Safe Speed Forums

Is it bad drivers....?

Draconian laws....?

OR...

Too many speed cameras ?

I bet...two cents to a Dollar that the latter two are blamed on this forum !

Read this:

DRIVERS FACE CAR BAN IN A SINGLE FLASH May 9 2004

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk



MORE than half of the UK's motorists are perilously close to being banned from driving.

And many are simply unaware of laws that could see them fined or jailed.

Car dealers Benfield Motor Group found 53 per cent of drivers hold between five and nine points on their licences.

Some are just a speed camera flash away from 12 points and an automatic ban.

A Benfield spokeswoman said: 'With a three-point penalty for most offences, there are a lot of people right on the borderline.'

Meanwhile, a survey by Car Parts Direct found almost nine out of 10 drivers had not looked at the Highway Code since passing their test.

Few people were aware that causing death by dangerous driving carries a jail term of up to 14 years. And only a handful knew that eating a sandwich at the wheel is punishable by points on your licence.

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Yes. Bad drivers cause the vast majority of accidents. Draconian laws don't in themselves cause accidents, but they will mean that a driver is more worried about their speed when passing a speed camera, and so will perform more speedo checks, brake more sharply, etc. Whether either of these contribute directly to any significant number of accidents I do not know. But they certainly have the potential to do so.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

I was NOT asking about who cause the most accidents and fine well you know it !

I was asking if all of those points that are being gathered by about half the driving population are due to bad driving, draconian laws, or, too many speed cameras.

I bet that most of the punters here will not admit to being bad drivers !

My Grannie used to say......"There but for the grace of God and the skill of the other driver go I".....A wise wumman was my old Grannie !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

To be honest it is not at al lclear what you are asking from your first post.

But as you have clarified it.....

Yes, too many speed cameras. Or more to the point, the overzealous enforcement of speed limits.


Can you honestly say that 53% of drivers are a real danger and should be within a whisker of losing their licences?

Everyday examples of bad driving (in no particular order):

Not paying sufficient attention
Pulling out of a junction without looking
Carving someone up
Tailgating
Lane hogging
Turning/changing lanes without indicating
Overtaking on a blind bend
Drink driving
Drugged driving
Driving unroadworthy vehicles/uninsured
Not slowing down to a crawl for horses
and many, many more.

Note that NONE of these examples of bad driving are detected by speed cameras.
How many drivers get points on their licences/bans for doing these things?

Does that answer your question?

Regards
Peter

Suggestion! Papamau!

Come down to LanCASH£re, drive past each scam (most placed on safe stretches of road or at points on stretch where they know you will pick up extra bit of speed) It is county where I do confess I check the speedo more frequently than I would anywhere else - even in Wales!

Drive with your speedo covered up since you seem to me - despite your claims to contrary - a very complacent type of driver and personality.

Think you will find that you will indeed lose your licence - as you are only allowed speed course for one scam trig - and far too many people there are complaining that the trigs are against so-called guidelines - having been sent on course to make up numbers at 34mph (course offered up to and including 35mph in 30mph zone )

You really are clueless - mush!

WildCat (still posing as her Mad hubby who is at 19th hole!)


PS Pete317 - good post! (Papamau - please do not come back and use certain words with seedy connotations to me because I agree with another poster! - They are uncalled for and you know it!)

Oh, OK. I'd say the majority of penalty points accured are a result of speed cameras and/or temporary speed traps. I can't see how it can be any other way, considering the huge numbers caught by scams and just from talking to people I know.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Thankyou...yes, I think it does !

Now I find that we have TWO strong opinions here about this:

One is that it IS the gatsos and the scameras that are piling up the points and this stance suggests that it is the overzealous anti-speed techniques that are causing half the population to be close to a ban. ( NOT my words by the way; just reported by me if you read the original post correctly ).

On the other hand we have the opinion above that all of the other criminal activities are contributing to the total numbers of points accrued.

If this is the case then we MUST be a very criminal bunch of drivers mustn't we ?

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

True - too few know that eating butty and swigging from can of coke at the wheel = POINTS ON LICENCE! as it is "not in charge of vehicle" etc etc. Bit like leaving engine running on cold winter morning - that is also penalty pouint offence! (I do not make rules - just enforce them!)

Most of Pete317s post are offences which trafpols would catch and issue NIP notices on. In case of illegal substance - you are talking automatic ban!

But Papamau - trafpols are blokes who would see this and issue the NIP! PC Gatso and his chums are only programmed to establish speed!

In places like Lancashire and Wales - speed cameras are responsible for too many receiving points on licence - and Papamau - am in job where I would have access to information which neither you nor esteemed host are privy too - and am only on this forum to give point of view for some balance and not necessarily what people want to hear - not to whistle blow and give out information which I am both honour and duty bound to keep professionally quiet about! But - you asked the question - are Speed Cameras to blame for 53% of motorists facing bans - and answer is very sadly - most probably! Because we are not there in sufficient numbers to cop that many! (unless you are in my patch where we have a very sensible boss! and me! )

If your duty to public safety or justice ever exceeds your professional duty, I can receive and disseminate information either anonymously or with utmost discretion.

