Safe Speed Forums

Yes, you've already said this. The survey also contains the tables of information Smeggy pointed to which you are ignoring.
Surveys like this don't, IMHO, tell us anything useful because they are too contradictory within themselves.

With respect I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that the q:
was hilariously biased.
It should be used in market research school as the example of questionnaire bad practice.

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

It's not "necessarily" bad practice if they were try to get a reaction to that specific question.

Where things often go wrong is in the conclusions drawn from surveys, where the fact that questions are frequently "leading" is frequently ignored.

To be fair many of the much touted "people like cameras" surveys also have rather specific questions as well - often of the type "speed cameras should be used to save lives?" type.

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Anyone who doesn't have a problem with the truth can see that it's screamingly obvious that the public are not in favour of speed cameras. It's as simple as that. Case closed.


Indeed you couldn't. C+ types make it so obvious where they come from (despite thinking that they're being dazzlingly clever and devious), are so poisonous, are so eager to insult all Safe Speed members collectively, and are so lacking in the slightest trace of originality, that it is indeed difficult to believe. You really couldn't make it up. You'd give people more credit than that.

I don't understand what their problem is with being upfront about where they're from. It denotes a compulsion to lie (even when it's totally unnecessary) and an intention to mess us about, and gets things off on the wrong foot straight away. Jub Jub wasn't exactly forthcoming about it but at least he didn't deny it. He made up for it by being an extra special div in every other way though I suppose.

<sigh> Worthy opponent, I know you're out there somewhere.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

How?
And what of the other tables?

Care to point us to each one of 'every poll taken on the subject of speed cameras and speed limit enforcement' (that 'show an overwhelming majority in favour of both - even though they obviously don't) where the questions aren't biased?


Your interpretation of table 22 is even more telling.
Oh if only you weren't so selective. Table 22 was actually about:
"Which, if any, of the following initiatives do you think most improve road safety? Select up to five options"
You also gloss over the fact that the 2 second rule was number 1.

This in no way takes away from the fact that the results within the other tables show a distinct unpopularity of speed cameras - which directly contradicts what you were saying earlier. In fact you 'offered nothing - not a whiff of data - to substantiate your gripe'.

Is this one of those 'lose one argument then move swiftly on to another without acknowledgement' kind of debates? What does it matter, it’s all a 'laugh' to you isn’t it!

Well said "bombus" as you have just hit the proverbial nail on ye head with that statement, because any one who agrees with having 3 points on their licence and £60.00 going to the exchequer must have completely lost their marbles.

I do not condone speeding in any way (nor do I think does anyone else on this forum) but to penalise someone for straying over the posted limit by a couple of mph for less than 75 yards or so is totally outrageous as if we wanted to reduce speed then why are the local camera partnerships not "investing" (and I use that term loosely) in specs cameras.

It is patently obvious that "specs" cameras would SLOW traffic down due to the fact that they are time / distance cameras so the law abiding motorist would OBEY the speed limit as only the fools would exceed the limit when under surveillance from a "specs" camera.

The answer is patently obvious "To Raise Revenue" when there are other ways to deal with road safety rather than financially penalising the motorist.

No matter what the camera pertnerships say the no. 1 remit of cameras is to raise revenue and safety (if at all) takes second place.

Has nobody realised why this govnmt. gave the camera issue to the local councils etc., simply because it was such a contentious issue with regards to raising revenue they let the local councils etc. take the blame and the flak for the camera sites and revenue gained.

These people say they would rather everyone complied with speed limits and then they would not need to issue tickets, (if you believe that you will believe the moon is made of green cheese) then they would have to find another way of removing more of the hard earned cash from the motorist to pay for their ridiculous schemes and also the wages for the useless bureaucrats and non-jobs who sit on town councils justifying their existence.

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

That good old safespeed dialectic. It lives!
The public are in favour of speed cameras. Search for '82%' in this pdf:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 75/975.pdf

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

What did I say a few posts ago

"the use of safety cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties" - the real question is: are they? The survey said 'naaah aaaah'

Would that four year report be the same one that didn't fully consider RTTM, as well as completely ignored 'bias on selection'? Why yes - it is!

Do you believe that, if people knew just how poorly cameras actually performed, their response would be even less supportive?
We'll be going from 'cameras more than halve the KSI rate' to 'cameras aren't even responsible for 10% (absolute) of the drop'.

Do you think it is right for these people to palm off dodgy statistics than ask loaded questions where they know the respondents will base their judgement on their dodgy stats?

Among the peer group I come into contact with on a day-to-day basis, I know of no one who's of the opinion that speed cameras are a life saving institution but take the view that they're simply revenue raisers. I appreciate that such straw polls amount to diddly squat with the pro camera brigade but some credibility most be allowed to there being no takers in literally hundreds of honest Joe type citizens.

