Safe speed for life
Discussion
For those who haven't seen it.
www.safespeedforlife.com/index.asp
Snippets like;
"Safety cameras exist to help save lives and encourage people to drive at a safe speed for the conditions."
However they do have an online survey and a Q&A section.........
www.safespeedforlife.com/index.asp
Snippets like;
"Safety cameras exist to help save lives and encourage people to drive at a safe speed for the conditions."
However they do have an online survey and a Q&A section.........
Felt compelled to send them something for them to ignore.
1) If speed cameras are doing a good job, why have they had literally no impact on the annual road death rate? Further to this, the death rate has remained static since the widespread introduction of speed cameras in the early 90's, stopping a downward trend that has seen fewer deaths each year since the late 50's. Can you explain this?
2) Richard Brunstrom, (the laughing stock of the British police force) now wants to see a massive increase in the number of cameras deployed, despite that fact that the thousands already deployed have not saved ANY lives whatsoever. Do you support his actions?
3) Your Q&A denies that speed cameras are a source of revenue, and that all remaining funds after the cameras partnerships costs have been recovered go to the treasury. The Norfolk camera partnership accounts for this year showed that depite an income of over 1.2 million pounds, just £70 was left over for the treasury. How many lives has this £1.2m saved? How many could it have saved if directed toward better driver education/testing and proper road engineering?
4) Do you believe that safety on the road can actually be measured by a simple number? Are you trying to educate drivers that as long as a certain magic number is not exceeded then they are driving safely? If so it is small wonder that the standard of driving is so poor on roads today. The government reports on speeding clearly show that the number of deaths attributable to speeding is a tiny fraction of the overall number of deaths. By far the larger killer is down to simple lack of driving standards, people driving whilst tired or drunk, or simply driving too quickly for the conditions (but not actually exceeding a speed limit). Why aren't you concentrating on these areas that are actually costing us lives? Even if you managed to stop all deaths that occur through exceeding the speed limit, it would have negligible affect on our road death rate.
5) Along with the expanded use of cameras has come a large reduction in the number of traffic police on our roads. Is it simply coincidence that we also now have the highest incidence of drunk/unlicensed/uninsured drivers on our roads?
1) If speed cameras are doing a good job, why have they had literally no impact on the annual road death rate? Further to this, the death rate has remained static since the widespread introduction of speed cameras in the early 90's, stopping a downward trend that has seen fewer deaths each year since the late 50's. Can you explain this?
2) Richard Brunstrom, (the laughing stock of the British police force) now wants to see a massive increase in the number of cameras deployed, despite that fact that the thousands already deployed have not saved ANY lives whatsoever. Do you support his actions?
3) Your Q&A denies that speed cameras are a source of revenue, and that all remaining funds after the cameras partnerships costs have been recovered go to the treasury. The Norfolk camera partnership accounts for this year showed that depite an income of over 1.2 million pounds, just £70 was left over for the treasury. How many lives has this £1.2m saved? How many could it have saved if directed toward better driver education/testing and proper road engineering?
4) Do you believe that safety on the road can actually be measured by a simple number? Are you trying to educate drivers that as long as a certain magic number is not exceeded then they are driving safely? If so it is small wonder that the standard of driving is so poor on roads today. The government reports on speeding clearly show that the number of deaths attributable to speeding is a tiny fraction of the overall number of deaths. By far the larger killer is down to simple lack of driving standards, people driving whilst tired or drunk, or simply driving too quickly for the conditions (but not actually exceeding a speed limit). Why aren't you concentrating on these areas that are actually costing us lives? Even if you managed to stop all deaths that occur through exceeding the speed limit, it would have negligible affect on our road death rate.
5) Along with the expanded use of cameras has come a large reduction in the number of traffic police on our roads. Is it simply coincidence that we also now have the highest incidence of drunk/unlicensed/uninsured drivers on our roads?
Glad I registered for the survey as Donald Duck...
1st page is personal info - easily enough to identify the individual to any authorities.
you're then asked to incriminate yourself and explain why you speed, they save your information and you may be contacted...
PLus they spout a lot of the usual crap.
1st page is personal info - easily enough to identify the individual to any authorities.
you're then asked to incriminate yourself and explain why you speed, they save your information and you may be contacted...
PLus they spout a lot of the usual crap.
dazren said:
This is appalling. Using that web address takes the pi$$ out of the good work and analysis carried out by Paul Smith's safespeed website. Anyone know if Paul has seen this.
DAZ
Yeah. I'm aware. I've had lawyers take a look at it. The bottom line is that I wouldn't want to be bled dry fighting a side issue like this.
I do think it's a "passing off" infringement. If anyone has an opinion about the legal position, I'd be pleased to hear from you.
Ultimately I think it's yet more excellent evidence that the camera partnerships behave like cowboys.
zumbruk said:
Quite easy to look up who registered the domain...
>> Edited by zumbruk on Monday 16th August 11:24
>> Edited by PetrolTed on Monday 16th August 11:27
Sigh.
www.allwhois.com
Northumbria Safety Camera Partnership - its in the Disclaimer...
and their site is exactly the same as all the other SCP sites...
The sooner these quangos are abolished and the profit-motive removed from road safety policy the sooner we'll start making some progress and addressing the real road-safety issues instead of creating technical offences for the purposes of revenue generation.
Measure what's important. Don't make important that which you can measure...
and their site is exactly the same as all the other SCP sites...
The sooner these quangos are abolished and the profit-motive removed from road safety policy the sooner we'll start making some progress and addressing the real road-safety issues instead of creating technical offences for the purposes of revenue generation.
Measure what's important. Don't make important that which you can measure...
Scamera Site said:So, according to them, only 10% of the fatalities occur in the 25% of the day that they have singled out as being the times that traffic speeds are much higher.
Q9 There’s no point having cameras working at night when the roads are quiet.
Q9. People still die on the roads at night: there is a lower volume of traffic but the speeds are generally much higher, making any collisions more likely to be serious or fatal.
In the last three years, over 10% of fatalities on our local roads occurred between midnight and 6am.
If numerical speed was really the key to road safety, surely we'd expected over 25% of fatalities to occur in this period.
T
ts!Archie's e-mail to scamera site said:
I refer to your question 9 and its answer (Q&A section of this website).
According to your figures 10% of fatalities occur during the 25% of the time that you have singled out as being subject to higher traffic speeds.
How does this square with the camera approach to road safety? Surely if numerical speed (the only thing a camera can measure) were a significant factor in accident causation we would expect more than 25% of fatalities to occur in this 25% of the time at which higher numerical speed is the norm?
Perhaps it would be more rational to focus on enforcement tactics that focus on getting people to drive at a safe speed for the conditions (given as your raison d'etre on the home-page). There are some of these devices around, all though they are becoming rarer as cameras proliferate. They are called Traffic Police.
Scamera site said:I'm not holding my breath, although anwer 9 might change quite quickly.
Thank you for your time.
Your question will be reviewed by our team and if deemed suitable will be added to our Q&A section.
>> Edited by V8 Archie on Monday 16th August 12:46
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff