Safe Speed Forums

The same legal right that the DfT has for erecting trial speed cameras - because the information collected isn't being used to prosecute drivers.

impact speed and free travelling speed. I'm on the side of most here but if for instance you're travelling at 80 in a 30 your thinking and stopping distance must be considered so speed, whether it be impact or free travelling is of consequence. if someone does something stupid like run out from between parked cars without looking and you're doing way over the limit or even what most would consider safe for the conditions surely impact speed is a nonesense? from say 80mph you hit that person after slowing down to 10mph, if you were doing the prescribed 30mph you'd have most likely stopped, so free travelling speed is a very important consideration?

there used to a discretion credited to coppers if you overtook someone that was causing an obstruction by travelling below the limit, you could exceed the limit to overtake as long as you returned to the prescribed limit within good time.

local to us, a new camera is being installed at the request of the local ward forum members, the local residents. what they've all failed to realise is the reason the pallasade fencing has been destroyed has more to do with the road surface than speed. our local council has resurfaced that stretch with SMA and on the bend it has been blended to give a higher skid resistance. speed was a contributor but the the sole cause. people at the forum were more concerned with not being able to cross the road and stated the reason was down to speed. UTTER bollocks, it was merely down to traffic volume and mostly those trying to avoid the congestin on the by-pass by using residential streets.

I've been surveying my own behaviour when driving and i've noticed i'm more likely to drive nearer the limit when the roads are almost empty. mostly down to the fact the majority of car owners have little idea of how to drive let alone drive safely, with a degree of intelligence and their mind on the job in hand, perhaps i'm just frustrated with their obvious lack of common sense and that the govt are doing the right thing by removing the need for it. maybe if every time they got in their car they knew their life could be in mortal danger, things would be different. maybe i'm advocating that all drivers must complete at least 6 months of logged motorcycle hours and a test.

I think it's a commonplace critical mistake to construct an argument based on 'gross' behaviour, when what we need to consider is real-world human performance.

Instead I would say:

- if you drive like a nutter, you will crash and it'll be your fault.

AND

- for normal responsible motorists, driving responsibly, average impact speed is NOT a function of free travelling speed.

And we know it's true because almost always there's no impact at all. Yet if we shut our eyes for 20 seconds while driving we will very likely impact something at our free travelling speed. Shutting our eyes disables the real time risk management process - and NOTHING ELSE of consequence.

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

I just think that if travelling speed and impact speed are used as any basis for debate/argument, those in our opposition will see the flaw and debunk anything and possibly everything else put forward.

How to get the message across to these blinkered "twentys plenty" idiots?

Thats pretty easy id say.
Whats needed is a collection of these pillocks in one area, say on a nice open carpark.
Then we need an interviewer and a camera to capture what happens next.
In the carpark, say 20 feet away from the interviewer and the interviewees, we need a full size, full mass dummy to simulate a person.
Then we need a car, any car to hit it at 20mph in full view of these prats to demonstrate that they really are talking out of their rectums.
Im sure the shock of seeing what happens to 'ol dummy at just 20 will possibly spark a flame of common sense in their tiny brains when the question is asked; " Still think 20 is a safe speed? Or would it be best to stay out of the roads?".

'Kin morons the lot of them.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

What flaw?

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

the flaw will be when they answer with what i posted earlier. if you're travelling at 30 in a 30, you will (given the same distance in each case, the pratt walks off the kerb) have more time to think and react. if you were doing 50 you're impact speed will be greater. speed humps here have been criticised because they're causing so much damage. the councils response is "if they were doing 20mph there would be no problem. and that is utter crap but it's what we get.

Well, of course that view is hopelessly flawed. Is that what you meant?

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

well i'm no scientist (you guessed didnt you) but this impact speed over collision speed sounds flawed to me. perhaps i'm just naive, so enlighten me, i'm willing to learn and change my opinion if you can convincem, but please be a layman about it.

Does this help: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/227

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

nope.
but that's because you didn't explain anything. it sounds more like "faster drivers are safer", which is rot. a lot of fast drivers are safe but some are also too bloody dangerous to drive below the slowest limits. They passed their test just like the majority but give up ever learning anything to improve their skills. idiots on the coventry ring road are a prime example.

ok lets put a mark across the road which will be used as a sort of datum or start line. car 1 goes over it at 50mph, 20yds down the road a pleb steps off the pavement, in 20 yds the driver has to think, assess the best option and stop. car 2 goes over the line at 30mph, the same pleb (yes he survived with minor damage to his iPod) steps off the kerb, are his chances of survival improved with superficial hair untidying from abrasion with inside of his hood? or will he be splattered just as bad as his fist time? you or I may be ok at higher speeds but most are not. the impact speed of car 1 will be greater than car 2, unless you're Dr. Who and that's down to their relative travelling speed.
or am I just being thick?

