Safe Speed Forums

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

A good idea, we need to get away from the idea that anti-social behaviour is a victim-less crime. Graffiti looks awful and attracts other low-level crime, Giuliani's 'broken window' initiative bowed to this effect- it's the idea that fly-tipping, graffiti or broken windows encourages more similar actions. It's mindless vandalism that deteriorates quality of life. Similarly there does not have to be a death for speeding to be anti-social. Speeding is rarely a victimless crime since it has a negative impact on the quality of life of those who have to put up with it. It scares old people, it terrifies children trying to get to school, it intimidates vulnerable road users. I can easily avoid 'the stealth tax' of graffiti fines by not spraying stupid tags on walls. Same with speeding fines, only criminals have anything to worry about.

There are some who speed in an anti-social manner (joyriders, boy racers etc) but the great majority of speeding cases are mere infringements - these are not anti-social, nor are they intended to be. Everyone speeds (don't try to deny that), many regularly, some constantly, yet "Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents," (RCGB2007)
Mere technical infringements are victimless crimes!

It is wrong to levy an additional penalty those who commit a technical infringement, where that penalty if a result of a genuinely anti-social behaviour (with intent). You're robbing Peter to pay Paul who suffered from Patrick's crime. It is a bad idea because those guilty who should be paying that surcharge are getting away with it.

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

Will the police be sending victim support workers round to those whose lives have been ruined soley by someone going at 31mph in a 30mph limit?

It's just fundraising.

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

1/

What's the source for your claim that most speeding cases are 'mere infringements' please? I've offered empirical evidence that speeding is anti-social, deaths and injuries are not the only qualitifiable measure. If someone is driving at more than 30 in a 30 zone then this behaviour impacts negatively on those unfortunate enough to share road space with the speeder. Implicit in the laws governing behaviour on the roads is that people obey the law- if someone breaks the law then it impacts negatively on anyone else who shares that space.


2/

RCGB2007 is a partial source and ignores fatalities.

In fact the statistics are that speeding was a factor in 30% of fatal RTAs in 1998.



http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-an ... ashes.html

If you look at Fatalities you will find that in all studies excessive speed is a contributory factor in the majority of cases even
if not the principle one. ie if the vehicle wasn't speeding there would have been no fatality.

The point being made is that whilst there may be simple and easy labels to apply to casues of collisions, slowing traffic down in urban areas decreases the likelihood of an injudicious action, or failing to look properly, resulting in a collision, and should a collision occur the consequences are less severe.

So whilst taking a very narrow view of 'cause' may indicate that speed is not a factor, when outcome is considered it is most definitely the significant indicator of severity (whether that be avoiding a collision, through to major KSI).

Breaking the speed limit or going too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in 26% of fatal crashes, but I repeat, this is by no means the exclusive benchmark and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.

Graffiti, fly-tipping and vandalism all have a negative impact. In my experience and those of many others who clamour for reduced speeds in their neighbourhoods, so does speeding. A filled coffin is only the most extreme result of this particular anti-social behaviour, to argue otherwise would be to argue that anti-social behaviour does not annoy, depress and intimidate people.

Stevegarrod wrote:

Ummm...........Scaryyyyyyyy......................................................
I've read something like this somewhere else...............
not Exactly word for word but similar
Blackburn telegraph I think about 2003.
Letters to the editor.
Strange how difficult it is for certain people to change their style of writing.
And a new member too......................................
Now we wouldn't want anybody to be misled just because they might have read about dead and mutilated bodies or drink driving that,( and speeding is a very emotive word),little old ladies, driving down hills that just happen to creep into being travelling at a low level over the posted limit are just criminals committing anti social behaviour, terrifying all & sundry,& INTIMIDATING vulnerable road users.
Anyway here's the link in case anybody wants to read it:
http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/2 ... 18431.html

No, since 31mph would not result in a fpn, and nobody said that lives are ruined by a minor infraction, but congratulations on introducing the straw man so early.

This is no more 'fundraising' than the VS imposed on fly-tippers or aerosol taggers, quality of life is affected, the surcharge applies.

I have no idea who that police officer is , and furthermore I cannot see anything he has written that replicates my post, although the sentiments are similar.

It may surprise you to learn that two people who hold similar views may not in fact be the same person, that's why opinion polls uniformly reflect positive opinions on law enforcement via safety cameras, there has never been an opinion poll held that shows a majority oppose them.

stevegarood writes

CIVILIAN WANNABE POLICE OFFICER.
Just stating like fingerprints styles of writing CAN be identifying
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

stevegarrod writes;

OH you must not be from Lancashire. It's a way of life here!

