RobinXe wrote:
999oliver, welcome!
I'm afraid that so far you seem to be personifying the cautionary saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so let me put you right on a couple of things.
Firstly, and foremost, you have made the oft-repeated mistake of assuming that just because a poster has managed to complete the registration for the forums, they are to be considered a representative spokesperson for the campaign. You are posting here, are you a campaign member? Lets try to keep things in perspective, and not gloatingly grasp at any extreme viewpoint posted as some vindication of your disdain.
As noted by the vitriolic individual referenced in your original post, SafeSpeed does not conduct "research" in the sense of collecting raw data, and as such it is wholly unsurprising that there is an absence of publication. There is plenty of raw data available to demonstrate most, if not all, of the campaign's assertions without the considerable expense of additional data collection. There is no means or requirement to re-publish that which has already been published, and indeed to do so would be plagiarism.
You've taken to bandying about figures that have already been "done to death", and displaying somewhat of a lack of understanding, so lets clear that up. As another poster has already alluded to, the inflated figures over-egging the impact of "speeding" are obtained by looking at the occasions where "excess speed" has been recorded as a contributory factor in accidents, even when more serious factors are clearly present. The more representative figure, in low single digits, is from the incidences of "speed in excess of the speed limit" being recorded as a factor in KSIs (killed or seriously injured accidents). That said, a search of the forums will reveal the single occasion on which data detailing the recorded factors for a number of accidents has been made available here, and you will be able to note that in only a tiny fraction of those occasions where excess speed, or speed in excess of the limit, is recorded as a factor is there not another, far more serious, factor at play, such as a stolen vehicle, or drunk driver. This suggests strongly that speed at which the inherent danger of driving is elevated to an unacceptable level is basically never a causal factor, and only ever at worst an aggravating factor.
You seem to be focussing overly on the fact that the BBC mistakenly described SafeSpeed as a charity, perhaps in the hope that you can expose some scandalous duplicity. I'm afraid you'll be sorely disappointed to learn that the reality is that journalists often make mistakes. Perhaps more relevant is the supposition that being a charity in some way makes an organisation more credible, or implies that their assertions are in some way held to a higher standard of veracity. Nothing could be further from the truth, sadly, as evidenced by a certain "road safety" charity, founded purely on emotive knee-jerking, and self-promotion, and not at all on effecting any changes that could really have saved the lives they mourn so publicly and vocally.
Yet another misconception comes in the form of an assumption that SafeSpeed opposes speed limits. If you bother to look around you'll soon see that the opposition is to mis-set speed limits and common-senseless enforcement. Try doing some research.
The claim that speeding is a problem because people think so. A majority of people once thought the world was flat, that didn't make them correct. The shrewd mind would be suspicious of any survey purporting to echo the vox populi without citing the precise question and the options given for answers. You've already been to great length ensuring that opinions/anecdotes are not reported as facts, so lets not play at double standards eh? As for noisy? Perhaps. 40mph in 2nd gear is certainly going to be noisier than 30mph in 2nd, but neither will be as quiet as 50mph in 5th. Sadly the Mk1 Mod0 Eyeball isn't accurately calibrated for judging speed, and as such the brain tends to rely on other senses, such as hearing, to assist in doing so. Experience tells us that a racing engine means higher speeds. Human factors.
You dispute that speeding is the only road safety factor being focussed on, citing adverts about texting etc, but would you care to suggest how those other factors would be enforced, given the proliferation of cameras in favour of police on traffic duties? While you're at it, would you care to substantiate your claim that 6000 cameras = 20,000 police officers?
Finally, so much of what you've taken issue with has already been covered more than adequately either on the main site and/or elsewhere in the forums. The clever people who wrote the bulletin board software were kind enough to include a search function to help you. Coming along picking faults when you yourself clearly demonstrate a profound lack of understanding or prior research into the campaign is deeply hypocritical, don't you think?
Eagerly anticipating your reply.
Hang on, the research relied upon here with the cirulatory references back to your own private, un submitted graphs that I covered upthread was covered by me. Look at the daft assumptions about motorways? There is no campaign to reduce speed on motorways. People in residential areas and rural villages are crying out for lower speeds, to dismiss all of them as "flat earthers" is rather arrogant, no? If a pensioner or mum with a buggy is intimidated and scared when some idiot bombs along at 40mph, why would you discount their views? Are you saying they're NOT scared? Can you not see where I listed the police operations against bad road behaviour that does NOT involve speeding? You too can use a search engine, Google "drunk driving arrests" or "ANPR roadside checks. More needs to be done, up to 1 in ten cars in some areas are uninsured, the speed cameras are supported in national polls because they free up police time to mount these operations.
The Safespeed page on TRL 421 is inadequate. It mutters darkly about a conspiracy and bias, yet offers not a shred of evidence. It cites motorways having lower speeds as support for the contention, this is a highly misleading claim, as I've shown. The "charity" mistake, hastily corrected, smacks to me of an attempt to attain, or bestow by the beeb, a credibility that to me is sorely lacking from what I've read here.
for all the relevance vox-popping old people in the middle of Reading has, after all:Is there any reference to the average age of the participant?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
all the crims do is use a different route, put them in unmarked police cars and they (crims) don't know where to hide. However, government IT systems hardly come with glowing references do they? I'm not looking forward to the day when my car comes up as uninsured, I'm not looking forward to the walk home and trying to prove it is insured.