Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Sep 21, 2020 04:07

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 02:22 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/ ... 51,00.html

Tories U-turn on speed camera points
By Ben Webster

THE Conservatives are to drop their policy of scrapping penalty points for
less serious speeding offences after a backlash by road safety and motoring groups.

The party has decided that the policy would have discriminated in favour of richer motorists, who could easily afford to pay fines but would no longer have had penalty points added to their licences.

The Conservatives had announced in December that they would retain penalty points only at sites where there was risk of death from speeding. Only about 1,000 of Britain's 4,500 speed cameras would continue to issue points.

But the Conservatives will announce this month that they have been surprised by the strength of the opposition to the proposal.

A senior Conservative source said: "Even the motoring groups which are
campaigning against the rise in speed cameras told us that it did not make
sense to remove the threat of penalty points."

==========================================

Always seemed a somewhat half-baked policy - but what, if anything, are they going to offer to motorists on the issue of cameras?

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 13:50 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Cannot say I am that surprised. Did seem to me when they made the statement in the beginning that it could lead to unfairness whereby folk like me who could well afford the fines could indulge in some OTT speeding and not risk loss of licence. And we would still be screaming "stealth tax" as well!

Have to say it! :roll:

The loss of the licence when all is said and done is the real deterrent.

What they should be offering us is full and honest audit of the each scamera - given the Norfolk thread, and other information on all these sites. :wink: - including their own (still cannot get over the Cambs justification for talivans in addition to the Truvelos on those roads. That number of "serious" incidents did not happen. :roll:

They should be guaranteeing to give us accurate statistics on all KSIs , review of each scam and remove all those which are fleece machines. They should be looking at scheme of Smiley Sids, reinforced by safety Camera only if absolutely necessary. They should be guaranteeing a review of the L-test - bringing it to a safer standard whereby overtaking, motorway driving are included as standard. They should be looking at feasability of continual driver assessments too - which should include a general medical. They should be looking at bringing our trafpols back to pre-scam levels, improving their training as well. :wink:

But you have heard this all before- umpteen times- from me, from cous' in law on here, from my wife on the other channel and more than probably from the rest of the mob wherever they are posting!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 16:49 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:01
Posts: 73
They need to split the K's and the SI's apart. An SI can be as little as a concussion or a whiplash and an overnight stay in hospital. With litigation rising, hospitals will be more likely to keep you in for observation.

Than again, KSI's rising along with camera numbers rising, hmmm, perhaps best I just shut up:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 17:49 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
TonyOut wrote:
They need to split the K's and the SI's apart. An SI can be as little as a concussion or a whiplash and an overnight stay in hospital. With litigation rising, hospitals will be more likely to keep you in for observation.

Than again, KSI's rising along with camera numbers rising, hmmm, perhaps best I just shut up:)


Tony

Agree that they should split K from SI as it causes confusion.

But concussion is not a minor injury. All head injuries are potentially very serious - and we will keep you in for observation in case there is a little bleed that we did not pick up on at first examination. Whiplash is the same - dependent on amount of external and internl bruising.

Decision to keep you in overnight is not taken lightly either. For a start we are short of beds and staff. Papers are not fibbling there.

Litigation? Hah! According to these same newspapers and one posting I have seen on another site - we are more than likely to kill you as our wards are full of lurgies! :roll:

(Actually they are not - but we have to find some excuse to send you home :wink: :wink: :wink: )

Have to make this comment, to put the medico perspective.

Namely

Do not underestimate effects of whiplash and concussion. Potentially serious long term effects if not treated correctly.

Am as against scams and spins and lies as much as you - but cannot allow this kind of comment to go "unchallenged" :wink:

Feel free to ask me questions about it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2004 18:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Two points arising...

1) The serious injury figures are behaving very strangely indeed. See:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/serious.html

2) The Troy plan for no points roads was quite mad. On the other hand a plan for a no points threshold would be a good idea if the cameras were to stand any chance of working. (e.g 0 points between +10%+2 to +20%+2, points above +20%+2).

However, I think confidence in cameras has now gone, and the cameras must go too.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 09:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:01
Posts: 73
Moggie,

I appreciate the opportunity for a challenge ;)

Like yourself I believe, I had one of those "big" accidents that took a few years to get over, so I don't underestimate the challenges of putting people back together.

The brain has a nasty habit of keeping going at speed for a fraction of a second after the skull stops suddenly, and there are all those nasty sharp edges inside to comfort it when it stops. The effects of a concussion can manifest themselves years later.

I know you will probably ace me if we go deep on the medical stuff so I will get to the point.

A car has four occupants and crashes. All four may have the potential injuries mentioned. As it is sensible to err on the side of caution with these particular injuries (There was a reason for selecting them) an overnight stay is deemed appropriate.

Now we have the situation where one crash delivers the four KSI necessary to justify a camera, whilst the four occupants were allowed home safely after an overnight without complications.

Feel free to come back at me on this ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:13 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
TonyOut wrote:
Moggie,

I know you will probably ace me if we go deep on the medical stuff so I will get to the point.

A car has four occupants and crashes. All four may have the potential injuries mentioned. As it is sensible to err on the side of caution with these particular injuries (There was a reason for selecting them) an overnight stay is deemed appropriate.

Now we have the situation where one crash delivers the four KSI necessary to justify a camera, whilst the four occupants were allowed home safely after an overnight without complications.