Can you cite a verifiable case where ACPO guidelines were ignored please? Anecdotes and further personal abuse will be ignored.

stevegarrod wrote:


OH please don't scold me sir I will be a good boy AND SUPPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING so DONT IGNORE ME PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
(God you dO sound like that EX CTO MANAGER!)
Here you are sir!

(There's thousands more but you only asked for one! Wouldn't want to be accused of not following orders!(Heels together, snap salute, fingers down the seams, standing to attention, SIRRRRRRRRR!)
31mph fined Blackpool

I am a careful 55yr old driver and was fined for doing 31mph on Talbot Road. I was driving at 30mph keeping up with traffic at a busy time when I saw the camera, between glancing at my speedo the speed must have risen a fraction. How can one drive carefully and also take their eyes off the road every few seconds to look at the speedo? The fine and the worry was terrible, I am now so nervous when I see a camera I drive at 20/25mph through the robbing machine and have to put up with the road rage from people behind. These cameras should be removed!

daveee,
22/07/2008 21:23:19
I can assure you it was 31, everyone I have told was amazed but it is here in black and white.

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/black ... eLength=10

31mph
I HAVE an urgent message for your correspondent (Letters, February 18),
who criticised the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety for its
"zero tolerance" policy on speeding

The writer claimed that two work mates had been "done" for driving
at 31mph and 32mph in a 30mph zone. Could I urge the writer to ask
those colleagues to contact me as soon as possible by phoning 01772 534531.
If they were driving at these speeds, I will see that their fine money is returned
and penalty points wiped from their licences.
There is no zero tolerance campaign. The police allow drivers to go an additional
10% plus 2mph over the speed limit before taking action.
In Lancashire, motorists caught speeding in a 30mph zone are only automatically prosecuted
when driving at 36mph, which is actually 20% over the limit.
For those "flashed" at 35mph, there is the option of attending a speed awareness course,
to avoid a fine and the three penalty points. Lancashire is one of only a handful of
places nationwide to offer this.
The majority of crashes occur on roads with a speed limit of 30mph or less.
Research shows that 70% of people break the speed limit on these roads, usually by 5 or 6mph.
At 35mph, a driver is twice as likely to kill someone as at 30mph, because it takes an extra 21ft to stop.
Linda Sanderson, communications
manager, Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety, Preston
You rember Linda Don't you ?
source:
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/ ... tm?t=35520

1/

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verifiable

2/

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdote

Unless you can demonstrate the fine was returned, you fail.

Editted for gratuitous sarcasm removal.

stevegarod or greenshed or whatever your next logon name is going to be wrote:

Which equates to blah blah blah!
You see I didn't know it was a test sir! Can I try again please? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I promise to check your supplied links and learn - honest! (CHEERY WINK!)

You can't edit my posting!

Sussed again!
p.s.
you chose the wrong forum to discredit Safespeed!
The people that frequent this particular forum have been around along time!!!!!!!!

I've already given it.
People regularly speed, especially motorway drivers where conditions are good; there are no victims, there is no negative impact on others - a technical infringement.


Yes, but not all speeding, only some cases of it (joyriders and boy racers). You've offered no evidence that the technical infringements are anti-social.


WTF?
It's full of fatality data and the most comprehensive report there is! Have you even seen it?


I'll go with the much more recent 2007 data thanks, especially those compiled from the Stats19 data.


No it isn't.......

"Excessive Speed Is A Factor In One Third Of All Fatal Crashes" Link
Wrong!. Watch this:

"Speed was a factor in 30 percent (12,477) of all traffic fatalities in 1998, second only to alcohol (39 percent) as a cause of fatal crashes."
Where did the word excessive disappear to?

You see, what they did was mix other speed related contributory factors, such as "failure to judge the speed or path" into the group "speed is a factor", then misspoke (a la Hilary Clinton) the words to include 'excessive' - even though excessive speed (however it is defined) had nothing to do with these other factors.


Prove it or retract it!

Shoe on other foot: we know there are an average of 2.5 contributory factors per fatality, take away non-'excessive speed' factor and many accidents still wouldn't happen.


No it doesn't. Having lived in Portsmouth when the limits were reduced to 20mph, I was horrified to see so many people (including parents with children) rush into the road without looking - the pedestrians had applied risk compensation.


None of this topic drift detracts from the very wrong principle of robbing Peter to Pay Paul for Patrick's crime!


Since drafting this, it seems a pi55ing contest has started and is in full swing, so I'm bowing out.

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

Steve wrote

absolutely correct & I'm joining him!

