Safe Speed Forums

But what are the 'powers that be' doing about driver improvement? Nothing.

And the ever-growing use of automated enforcement has absolutely no effect on improving standards. With the absence of TrafPol, it is just being drummed into drivers that, 'adhere to the speed limit and all your problems will be no more and you will be safe'.

So I do blame cameras (or rather the underlying policy) for dumbing-down drivers.


And that's with the presence of cameras - so isn't that proof they don't work? The only thing cameras prove is that your brakes work, if you spot the cam...

IMHO...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Do you believe this statement to be true?


I wonder why not. After all this is supposed to be a driver improvement course. Can we not do with at least a little improvement this course may offer?

Why restrict access only to those who have been found to be traveling above the posted limit within a narrow band of semi tolerance. Surely prevention is better than cure. Why not make it available to everyone?

The government and local authorities are undermining speed limits. We all know they are meant to be the maximum speed traffic may travel at, and not a target speed. But they are now being set at average speeds or below average speeds. This combined with automated enforcement has helped make speeding, when caught by a camera, a purely techincal offence with no foundation in road safety. Therefore, its hardly a good use of resources to send these 'speeders' on a driver improvement course, surely these couses should be reserved for individuals who have poor driving standards. Then again, these individuals will never be caught.

That's no answer at all to my point. You have just told me that the law is the law.



It's essential to consider the criteria that drivers are using to decide on speed. If they set speed to comply with the speed limit law alone they will be extremely dangerous.

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

Exactly - take last night while I was heading along a 50mph SC. One section that becomes exceptionally narrow, (just wide enough for two cars to pass) with a semi-blind S bend - and a side-road junction attached. Generally requires approach at under 30mph and if clear proceed through at no more than 30 until the junction has been cleared. If you encounter traffic, then sub-20 and 2nd gear is required. I was just entering it when some moron came flying round from the other direction far too fast forcing my near-side off the road. I reckon he was doing about 35-40 - completely legal of course.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Its proof that significant numbers of drivers have failed to see the speed limit signs (or decide to ignore them), failed to see the camera warning signs and failed to see the cameras.
I see that as cameras exposing failures on the part of the drivers.

If cameras were not bringing any money because they were not being triggered I fail to see how they would survive.




In general there is an acceptance that the justice system restricts its activities to those who have "earned" a place, be that in jail, on unpaid work or speed awareness courses.

Perhaps its time that changed. Have you suggested this to your local speed awareness team?

The justice system exists to carry out its duties as laid down by parliament.
We do have some independence, over sentencing for example, but in other things we follow the path set out for us by our elected masters.



The course I attended made it clear that the posted limit is the maximum when it safe to do so. There was no question of saying that its always safe to drive at the limit. There was a lot of saying that if you drive over the limit you are liable to a penalty.

Thats exactly the sort of daft comment that hinders attempts at serious discussion and gets picked up by the pro camera lobby as an example of how the anti camera people have failed to grasp a simple fact.


Such driving is clearly NOT completely legal, its just an example of a type of driving that speed cameras were never intended to catch.

I think we DO need some form of driver assessment after passing a driving test. What interval it should be is open to debate. I would have thought initially at 3 years, then evey 7-10 years; but sooner if the first assessment is poor. The only problem is that if this idea is taken up by Government, it will be set up by the 'brains on sticks' such that if you fail, you will have your licence removed. This would therefore be an exceedingly unpopular imposition on the motorist,and I certainly don't think I would support it; it needs to be an ASSESSMENT not a TEST. After all a person may get a poor result but have had no accidents at all since passing the last test.

A useful non-penal scheme could be introduced gradually starting with commercial drivers who drive over a certain limit each year on company business (say 10,000 miles), with an assessment by a notified body. This would be a non-governmental body with experienced examiners. Test would be arranged on behalf of the employers, (it would be mandatory, by the way), and the test results would pass back to the employers to act on as they see fit. Every employer would have to submit an annual report to the DfT on his testing and the results in aggregated terms (no individual names), and his actions if the test results were poor. Annual results would be published by the DfT. Employers with poor results would have to submit an action plan for improvement, and would have to suffer the ignominy of the publicity for bad results. This way it becomes self-policing as drivers who are clearly a risk will soon be taken off driving duties. In this, it would be similar to the regime for testing of train drivers, who are already subject to similar testing.

Of course this regime would have no effect on drivers on leisure/private journeys, but as most vehicle miles are commercial if we include company cars on company business, I think it would soon show results. The tests could be offered to those private citizens who want to check themselves out at a reasonable fee, in fact the Government could subsidise these as the likelhood of improvement would soon make the scheme self-financing.

