Safe Speed Forums

Gosh, are you lot still going? Still speeding around?

Well, I am getting a load of visits to my new Speed Camera page http://www.lingscars.com/speedcamera.php (that cleverly hides some delicious lease cars) in amongst the super gatsos. I have a preview of the new 8 lane version they are using (just testing) on the M25 southern section and also on the A1/M1 junction north of Leeds, where there are 7 lanes for a point while merging. Does anyone know any more locations for this?



I seem to remember there were quite some fanatics (almost say lunatics) on this board a few years ago, - maybe that was just the culture 2-years ago and now things have matured? I wonder if you realise that cameras are here to stay, that they are good things, they enjoy the broad support of the UK public and people like calmer, safer roads? I hope this forum is a bit more considered to safer driving now. Simply slow down a bit I am always ready to offer friendly driving advice.

I publish a very sensible Government report on my page. I have not seen SafeSpeed in the news for ages, you have all gone quite quiet! I always keep an eye out for PR stuff, this seems to have stopped recently.

I was going to offer driving licence insurance, but can't figure out a way past FSA regs. (Perhaps I should petition Downing Street as my freedom is being restricted?) Hahaha.

Here's to safer motoring!

- Ling

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Do you drive, Ling?

What car do you drive?

What is your annual mileage?

What are the typical journeys you do?

How often do you believe you have exceeded a speed limit?

_________________
"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

hi! Peter...

I have a lovely Audi A4 Cab. Even today I had the top down near Morpeth and up the A68. Nice.

I do 6,000 miles a year, mainly going to ping pong and badminton and work, but often going shopping or visiting friends.

I dunno when, I don't deliberately exceed limits, I always try to drive in the limit. I've certainly never been flashed by a camera (that I have seen). Of course I am not a perfect driver. I am Chinese! The two things are incompatible. hahaha!

I do think that people should take responsibility though. It is irresponsible to blame everyone else instead of looking in the mirror if you have a speed camera problem. By general consenus (called UK Government) we agree to abide by the laws - including these ones. They are designed to save lives.

What do you drive Peter?

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Hahahhaha, just noticed your avatar, quite funny Peter



It's funny that people think the safety camera partnership should be catching burglars on a busy road with an accident blackspot on it where people are being injured through some road danger.

Would it be appropriate for the serious fraud office to have a sign saying "0 motorists caught speeding" in their office under the "98 successful fraud prosecutions" sign?

How you love to live in you own little worlds of like-minded warm people.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

So what do you think is an acceptable level of speeding prosecutions each year?

500,000?

1 million?

2 million?

3 million?

5 million?

10 million?

At what point do you think it becomes disproportionate?

_________________
"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

It doesn't become disproportionate.

It can never become disproportionate as every conviction is a result of someone speeding. If you got 2 tickets for one offence, that would be disproportionate.

In fact it is highly un-disproportionate. Due to the number of people who exceed speed limits and DON'T get caught (the vast majority I guess).

But cameras are a really good reason to slow down. Slowing down a bit is a nice thing to do, just relax by a few mph. This is my advice, you would do well to listen. ... why drive at the very limit of what YOU think is a safe speed? I would just not get so over-enthusiastic about speed, Peter. This is probably the reason that there is a disproportionate number of men on this forum, when I click around.

Stop speeding (especially past cameras), nit Then, you wouldn't get a ticket! Hahahaha.

On a scale of 1 to 10 stupid things to do, when you know your licence is at risk, speeding (especially past a camera)is very damn stupid, it gets at least an 8/10. Then, arguing that the (fairly stupid) people who get prosecuted is a disproportionate amount, that promotes you to a 10 for stupidity, afraid to say.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Nice page, but I reckon there are some problems with it. If I may:

"The strategy cites research which found that speed was a major factor in around one third of all road crashes"
Wrong! Have you even read RCGB2007? "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while travelling too fast for conditions was attributed to 6 per cent." - and that's only attributed, not as a contributory factor. The last time I used my calculator, 9% wasn't the same as about one third.

"Research by the Transport Research Laboratory has found that crash risk rises the faster a driver travels, with a driver travelling at 25% above the average speed being 6 times more likely to be involved in a crash."
The same can be said for those below the average speed too. (crash risk follows a U shaped curve).
Anyway, that's highly misleading because the issue of causality has never been properly addressed.

Is the cause and effect in this case as clear as it is implied, or are there other factors at work? For example, we know that policy had stipulated that cameras must be installed in areas where there is a temporarily high level of accident rate, so you can expect a reduction afterwards regardless of whether cameras are installed. We also know cameras do force slower driver speeds – so what exactly was cause and effect in this case?

Then there are the other safety measures typically installed within defined camera sites, aiding or swamping any benefit from the cameras, or even reversing the negative benefit from them.
What about motorways where the speeds are highest of all? It's not as simple as it is made out to be huh?
Then there is the classic ‘Hawthorne effect’ where a visible change will encourage a temporary improvement of behaviour.

"Data from camera sites:
The Home Office and the DfT quote research showing that numbers of people killed or seriously injured are reduced by 35% at camera sites, (taking into account the existing long term downward trend) 3. "
What about regression to the mean (not the same as the 'long term-trend') as well as the "other road safety measures" you mentioned? The former has already been quantified, so why isn't that mentioned?

"Overall crash rates: ......."
Why does your graph stop at 2002? Why does it start only at 1990? Put in all the figures, then it will tell a story!

"they enjoy the broad support of the UK public "
yet:
"Public attitudes to speed cameras in the UK are mixed. "
Have you looked at any recent surveys?

"Objections centre mainly on the following points: "
What about the speed limits themselves? Are they adequate or do they create needless frustration and/or fatigue?
Did you know fatigue accounts for more crashes than exceeding 'the speed limit' and 'going to fast for the conditions' combined?
What about the reduction of trafpol? If it wasn't for the wild over-exaggeration of speed camera effectiveness, we would have had a much better trafpol based road safety policy.

"cameras can reduce accidents "
That doesn't mean they do! In reality, there is absolutely no proof that our speed camera policy has, on balance, saved 1 life.

I realise you've gone some way to be even handed with your web page, but I don't think it is even enough.

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

Ling, would you be happy for a car to follow you around everywhere to check if you were keeping within the speed limit?

OK. What would you say to a person who was caught out on a needlessly reduced limit section of a motorway (such as the M3), four times within about a year, all occurrences with light or no traffic? Would the subsequent ban from driving really seem proportionate?

PS, I've never been done for speeding, ever!

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

Steve, I do my best to be even handed :0 Thanks.

But, you sound like a statitician! How can anyone know all that stuff, your brain must nearly explode.

Look, it is clear, Cameras make people more aware of their speed and they slow down a bit. People who are travelling a bit slower are less likely to crash and have more time to react. Talking about average mum out shopping, not Lewis Hamilton.

People LOVE having speed cameras near where they live as it patently makes the road safer for their kids.

Look, a) the speed cameras won't go away, b) they will become more intelligent, c) there will be a social change to speeding.

We have seen that with seatbelts, drink driving, smoking (now gaining momentum due to the new laws), and speeding. We will see it with alcohol consumption if they are brave enough to bring in the min price per unit. It is sorely needed in the UK.

We must drive compliantly on the roads. This ensures the greater safety of the majority. So slow down a bit

When you call things "trafpol" you know you have lived in this closed clique a bit too long

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

It's not for me to argue about proportionality. That is up to the magistrate I guess. Or the guidance. that's for the lawmakers. I don't second-guess every law. I comply.

However, I would say there was some disproportionate stupidity involved (by this driver). After the first time, they would say "oops", the second time "damn", the third time "crikey!!" and the fourth time that noise that seriously brain damaged people make.

Really, you would imagine they would modify their behaviour. Getting done 4 times shows the driver was asleep, brain-dead, careless, occupied, distracted or just plain thick. In any case it is hard not to argue he should have been paying SOME small attention...

This "needlessly reduced"... maybe there is Armco missing, maybe exposed drains, maybe temporary surface, maybe some incomplete road markings as well as works traffic etc. I love the way you can analyse roadworks at 50mph and say the limit is "needless". Why not just comply? The traffic engineer will not reduce the limit unless there is a reason. It will be in his interest to raise the limit when the road is ready.

If there is a sign saying "road closed" and the workmen are waiting for the signs to be removed because they have finished, you don't deliberately ignore the signage just because you "think" it may be open. What I mean is, a driver can judge "needless" speed limits about as well as a plane passenger can judge the plane's fitness to fly. I mean, you can see the JCBs and you can see there is a wing missing. But, beyond that, how can you make a judgement?

If everyone complied more, instead of thinking they know best, there would be far less fatal accidents, in the Uk and in other countries.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

I've dabbled in it. Anyway, I know the documents well enough and I have them to hand. By all means feel free to confirm my statements .... and amend your page as necessary


Which is why we now face a blanket cut on rural (not many kids there) limits as well as their enforcement.
I'm all for 'slowpokes' in vulnerable urban areas, but our speed camera policy doesn't really address that does it.