I finally got a reply to my complaint, and it's made me almost as mad as the programme itself -- they've completely failed to answer my points.

Here is my complaint:

------------
I would like to make a formal complaint about the programme "Crash: One Fatal Day on the Roads", which was screened on BBC1 at 7pm on 25 May 2007.

My complaint centres around the following areas:
1. Factual inaccuracies
2. No right to reply
3. Focussing on the wrong issue
4. The solution did not match the problem

The details of my complaint are as follows:

1. FACTUAL INACCURACIES

The programme claimed that speed cameras reduced deaths and serious
injuries by 35%. However the government's own research has concluded
that the actual reduction is 23.5% at fixed camera sites, and 17.6% at
mobile sites. Therefore, the claim made in the programme was false and I
would like to know the source for it.
For reference the Department for Transport figures can be seen here:
http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullD ... 4575&NewsA
reaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False

2. NO RIGHT TO REPLY

There was nobody representing the "devil's advocate" position on the
programme, which meant that several important questions went unanswered.
The whole programme was presented with a slant in favour of speed
reduction, and nobody was invited to put forward the opposing viewpoint.

For example, one of the accidents covered by the programme involved
three friends walking home on an unlit country road in the dark, and one
of them had been hit by a car. The only view that the programme put
forward was that the driver's punishment should be increased. Nothing
was mentioned about the dangers of walking down an unlit road at
night-time and whether these people should have been there in the first
place.

3. FOCUSSING ON THE WRONG ISSUE

The programme quoted a statistic that 26% of fatal accidents involve
speeding drivers, and then proceeded to dedicate almost all of its
airtime to speeding and speed reduction. It made no attempt to deal with
the other 74% of crashes. Would it not make sense to investigate the
majority of accidents rather than the minority? No explanation was given
in the programme for this decision.

4. THE SOLUTION DID NOT MATCH THE PROBLEM

The programme investigated two schools where parents and children found it difficult to cross the road due to the volume of traffic. The
solution to this problem was identified as the installation of road
crossing facilities.
However, the programme then went off on an extensive tangeant
investigating the speed of passing traffic and how to slow drivers down.
This was not related to the actual problem, which was the need to
install a crossing. No explanation was given for why the programme
changed tack and started investigating traffic speed rather than
concentrating on getting a crossing installed.

SUMMARY

In summary, I feel that considering its primetime slot this programme
had the opportunity to open a debate on road safety. Instead, through
one-sided reporting and inaccuracies, it has presented a misleading
account of road safety which has the potential to mislead the audience
into believing that sticking to the speed limit rather than observing
and anticipating the road ahead is their primary duty when driving.

---------------

And here is their reply:

-----------------

Many thanks for your e-mail relating to the BBC One programme, 'Crash: One Fatal Day on the Roads.' I am sorry for the delay in responding to your comments.

The BBC takes all feedback from its viewers very seriously and endeavours to answer all criticism about individual programmes. 'Crash: One fatal Day on the Roads' is no exception.

I can assure you that the programme was rigorously researched and filming was professionally executed. The programme was made with the full co-operation of the Police and in consultation with the Department of
Transport and numerous other professional bodies.

The Speed Camera Partnership and local authorities carried out research
over a two year period which showed that deaths and serious injuries fell by an average of 35 per cent at camera sites operated by them.

Since transmission, the programme has been widely acclaimed for its treatment of a deeply serious subject on which opinion is widely split. Case studies were employed to illustrate the very real consequences of speeding and, in particular, the vulnerability of children.

I hope this helps to answer some of your queries. Once again, many thanks for your correspondence.

---------------

I'm not sure if I can be bothered to take this further by complaining to the Editorial Complaints Unit, but I think it shows how thorough the BBC's investigative process is...

I should really quote up my sister-in-law.

Julie. She teach at a school in Altrincham area.

She tell us in e-mail that she pass one primary which fill her with positive vibe on her way to work. A boy aged 7 -ish stopped at zebra when she about 100 yard away. He's laughing as he look behind him. He then cross road at "traffic island" Ju-Ju notes with appreciation as he hold his hand to her to stop her car as he with a smile & laugh beckon his mates across. Ju-Ju - she teaches in a secondary. She was impressed.

Half mile further on she note another school with

SLOW DOWN LIMIT 30 mph in playground. This same school indulge in speed cam zap game. Child zap Julie who was recorded at 25 mph. She was subjected to "rant of pee cee calibre from the Year 5 teacher.

Julie listened. She politely ask her name. She then go on to work. She then give head teacher of this feeder "merry hell" over this intrusion to her way to work by this Year 5 teacher. She was well below the speed limit of this road in any case. She worried over a school making Year 5 pupil] attend before school even start its working day as she pass before 8 am. She know the school start officially at 8.45 am.

I know this anecdotal from family. But anecdotal more close to truth than "journales" anyway

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

No, you're not being thick, you are absolutely correct.

The unarguable facts:

1. The faster you hit someone, the more severe the injuries.
2. The slower you are going, the more chance you have of stopping at all when something occurs up front.



If people were going slower before they had to brake, the impact force would be lower and maybe we wouldn't have killed 47 children in built up areas in 2005.

You're both arguing against a position that SS isn't taking. It's a bit like someone saying "I think pianos should be legal" and you retorting "Oh, so you think it's acceptable to drop pianos on people's heads!"

Paul has made it abundantly clear, as have others, that you should drive at a speed so that if someone steps out you can stop. Not hit them at a "mere" 30mph. The vast majority of people manage this. If there is a concealed point ahead, then yes, slow down! If it is especially concealed, slow down a lot. But don't tell me to drive at 30mph on a dual carriageway when I can see that no one is there to step out.

This or This.
Surely they cannot both be right.

In any case, the only way to eliminate road accidents is to eliminate road traffic.

Average crash energies are at least an order of magnitude less than they would be if we crashed at speed limit speeds.

That order of magnitude isn't something we can take for granted. It's a function of average driver quality and it's vulnerable to misinformation.



You're still taking driver quality for granted. You can't do that - it's vulnerable.

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

I received exactly the same response. I am escalating to the Editorial Complaints Unit, but I deeply resent having to jump through the BBC's hoops, designed to put of complainants. To make it easier for anyone else, here's the address & letter -


"Editorial Complaints Unit
BBC
Media Centre
Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TQ



Dear Sir/Madam

Complaint – Crash: One fatal day on the Roads 25/05/07

I am unhappy with the response to my complaint which I consider to be evasive and, as such, lacking in integrity.

The email is enclosed.


Yours sincerely


From : <info@bbc.co.uk>
Sent : 10 July 2007 10:38:09
To :
Subject : Crash: One Fatal Day on the Roads

Dear

Many thanks for your e-mail relating to the BBC One programme, 'Crash: One Fatal Day on the Roads'. I am sorry for the delay in responding to your comments.

The BBC takes all feedback from its viewers very seriously and endeavours to answer all criticism about individual programmes. 'Crash: One fatal Day on the Roads' is no exception.

I can assure you that the programme was rigorously researched and filming was professionally executed. The programme was made with the full co-operation of the Police and in consultation with the Department of Transport and numerous other professional bodies.

The Speed Camera Partnership and local authorities carried out research over a two year period which showed that deaths and serious injuries fell by an average of 35 per cent at camera sites operated by them.

Since transmission, the programme has been widely acclaimed for its treatment of a deeply serious subject on which opinion is widely split. Case studies were employed to illustrate the very real consequences of speeding and, in particular, the vulnerability of children.

I hope this helps to answer some of your queries. Once again, many thanks for your correspondence.

Yours Sincerely,

Carl Johnston
Producer
BBC News and Current Affairs

-------Original Message-------

{Programme Name:} Crash: One fatal day on the Roads
{Transmission Date:}25 - 05 - 07

{Comments:}
I believe that this was the most biased programme I've ever seen. Please
view the entire programme and explain why you didn't present a balanced
view and what part of whichever rules apply allows you to do so.

Just one example, you stated, if I recall correctly, that speeding
costs the NHS ~£70 million a year. You didn't balance that by
mentioning the amount of money raised from motorists through tax - how
much is it ? In fact, since you ommitted to do so in the programme,
please provide references for each of the statements made and balancing
statements.

Just to take this point alone, a SCP was banned from making this claim by the advertising standards agency because they couldn't substantiate it.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that. A quick search revealed -

"We understood the figure was based on the hypothetical cost of treatment that could arise as a result of Accident & Emergency, Intensive Care Unit and out-patient care costs and the sum total of £100,000 was based on charges listed under those general headings sourced in the Department of Health's Reference Costs 2001 publication. Although we noted Drivesafe had taken the figure in good faith from a leaflet published by the NSCL, we considered that we had not seen evidence to show that £100,000 was a representative average cost to the NHS for all high speed collisions."

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?Adjudication_id=41428

so I presume the same can be said for the £70m claim.

I will add this info. to the complaint and update the thread when I get a responce.