RE: Biggest Road Death Reductions In Camera Free Zones
Discussion
Driller said:
You guys aren't really naïve enough to believe that the government is going to give up all the millions of pounds of revenue the GATSOs generate, just because they don't reduce road deaths are you? 
You'll be saying that the media tells the whole truth and doesn't distort the facts next...
Spot on Driller. The government make to much money from these to just go and scrap them all and even if they did (which is highly unlikely) I'm sure they would find a way of making us motorists pay for it by raising the duty on road tax or tax on fuel. W@nkers! ;o)You'll be saying that the media tells the whole truth and doesn't distort the facts next...
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Does that 320 million budget not include all the officers wages though??? Take the wages of all the police force in Northumbria away from 320million and then that 3 million generated through tickets dosent seem such a small percentage now does it! £3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
PhantomPH said:
dan101smith said:
Skinner.Daddy said:
Just leave the ones in places like outside schools.
Why do they only work around places like schools? 
If the highway code has braking distances that include thinking time, then it needs to also modify this for 'time it takes to look up from your speedometer - adjust focus - assess genuine hazards - then brake'.
In my experience as a father, when kids are out and about around schools (start and end of the day), there are so many cars/adults/hazards, that the speed limit around the school is limited hugely anyway. Try doing even 30mph outside a school that's gates have just opened - not possible. School buses, kids, parents, cars, lollypop elderlies...schools are much 'safer' outside by virtue of the sheer AMOUNT of activity around at the key times.
P~
Edited by PhantomPH on Monday 11th August 12:13
Well said!
skimmo said:
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Does that 320 million budget not include all the officers wages though??? Take the wages of all the police force in Northumbria away from 320million and then that 3 million generated through tickets dosent seem such a small percentage now does it! £3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
mmltonge said:
Tony*T3 said:
mmltonge said:
Tony*T3 said:
It always irritated me that PH was a mouthpiece for SafeSpeed. When SafeSpeed gets its articles published first by properly recognised motoring organistion websites rather then I might conceed that they deserve an article on PH.
Just to let you know Tony this was first published in national newspapers (however tabloid they may be) The Sun and Daily Express. If you'd like a list of the many many other places which publish some SS Press Releases or ask SS for comment on Motoring items then head over tohttp://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=... - you'll see it goes a fair bit beyond PH
Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 12:27
Oh, and Autoexpress....
No, really, thats my point.
Stop saying 'Tsk Tsk' in a condacending tone and please look up the phrase 'cherry picking'.
SS Content of 'The Guardian' article said:
Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, said: "He is a hypocrite. He has failed to practise what he has preached."
SS Content of 'The Times' article said:
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: “Speed enforcement has become a ridiculous obsession to the severe detriment of far more important aspects of road safety. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Mr Hughes should clearly have been preaching what he practises because clearly he knows that exceeding the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous.”
SS content of 'The Mail' article said:
Claire Armstrong, of Safe Speed said: "How fortunate for this officer that nothing worse came of this. Such behaviour from a policeman, to whom we should be able to look up and respect, only increases the already floundering respect with which the public perceive the police."
Just 'soundbites'. Nothing of consequence. Can you link me to quality articles on SafeSpeeds campaign from proper recognised motoring organisations? RAC? AA? Brake? IAM? Real articles, not just one liners. Articles where they actually discuss the issues raised by SafeSpeed? I dont want to read articles/press releases written by SafeSpeed, I want to see articles written by other organisations that refer to SafeSpeeds arguements and discuss and/or support such arguements. I suspect you cant. Because I suspect no ones listening (other than PHers). And I suspect thats due to tone, quality and presentation of your arguements.
Tony*T3 said:
mmltonge said:
Tony*T3 said:
mmltonge said:
Tony*T3 said:
It always irritated me that PH was a mouthpiece for SafeSpeed. When SafeSpeed gets its articles published first by properly recognised motoring organistion websites rather then I might conceed that they deserve an article on PH.
Just to let you know Tony this was first published in national newspapers (however tabloid they may be) The Sun and Daily Express. If you'd like a list of the many many other places which publish some SS Press Releases or ask SS for comment on Motoring items then head over tohttp://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=... - you'll see it goes a fair bit beyond PH
Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 12:27
Oh, and Autoexpress....
No, really, thats my point.
Stop saying 'Tsk Tsk' in a condacending tone and please look up the phrase 'cherry picking'.