Feel free to come back at me on this ;)



Tony!

I did not have the big car crash. That was my wife, WildCat who resides on the PH site only. (Our opinions are pretty much the same - so I put my penn'orth on here and she "winds up" the BiBs on the other channel :wink: ) She was stationary - in sudden jam. Had unusually clear road behind her.

That was "SI" - Big Time!

Her injuries, incidentally, were horrific. Gear stick impaled in her side, broken rib cage, two broken legs, broken arm, several severe fractures in the other arm. Some internal bleeding. She managed to take measures to protect her head when she saw it coming at her! Took her 5-6 years and a lot of hard work on her doctors' part and on her part to fully recover. If you were to meet her - and you probably could do on a track day :lol: - she really does not look as if anything like that is in her past! :wink: She is about two inches shorter though from bone contraction during the recovery! :wink: But she has a very large strong family behind her, and a strong, healthy personality.

(Am blood and lurgy chap - but do have colleagues and relatives who work A&E)

Now about your scenario - as said previously, my A&E colleagues do not take decision to keep people in for observation lightly. We never know with head/whiplash injuries just how bad it could be unless we investigate further. We have bed and staff problems. And you have to bear in mind - doctors will have different opinions on diagnosis as well :wink:

Even back when I did my stint in A&E (long time ago as "junior") - we used set of codes for injuries etc. The "Prats" probably are informed,and as as we all know by now, will seize on the statistics they like to "further their cause"

Sometimes we adjust those codes based on our secondary examination - revise them to a lesser code. (which may partially explain the odd trend) However, NHS may be associated with the "Prats" but the medics do not have anything to do with the "Prats"' decisions. :roll: All we can tell from way they site and erect these scams is that it has nowt to do with road safety per se and plenty to do with torturing the average motorist who is tootling along perfectly safely, but who has blipped just over a posted limit :roll:

We are thinking of moving to In Gear's patch :lol: (Or Germany :lol: ) Or anywhere where they are SENSIBLE!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 13:34 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:01
Posts: 73
Well there are so many of the Moggie clan that I sometimes wonder if I am in the middle of a family reunion, not a discussion board ;-)

I think you may misinterpret the jist of my posting. I am merely saying that a statistical anomaly can provide the justification the scams need to get their ill gotten gains. Theoretically, it only takes one car crash to justify their placement.

In no way am I saying the NHS is complicit in the scam, far from it. I am totally pro NHS, I owe my life to some very skilled people and I am the first to jump to the defence of the NHS. Hell, I went out with five nurses, now if that isn't doing my bit for entente cordial, I don't know what is ;-)

I think we may be argueing to agree here?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 14:32 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Yup! Lot of us! :wink: But we are not all on here! :wink: We try to include some of the gang's ideas in our ramblings, but if we all joined in - it could quite possibly become the "Moggie Cat family forum," and I do not think our Paulie would like that! :lol:

Take it you met the others elsewhere? :wink: Have no idea what names most of 'em post under. Know there are at least 20 prowling around!

The "cat" thing is because of the Jags we drive, the Moggies we drive, the wife's nine lives and the fact that the rest of the gang have been called "Tigers" by the twazaks they have tormented elsewhere!

Hmm! So you dated 5 Nursie girls. :lol: That is nothing! Before I met old Wildy woman - dated several Wimmin coppers and nursie girls. Ooops! The Stag can tell tales on me :lol: :lol: :lol: Nanananana! (It is OK - she knows about my rampant pre-marital past!)

I do see what you are saying: one crash involving 4 concussed can be used to justify a scamera. It is scandalous, and we all know this. We know how the Prats manipulate figures already. That posting of mine on Cambs and the alleged 187 incidents on A14/A141 on 19 March 2000 to 2003! (Wife also placed it on PH for comment)

We also know that LanCASHire have admitted (preston-online - early January - will look for the link again so's you can see for yourself) that they have placed scams at scenes of minor collisions/no injuries. They have admitted to a "loose interpretation of the guidelines" as well. If they are doing this, then they all are. :roll:

So Tony

We do know that excessive speed for road conditions is harmful and can do a lot of damage. But we also know that speed is not the sole reason for accident to occur. We know that draconian policy is getting in the way of safe driving standards, and training people to look and brake for the camera instead of concentrating on the drive and the road.

We do know these prats will stop at nothing to further their dodgy practices in a blind belief that "speed" is only cause of accidents, and is detrimental to road safety because :

1. trafpol are reducing.
2. more drunk/doped drivers slip through the net
3. defective cars are not pulled
4. everything our host has been sayin on his numerous pages. (well - fair chunk or so I can go along with - anyway! Do have questions about some other things - but will post comment on appropriate place :wink: :wink: )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 11, 2004 15:00 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:01
Posts: 73
It's difficult not to bump into one of the clan if you frequent petrolhead sites!! :lol:

We also know that the A14 has become a more dangerous road since the cameras went in. Congestion has increased massively and it's not a nice route. Remove the cameras and the bunching would go away as traffic is allowed to flow freely. Who knows, the short slip roads would probably become safer as there would be greater vehicle spacing.

It does seem though that the work Paul has been doing is starting to pay off. I can honestly say that it now seems that the facts have put them well and truly on the back foot. Let's hope we see a return to proper road policing soon.

Oh, and don't get me on competitive dating, I'm single again and enjoying myself. Can't do much with the high transmission tunnel in a Porker though ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.378s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]