Safe Speed Forums

This one?

That's one, the words being used gave me a feeling of deja vu...

_________________
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

The road pricing petition got nearly 1.8 million signatures and the government response was a patronising letter from the PMs office. I suspect that most people just can't be bothered with the petition site after that.

When people drive too fast they sometimes crash. They sometimes run into pedestrians or other cars which they would not have done had they been travelling more slowly.

Speed limits do not guarantee safety but they do, in a rough and ready way, stop the worst excesses of speed - if they are obeyed. Speed limits are not simply about safety, but also about people feeling safe, particularly on residential streets.

If you break the speed limit you may be prosecuted. As speeding is entirely discretionary, we can consider that a tax on stupidity, like a fine for littering or graffiti.



People crash cars and vans because they are not fully in control of their vehicles, and they run into pedestrians, cyclists and cars because they do not take sufficient care.

Were they to take more care the crash would not have happened. Taking care means travelling at the appropriate speed. Any intelligent observer of traffic will know that very many drivers proceed at well above the appropriate speed. Disbelieve me and check out the chicanes we taxpayers pay for on any of the terraced house roads near my house that fail to stop the stupid, reckless, idiotic behaviour exhibited along those narrow, busy streets. Genuine offer, come and see for yourself as pedestrians tut and sometimes react angrily when drivers use streets shared with pedestrians and cyclists as their own , personal racetrack. And yes, I mean they place their own need for cheap thrills or simple expediency over all other considerations.

Motorways- fine- raise the limit, the exposure to risk is borne by those who choose to use those roads. All urban, residential roads are now having 20mph limits, enforced at no small cost because many drivers feel the transferral of risk- to people outside the steel cage-is worth the risk.

I appreciate Smith's death would naturally cause a hiatus in the campaign, you now have a chance to distance yourself from his more immoderate stances and encourage the adoption of such schemes.

As soon as anyone refers to car users as being inside a steel cage it is a sure sign their opinions are bigoted and worthless. Your true name isn't Guy Chapman, by any chance, is it?

_________________
"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

Are these ordinary drivers who are doing this, or are you describing the behaviour of those at the extreme end of the spectrum?
And yes, it does matter. There are people out there who'se behaviour is way outside of the bounds of what most consider acceptable and this includes on the roads. Many are untroubled by the prospect of being snapped by a speed camera because they have no licence, insurance, tax, MOT etc, so what concern is a speeding fine?
Speed cameras don't really punish the sort of drivers we hope they should or think they do punish.

SteveCharlton wrote:

The problem is you are making the fundamental mistake of treating all drivers equally. Sorry not very PC but they I'm afraid they are not in fact each drivers ability varies on a day to day basis (some more than others). Because most of the time most of the people manage to get from A to B w/o crashing into something the emphasis on the posted speed limit violations gives many a false sense of security if they are driving at or just below the posted speed limit.

Lets look at some figures to illustrate how damaging this fixation is
3000 deaths a year (Deaths are easier to define than Seriously injured )

Now if we take government figures inappropriate speed was a factor in 33% cases (This figure has largely discredited and is now though to be more probably around 12%)

However 2/3 of these figures is inappropriate speed BELOW the posted speed limit.

This means if everybody complied with the speed limit at all times it would still not vastly reduce the number of people dying on the roads.

Best case 2670 more realistically it would be 2880.

The reality is a little more complicated than your argument allows for. The problem is while people like you are jumping up and down with ill thought out logic, the road safety resources are being squandered and people are dying needlessly.

(Surely "It's a sure sign they're Stalinists"? Ed.)

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

Would you not agree that there is a difference to those examples, that being that the speed limit could be unnecessarily low - like..."Motorways- fine- raise the limit" ?


Like on motorways where drivers are still taking appropriate care even though they are above the limit?


Yes, other road user groups don't take sufficient care (I accept that's not what you meant but it still works). Would you agree there is a significant point here: limits are coming down, as is pedestrian activity, yet child pedestrian road deaths are static or on the up. Does this make sense to you? Where are we failing?


That's not quite correct (they don’t top the excesses) but I see where you're going. Safespeed has never called for the abolition of speed limits, this is made clear in the manifesto; that's far from immoderate wouldn't you think?


I doubt there are more than a few who fall into those categories; that handful likely won't be touchable by cameras anyway. Only trafpol can do anything about that or inappropriate speeds. That's something else the campaign has been calling for; again that 's far from immoderate wouldn't you think?

No, but we are well aware that militant cyclists call motorists "cagers".

_________________
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

I agree with a lot of what you say. Your first post asked for someone to post an "official" SafeSpeed position (or something like that). The problem there is that we are a disparate group of people and I'm not sure that any one of us could (or would even be entitled to) speak for the rest, so that's probably why you've not had a response on that one. If Claire or any of the mods would like to post something, that's fair enough but I think everyone on here would want to have a good look at it as an individual to see if they agreed or not. It's much the same with a political party I guess. An individual member might not agree with everything that party stands for.

