Safe Speed Forums

And for society - we'd have extra deaths due to slower emergency services, deaths due to worse food deliveries, deaths due to economic losses limiting cash for heath services. It's absolutely endless.

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

I think you are right - but then I'm on the inside looking out.
I always tag the site title with the line "It's all about safer motoring", since we discuss far more than just speed issues.
Incidentally, I have the SafeSpeed website address across the back of my new car, above my works website - I have no problem if peoples perceptions are flawed - they'll soon be corrected when they bother to look!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

safedriver wrote:

Sorry don't agree with that. Driving is about risk assessment at all times. Sometimes the risk is more prominant because obstructions are more likely, built-up areas etc, at other times obstructions are much less likely, e.g.motorways. We adjust our driving and speed accordingly.

Your car could be hit by a fuel tank falling off a plane (as nearly happened to a cyclist recently), if you drove expecting that you wouldn't get anywhere.

Life is full of obstructions if you led your life expecting them all then you wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I agree entirely, Brookwood. For example, if you are driving along a single carriageway NSL road with a lane entering from the left, shielded by bushes so that you can't see if a vehicle is approaching the main road along the lane, I don't think one would slow to, say, 10 mph, just in case a vehicle emerged suddenly from the side turning without stopping. However, to say 'drive so that you can always stop in the distance you know to be clear' is something of a misnomer, as the distance you can see to be clear could become 'unclear'. It would almost mean virtually stopping at every side turning in case someone entered the major ropad without looking or stopping.
There is another interesting scenario concerned with driving on single track roads. If you drive so that you can always stop within the distance you can see to be clear, this distance can 'overlap' with the distance a driver coming the other way can also see to be clear. Thus, although both can stop within the limit of their clear vision, they can still have a head on colloision, albeit at low speed.

As you can see this is my first posting....I first saw this site on Friday and the impressions were as follows

Safe speed....Safe to speed?

A guy called Gixer talking about his N2o injectors cutting in and some others other menbers bickering about whether this was a wind up or not.

Some mature and reasoned comments on speeding and the morallity of fining someone for doing 80 on a deserted motorway at 3.00 Am....

I speed...I always have, and ive been caught (I live in Northants), but like most of you I have seen a massive drop in driving standards since cameras. And that is what I object to and why I support this site but first impressions were not wonderful...It did take some reading.

_________________
No man was born with a saddle on his back..an none born booted and spured to ride him.

Logically driving slower would be safer, BUT...

I believe people people have a natural speed and if forced to go slower, their concentration suffers. This is clearly hard to measure, but I know for myself that if I stick to the limits, I find myself feeling a lot more tired. I'm not sure if this is safer.

At least when I fall asleep at the wheel, I'll be travelling quite sedately....

Welcome pooh!

First impressions are always going to be a problem for a cause that is trying to cut through the oversimplified 'soundbite' mentality that has led to the current policy. One of the very things SafeSpeed is trying to achieve is to undo the damage caused by the villifying of speed and the basing of all road safety policy around the idea that speed is bad, so perhaps challenging people's 'first impressions' is a good thing.

I'm grateful you took the time to read the site content

I started having a look at this site out of curiosity about a week ago, not really knowing anything about the organisation. To be honest I was expecting a lot of knuckle-dragging petrol heads banging on about why they should be allowed to drive as fast as they want. I think there is a small element of this, but in the main I have been pleasantly surprised by the level of discussions and the wealth of info on safe driving.

I think the danger from a PR point of view is if you get too caught up in the camera-bashing side of it. I share some scepticism that they are not always placed in safety critical areas, but where they are properly placed I am sure they have a positive effect, even if it is only forcing the 'nutter element' to slow down. The suggestions that they cause complacency, and other psychological aspects are interesting, but I don't quite 'buy it'.

I would expect most people would agree with cracking down on said nutters and emphasising other safety issues, i.e. dangerous overtaking, tailgating, poor observation etc. etc.

