Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ ... 436849.stm

Tory candidate stated as being for Labour's "politically correct, money-making reasons".

A Labour party spokesman said they were there to help save lives.

Yes, its wonderful, isn't it. I am so excited by this, I can hardly breathe.

I drive between J15/J16 Swindon East/Swindon West twice daily. Its interesting perhaps to note that every accident I have seen/been caught up in the aftermath of has involved a HGV of some type.

Whether they are caused by the HGV's I do not know, but I suspect that these figures would not be available as they would not fit the required parameters of "speed kills"

Having seen the disasterous behaivour of HGV's along this stretch of motorway, the majority of which are foreign registered, I would be really very interested to see any statistics on motorway accidents caused by HGV's. To be fair to the HGV drivers though, many of the major UK hauliage drivers are generally quite courteous and well behaved.

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

"Bearing in mind the motorway is virtually straight the only reason for this has to be speed therefore I fully support the introduction of speed cameras on this stretch," he said.

Pleb!

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

Hi Horse thanks for the Link. it is interesting to note that the fatalities are up for LGV and HGV in cumbria. But serious slight and Damage only are in the main DOWN. The spin on this from the CSC seems to be a SPEED problem. Of the 15 fatal accidents in 2003 - how many were due or contributed to by speed/over the limit. CAN ANYONE GET HOLD OF THE INFORMATION FOR ME. And what do the 2004 figures show ? The more press I see from camera partnerships the more spin I see. The release does not give a year just February 10 th. If it is this year why not include the 2004 results ? ( they do in other genearal data on the web site )

Richard

It's from here:
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/press.php

And was released Feb 2004.

You might want to check their site and have a look at some of the annual & monthly stats. they're publishing.

http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/pre ... t%2004.doc is interesting, too.

It clearly addresses the view point that the majority of people have about 'fund raising'!

I note with despair that the media reporting of this debacle is generally a bit of a shambles.

It takes some time to deduce from the various reports that the scheme is actually a mixture of Gatso and ScamVan enforcement - e.g. the BBC is only on about Gastos at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wilt ... 439441.stm but mentions ScamVans and Gastos at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4439123.stm .

And the basic premise of many of the reports (including those in the papers as well as the BBC) is wrong - this is not the first time that the NSL 70 has been widely enforced on a UK motorway, with low prosecution thresholds. As anyone who has driven down the M4 through Gwent/South Wales over the last 5 years and can spot a ScamVan (or an NIP) at fifty paces should know.

Best (i.e. worst) of all is the statement at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wilt ... 439441.stm "But the blunt message from the Swindon & Wiltshire Speed Camera Partnership - which is running the scheme - is that 240 people died on the M4 in Wiltshire last year - and it wants to reduce that toll."

Yeah, right. 240 deaths in one year on one 40 mile stretch of motorway - 8% of the annual UK total?!?! That's got to be the figure for the entire 220 miles of the M4 - which is the implication from other reports.

Just to really confuse the issue, the one "Related Internet Link" given by the Beeb (bar the scamera pratnership) is for Speed Check - i.e. the perpetrators of SPECS. Thankfully it appears that Wiltshire scameraship are not yet ready to go down that Orwellian route, so why the solitary link?

Meanwhile, we have the hilarious/despair-inducing classic "Bearing in mind the motorway is virtually straight the only reason for this has to be speed therefore I fully support the introduction of speed cameras on this stretch" from a Labour Parliamentary candidate. What hope does common sense have when individuals capable of issuing imbecillic comments like that are considered to be suitable candidates for running anything more complex than a bath? Does he have a braincell? Has it ever been put to any use?

Even accepting the ludicrously oversimplified notion that "speed" causes collisions (which hardly anyone who actually stops to think about it will), making the connection "the road is straight, ergo the only trigger for a crash is speed" is just moronic. Why do journalists never seem to challenge such pathetic nonsense? If it's because they're assuming the bulk of the audience is shrewd enough to spot that anyone issuing such a statement is of sadly limited intelligence and should be treated with the kindness extended to dumb animals, then, unfortunately they're mistaken.

About the only positive thing in any of the reports are some quotes from Paul Smith...

Edit
~~~
Just to prove the point, while I was entering the above, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wilt ... 439441.stm was updated to correct what we now know was the wrong assumption that the Gatsos have anything to do with this new scheme. They were there to enforce a lower limit during roadworks around the A46 junction. Which makes this scheme even less unique - even if still deeply misguided.

the article said



We all know that SI figures have been tinkered with, it's deaths that are the only true measure and as someone else on the board has already said, most of them seem to involve a (usually foreign) HGV. The rest are probably down to drowsiness, tailgaiting, changing lane without looking or road/weather conditions. I'm sure someone could find out how many were actually caused by excess speed above 70mph.

What the hell is this all about...



some other kind of collision measurement system? Does this exclude professional injury collisions or personal death collisions or non-personal injury collisions.

They've updated the report again - perhaps in light of the email I sent them pointing it out. The text above was Copy'n'Pasted from the BBC site a few hours back...

If only it were that easy to get SCPs to put right inaccuracies, distortions and manipulations of the actual underlying facts !

As to how many were "caused" by excess speed above 70 mph, surely the real answer has to be "0". Or very close to it. Contributory causal factor perhaps, in some low proportion of cases, but primary trigger?

I suspect the real causes may well be similar to those on another long, straight, flat stretch of heavily used motorway with a (relative to the very low risk generally presented by motorways) bad casualty record - the M6 in Cheshire. As you say, tailgating, sideswipes due to lane changes without observation, drowsiness due to monotony etc. Someone sat in a van with an LTI 20-20 won't do any good against that lot...

Hi I have just read the BBC article - again there is NO evidence on the number of accidents caused by vehicles over the limit. It could be a very small percentage ! I have left a 'have your say comment' on the BBC site saying why dont they use driver activated signs instead of speed cameras as they are more effective. If anyone thinks this will start the move away from speed cameras please leave a 'have your say comment' its a way to at least get alternatives on the agenda.

Richard

I haven't been on the M4 between Reading and Bristol for years but my son regularly drives from London to Bristol. So are these the dreaded SPECS cameras? And, if so, are they located behind the big overhead traffic information signs, as is the norm?
As an aside, I read somewhere that the makers of SPECS are soon going to make available the locations of all their cameras on the internet. Has this happened yet?

I thoroughly enjoyed the scamerati propoganda on BBC Points West tonight - all the old tripe was reeled out. In fact, this section of the M4 is known as "Death Valley" according to the scammers.


What total poppycock

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

The ITV Teletext poll "Do you agree with Motorway Cameras?" or words to that effect, result today - YES 33% NO 67%.

It didnt say how many voted, but myself and Mrs Kendalian strangely enough voted NO....

Quote
The ITV Teletext poll "Do you agree with Motorway Cameras?" or words to that effect, result today - YES 33% NO 67%.
Unquote

.......and you wonder why turkeys don't vote for Christmas

If you click the "quote" button, you don't need to type "Quote" then "Unquote"

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

EtoileBrilliant - ---- ANOTHER TROLL FROM SCAMERATI LAND???


ALL HIS REMARKS EXHIBIT JJ QUALITIES.


TROLLS - THIS IS TROLL WATCH - UNDERTHE BRIDGE YOU ARE SAFE.

UP HERE WE HAVE TROLL AND CHIPS FOR TEA.

Under the bridge, the Talivans can't see you

_________________
"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

Petere - some of his posts seem troll like - thsats why i asked - for peer to judge.

All together now

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."