Should the camera become at all popular (heaven forbid), amongst the law abiding citizen, posters such as the one above will be able to drive in fear and trembling once the overspeed lenience is screwed down to a mere couple of MPH over the posted limit where a ticket is issued.

He'll be one of the first to squeal I suggest.

i class myself as a lurker these days rather than a poster, Paul thought that the public was so anti camera that he set up the scrap speed camera petition, maybe on the crest of the wave of the road pricing petition,

no weighted questions just do you want to scrap cameras, if so sign here

the link to petition was bounced around numerous sites, IMO i thought with all the motoring forums around 250k signatures




28,000, i know Paul was deeply disappointed with the result, some still claim this as a success,

Case Closed IMO

_________________
now retired

Even the foxhunting petition only got 43866 signatures, despite there having been a march on the issue with 500,000 participants.

Realistically, no petition is going to get beyond the low tens of thousands without a big media campaign behind it, which the scrapcam petition never got.

In the circumstances, I would say 28089 signatures counts as a major success.

_________________
"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

A petition to permit a house near the rehabilitation cantre at RAF Headley Court to be used as a residence for families visiting injured relatives received over 43000 signatures in two weeks.

Exactly, look how many signed the road pricing petition1.8M helped along by the media.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Which I expect rapidly got round the grapevine of current and former RAF personnel. Nothing wrong with that, but that's how it works.

_________________
"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

The fact that 28,000 people signed simply shows that at least 28,000 people have no idea how government works in this country.

So how would you pose such a question to ensure it was without bias in either direction?

Ask anyone who doesn't drive if they approve of any method of improving road safety and the answer will likely be yes - it makes no odds to them if it's a bad idea or not. Ask drivers and they'll be bias, mostly through experience, bitter or otherwise. We will never get a real straight answer as to the nations feelings on cameras.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Good question. I'm not sure, though I'd avoid making it implicit within the question itself that speed cameras are a hazard! If I couldn't find a way to do that I'd probably refrain from asking the question. Actually, the question is worthless anyway. A high proportion of respondents agreeing is evidence only of the need to camouflage them, right?
Yes and no. I agree that research is slippery and ambivalent and that a definitive picture of levels of support for speed cameras is very elusive. I disagree that opinion will break neatly into driver and non-driver camps.
Research I've seen shows a majority of drivers acknowledge speeding to be a serious offence and support speed limit enforcement by the use of cameras. Drivers aren't some homogenous group of safespeed subscribers. Not all people who drive cars can or want to invest so much of their sense of self in the activity of driving. Not all drivers allow themselves to become disproportionately identified with their driving selves. Not all drivers see driving as the last redoubt of hunter-gatherer masculinity. Not all drivers view the curbing of their thrill-seeking for the collective good to be a personal affront to their virility. Not all drivers are emotional toddlers. Some people who drive cars will prefer to address the speed camera question from within their role as parents to small children, tired of having to curtail their freedom to roam around unsupervised because of the risks posed to them by speeding traffic.
Some people who drive cars dislike cars and driving!

_________________
Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights?

Sorry, but this is an absolute nonsense.

If you are a true believer of the "Safespeed Mantra" then you absolutely condone speeding as long as it is safe. Otherwise, you may as well join Brake. Unfortunately, I myself personally believe that a number of people are simply supporters to be seen as rebellious to Government controls, and not for any perceieved safety benefits.

And there being more cars and car journeys!



I'm not saying that the local partnerships always tell the whole truth, but presumably what they would be referring to would only be roads on which there are speed cameras.



Yes which is why would we need to get on and swap all the 'spot' speed cameras with average-speed cameras. I heard just recently that a scheme in Camden with a network of these cameras had cut accidents by 57%. And I don't think they were put in specifically in response to a spate of accidents, so regression-to-mean wouldn't, by the sounds of it, particularly apply. But no, before anyone asks, I don't have a link to a report.

_________________
Before you moan about middle-lane hoggers, check that you yourself are obeying all the rules of the road.

This one ?

As as an experienced used of SPECS equipped roads, I can tell you exactly what happens. Every time the traffic approaches a camera it slows down....EVERY time. You pass the first in the chain, the next comes along and the WHOLE two lanes slows RIGHT down.....sometimes to 20mph (50 limit).
This happens even when they aren't even DOING 50 between the cams.
I always keep the sunblind down...every little helps.
And if any of those madcap "kill speed camera" freaks are about....it is no use cutting the poles down....it takes a day to put another in place. Try looking for the highly secure large cabinet in between the cams that contains the expensive stuff.
It might be interesting to find the frequency that the new systems use to transmit data to the base station.