SS Content of 'The Guardian' article said:
Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, said: "He is a hypocrite. He has failed to practise what he has preached."
SS Content of 'The Times' article said:
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: “Speed enforcement has become a ridiculous obsession to the severe detriment of far more important aspects of road safety. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Mr Hughes should clearly have been preaching what he practises because clearly he knows that exceeding the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous.”
SS content of 'The Mail' article said:
Claire Armstrong, of Safe Speed said: "How fortunate for this officer that nothing worse came of this. Such behaviour from a policeman, to whom we should be able to look up and respect, only increases the already floundering respect with which the public perceive the police."
Just 'soundbites'. Nothing of consequence. Can you link me to quality articles on SafeSpeeds campaign from proper recognised motoring organisations? RAC? AA? Brake? IAM? Real articles, not just one liners. Articles where they actually discuss the issues raised by SafeSpeed? I dont want to read articles/press releases written by SafeSpeed, I want to see articles written by other organisations that refer to SafeSpeeds arguements and discuss and/or support such arguements. I suspect you cant. Because I suspect no ones listening (other than PHers). And I suspect thats due to tone, quality and presentation of your arguements.
Personally I can't take anyone seriously if their grap of the English language is so poor they issues statements like:
"Speed cameras just target the ordinary, law-abiding motorist who goes a few miles an hour over the limit".
Umm, speed limits in this context would be MAXIMUM speed limits*. Speed limits are those defined in law so going faster than the maximum limit is breaking the law, ergo these are NOT abiding the law.
"Speed cameras just target the ordinary, law-abiding motorist who goes a few miles an hour over the limit".
Umm, speed limits in this context would be MAXIMUM speed limits*. Speed limits are those defined in law so going faster than the maximum limit is breaking the law, ergo these are NOT abiding the law.
- Going faster than a roads minimum speed limit (where one is designated) is of course not breaking the law.
Tony*T3 said:
mmltonge said:
Tony*T3 said:
mmltonge said:
Tony*T3 said:
It always irritated me that PH was a mouthpiece for SafeSpeed. When SafeSpeed gets its articles published first by properly recognised motoring organistion websites rather then I might conceed that they deserve an article on PH.
Just to let you know Tony this was first published in national newspapers (however tabloid they may be) The Sun and Daily Express. If you'd like a list of the many many other places which publish some SS Press Releases or ask SS for comment on Motoring items then head over tohttp://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=... - you'll see it goes a fair bit beyond PH
Edited by mmltonge on Monday 11th August 12:27
Oh, and Autoexpress....
No, really, thats my point.
Stop saying 'Tsk Tsk' in a condacending tone and please look up the phrase 'cherry picking'.
SS Content of 'The Guardian' article said:
Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, said: "He is a hypocrite. He has failed to practise what he has preached."
SS Content of 'The Times' article said:
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: “Speed enforcement has become a ridiculous obsession to the severe detriment of far more important aspects of road safety. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Mr Hughes should clearly have been preaching what he practises because clearly he knows that exceeding the speed limit is not necessarily dangerous.”
SS content of 'The Mail' article said:
Claire Armstrong, of Safe Speed said: "How fortunate for this officer that nothing worse came of this. Such behaviour from a policeman, to whom we should be able to look up and respect, only increases the already floundering respect with which the public perceive the police."
Just 'soundbites'. Nothing of consequence. Can you link me to quality articles on SafeSpeeds campaign from proper recognised motoring organisations? RAC? AA? Brake? IAM? Real articles, not just one liners. Articles where they actually discuss the issues raised by SafeSpeed? I dont want to read articles/press releases written by SafeSpeed, I want to see articles written by other organisations that refer to SafeSpeeds arguements and discuss and/or support such arguements. I suspect you cant. Because I suspect no ones listening (other than PHers). And I suspect thats due to tone, quality and presentation of your arguements.
//j17 said:
Personally I can't take anyone seriously if their grap of the English language is so poor they issues statements like:
"Speed cameras just target the ordinary, law-abiding motorist who goes a few miles an hour over the limit".
Fair point. An "otherwise" would have helped."Speed cameras just target the ordinary, law-abiding motorist who goes a few miles an hour over the limit".
Personally, all this attempt at speed control seems to be
just a proxy for intelligent driving.
One the one hand, one of the easiest driving tests in Europe,
on the other hand, more speed cameras than any other country in Europe.
Spot the flaw ?
I'd rather have drivers looking out the windows, doing their
usual risk spotting and avoidance, than have them putting effort
into keeping below some arbitrary speed written on a roadside post.
Slow driving isn't careful driving.
mmltonge said:
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Not really.... £3million is still £3million extra pounds collected in one county on top of all your other taxes. Therefore it can quite comfortably be described as a stealth tax. Or are you saying you'd turn your nose up at £3million?£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
mondeoman said:
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Tell you what then, take a 1% pay cut this year, hell its only 1%, you don't need it do you...£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
fool.
Where are the statistic for every Constabulary and whether or not they have fixed cameras?
FishFace said:
mmltonge said:
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Not really.... £3million is still £3million extra pounds collected in one county on top of all your other taxes. Therefore it can quite comfortably be described as a stealth tax. Or are you saying you'd turn your nose up at £3million?£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
mondeoman said:
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Tell you what then, take a 1% pay cut this year, hell its only 1%, you don't need it do you...£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
fool.
Where are the statistic for every Constabulary and whether or not they have fixed cameras?
mmltonge said:
Graemsay said:
Northumbria Police has an annual budget of £320 million.
£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Not really.... £3million is still £3million extra pounds collected in one county on top of all your other taxes. Therefore it can quite comfortably be described as a stealth tax. Or are you saying you'd turn your nose up at £3million?£3 million from fines is 1% of this, so the argument that speed cameras and traps are a stealth tax on motorists is (IMO) misleading.
Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 11th August 19:06
I agree with most of what's been said,especially about where they should be ,as for schools they're not needed there as has been stated ,You try to go faster than about 10-15 mph in the morning & evening, no chance, & yes get rid of them & put more VISIBLE police cars on the road this will catch rhe drink drivers & drugs user NOT as has been said the ordinary motorist going about his business
Tony*T3 said:
Just 'soundbites'. Nothing of consequence. Can you link me to quality articles on SafeSpeeds campaign from proper recognised motoring organisations? RAC? AA? Brake? IAM? Real articles, not just one liners. Articles where they actually discuss the issues raised by SafeSpeed? I dont want to read articles/press releases written by SafeSpeed, I want to see articles written by other organisations that refer to SafeSpeeds arguements and discuss and/or support such arguements.
I suspect you cant. Because I suspect no ones listening (other than PHers). And I suspect thats due to tone, quality and presentation of your arguements.
Forgive me if you're aware of the following, as I haven't read your posts before.I suspect you cant. Because I suspect no ones listening (other than PHers). And I suspect thats due to tone, quality and presentation of your arguements.
The late Paul Smith founded Safespeed, which now continues in the hands of his partner. Paul built up his campaign to the point that he was recognised my national media, who consulted him frequently, and he regularly appeared in national radio interviews.
Quite why you think Safespeed should be discussed in "articles" by "proper recognised motoring organisations" is a bit of a mystery.
What, exactly, do you think they contribute to the fight agaist stupidity in Government?
The AA, the RAC..? Utterly hopeless, except for Edmund King, whose voice seems to be heard less frequently of late.
BRAKE..? That was a joke, right? Began life to suport the victims of road accidents, now on a fanatical anti car crusade.
IAM..? Teaches people to be competent drivers. Can't say I've ever heard much in the way of campaigning, but this might change now that Kevin Delaney's on board.
Our problem is an anti car government that listens only to emotive drivel from the likes of BRAKE, Transport 2000, The Slower Speeds Initiative, SUSTRANS and The Pedestrians' Association, to name but a few.
If Safespeed did not do such sterling work, these idiots would be getting away with far more control than they do now.
Paul and Claire have and are doing something by making a noise, which is far more than your whingeing will ever achieve.
I really can't see your point, you're coming across as a troll and your presence here seems more than a little odd.
too many speed cameras in the UK, period.
I live in Germany, yes yes they actually do have camera's for speed reinforcement here too! but not in the cynical locations i see when i return to the Uk. I studied 1984 for Eng Literature, i never really understood until the last few years every time i come home.
I live in Germany, yes yes they actually do have camera's for speed reinforcement here too! but not in the cynical locations i see when i return to the Uk. I studied 1984 for Eng Literature, i never really understood until the last few years every time i come home.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff