Safe Speed Forums

Unfortunately our release keeps on being deleted - but I suppose that's democracy.

The Association of Burglars and Deceitors (ABD) have spoken out about the spread of burglar alarms across the country and are insisting that these are painted yellow to alert their members before breaking and entering. They have accused authorities and householders of secretly hiding the familiar boxes found on the front of buildings and trying to outwit burglars. A spokesperson said “This is just another example of the courts trying to fleece the burglar with these revenue devices. There is too much focus on burglars when they are not the main cause of crime in the UK – just look at the number of motorists breaking the speed limit for example”.

The ABD insist that they firmly back crime reduction measures but installing burglar alarms and using the slogan “Kill burglary” was too simplistic an approach and is thaving little effect on the overall crime figures.

The ABD have stated that there is no link between burglary and crime and have disputed all evidence to the contrary. They have made it quite clear that
• Burglars vote
• Every day more burglars are being harassed
• Every month more draconian legislation is proposed
• Every year heftier fines are imposed
• This is victimisation against a small minority.

In an effort to help George join the community I moved his first "ABD press release" to a private area and sent him this private message:

========================================
From: SafeSpeed
To: George Painter
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:38 pm
Subject: Hiya,

George,

I've moved your spoof "ABD Press release" message to a private area on a temporary basis.

I've done that because it's no way to win friends around here. There are some excellent people behind the ABD who are strongly motivated to improve road safety, and many of the members here know that.

If you turn up here and attack our friends, then it stands to reason that you won't win friends yourself. I'd be much much happier if you joined the wide ranging discussion concerning real methods for improving road safety.

But I'm a very gentle moderator, and if you want me to restore your message I will do so.

Do you want your message restored?
===================================

I've had no reply.

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

Completley agree george,

Mine is painted yellow with red neon lights, this is to deter burglars from breaking into my property.

I fail to see why, you have posted on this forum though.

Maybe you can explain?

_________________
Steve

Our George has posted this one a few times on the "bogush" site in the past where he had run in with another one of our "gangsters" who flamed him over it with one or two others ....

For record George - spokesman of ABD regularly promotes interests of IAM and is actively seeking to encourage young drivers to do this test. He even goes into local schools and talks "road safety" - not "speed".

Members of this family are engaged in promoting idea of COAST - lot of little talks going on in hired rooms in pubs and hotels on this topic - and we also involve the local RoSPA/IAM wallies in these too.

Georgyboy, mate - I can appreciate that you may have seen one accident too many and it has seriously unnerved you to extent that you feel unable to get behind the wheel of a car. All the more reason why you should contribute to a debate on improving driving standards in a rational manner.

Posting daft stuff does not do you cause any good - and simply undermines whatever arguments you wish to bring.

OK - so I fence with burpingworks and Sorryone and we agree on some issues, disagree quite a bit on others - and apart from my messing about with their names a bit - for a bit of fun (which I am sure they see in that light) - we keep it "gentlemanly."




We are more concerned with tackling the actual cause of human error by looking at the whole picture - rather than simply believing that a speed camera is going to radically improve driving standards and reduce incidents on the roads.

I find that, by setting a situation in a new context, it helps us see some truth about it that was not obvious before. For instance, we tolerate cars zooming path school gates at 30 mph, yet if large heavy iron objects zoomed by through the bottom of our garden frequently but at irregular intervals, we would try to get it stopped because of the risk to our children. It is only the context and meaning of large "heavy iron objects" that has changed, yet in one context, they are deemed safe, and in another, they would be deemed intolerably unsafe.

I think that George is showing how ridiculous it is to show where the monitors are. In doing so, we interfere with driving and get false information about speeding habits. From an information gathering point of view, it would be much better to have secret, movable cameras if we wish to avoid a Heisenberg scenario and get true information. It would have the added benefit of removing the cause to brake suddenly whenever you see something yellow!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yes I agree speed cameras should be disguised, hidden and mobile. That way the ONLY sure way to starve the cameras would be to stay within the limits at all times.

...and once again he misses the point....

Is it more important to drive LEGALLY or to drive SAFELY? In Gear mentioned in another thread a driver he 'pulled' for doing 30 in a 30 for undue care because the weather and road conditions merited a lower speed.

Camera would have allowed this twit to carry on his merry unsafe way as cameras measure only one form of technical illegality. Safe and legal are not the same thing, and questioning this association does not make you 'irresponsible'.

How about those good old coppers lurking in side streets like they used to I still go on "best behaviour mode" whenever I see one - which admittedly is not often......

As for disguises.....

... people see white vans on bridges. They can be innocent white vans - but they still hammer the brakes.....even when legal these days


Swiss hide theirs in wheely bins and the like. Jolly interesting reactions on bin days.... Swiss accident rate? Static rate - but still no better than here despite 3 mph tolerance across entire speed range and disguised cams....

If whole point is to slow down traffic - then perhaps we would do better with the education as discussed, driver information adverts - as discussed, emphasis on COAST as discussed, VAS/SIDs and so on - as discussed ....