What is 'a bit'? We can always slow down 'a bit', where should the line be drawn? The red flag man? (even that wasn't 100% effective).
What about fatigue? As I mentioned, fatigue accounts for 17% of all crashes, most of those occur when speed limits are most inappropriate (not rush hour obviously). Will the increased time on the road, in even less stimulating conditions, from slowing down a bit, have no impact on this factor?

I fully agree that, in an ideal world, we would be driving compliantly; however, in this world, limits are set such that they don't get any such respect at all - have we already overshot?


What about "COAST"

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

Steve, yes, I was gonna go to Whitley bay today, it's nice with the roof down. But, the ttraffic was bad, so I went to hadrian's wall for lunch, not the coast.

Whatever, if the limit is reduced, drive slower. That's less stressful and you get less fatigued. Fatigue is often because of stress. Chill a bit Put a nice tune on.

Trucks have to drive at 40mph on 60 limit rural roads. That doesn't make the drivers have more fatigue! That gives them less risk and less fatigue. It would be very NICE for cars to go a bit slower on rural roads, more enjoyable. Not much survives a 60mph collision outside the car, bird, rabbit or human. If we all drove 10mph slower, imagine how many less animals would die on our roads (because they got out of the way in time)??? That's good news, eh? For hedgehogs anyway.

How many lives does Radio 2 save every year? That should be an official statistic. Lower your blood pressure and relax, it works well. Makes you more alert.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Steve, when you explain the same things over and over again to people who think their take on why you are wrong is new and unique, and they still don't see, your brain must nearly explode hahahahahaha!

You sound like a statistician, who needs to know all that, common sense and the government tell you that speeding is dangerous and that prosecutions make you safe, why try to understand? Hahahahahahaha!

Anyone who opposes cameras must just want to drive fast, and have a fast car, and 9 points on their licence, and hate cyclists, and kill puppies, hahahahahahahaha!

If everyone complied more, instead of thinking for themselves, it would be like living under a Communist dictatorship, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Hahahahahaha!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Is the penalty still not disproportionate?
You can’t punish stupidity, especially if the action and the intent was about safety.


The M3 near me has two sets of 50mph restrictions.
One was at a junction (M25) which had been there "temporarily" for well over a year (it is still there) following a redesign of the junction (the relay out in itself is much safer, all credit will of course go to the cameras).
The other was at J1, is 1.75 miles of standard 3 lane motorway before the first roadwork cone (the cones for the following roadworks begin at end of the motorway) and it had been like that for many months – so what was the reason for that one?

Perhaps the engineers have been told to do it by those who have a financial interest in keeping it that way?


Incorporating your other post:

"Often" maybe, but not always. Fatigue is more likely to be a result of loss of interest or boredom - no?
Either way, would dropping the limits make this factor worse than it already is? (be it due to frustration or boredom)

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

Of course! You do not see olympic athelets, jet pilots (the one who landed on the river is an example) or Lewis Hamilton getting frantic. They breath and relax, and it assists their concentration. Anyone who is relaxed and calm does a better performance.

Sometimes you lot have been repeating the same chants for so long, you can't see the plain truth.

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Relaxing does not make you more alert, hahahaha!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Steve, how can you consume your life in measuring roadworks and speed limits and fractions of a mile? You may have become slightly obsessed with all this, sorry to tell you. No offence.

Look, outside my house on the path there is a notice saying up to £1000 if your dog sh1ts. Well, if someone got caught once, you would think them unfortunate/a bit antisocial. They would probably get a £25 fine and a telling off. But by the fourth time, the magistrate may well be considering fining them big bucks and removing the dog as punishment. Even you would accept they would be stupid to get done four times for your dog sh1tting on the same place.

But we don't argue proportionality on every law, we have to accept the law exists and the punishment is fairly well publicised, exactly the reason you or I do not rob banks

Like smoking in a pub, once you will get asked to stop and play the game, mate..., twice they will tell you in no mean terms, third they will eject you, fourth they will probably call the police and you will be barred. Maybe disproportioate for smoking, but we all accept it is now the law, and we all obey.

These examples are clear and persistent and a bit reckless serial non-compliance. As was the speeding. Why should the rules be different just because a car is involved? What makes breaking car driving rules different from smoking rules, or dog fouling rules?

We don't set up organisations called "Safe Smoke" or "Dog Sh1t Freedom" and argue black is blue on technicalities that no one cares about. I am happy people are speeding less and don't smoke in the pub and their dogs don't sh1t outside my house on the path.

Can't anyone see this?

_________________
I am Ling!
Visit www.LINGsCARS.com
I am car sales whirlwind. I like speed cameras.
Rent new car from me, save £££s.

Can't people who come here and profess to know our motives see that we're not advocating breaking speed limits, but rather a return to scientific, safety-led limit setting, and policing that effects a positive change in road safety. Hahaha!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.