Sigh.

I asked for evidence that ACPO guidelines are ignored.

You supplied a link to a page where it was CLAIMED they were ignored, together with an eminently reasonable appeal from the camera operators for collaborative details. As far as we know from your own link no such information was forthcoming.

The rest is silence.

You didn't substantiate your claim, you repeated it with no evidence. Unless you have evidence that the fine was refunded then, as your own link points out, you're talking rubbish.

1/

Citing motorway speeding, where the interaction mentioned upthread is by definition limited, is disingenuous. The numbers of vulnerable road users negatively impacted by speeding on motorways is? The number of schoolchildren? Pensioners trying to cross? Do you see how dishonest that allusion is now?

2/

I have asked already for your source that only boy racers or car thieves negatively impact on residents' lives. You've made this claim twice. I've politely asked twice for you to back it up. How on earth does a resident know whether a speeding car is stolen or not? You're twisting in the wind my friend. Residents are annoyed, threatened and intimidated by speeding cars. Your claim that only stolen cars inflict this misery is truly bizarre. "Technical infringements' as you call them are , in fact, the number one anti-social activity cited by residents who says speeding drivers are a right royal pain in the ass:

http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp

Which antisocial behaviours are the British public most concerned about? University of Reading finds out

Release Date : 11 December 2006

Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown.

3/

The evidence on 20mph zones is straightforwardly clear- they reduce accidents with no displacement, see here:

In 1999, Hull saw a 21 per cent fall in all road casualties from the 1981-85 baseline (25 per cent reduction if trunk road casualties are removed). To put this into perspective, the Yorkshire & Humberside region experienced a 15 per cent increase over the similar period. In terms of child casualties, we have seen a 33 per cent drop since the mid 80's (compared to a similar national reduction of 16.5 per cent).

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 57ap80.htm

Here:

The Commission for Integrated Transport did a study in 2001 looking at best practice in transport across Europe. It found that where cities have 20mph limits covering between 65% and 85% of the urban network, they are transformed "from being noisy, polluted places into vibrant, people-centred environments".

20mph is the speed at which drivers can have eye contact with other users of the street. It is the speed at which pedestrians feel more confident about crossing the road, children play outside their homes and it is quiet enough to hold a conversation.

The third big reason why we should make 20mph the default speed limit is the boost it gives to walking and cycling.

The Commission for Integrated Transport also found that area wide 20mph limits are "the one critical success factor underpinning best practice in promoting walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the private car".

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/news_an ... php?id=361

And here:

The first traffic calming scheme with road humps was introduced in Hull in 1993. Since then Hull City Council has achieved substantial reduction in road accident casualties.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buse ... 73?page=10

Your 'source' is unsourced, anecdotal and backed up by not a shred of evidence. Poor, very.

4/

"No it isn't.......'

Wrong again, you need to refresh your stock answers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5387568.stm

The Department for Transport released contributory factors for the first time, showing drivers' failure to look properly featured in 32% of accidents.

But in fatal crashes, loss of control was most common, with 35%, and excessive speed was reported in 15% of all accidents and 26% of fatal crashes.

http://search2drive.com/once_driving.html

The article also mentions that exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for the conditions were reported as contributory factors in 26% of fatal crashes and in 35 % of fatal single-vehicle motorcycle crashes.

RoSPA said a new report published today into the contributory factors to road accidents reinforces the need to continue the fight against speeding drivers and to persuade more motorists to take refresher training.

The report, published by the Department for Transport alongside latest casualty figures, said that exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 26 per cent of all fatal accidents. These accidents accounted for 28 per cent of all fatalities – 793 of the 3,201 people killed in crashes.

http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/2006 ... 6_road.htm

You have an opinion you can defend with conjecture, anecdote, unsourced claims and the blatant misrepresentation of official, impartial and independent research.

I have an opinion backed up with the above.

Now, rather than glibly repeat the glib phrases, dishonesty and misrepresentations you've posted above, can you admit the scintilla of doubt that citing the low rates of pedestrians threatened by speeding traffic on motorways is a bloody stupid thing to do?

Since your contributions to this thread so far have been an accusation I'm a retired policeman, a straightforward lie about fines for driving at 31mph, and then a sulky retreat, you won't be missed.

stevegarrod wrote:


So....
Adrian Emberton is retired is he ?
I wonder how you know this ?
I have only ever reffered to him as EX CTO Manager.
He could have gone on to greater things!
And never as a police officer.(Though he did often pretend to be one!)
Slight slip up there.
I'll have to check up with the IPCC.
Thanks for the info.