Safe Speed Forums

By educated I mean educated in the facts, figures and arguments that the SafeSpeed campaign provides.

I presume you are a Mensan too then?

Yes, but my whole point is.... Surely there are pro-camera people out there who are both logical and numerate and not necessarily easily swayed by the "Speed Kills" soundbite.

I may be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if I am.

I really wish these people (and I strongly suspect some inhabit this forum) would speak out and tell us their story - if only to shut me up!

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

You may actually be wrong about the existence of such people. Camera supporters are, by and large:

- those with vested interests in the Speed Camera "Industry".
- the "Brake types" and their ilk.
- political lackeys saying what their party line dictates (they don't need to believe it).
- academics who get grants for saying what their paymasters want (Stern).
- rabid car hating eco-nuts. (Monbiot)
- those who, for whatever reason, believe what TPTB say.

Logical and numerate doesn't seem to come into it. I can't think of anyone with these attributes without a vested interest of some sort who supports cameras.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Yes, but there are all kinds of groups campaigning for various things under the general umbrella of road safety - lower speed limits, lower drink-drive limits, tougher driving tests etc - which suggests there isn't a general contentment with the current state of affairs.

Yet to my knowledge none of these kind of groups have generated an open discussion forum. Just look at the censored apology for a message board that Transport2000 run.

Does this suggest these agendas enjoy no widespread popular support?

_________________
"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

Sadly, I suspect they have considerable but uninformed support. Not opening things up to discussion is part of the current technique of:

Get the funding

Keep on repeating the message

Ignore all opposition

Keep on repeating the message

Get more funding

Keep on repeating the message

Denounce any remaining opposition as loonies

Get even more funding

Keep on repeating the message

Denounce any remaining opposition as dangerous loonies

Get the picture?

_________________
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

As Newbie I've been reading this with some interest. Incidentally I'm a member of several other forums to do with cars, bikes and motorsport and they all contain a similar cast of characters.

I've always had a mild aversion to authority, basically because I've always felt I'm being fed a line.
I'm never been convinced that the cameras do a good job. And the tosh we get told to support them only reinforces my mistrust. For instance I scoffed at the notion that having checked every camera (6000 IIRC), each and everyone totally complied with the all requirements. Sure.

But I do have a mate who takes the view that they only catch people breaking the law, to him it's a no brainer and yet he has serious objections to plenty of other legislation, so he's not unaware of the world around him. He just not that interested in cars as anything other than transport.

One of the posts here hit the nail on the head. As far as I can see, the vast majority of camera supporters have a vested interest in them, I've yet to hear from a vocal supporter who didn't have one. Do they actually exist?

The biggest problem any anti campaign group has - especially one sold as a life saver - is apathy and indifference. We will lie on the sofa and bellow at the TV but the one and only time it looked like a national demonstration might get somewhere our Government just lied and then threatened to get us back in line. I refer to the fuel blockades, where John Reid, then Health Minister, said that there were only two/three days fuel left for the emergency services. Having a contact in the fuel supply industry I knew this to be a lie. Its things like that that mean I don't believe a word any of them say.

We are generally conditioned throughout life to believe authority and most just can't be bothered to question it. The driving public could, if it chose, create meltdown if we all did something together, but we just can be bothered. Collectively we get what we deserve.

And on a final note, I don't buy the notion that an advanced driver is always a superior driver.

Barkstar

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

nope, not me, I work in telecomms.nope, not me, I'm sure I would know if I was of their "ilk"? They are single issue morons imvhonope, there is no political party for people with my views (I am a socialist ... we used to have a party, that's all gone now ... although diddy david cameron seems to be more socialist than the git in power). Nope, I get paid for doing what I knowNope, I like cars, I spend too much money on them, I spend too much time time reading about them, I spend too much time deciding which car I'd like next (usually something Italian) then more time deciding what I should get next (usually something diesel).Can't deny this as it's late and I can't work out what TPTB means
[edit]ahaa ... the powers that be ... nope, I have to say that I don't support the powers that be unless I think they are correct. So I don't support, for example, anything about the carnage in Iraq.

Hello! I support cameras, I have no vested interest!

I should say, though, that I do not support the current camera policy. Does that exclude me from the debate?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

content deleted, can't be arsed with robinxe sarcasm.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Content deleted, I can't be arsed with willy-waving!

Can you expand on this?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

A driver who functions in an advanced/defensive way is always considerably safer than an otherwise similar driver who doesn't.

But I've known some bloody awful drivers with an advanced qualification.

So it depends what you mean.