I'd be grateful for further explanation of the statement:

"...All urban, residential roads are now having 20mph limits, enforced at no small cost because many drivers feel the transferral of risk- to people outside the steel cage-is worth the risk." though.

I'd have thought you would have been in favour of this?

Also, while I too am in favour of raising motorway limits (at least to align with the bulk of EC Member States) I would have thought that you'd get a backlash from those more timid drivers you mention who would then feel that despite paying road tax like anyone else, they were being "denied" access to the motorway network.

Like on motorways where drivers are still taking appropriate care even though they are above the limit?

Absolutely, I concede this readily for the reasons given. I agree with you, on motorways. You are quite right.

Fine, raise the limit.

On roads with interactivity with other road users, I support mandatory 20mph limits, enforced with cameras. As the OP article makes clear, the next generation of automated road safety devices will go a long way towards addressing the rampant cock-witted muppetry we see on the roads every day. And I mean, we all see this, right? The impatient, harried driver with zero spacial awareness and a glassy-eyed vacant detachment from the actual task of driving a ton of steel. Twats on mobiles. Aggressive, pointless overtaking. The inevitable harried nature of humans competing for a limited resource. To drive appropriately where interaction with other people is inevitable means allowing oneself time to adjust and react. Slower speeds allow this adjustment and reaction.

So, what is the Safespeed position please? Specifically with regard to the residential streets covered by the new cameras?

I support them for the reasons given, the only people who fear a hitherto relatively anarchic system are those who are guilty of breaking the law.

If it were up to me, and it isn't, the position would carefully avoid twoddle like this! Using the roads should not be a competition with other road users, despite what some of the more immoderate members of certain user-groups think. Every road user has the same ultimate goal, to get from A to B as safely and expeditiously as possile. We should all be working together to achieve this.

The distinction that residential streets are the only place where road users from different groups must interact is erroneous. With the partial exception of motorways, we can expect to see mixed traffic on almost all of the UK road network. A blanket 20mph limit for all of this would be excessive; the risks of mixed traffic could be mitigated more effectively by means that would not bring the country to a crawl.

So again, if it were up to me, and it isn't, the position would be that there are many great ways of protecting all road users from one anothers errors, carelessness and sometimes neglect. Education for all road-users must come first and foremost, but other treatments such as seperate foot/cyclepaths, barriers, crossings and over/underpasses can all contribute far more than a 20mph limit, by preventing collision at all, rather than merely reducing the energy involved. My position is that all speed limits should be set approprately, for safety and expediency, not for 'political' (or revenue raising) reasons, and should be determined using science, not gut feeling.

do you honestly think that if a vehicle that is caught on camera, and there is no RK then the offence is dropped !!!!!,

there is a large ANPR database compiled from such offences, local inteligence is used to stop these vehicles out and about, then with further investigation of the driver the vehicle can be seized under SOCAP ,

_________________
now retired

IF is a little word that puts a whole breadth of meaning on a simple statement.

Secondly, if someone is pre-disposed towards driving with no licence, MOT, tax or insurance, why should they be concerned about being tracked and having their vehicle seized? They just go and get another one. Return to square one.

Like on NSL single lane carriageways where we find cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians? If not then where do you draw the line and why?


This isn’t as clear cut as you might think it is.

The problem with that is are we chasing the right behaviours. For example, current reports show that ‘disobeying double white lines’ (especially given the amount of those lines these days), or ‘driver using mobile phone’, are greatly under-represented in accidents figures. Are the government getting desperate so they have to be seen to do something?

The other problem is reliable capture of behaviour inside the vehicle. Could someone popping a sweet into their mouth, or simply scratching their ear, be considered eating or on a phone?

In terms of increasing the number of speed cameras (which is what these devices essentially are), it is a bad thing. However, if the evidence will be used to get instances of anti-social driving, such as people treating residential roads as race-tracks, then it can be a good thing. Will these cameras be used in such a way? I dount it!

There is also the issue of police using these devices as a method for meeting their crime quotas – treating the motorist as an easy target. Will they tend towards doing this work instead of non-road related crimes? Will such enforcement be at the cost of real road safety initiatives?

I have to say I’ve not yet made up my mind but I can’t help but notice a whiff of spin.

Please note, I don’t speak for the campaign. I don’t believe there is as yet an official Safespeed position on this issue (for obvious reasons).

There's a pro-camera user on this forum who has admitted just recently to driving at 31 or 32mph in a 30mph zone. I wonder if he is one of these people you describe?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Not sure how a speed cam will prevent this? Yes I agree it happens and I'd like to see it stopped, but a speed cam can't measure crap driving. You almost sound like you believe in the tenet of driving at an appropriate speed, whatever the speed limit is, like going at 20mph past a school even though the speed limit may be 30mph... If that's the case, then welcome aboard!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

No, not driving AT 31 or 32, I don't drive around at 31 or 32mph.

Absolute bunkum.