Safe Speed Forums

Wow!

I didn't realise safespeed was as high profile as this. Perhaps indicative that it's profile is not yet high enough!

Kudos to you, you get my vote!

I have a lot of reading to do on this site to catch up.

Mike

_________________
"Work smart, not hard"

The profile is building up all the time. Last time I tried to estimate it, I think it was 300% pa. (But that was by 'number of mentions' - the quality of each mention is increasing exponentially as well.)

That article in last Sunday's Observer Magazine will do a great deal of good.

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

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... hichpage=3

It would appear the lunatic fringe have infiltrated your petition.

Note the distinct absence of any mention of the Richmond Park speeding debate. After all, cyclists are exempt from the rules of the road. I'm a cyclist myself, I hate being associated with the idiots on that site.

Like I said at the beginning - the petition is worded in such a way that it will attract such ridicule.


Safespeed is going to convince no-one that speed enforcement does not equate to safety with claims such as: "(Speed cameras) are responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths on UK roads."

That's ludicrous to suggest that we can attribute thousands of deaths to cameras. That makes us look just as warped as the SCPs claiming their cameras save lives and that most accidents are due to excess speed - although what goes against our favour is that at least the SCPs appear to be acting in the interests of safety - whereas Safespeed apparently will seemingly back any old bollocks in the pursuit of being allowed to drive faster.


Claims like the above do make Safespeed look like a bunch of uneducated boyracers. Am I the only one here who recognises this? Maybe it's me who's in the wrong place

The above petition certainly does Safespeed no favours in terms of public image.



In my humble opinion Safespeed needs to ensure that any claims with the "Safespeed" name attached need to be considered and measured. Public image is everything to a campaign group. Making wild, undefendable claims may appear to be in the right spirit but have a negative affect of the group's credibility.

It might even be argued that the SCPs claims are all bollocks too. Yes, I would support that - but how can Safespeed claim to offer a better solution when it endorses something of equal magnitude in terms of nonsense? According to the petition, Safespeed aren't offering a workable road safety policy - it simple appears as though Safespeed are campaigning for the polar opposite.

As hinted before - in that instance - speed cameras may just be the lesser of two evils ???

_________________

Deaths are attributable mostly to camera policy, not the cameras themself - although there are serious issues in driver behaviour when near these cameras.

Myself, when driving past hazards, I prefer to be looking at the real hazard - not at lines in the road, then the camera, then my speedo, then the lines.