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

I found something of an audio link to this content: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/rams/authority.ram

Other links of interest on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/repor ... 0624.shtml

I'm not very happy about the way that the Today programme 'span' Professor Stone's conclusions. (I'm not alone either!) Better to read the real thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/repor ... pfinal.pdf

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

All in MVHO:

Speed cameras themselves are just a tool, and should be used as any tool would be used ... where it is the appropriate tool for the job. Speed cameras can do only one thing, which is to identify vehicles exceeding the speed limit. I object to the term "safety" camera for this reason.

In the tool metaphor, the speed camera is the number 1 pozi screwdriver. Suitable for number 1 pozi screws, and nothing else. Current policy sees the speed camera as the "Liverpool Hammer" (when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail).

Continuing the tool metaphor, the "leatherman" equivalent is the police - plenty of tools available in one small, perfectly formed package. Current policy reduces these flexible tools in favour of the Liverpool Hammer. Or Manchester Hammer, Cornish Hammer, Essex Hammer ... you get the idea.

There are other tools in the tool box - earlier in the thread there was some discussion about traffic engineers (the real sort, not the politicised sort); traffic wardens form part of the tool kit (again, ones that care about the traffic system rather than targets and revenues); and of course the road user education system. Government policy also needs to form part of this toolkit, to allow things like higher speed limits on motorways where appropriate, to enable variable limits, that sort of thing.

So to summarise my position:
Speed Cameras in isolation? No problem with them.
Speed Cameras used in conjunction with other policing measures? Not an issue.
Speed Cameras used to replace traffic police and tick the "road safety" box? Not acceptable.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I agree largely with what handy says, an in particular picking up on his point re traffic wardens:



It does seem that this government, intent on measuring performance in so many public sector jobs, has oversimplified things in order to reduce job outputs to easily measurable, but not necessarily meaningful, figures.

What does it matter how many 'deteced crimes' a policeman has, when this encourages them (not through their own personal greed or need for recognition, but to avoid disciplinary action) to neglect more serious crime in preference for easily 'solved' trivial matters.

What about targets for the NHS? Would anyone actually advocate taking a 'production line' approach to sick people?

It's about time that more meaningful measures of performance were put in place. With respect to the road safety aspect, funded institutions should be charged with proving their worth by reversing the 'fatality gap' they have created, rather than by the number of tickets they can hand out to mainly safe motorists.

I know the chorus of 'that would cost money not make money' will fire up, and I'm no less cynical than they, but I think this is something that everyone can agree on, regardless of their stance on speed enforcement. With that as a common goal, we must bring pressure to bear to effect change with minimal delay, as every day is costing more lives.

Thanks for that, just to take it a step further (since you originally said you support cameras), how do you view speed limits? As absolute limits above which we're criminals?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Many important people in road safety believe that 'speed management' is the Leatherman. How would you fix that?

I believe we have to ceremoniously scrap cameras to undo that mindset. It's present in drivers, in some Police, in local authorities, in DfT, in safety campaigns - it's dangerously pervasive...

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

My view on speed limits is that they are usually wrong, but they are an absolute limit rather than Paul's view of being purely advisory.

if the speed limits were always correct, then the speed cameras would only identify people who were using an inapropriate speed.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I guess the best Leatherman in the toolbox is 'risk management' when used by the actual motorist.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Why not both? I know it's hard to get your mind around but I am forced to that conclusion as the 'best fit' for the all facts:

1. speeding (any and every excursion above a posted limit) is so commonplace (conservative estimate is >3.5 BILLION 'offences' p.a.) as to make it absurd to regard every incidence as a 'criminal offence' (even, according to ex-transport minister Caroline Flint, a "serious criminal offence");

2. at the same time, the law is 'strict liability' so each and every speeding event is, according to law, a criminal offence;

3. 1 and 2 cannot co-exist. Therefore the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is not simply the speed limit itself but must be something else;

4. I suggest the real boundary is whether speeding events (in the case of any individual driver): (i) are so frequent or flagrant as to be detected by application of a reasonable and proportionate system of detection and enforcement; or (ii) cause actual harm or alarm to other reasonable road users.

So the speed limit is absolute when it's needed to be absolute, as a convenient tool for promoting road safety in general and punisjing unsafe use of speed in particular; and, at the same time, it is advisory as a general guide to hazard density and (by extension) to likely maximum safe speed.

If the speed limit was correct there wouldn't be any problem with this. Actually If the speed limit was set correctly and there was a mass education to explain what the word "limit" means, with worked examples and a discussion paper examining the difference between "limit" and "target".

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.