Frankly, the way things are, I'd be somewhat surprised if that see-saw hadn't already tipped. Modern road safety lies are clearly causing deaths.

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

Nobody else seems to have pointed out that this is a very obviously dodgy statistic. If we have 1½ million offences a year for which points are given, and abut 32 million licensed drivers, and points stay active for three years, then a large majority of drivers will still have NO points on their licence.

Maybe they're TVR dealers

Regards,

Peter

_________________
"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

Absolutely it is a dodgy statistic. But we have far more than 1.5 million points offences. We have 1.5 million camera offences in England and Wales in 2002, and very likely 2.2 million in 2003.

The recent Home Office bulletin (HOSB0504) shows 3.1m fixed penalty notices and 2.1m court procedings in 2002. Add say 10% for Scotland and we might well have 15 or 17 million offences in 3 years. I'm not sure how many of these carried licence points (parking offences are already excluded) and I don't have time to find out right now.

So I agree that the quoted statistic is wild, but not as wild as you suggest.

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

See what happens when "statistics" are used to make a point ?

I deliberately stuck in that questionable statistic just to see if the punters here swallowed it or not.

I expected that the rabidly anti-gatso mob here would jump on that one with glee and I was right.

It takes the sensible and factual approach from a copper to bring all of you people back down to earth !

Thanks..."In Gear"

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Yo JT..... and all of the others here that are afraid of heated discussion and opinions with passion.....

The international definition of a "TROLL":

Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

On the Internet, troll is a slang term for a person who posts messages without contributory content, simply intended to incite conflict. The actual subject is a mere ludibrium for the troll, who is a type of opportunistic provocateur. Sometimes, trolls' hard-pressed defenders will suggest, trolling is a clever way of improving discussion. Authentic trolling merely derails discourse and erodes civility.

It should be noted that there is no official definition of "troll", and that the term is often misapplied. For example, an individual posting honestly-held opinions that are considered controversial by the majority,is not considered to be a troll. An occasional inflammatory remark in the heat of a discussion, is not the mark of a troll. A troll's primary incentive is the incitement of hot words, paranoia and bad feelings.

Trolling is often described as an online version of the breaching experiment, where social boundaries and rules of etiquette are broken. Trolls are usually caricatured as socially-inept, obese teenage males, but may just as easily be bitter, disillusioned middle-aged divorcées. Indeed, since intentional trolls (there are no other kinds) normally knowingly flaunt social boundaries, it is difficult to typecast trolls as socially inept when they have proven adept at their goal of inciting conflict.

A troll's reactions to being identified as a troll often give the game away. A person unjustly accused of being a troll may be hurt and express indignation. A troll is more likely to react with verbal abuse, raising the stakes with inflammatory remarks maligning the motivation of the accuser, and may pursue his/her perceived enemy from site to site.

____________________________________________________________

Whenever I see a forum like this one that is starting to become stale, ( either by it's cosy cliquery or by it's back-slapping sameness on any single-ssue subject ), I try to entertain myself by injecting a few lines that are NOT following the dogma that such narrow boards can often suffer from.

I do this in attempt to encourage a bit of passion and warmth to flow in the verbal intercourse that is suffering from such "insider" narrowness.

I AM NOT A TROLL and I do NOT fit into the definition stated above. I do NOT encourage invective, I do NOT abuse anyone by personal attack. I do NOT use inflammatory remarks - for their own sake - other than to try to initiate a strong debate. I do NOT try to "incite conflict" other than to try to lift the discussion away from the "mutual admiration style" that is death to any forum that tries to be outspoken and radical in it's outlook.

Any forum that cannot stand a visitor like me bringing a breath of fresh air to it's staid and stuffy style is one that needs to look introspectively to see if maybe it needs brightening up and revitalising instead of showing it's fear of newness and change to the degree that a positive contributor like me is blackened as a TROLL because of this fear !

Just let the ones that are calling me a troll try to speak with an open mind and with an ability to question the status-quo without reverting to threats and bad language. If they can not then let THEM consider if THEY are trolls or not.

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

That fits my definition for a troll very well indeed. You are here to entertain yourself at our expense.

We have far far better things to do with our time than entertain you.

You have brought no knowledge, no insight and no analysis to the party. You have merely provoked pointless discussions.

I shan't give you the pleasure of throwing you out. I expect you will just fade away as everyone realises that you are here to waste our time.

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

Papaumau,

Note that your dictionary definition FWIW does not say that trolling is a "clever way of improving discussion", it merely states that to be a claim (falsely) made by trolls, as you have just done!

However, please also note that the same definition also states that there is no official definition. In my book a troll is someone who posts "wind-ups" simply to annoy people and provoke a reaction, without advancing any debate. So by my rules you admitted to trolling in your previous post!

And finally, can we note that one cuckoo does not make a spring, and one trolling post does not make a troll!

(Oh, and my last post was actually meant in jest, which I perhaps should have made clear with a smiley! )

A question for you, Papaumau, on the subject of dogma. Isn't a sweeping statement like "speed kills" dogma too? In fact since it's a policy of the government, partnerships, ACPO etc doesn't it fit the definition of dogma far better than the opinions on this board? If so, then you must concede that open-minded people will question it, which is what's going on here. The fact that we disagree with you does not make our position dogmatic. As I have said before, if you (or better yet, DfT etc) can rationally destroy SafeSpeed's case I for one would change my point of view.
So far it all seems to be happening the other way round. Various people, and I'm not talking about members of this forum, are shooting holes in the case for cameras and the "speed kills" policy. From what I've seen the attempts of the powers that be to refute these arguments have been pretty lame - repeating a position or ignoring those who oppose it doesn't instill much confidence.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Ahhhhhhhh the ubiquitous smiley....

In my years of entertaining "MYSELF" on the internet....NB...I do not need YOU or anybody else to entertain me....Safespeed ! I have seen the use of the smiley for many a purpose that it was not originally designed for.

Not the least is for the use of hiding insults and for masking sarcasm.

If I wanted to be a REAL troll there is a thousand ways that I could go about it. I do not, so I do not !

Safespeed...Just because I do not engage you in your interminable statistics does not mean that I cannot hold an interesting conversation or debate from a point of common-sense. In fact, I learned very early on that the person who spouts reams of statistics is one who is looking for a job as a politician.

JT.... If you carry this technique to the farthest degree you find something called semantics....Just like your last post discussing my quotes.

In fact I am beginning to think that quite a few of the contributors here have either BEEN politicians or are hoping to be politicians at sometime in the future ! ( and there is a happy smiley just to prove that I am not meaning to insult anybody by chucking the awful "politican" charge at them.... ).

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Papaumau!

Like I said on other thread - have difficulty working out whether you are troll or one big wind-up merchant! You BIG guy you!

Politicians? Yes - I'd go into politics - I would soon set the world straight - up the speed limit to what I want it to be - like top speed in my Jag! I would raise the salaries of all staff in NHS because the amount of work that would cause ....! And.. and... and!

Except that none of us are like that! We argue against the speed camera because it does not do anything for road safety at all! Usage of speed camera compromises road safety - BiBs on PH will tell you! "In Gear" will tell you! He knows other Forces have reduced trafpol because the Gatso is there to trap the speeder, that there is little investment in training to standard he was trained to in his green cop days! Also - alarmingly - even Lancs now admits - its death rate has more to do with dangerous drivers and joy riders than death due to ordinary law abiding motorists (the one who get the points and the fines) speeding.

I do not think I use the little emoticons to score points or hide sarcasms. See?


As for the "speed kills" dogma... OTT speed, inappropriate use of speed, not applying the basics of COAST, PSL, MSM kill! A just over blip - which is what people in Lancs are persecuted for? That is not dangerous driving at all, and even a cruise at 35mph in 30mph is not overly dangerous provided that driver is applying COAST.

Now Papaumau - I am doctor - and almost all of this large family are amateur rally and racing drivers (though the bunch abroad have two professional ones), doctors, scientists, one road safety nerd/politician/ex-lawyer and wally , lawyers, BiBs, teachers, dentist, accountants (one specialises in FRAUD and frequents your rip-off site! (will not give his alias there - but he is an amusing read!) He also professes to be a Speeder? If Only!!! he could! (when on bogey's site and other forums - and he is giving his local Chief CON hell - so is less on-line than previous!) So overall - open-minded and open to debate - and all come to conclusion that speed cams are not erected at blackspots but at fleece spots - and all have seen evidence which leads them to that view! Nor as doctor - have I seen any significant reduction in KSIs despite draconian enforcement in my work area! The other docs also share this opinion (Wales, Cambs, London!)

Then we have the actual farce: Wildy as you know was seriously injured in no-fault. We were asked to provide photos of her injuries to promote a "speed kills/injures" campaign. Except that this accident was not really caused by a driver speeding -but by a driver dying! We refused on basis that this would be a lie, and a bit intrusive and insensitive. This is level they stoop to and methods they use to further their argument. Bit like their current video and the trip to the local morgue idea!

Greeny Pfalz - uses actual footage of you speeding in your car and places this into very graphic "What If?" DVD game. It works because it personalises the scenario to YOU - THE DRIVER! And is not voyeuristic sensationalism aimed at headline monopoly - which Aunty Mary likes - and then behaves like menopausal woman when we petrolheads raise alternative point of view! Sorry Mary! (and I know you lurk here!) You know we agree with your argument on tired drivers, and applauded your interview about prescription drugs - but you know I will not support silliness - and trading on other people's grief is not on! And you know that Jimmy Saville had the face meeting windscreen in his clunk click ads - and that did not work either! So what makes you think that showing a video to schoolkids is going to bring home truths to certain drivers?

Proper education for all --- Papaumau --- (but then you do not like the IAM/RoSPA et al or those who bothered to take that test - inferiority complex??? ). But that is the way forward!