reduced visibility, of the actual danger, and needless to say, it was not enough to compensate for someone's incompetence.
In order to generate revenue for what is the necessary footbridge, they have decided to place a speed camera, on the other carriageway, so it can't be seen by the traffic approaching the hazardous site, and can therefore generate enough revenue to build the appropriate infrastructure. Sounds ridicolous?
The speed camera in question didn't save any lives during its lifetime: it generated revenue and used (and abused) the tragic victims.



I don't speed according to common sense. I speed only according to the lawly enforced arbitrary limits.
1) reading a speedometer unnecessarily, as when the speed is safe, detracts from the attention you must pay to the road ahead
2) when a vehicle slows down for no apparent reason (other than a camera) it is unsafe for other drivers. Especially if the speed difference is achieved in an impulsive manner, such as is the case when spotting speed cameras.



No, my response is: I like to drive fast, and in fact I take my car to the track in order to get the thrill of speed. I drive at a safe speed, higher than the posted speed limit 99% of the time, because: a) I am a safe driver who knows his own limits and is very capable of reading the signs of the traffic and conditions surrounding me; b) I must work in order to afford to live, and to be able to earn money, I must make good progress when on the road. I am not a pensioner, I am not a turist. I am a working man who is safe and needs to get business done.



That's because drivers have learned to avoid the area. I do it all the time. The first time I go somewhere I watch out for cameras. If there are none, I deem the area safe. If there are cameras, I deem the area unsafe for making good progress, and find an alternative route, which means I get more business done and less stress. If I can't find an alternative route, I make sure my GPS device warns me about the camera, slow down way before the camera, to well below the speed limit in order to not concentrate on the camera but the road ahead, I select a lower gear which means more fuel consumption and pollution, but also no need to watch the throttle as feathering it will keep me legal, and once I passed the camera, can relax again and drive as safely as I was driving before, just faster.

I don't know how long it takes you to glance at the speedo, or how long you stare in the eyes of the driver behind you, but let me reassure you that when I look in my mirrors and glance at the instrument cluster, not even my passengers can tell, I am too quick in doing it for them to even notice. Even my wife pointed that out to me (as do my racing instructors).
It is something that I learned from my dad: glance, not stare.

Why are you so obsessed with speed limits? Like they have some magical quality?



What's wrong with having a phone conversation while you're driving if it's not for the fact that it takes your mind off the task of driving?



There you go again, making wild assumptions about people you know nothing about.
And my point about the lack of robust trials completely escaped your notice, did it?



More wild assumptions, which are becoming more like personal attacks now. Why do you assume that I speed?



If you had bothered to read the data on this site you wouldn't be asking that question.



Personal attacks like that are not going to win you any arguments.
And who's being agressive now?



We've heard that sort of simplistic argument hundreds of times. Has it never occurred to you that kinetic energy means not a jot unless you actually hit something? Or that there's normally a huge difference between travelling speed and collision speed - unless the driver involved is asleep? And how exactly does reducing travelling speed reduce the risk of having an accident? Can you quantify your argument?



When are you going to get over your completely unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and start debating sensibly?



There's nothing to talk about. You're just making wild assumptions.



You're starting to sound like a stuck record. What's with the obsession?



I'm getting dangerously close to losing patience with your attitude.
Because speed cameras do absolutely nothing about inattention, drunk driving, etc etc etc. And, more importantly, they send out the message that your driving is perfectly safe just as long as you don't exceed the limit.


Around 5mph. My mother was walking in front of him when he pulled away, if you must know.



And, presumably, the much greater number of nasty, agressive drivers in front of you.



You're the one without the answers.
As you're a newbie, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but as you're coming over increasingly like an obsessive hothead, whose debating style is to simply make completely ubsubstantiated attacks on people you know nothing about, and that you've apparently not even done a mere modicum of research into what this site is all about before launching into your tirades, I'm no longer sure that you're worth the bother.

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

Welcome to the Forum Mosis! It's about time we had a troll on here!

(or do you really believe all the stuff you're spouting?!)

Anyway, here are a couple of answers for you:

You say:

"Don't think that you speak for 'the public', you don't. "

Well, have a look at:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09032006/344/s ... surge.html

That's the most recent one I've seen - there are others of course. 61% is, to my mind, a "majority"! Naturally, the Scamerati have their own polls that (strangely!) show that everyone loves camera enforcement! So let's agree to differ on that one. Statistics eh?! All I ask, therefore, is that you do likewise and PLEASE don't pretend to be part of a "majority" in favour of them either!

While we're at it you say:

"Most people don't want to see their loved ones killed in a road 'accident' caused by a selfish, aggressive driver. Do you?"

I think you're understating your case here! Can you think of ANYONE that wants to see their loved ones killed? Come on, give yourself some credit! Unfortunately, when you look at the vast majority of people who have been "scammed" for minor speed limit infringements I think you'll find they haven't killed anyone! That part of the argument is therefore pretty irelevant (but a great sound bite - I grant you)!

Then you move on:

"So move to the continent if you wish to drive faster. Or try to get the majority of the population of this country to agree with you. Until then, you either obey the law and keep to the speed limit, or suffer the consequences. Which part of that don't you speeders understand?"

Well, you know, I just might go and do that! The thing is, we all want to be safe don't we? And despite the UK being up to its neck in cameras - by far the most camera-dependent speed enforcement anywhere in Europe in fact, it also showed the SMALLEST improvement is KSIs of any Western European country last year! Food for thought eh? If we carry on with this policy, the treasury will do quite well out of it but that's about all. I can't remember how many years (someone else on here can probably quote it) but it won't be long at this rate before Germany overtakes us as having the safest roads in Europe!

As for this bit:

"Giving a two finger salute is threatening behaviour, and you should quite rightly be pulled. Or do you think it's acceptable to do that to anybody you don't like"?

You must have lead a really cosseted existence! If you want to see REAL threatening behaviour, I suggest you join the "foot" bobbies on the beat in inner cities - they're they police that have earned my REAL respect! That said, I agree it is not acceptable behaviour and I wouldn't do it - but not because I have any time WHATSOEVER for what the scammers are doing! Did you see the news clip from the North East the other day? A bloke made some similar gesture (I don't even think it was as bad as that one! ) and was pursued, caught, and prosecuted...

...by officers from the same force as had just that week written to shopkeepers in the area asking them not to bother calling the police for shoplifting less than £75 because they "didn't have the resources" to tackle it! It's odd isn't it - such huge public support for scameras and yet they feel the need to come down so hard on dissenters?

Then there's this little gem...

"Try visiting a few graveyards or A&E wards before you make out that most people are against speed cameras. If you want to risk your life by speeding, go on a race track, it's very simple.
STOP RISKING OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES."

Well, my wife is a consultant in intensive care - does that count? I DO spend a fair amount of time in that department - that's even worse than A&E! As for graveyards, last time I looked, the cause of death wasn't routinely entered on headstones! Mind you, I wouldn't mind betting that if it was, however, you would find that the overwhelming majority of them had nothing to do with road travel - let alone excess speed! Doesn't that put things into perspective? Anyway, touched as I am by your concern, rest assured that I have no intention of putting my life (or anyone else's) at risk!

Now then, let me aks YOU a few questions if I may:

Firstly,

Am I right in thinking that you believe that speed cameras (fixed or mobile) are making our roads safer? Your posts seem to give that impression. Every now and then you say how much the accidents have gone down since their installation. What I've never been able to understand is that pretty much EVERY camera partnership in the country claims great reductions in KSIs but nationally, the KSI statistics haven't changed much for the last 5 years or so. Can you help explain this? No other pro-camera forumite has quite managed it!

Secondly,

You seem to have made the assumption that everyone who is anti-scamera is in favour of no speed limits. Do you? if so, you're quite a long way off the mark!

Thirdly,

How much of a drop in KSIs do you think we would see if everyone stuck to the posted speed limit everywhere they dorve? go on, indulge yourself, 100% compliance by 100% of motorists 100% of the time Utopia eh?

"Quote:

The way that speed cameras have been introduced to British roads has been shoddy in the extreme. There have been no proper trials of their effectiveness as a blackspot treatment, no investigation of their possible side effects and precious little thought about their overall effects on our worthy but fragile road safety systems.


What are the possible side effects? That people actually slow down and obey the speed limit?
What could their overall effects be on our road safety systems?"


In my current line of work (Health & Safety) we have the 'cry wolf' syndrome, the hazards and risks are talked up past what they actually are, when they are found to be exagerated, site operatives stop taking notice and also stop taking notice of ALL safety precautions.





"Try visiting a few graveyards or A&E wards before you make out that most people are against speed cameras."

God bless emotive arguments, have been up to my elbows in blood and body parts, have attended several RTA's and recovered several bodies (and bits of).

I have little time of these emotive arguments as they really on the yuck factor than any FACTS. Most of the camera partnership PR staff I've seen use this argument have no idea of what it is all about.

People die, cycling, parachute jumping, scuba diving, horse riding & climbing - I've attended fatalities from all of these the effects on the human body isn't a great deal different, using the "try visiting a few graveyards..." logic we should also ban these ??

_________________
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

mosis - read the case against - that should keep you busy for a week or two(ps - gets wet under the bridge when the stream rises)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

it's a simplistic argument but it has not been disproved that at a higher travelling speed there is a greater amount of kinetic energy to be scrubbed off to reach a standstill. If that scrubbing off is done by the brakes or the "other object" in a collision, it doesn't really matter, the kinetic energy still needs to be scrubbed off.

2 cars with the same braking systems, stopping from the same point - assume both use maximum braking capability - for example in an emergency (brake pedal press, not start of thinking process) the one with the higher travelling speed will take more distance to stop.

Of course someone will come in and say "yeah, but, if the faster car driver was paying attention and the slower car driver wasn't" ... the fact still stands, the energy has to go somewhere.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Nice one -handy - but ( and like the goat said there's always a but) the essence of safe driving is to look ahead and anticipate where there is a need to slow down . --See IG s lectures on COAST.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on