Please Mad Moggie see my thread on "one foot and 3" shorter" to see how your argument that because something doesn't solve a particular crime it should be scrapped simply doesn't wash.

Placing a speed camera on the corner, would not make any differance.

Speed cameras do not reduce deaths on our roads, the sooner blinkered people understand this the better.

_________________
Steve

Still missing the point

Depends what you mean by "through the bottom of our garden"...



No, I think you've also changed the context regarding the placement of these heavy iron objects in relation to the children - when cars "zoom" past the school gates at 30mph, they're not doing so by driving on the pavement or through the school gates, are they. Yet by using the "through the bottom of our garden" context, you seem to imply that the heavy iron objects in this case would actually be INSIDE the garden boundary at some point. This is more akin to suggesting that the cars are, at some point, "zooming" through the school playground, or along the pavement, at 30mph, and yes that would be totally unacceptable. But also entirely unrepresentative of reality.

If, on the other hand, your garden context is rewritten to say:

"...yet if large heavy iron objects zoomed past the bottom of our garden frequently but at irregular intervals..."

then it'd be far more in line with reality, and far less likely to generate the "are you mad, that'd be totally unsafe and irresponsible" response you seem to be looking for.




Why? If, as the SCPs claim, they're only siting cameras at accident hotspots, then surely it's in the best interest of every road user to highlight the fact that this is a dangerous bit of road?

The argument against visible cameras only seems to be valid if you're in favour of forcing everyone to stick to/below the limit at all times - i.e. you're enforcing the law for the sake of enforcing the law, rather than enforcing it in those areas where it would actually provide some safety benefit.



Umm, but now you're giving the cameras a new role. It may very well be the case that the cameras are already used to provide speed information, but that's just secondary to their main purpose in life. If you want to collect high quality speed information, then it'd be better to do so by way of a system that isn't linked to speed enforcement and doesn't risk incurring the wrath of millions of motorists who feel they're being constantly monitored and in danger of a 60 quid slap on the wrist for even a momentary blip on any road anywhere in the country regardless of whether or not that stretch of road actually needs to be targetted for speed enforcement.

Why not, it would have most probably reduced the speed this driver tried to negotiate the bend at and have prevented the accident. Your simple unqualified claim that speed cameras do not do this doesn't hold up.

_________________
It's Champion Man

A more accurate analogy than burgalry is somebody walking past your home on a public road, perhaps in a way that annoys you. Should you have a box installed to send them a fine if they walk at 3.3mph instead of the 3mph you insist on? After all it is on the public road outside your house, and they might knock you over causing you to crack your head on the pavement if they walk past at 3.3mph instead of 3.

Burglary is different because it is morally wrong, involving theft which is a fundamental moral wrong. Moving forward is not fundamentally immoral.

Indeed not. Moving forward at a rate that increases the risk to others of death or serious injury most definately is.

_________________
It's Champion Man

So is 3.3mph immoral? It presents a slightly higher risk of death than 3mph, or so we're told ("speed kills")

Please construct a question worth responding to.

_________________
It's Champion Man

And how do account for so many people getting pinged them Chumps?

Not exactly slowing them down - is it?

On the other hand - when they see us in cop car - only the most hardened is cheeky enough to test us ......

Apart from the fact the speed camera was three quarters of mile away enforcing the straight....

Do not know which road this was on - so do not know practicalities of springing a mobile without compromising safety. Um - that is something we take into account when we set up these things

But it sure seems to me that the speed cam should have been sited nearer the actual hazard than where it was.

But bottom line remains - if this guy's driving was so awful that he misjudged a corner and failed to position so that he could see fullest picture of this road - how likely is it that he would indeed have noticed a speed cam complete with neon lights on top of it...

Or would he have seen it - panic braked and skidded into the bloke anyway?

Chumps - a speed cam is not the only answer to a problem....but I think we will all concede that the scam further along the road was in wrong place and would possibly have been of more benefit at the bend - provided it was highly visible to warn of danger

If we had regular driver check ups, higher police presence (whereby you have no idea where we are - like the good ol' days ) and some TV adverts - no guarantee this twerp would have taken notice ... but then again - he may just have done so ....

Speed enforcement by camera or police will have the effect of slowing down the majoity of drivers in the location of the enforcement.

I note what you say regarding the location of the camera and to aid in the prevention of this particular accident it would obviosly have been better to be placed nearer to where the accident occured, what a shame the engineer who placed it there didn't have our hindsight.

In my experience Police officers are shit scared of sitting in vehicles near a bend in teh road lest someone skews off when they brake to avoid a pull so I don't think you would have prevented this one either. The camera could easily be made to be a bit braver though, how about you?

Can you also advise where your CC is going to raise the funds from to provide you with a load of new playmates?

_________________
It's Champion Man

Seem to remember reading somewhere that ACPO said to put 'em all on fairly straight bits 200 metres or so - right or wrong InGear? I had assumed there was some weird technical reason for it, like maybe getting misleading radar returns from vehicles coming round he bend or something. On the other hand, maybe it's just because they won't churn out so many NIPs if they were all on bends WTH, film is cheap, and cheaper still when buying in bulk.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein