Safe Speed Forums

weepej, cyclist et al....

what are you trying to prove, where are we heading, cut to the chase........

......what is your point???

Cheers, spent about 20 minutes trying to find that last night.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Which arguably is what the great J. J. Leeming was trying to achieve - to transform the road system, bit by bit, so the potential for human error leading to death and injury was minimised.

_________________
"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

Yes. Why would we want the current speed camera policy back?

Lets not argue about semantics, a few of what you might call SS regulars have tried to convey that our personal interest is in road safety as a whole. That SS can only address a small part of this whole is only due to resources not the will of, I hope, many members. Besides, you are a regular, you may not agree with this campaign but you are obviously interested in road safety rather than just arguing.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Well, I think basically that Safe Speed as a campaign is encouraging selfish and anti social driving attitudes and doling out excuses for bad driving, sometimes intentionally but probably more often unintentionally.

A real grinder for me is it appears to encourage people that think the answer to road safety is in road design so they can drive as badly as they want and not have to worry there would be any consequences. You know, the sort of "if I hit a pedestrian it'll be their fault for being in the road at all and I'd rather then road was designed so they couldn't get into the road so I don't have to worry about it".

What get's my goat most though is the "roads are for cars and nothing else" attitude that pervades some car drivers, I go for them anywhere I can find them, but there's quite a coven of them that post on these boards, rich pickings I guess.

And finally I think the associated call to scrap all speed cameras is misguided (as apparently do some people on here who signed Paul Smith's petition, which I find bizarre).

Sorry "Scrap speed cameras" means one thing and one thing only I'm afraid, the total and utter cessation of all speed camera operations for good.

Paul Smith certainly made it clear this is what he meant.

Do you think the Safe Speed campaign has changed it's attitude on this?

This is from the Safe Speed manifesto:

Speed Cameras
Over the last ten years or so our national road safety policy has been dominated by speed cameras. Overall results have been terrible and Safe Speed's investigations strongly suggest that the side effects of speed cameras are directly responsible for the bad performance. All speed camera operations must cease for the following main reasons:

Speed cameras imply a false safety message and so undermine the road safety culture
Speed cameras cause dangerous distractions to drivers
Speed cameras damage faith in national road safety policies
Speed cameras largely penalize safe and responsible behaviours
Public confidence in speed cameras has sunk too low for recovery
The Police / public relationship is being damaged progressively and ever more seriously
Vehicle activated signs are more effective than speed cameras at reducing vehicle speeds in areas of special danger
Speed cameras have failed in their stated objective of altering speeding behaviour

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

One of the "answers" to reducing accidents IS improved road design to minimise risk. If pedestrians can be separated from traffic (i.e. safely not in the road) this would be to the benefit of all as risk would be reduced. The roads are for all to use responsibly having regard to their own safety and that of others. This is not exclusive to one group of users.

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

Er, but you want to exclude pedestrians from them?

So not for all to use safely then?

I assume you disapprove of central barriers on motorways - surely a classic example of how engineering can reduce road casualties.

_________________
"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

C'mon Peter, you're assuming he approves of motorways in the first place...

Well, no, at that point it's already gone very wrong.

I wouldn't support central reservations on normal roads though obviously, I'd rather people are more careful first.

Weeeellll.

I do sometimes set me sat nav to avoid motorways, an often enlightening experience.

They are very noisy and I cerntainly don't want to see more of them built in deference to other transport solutions.

Er, no. I didn't say that. Which letters out of "all" didn't you understand?

Separation, where possible, of different classes of road users to reduce risks for all seems sense to me.

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

You can/

We are known to have one fixed Gatso .. only in all these years // no one knows his place of abode


Ummm..


he moves "house" - or rather we "scrap" him and move him along

Does he ping many?


Errrr., not really in comparison to his real flesh and bllod chums who lark around with doughnut fests .. coffee and play with lotsa toys

We have no evidence to suggest a speed cam works.


We have more evidence to suggest folk learn and accept hard lessons from police officers who they (MOPS) accept have been in receipt of a training programme for which collective taxes have paid to provide for us .. and for which I am in their debt. If public purse did not provide.. we would not be able to do any of our required jobs and services to our public.

I am not some "godlike force" but a member of the public who chose a profession and has enjoyed all the perks and provisions .. but I never forget who pays for my services and who is entitled to expect a return for the investment in my training and means of putting food on the family table. I accept the public are the majority .. but that they pay for chaps like me to ensure a safer way of life for them ,.. and I entered this profession fully aware of its shackles .. commitments.. personal requirements and demands of me.

I try to buiild back that bridge of trust by posting to this board. Some policies give rise to erode this. I try to reassure that we are not in a police state.. that most police officers are decent and upright and not at all desiring such powers which suggest "police state" :roll;

As far as I am aware .. the policy in our force is "policing by consent" and "fair play to all"

I cannot say fairer than this.. and safespeed as a campaign will move with the times and comment and address issues which affect the modern day road user so how he or she travels...

There is no seious nor malicious" hatred" of cyclsits on here. I admit that some wll "sound off some anger" just as cyclists will vent spleens over the driver from hell .. # and whch type you will find similar vents of frustration on many a petrolheaded site. .of the numpty who gives us all concerns.


Weepy an d B Cyclist - chill out. We are NOT the "enemy" Far from it.

My COAST encouragement?


I am postng this on the site which naughty drivers will look at. I am hoping my posts will help them take a hard look at themselves. Judging from the Pms I get from folk who register to chat off line to me and to whom I do reply first. . I think I help get some sense of responsibility and desire to learn a bit more at least.

How else can we improve a standard? You may indeed scoff at COAST but the bottom line is that we assess DIS/SPeed Awares per this criteria (and the Durhan DIS and sundry speed aware courses have been accredited by the DSA )
If I let folk into this assessment and they take note (and Franklin pages55 also shows the same COAST values in pictograms ) ,, then we educate. here.. improve.. make folk a bit more aware of responsibilities.

What does your spindrift do?

er nothing. Wno is he? /.. er r

Howard Wood.. Charles Napier ... wavery davey gravy./. snakes on a plane.. Cathy Browne.. Alex snelling.. martin crowe.. ben potter . mitch.. mitcum .. oliver ..


and you thnk we should take this guy seriously ?

Ome who never gives an identity nor any clue other than a profile of an autistic loner to be blunt and not unkind as I am very aware of what such a situation means and imposes on a person. I will admit that such folk are very intelligent .. and the key to unlocking their minds lies in understanding them fully and accepting their worth as valuable folk to our lives

I am honest,. I am who I prfoess to be. I only post to this site as I am empl;yed and kept busy.

I do not conceal my relationship to Vrenchen and Ted (Wildy cat and mad Mog ... whom I admit to liking as plas and loving as a kinsman to them.

None of us claim to herald form the Gabon.. Venezueala. bath .. nrowrich .. london innit.. mor calim to be unrelated folk as this person does.

the late Paul Smith was one honest person. His grieving partner is equally honest and sincere in stance.

Spindrift is dishonest by virtue of bans from several wbe fora .. including general news sites.. and his constant re-registers despite the fact of breaking the forum rules

That tells me who breaks the law and who does not.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Thanks, clear and to the point.

The campaign is to get rid of speed cameras and the policies that support them, at least that is how I read it. There are many pages on the main site where Paul has expressed the need for driver education promoting a higher standard of driving where said drivers take responsibility for their actions and how they affect other road users. The idea of well designed roads is to minimise the consequences of a driver making a mistake not the need to try and educate them out of making that mistake in the first place. If a driver/biker/cyclist hits a pedestrian then the fault can lie with either or more commonly both parties. It is less that roads should be designed to prevent pedestrians getting on them and more that they should ideally be designed so that the drivers and pedestrians can clearly see one another before the pedestrian even gets close to the kerb. What a driver/cyclist/biker ideally needs to do is make sure they can stop in less time than a pedestrian can intersect their path. There is a lot more to this, obviously, and there are the interactions between other road users to also consider, however the gist is, if an accident occurs you need to be able to tell yourself you did everything you could to avoid it.

There are quite a few posters with a "roads should be for cyclists" attitude on fora as well, the odd one posts here. I would not put you in that category though, I think you want roads to be safe for cyclists and probably pedestrians, my apologies if I am wrong.

There is plenty more to road safety I would like to discuss with you, but I have to go to work tomorrow and I have things to do before going to bed. Catch you later.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Safe Speed used to believe this too, and if they'd stuck to that camera placement then it may well still nave been the case. However, the side effects are just too dangerous. Also, the underlying message that the proliferation of cameras has imbued can only be brought back to a safe perspective by "overshooting"£ the other way.

Are you familiar with prohibition in the US?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

So you go out of your way to increase the traffic flow past people's houses, when there is a much less intrusive and antisocial alternative in the motorway? Isn't this something that you have been aligning yourself with someone who has been railing against, citing that driving need not be dangerous for it to be a nuisance to others?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Yes but it's not the same, Safe Speed is calling for speed cameras to be scrapped, sorry that's a one way thing, you can't scrap something and then bring it back. If it wanted a moratorium on them don't you think it would ask for this?

If it thinks cameras should go and then be brought back Safe Speed is clearly not anti speed camera.

I did not know that Roger, it took me some time to accept the reasoning on complete removal.

Weepej, the call for complete removal is about restoring the trust of drivers in road safety policy, if they are re-introduced then hopefully it can be done in a way that most drivers see as positive. Would it be more palatable if SS were asking for the removal of the polices which have relied on cameras as the primary safety tool?

I do not have much of a problem with most urban fixed cameras as such, I generally spot them and tend not to be speeding in any case. What is irritating is the way I have to deal with other drivers suddenly noticing them and braking even though they are not actually speeding. It means I have to spend more time looking for cameras and watching the car in front rather than cyclists and pedestrians. While I can do this without missing anything, I hope, it does mean the margins for coping with someone making a mistake or a forced direction change are smaller. Reducing speed can only mitigate this so far as Ideally you want time to avoid the other party not just to hit them a bit slower. For me this is how cameras become a hazard in themselves and so must be removed.

Edit: That is all my opinion of course, I do not speak for SS.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May