Thanks for the encouraging comments...



That's not a 'danger' that's an opportunity. Much of what we do is driven and enabled by the public's hate of the cameras.



I am 100% certain that the cameras undermine safety by misdirecting resources towards the wrong safety factor at every level (government, local authority, individual drivers, press, 'safety groups', even pedestrians).

And I don't believe that cameras modify the behaviour of nutters, except in the 50m or so actually cover by the camera - and even there we see panic braking and other nasty effects.

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

But if your aim is to improve road safety, is campaigning based on people's hatred of speed cameras the right way to go about it? I can see that focussing disproportionately on one aspect can undermine safety. I just wonder whether your campaign sometimes focusses disproportinately on being anti speed camera and so puts people off who might otherwise be sypathetic to your message. On the other hand I can see you might not have got so many interested in the first place!

to Pooh, and...
temporarily!

Once past the cashcam, they will carry on as before. More traffic police ( ) may have a more positive effect on driving standards?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Precisely, BB.

The problem is that many people start from the standpoint that cameras work because that is all the have heard ie. the 'official' line. Once you realise that cameras are in fact a non-working alternative to better methods of policing the roads then you realise that any support for them is a window of opportunity for the powers that be to utterly fail to do their job properly while appearing to have public support to do so.

Its all there in the main site content - camera policy is making roads more dangerous regardless of any perceived but-not-actual benefit anyone may believe any individual camera may have.

The only truth about cameras is that they raise revenue - whatever spin they put on that fact is irrelevant.

Well I did it again, dodging the 'bullets' up & down the A90 yesterday. My sat nav was 'pinging' constantly at the amount of fixed & mobile sites on that god-forsaken stretch of road. On the whole, most motorists were happy to sit at about 70/75 except the nervous 55ers, with the odd BMW or Audi doing 85+ past me. NOBODY was being a nutter, but nearly EVERYBODY braked at/on the fixed sites whether they really needed to or not. Without these interruptions, it's actually a quite safe road (with the exception of Laurencekirk junctions at a deservedly so 50mph 2xVAS & 2xGATSO), big wide lanes with mainly straight sections. Slower = safer? Not necessarily. Slower = spending inordinate amounts of time concentrating on your speedo, and hoping you're not looking at it when somebody panic brakes in front of you after looking at theirs!!

Hello everyone
First post, only just found the site as i'm sat here looking for material for a speed debate for the course i'm doing. Finding it very interesting. One thing I have picked up on is how many people say you shouldn't speed, why not? I often used to ask as part of learning people risk assessments whether they would walk across a six lane motorway and everyone said no chance, why not? "cause you'll get hit by a vehicle and killed" What about finding a quiet stretch of motorway with hardly any vehicles on it late at night like the one near work where you can count the number of cars on it at night on one hand. Everyone of them said that was different because it wasn't a busy motorway My view at the moment is exceeding the speed limit isn't always life threatening if treated with the respect it deserves. I may have to disuade people in the future from breaking speed limits even if I have different views. Thats the whole point of having this debate on my course.

ps please don't rip me to bits i'm new

Don't worry, you didn't come in with your guns blazing!!!....

[my emboldening]

And that's the nub of it, I guess.

Anyway, in all seriousness, I DO believe that speed cameras are at the absolute epicentre of the policy failure.

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

That 'L plate' provides some protection for new users and goes away after 10 posts.

I have a feeling that you'll find you're among friends anyway.

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

The comment you refer to was actually meant as light hearted humour, but somebody got a "bee in their bonnet" over it and took it the wrong way.
The individual concerned had obviously watched "Fast & Furious" too many times, because if they really knew how NOS worked then I doubt they would have kicked off.

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

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

The more likely cause is the lack of motorways.

These are the safest roads.

But we dont have enough and some are too small.

We need to get the traffic off the small single carriage way roads and onto motorways.

But the tree huggers oppose motorways...........so there is more congestion and the risks of accidents go up.