It's time we got away from the punishment, hell and damnation regime !!

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

Do I spot sophistry? Or carelessness? My point was:



And you have failed to address it again.



However if the balance of importance shifts towards 'legal' as opposed to 'safety' reasons for speed setting, then, Houston, we have a problem.

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

You did not answer my question. But in reply to the answer you did give. You seem to think that a "Safety" measure that fails to make money would be removed.

Now we are getting to the nub of their existence


So in other words. In order to benefit from an initiative to improve my driving I have to first commit a crime. Very forward thinking.


I do not know if our local SCP (London) offers courses. I have never been auto enforced. Good suggestion though as long as it is a mixed group of attendees. That way the people who have not been auto enforced will see the reaction of the people who have. It would also have the side benefit of only being one course.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I don't think it's a daft comment at all! I see this sort of thing happen every day as I live in an area where most single track roads are NSL but clearly not safe to travel on at anything LIKE that speed in many places. Of course, those limits were imposed back in the days when it was expected of drivers to choose their own sensible speed for each section of read and to constantly review it. I completely agree that this kind of driving is not the sort of driving that speed cameras were intended to catch - it's the kind of driving that traffic police were intended to catch. Unfortunately, that's what we see on our roads though, isn't it. increasing numbers of speed cameras and decreasing numbers of traffic police.

You missed the intended irony in my comment about legality (admittedly not clear) - of course I know such a manouvre is not legal; it was careless driving at best. The points are, that all we have drummed into us about safety are black and white dividing lines along the speed limit, and nothing else. That there are no trafpol around to spot such a manouvre - therefore under current policing policy, what this guy did is effectively 'safe and legal'.
Now he did this 10-15mph under the speed limit but, were it not for me veering off the road could very well have resulted in a crash. But the day before, I was potentially pinged (still to find out) driving in complete safety at 35 in a 30, (and even 35 felt very slow given the immediate conditions and road type). Yet despite the fact I know I was driving safely, this was illegal, deemed unsafe and therefore I'll be the one being sent on a speed awareness/driver improvement course. Whereas the pillock that forced me off the road was probably not even aware of what he did - after all, he was well under the speed limit!
And that is an example of why my respect for the law, particularly of the motoring variety is rapidly being eroded and disappearing completely - I refer you to my signature.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

I have just attended a speed awareness course in Sunderland. Some of the course content was useful, for instance, it was surprising how many people (at least half) had forgotton what the speed limits were on various different types of roads since they had passed their tests. I think some sort of refresher courses for drivers would be a good idea, but not as a punishment as happens at the moment.
At the beginning of the course the tutor said we would be having a discussion after we had completed the computer exercises. She told us to express our opinions in a frank and honest way. As it turned out there was never any proper opportunity to discuss anything. Most of the time the tutor was just standing at the front of the class talking, and asking the class to shout out the answers to her questions. Twice we went round the class taking turns to speak, the first time to say why we had been speeding, and the second to give our opinions on speed cameras. Most people only said a couple of words. That was the extent of the discussion.
Right at the end as the class was ending I raised my hand and asked if there was the opportunity to ask questions, and asked why cameras had not been successful in reducing accidents since they had been introduced. She said they had, and quoted some statistics; as soon as I mentioned the safespeed website she talked over me and cut me off. So much for a frank and honest discussion.
As people were saying goodbye and thankyou on the wayout, I couldn't muster up the energy to say anything and left.

Hehe. The site which strikes fear into the hearts of irrational camera proponents. None of them can argue with the information here, so they do their best to gag and belittle it instead. It's a great achievement to have attained such a panic-inducing reputation among politicians etc with so few resources. It wouldn't have happened if the truth hadn't been on our side.

AFAIK no-one in authority has so much as attempted to come up with a detailed rebuttal to any of the pages on this site. Whenever Paul writes letters he receives no adequate reply. Why would they be so eager to stifle debate unless they knew that they were wrong?

(Incidentally Paul, when you've got the time, a few more letters pages would be good!)

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

There is no discussion to be had with these people, they're content with hiding their lies while wrongfully capitalising on around 10 road deaths each day.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

:rotfl: Are you surprised?
I can imagine 20 (or however many go on these courses) drivers driving home afterwards, with their noses glued to their speedos and driving like complete morons. Unless, they know the truth, and that they're not really kiddie-killers, and it is quite OK and acceptable to drive safely at an appropriate speed!

What a nice little industry ScamCams have introduced. I'd love to know how much it's contributed to the UK's GDP...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Heres a link from Lancashires Finest explaining the complete speed awarenes criteria:
http://www.trickery.net/vb/printthread.php?t=10557