Safe Speed Forums

Doesn't that suggest that the speed limit has been set unrealistically low? Sounds to me that the 85th percentile are heading towards 40 mph.

Yep id agree with you. However id not suggest you change it as if youre happy with the image it projects then fine.



Well it may not have been your intention but thats the message people get, its all due to "what the sign says" you see.......



Different angles are always welcomed, even if theyre not agreed with.
What riles me is the somewhat moralistic preachings we are subjected to in respect of the subject matter; speed, while a total ignorance of any other factors is maintained.

Hopefully the debated different angles can be gelled into something useful here.
Just realise one thing, scps's, speed cameras, policy and proponents are pretty much universally hated by anyone who has ever encountered them.
For me, that attitude wont ever be broken down until policy gets changed, scps get disbanded and the truth about them is ackowledged.
I know that my own attitudes are coloured by what ive witnessed and discovered about the subject and that i can be "aggressive" at times when persuing the arguments, but if someones nose gets put out of joint a little while awkward questions get asked, then i wont apologise for that. However camera operator, if ive got you wrong then i do apologise for that.
Thats as close to a handshake youll get for now.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Let,s try and be intelligent on the "Scamera Partnerships" as it is blatantly obvious that speed cameras don,t catch drunk drivers / defective / uninsured / dangerous vehicles or dangerous drivers!!!
These are caught by your "on the road" traffic officers who have a modicum of "common sense & judgement" and can sense a problem when they stop a vehicle so it is blatantly obvious that the cameras are there to EARN REVENUE for a government that can,t find any other way to screw the motorist except by deceitful and spurious means !
We have all these stories about SPEEDING DRIVERS killing people (there is no denying it happens) but the majority of these drivers are the ones who don,t do 1 or 2 miles over the limit they are the ones who TOTALLY DISREGARD the speed limits by excessive speed i.e. 20 or 30 or more MPH over the limit but we all get tarred with the same brush.
These drivers will never have any regard for speed limits or any other laws that is why they are the dangerous ones not the poor driver who once in a blue moon misses a speed restriction sign and can end up losing
their living because they have passed a camera and gone over the limit
for a 1/2 a second in a measured few yards and they say this saves lives absolute rubbish !!!!!!!!
A different position if the "speeder" has travelled for say 3/4 of a mile at over the limit but what is wrong with putting up flashing signs warning of the limit then if ignored a prosecution would then be warranted as the driver has repeatedly ignored the limit.
But remember this would mean EXPENDITURE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY "NO REVENUE"!
How many drivers have been prosecuted for speeding for just a 1/2 a second by a speed camera while trying to find a street or road and missed a speed sign and lets face facts a speeding offence is A CRIMINAL OFFENCE so it adds up the statistics of CRIMES DETECTED !

Lots of sense in there and I'm sure the vast majority share the views. Getting into name-calling with Camera Operator because of the job he does is out of order, IMHO. He is holding down a legal job, presumably to support a family etc. It is not for him to have to justify the laws he's policing so let's not get carried away. If you don't like the laws then you/we must actively campaign to get them changed - this, I thought - and still think - is a major part of safe Speed's raison d'etre. No I don't like Safety Cameras. Yes, I do think they are potentially distracting and therefore contribute to RTA's. Yes I would much rather we had more BiB in cars; even unmarked cars. However, at present we have what we have and if we support Paul in his endeavours and drive within posted limits then we will beat this menace. Ranting and name calling just get us all branded "Speed Freaks". er, end of rant.

_________________
"Experience isn't everything - but it's most of it".

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

did you have your V for vendetta mask on?

Point taken about name calling but this is only a name used by others on the forum and I agree everyone has a right to earn a living and these people are no exception they just have a very "unpalatable" job to do and if they did not do it someone else would they didn,t put the system in place they just carry it out it on behalf of their employers.

On a serious note though these camera partnerships in my opinion were given out to private enterprise purely as they are such a contentious piece of equipment that the government did not want them to be seen as a "revenue earning" item of equipment (which taking the revenue they have earned) cannot be denied.

As I have said in previous posts I am not against speed reduction measures (cameras or other measures) as long as they are used in a sensible manner and location i.e. outside schools etc. or in places where there is a history of fatal or serious accidents.

The reason why many motorists are against cameras is quite simply that they (in the majority of locations) are not installed to curb speed but to gain revenue for cash strapped / underfunded police authorities and they then defeat the object of reducing road accidents because to reiterate the point I made earlier the "persistent speeder" gets a buzz out of beating (or trying to) the camera and blatantly ignoring the limits set by the authorities and we should have a lot more traffic patrols including more unmarked cars and unfortunately organisations like "Brake" although their intentions are right they are going overboard in their views and when challenged about "speed issues" they say more cameras are needed.

Take a typical example of the ambulance driver taking a kidney for transplant some time ago (through Norfolk / Cambridge) he was told this was an "emergency" so he did what he thought was right in the circumstances and exceeded the legal limit and what did "Brake" advocate he still should not have exceeded the limit and should have rightly been prosecuted and they are the ones that use the "emotional" argument of tell a parent who has lost a child to a speeding driver to reduce installation of cameras / sites.

I do not treat lightheartedly the issue of children (or anyone else) being killed or seriously injured in a road accident as we all have a role to play in road safety but when making decisions about road safety schemes / equipment installation then the FIRST priority should be safety equipment and not "REVENUE" nor the easy option of "Speed Cameras" there is nothing wrong with installing flashing warning signs and then if ignored the warning of prosecution pending with the offending vehicle no. that way there is no denying the offence as the driver has been warned.

Another example of statistics being misused was a few weeks ago "The Daily Mail" ran a story that "cameras" were costing lives (with figures to prove it) and what was the response from the powers that be "the figures must not be taken as a whole " because they were only for a short period of time (3 or 4 months previous) but had the figures shown a "reduction" they would have been "praising" cameras as doing an excellent job and proving their worth.

As people know when an accident happens speed is an obvious factor but only one of a number of factors such as driver behaviour, as a fact 99% of accidents are due to human error only 1% are due to mechanical failure, it is a well known fact that when a driver sees a camera they immediately look at their speedo and then even if complying with the limit they will spend time looking in the mirror to see if they have been "flashed" again taking their eyes off the road ahead this is where I would say more "flashing speed limit signs" are needed and then if after say 3/4 mile or so they should then have the speed / reg. no. logged and a warning saying prosecution to follow.

But again this does not achieve the object of increasing revenue as camera partnerships have to cover their costs and this again proves the point that revenue comes first and safety takes second place.

Ad Infinitum!

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

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

Spannernut

I hasve no great love for the cams, I think CamOp is well aware, but he does give a different view, if our arguments are to work with officialdom then we need to try out these ideas on those who don't share our exact views.

Launching into CamOp is not the way to do this, if he where posting and acting as Callaghan and co then it could be argued he's fair game but have been impressed with the way he puts across his views, even if they are different to mine.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk