Kent & Medway Safety Cameras coming to my IAM...
Discussion
You'll probably get a lot of inspiration as to suitable questions from: www.safespeed.org.uk/
To be fair the Kent scammeras are a lot fairer than some of the others.
They don't hide around corners, sit on single carriageways with 2 lanes (a la A303) etc as "there is plenty of work for us to do without resorting to underhand methods.
There were some errors on their www. Highlighted them to Rachel Moon at a similar meeting and they were changed within about a week.
They don't hide around corners, sit on single carriageways with 2 lanes (a la A303) etc as "there is plenty of work for us to do without resorting to underhand methods.
There were some errors on their www. Highlighted them to Rachel Moon at a similar meeting and they were changed within about a week.
Ask them this:
Whichever statistics you use, excessive/inappropriate speed is only a factor in a MINORITY of cases. We know it's under 10%, but even if it's 1/3 like they say, it still leaves a massive 2/3 that aren't excessive/inappropriate speed related.
Therefore, at the very least, 'speed' did not 'kill' 2/3.
Ask them, therefore, what did kill the 2/3, and what they're doing about it. Or are they letting the majority causes of road accidents and deaths slip by in favour of making money out of a minority of them.
I mean, instead of speed cameras, why can't we have tailgating cameras, lane-weaving cameras, wrong-way-up-one-way-street cameras, overtaking-on-the-inside cameras, middle-lane-moron cameras and so on?
Whichever statistics you use, excessive/inappropriate speed is only a factor in a MINORITY of cases. We know it's under 10%, but even if it's 1/3 like they say, it still leaves a massive 2/3 that aren't excessive/inappropriate speed related.
Therefore, at the very least, 'speed' did not 'kill' 2/3.
Ask them, therefore, what did kill the 2/3, and what they're doing about it. Or are they letting the majority causes of road accidents and deaths slip by in favour of making money out of a minority of them.
I mean, instead of speed cameras, why can't we have tailgating cameras, lane-weaving cameras, wrong-way-up-one-way-street cameras, overtaking-on-the-inside cameras, middle-lane-moron cameras and so on?
Quinny said:
Ask them why the punishment is different dependant on whether you pay up straight away, or you decide to go to court.
After all the offence is just the same so, why should somone have to risk a heavier fine and more points just because they would like to have a proper hearing rather than just accepting they are guilty.
Andy.
Spot on that man.
Top work people, a couple of very good questions.
The meeting's tonight so I'll be sure to pose a couple. I don't want to get in to a statistics match with them because, simply, I don't know this topic very well at all and whether they're right or wrong (or I'm right or wrong), in a chaired environment with an audience they could very easily overcome my inferior knowledge.
But, like I say, top work people and I'll be sure to report back tomorrow!
Thanks
PS: Yeah I did look at SafeSpeed, however -as they say- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. On this topic, that's where I stand!
The meeting's tonight so I'll be sure to pose a couple. I don't want to get in to a statistics match with them because, simply, I don't know this topic very well at all and whether they're right or wrong (or I'm right or wrong), in a chaired environment with an audience they could very easily overcome my inferior knowledge.
But, like I say, top work people and I'll be sure to report back tomorrow!
Thanks
PS: Yeah I did look at SafeSpeed, however -as they say- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. On this topic, that's where I stand!
tonyhetherington said:
PS: Yeah I did look at SafeSpeed, however -as they say- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. On this topic, that's where I stand!
It's no surprise you are going into battle underarmed, not many of us are fortunate enough to be paid to work full time researching statistics and spin for a one sided argument.
In fact you have to wonder, with the amount spent and the numbers of Partnerships why the spin isn't a little more convincing?
Ask them how much effort is put into pursuing motorists, whose vehicles are caught by one of their vans, but have no registered keeper???
Since this type of driver is also highly likely to be commiting more serious offences, (no insurance/tax/license etc) I would hope that they are pursued until caught, but I suspect they are just let off.......
Since this type of driver is also highly likely to be commiting more serious offences, (no insurance/tax/license etc) I would hope that they are pursued until caught, but I suspect they are just let off.......
If you're still around, Tony, there are two more I'd try:
- have you ever exceeded a speed limit? If they did not immediately declare this to the Partnership, are they not simply being hypocritical?
- comment on this: everyone speeds - no matter who. If this is the case, then the people prosecuting and trying the speeding offences are as guilty as the man in the dock (or getting the FPN). Where's the justice in that?
- have you ever exceeded a speed limit? If they did not immediately declare this to the Partnership, are they not simply being hypocritical?
- comment on this: everyone speeds - no matter who. If this is the case, then the people prosecuting and trying the speeding offences are as guilty as the man in the dock (or getting the FPN). Where's the justice in that?
Im probably too late , so good luck tonight.
If you read this before the meeting, my suggestion would be to ask them ;
"Why do you claim to have 80% of the publics support, when independent polls consistently tell us that 80% of the general public are against you?
How do you justify this and does the same statitician compile your other statistics?"
"As you are a safety partnership, how have you made the roads safer since your formation and what were your targets on reducing fatalities as a whole throughout the county?
Have these targets been met and if not, should there be more safety cameras in operation which appear to be ineffective OR perhaps a change of direction away from cameras?
Is it conceivable that a speed camera is not as efficient as a patrolling traffic police officer in
observing and preventing all manners of dangerous driving? Shouldn't we have more police and less speed cameras?"
If you read this before the meeting, my suggestion would be to ask them ;
"Why do you claim to have 80% of the publics support, when independent polls consistently tell us that 80% of the general public are against you?
How do you justify this and does the same statitician compile your other statistics?"
"As you are a safety partnership, how have you made the roads safer since your formation and what were your targets on reducing fatalities as a whole throughout the county?
Have these targets been met and if not, should there be more safety cameras in operation which appear to be ineffective OR perhaps a change of direction away from cameras?
Is it conceivable that a speed camera is not as efficient as a patrolling traffic police officer in
observing and preventing all manners of dangerous driving? Shouldn't we have more police and less speed cameras?"
MMC said:
If you're still around, Tony, there are two more I'd try:
- have you ever exceeded a speed limit? If they did not immediately declare this to the Partnership, are they not simply being hypocritical?
- comment on this: everyone speeds - no matter who. If this is the case, then the people prosecuting and trying the speeding offences are as guilty as the man in the dock (or getting the FPN). Where's the justice in that?
Something happened last night so I couldn't go, am SO annoyed as I was really looking forward to it. I'm going to e-mail a friend of mine now who did go who I sent some of the above questions to, to see what happened.
So sorry guys, just could not be helped.
Thanks very much for the input, though.
Tony
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff