SafeSpeed's 'Scrap Speed Cameras Week'

[safespeed]

Scrap Speed Cameras Week starts 24th June 2007.



See Scrap Speed Cameras Week web page

We're looking for funding, organisers, helpers and ideas. We need to spread the word.

With your help we can get speed cameras scrapped.

The famous 'Scrap Speed Cameras' petition on the 10 Downing Street website has collected over 24,000 signatures and expires at midnight on 26th June - right in the middle of Scrap Speed Cameras Week. If you haven't signed it already, and you agree that speed cameras haven't made the roads safer, please do so now: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam

[xxplod]

I've added my name to the petition, but I won't be giving Safespeed any more of my money.
Paul - you've been posting a bit too much crap on PH lately, esp. re: police drivers etc...

[slowcoach39]

With a name like safespeed you'd be forgiven for thinking that they - Paul Smith that is - campaign for safer speed limits and deterrents that really DO deter. But the opposite is true in effect. Paul Smith and the ABD etc would have people believe that the main cause of fatal and serious injury collisions is 'inattention' and 'driver error'. Well if that is the case, is it really plausible that male drivers are 12 times more inattentive than female drivers, or 12 times more prone to driver error, or could it just be that in general men tend to drive faster and more aggressively than women, and THAT is the reason why they commit 94% of driving offences causing death and serious injury.

[Paul Dishman]

slowcoach39 said:

With a name like safespeed you'd be forgiven for thinking that they - Paul Smith that is - campaign for safer speed limits and deterrents that really DO deter. But the opposite is true in effect. Paul Smith and the ABD etc would have people believe that the main cause of fatal and serious injury collisions is 'inattention' and 'driver error'. Well if that is the case, is it really plausible that male drivers are 12 times more inattentive than female drivers, or 12 times more prone to driver error, or could it just be that in general men tend to drive faster and more aggressively than women, and THAT is the reason why they commit 94% of driving offences causing death and serious injury.

Welcome to PH slowcoach.
Now show us you're not a troll

[Peter Ward]

slowcoach39 said:

With a name like safespeed you'd be forgiven for thinking that they - Paul Smith that is - campaign for safer speed limits and deterrents that really DO deter. But the opposite is true in effect. Paul Smith and the ABD etc would have people believe that the main cause of fatal and serious injury collisions is 'inattention' and 'driver error'. Well if that is the case, is it really plausible that male drivers are 12 times more inattentive than female drivers, or 12 times more prone to driver error, or could it just be that in general men tend to drive faster and more aggressively than women, and THAT is the reason why they commit 94% of driving offences causing death and serious injury.

"faster and more aggressively"? Speed relates to one but not the other, and they are not the same. Which do you want to propose as the cause? Perhaps you've seen the BBC website where it has been suggested that driving tests should include psychometric testing? I've been suggesting an attitude test for a while as well, though I do hope the tests seek out the right attitude and not just a compliant one . I was surprised that both the RAC Foundation and Paul Smith were quoted as being against the idea.

BTW, I'd be interested to know your sources.

[Mr2Mike]

slowcoach39 said:

could it just be that in general men tend to drive faster and more aggressively than women, and THAT is the reason why they commit 94% of driving offences causing death and serious injury.

Obviously you have researched this thoroughly, so you won't mind answering some questions:

1)What percentage of total drivers are males?
2)Of these 94% of all driving offenses that cause death or serious injury, what proportion of them entirely due to speed in excess of the posted limit (NOTE: NOT just inappropriate speed which speed cameras can do nothing about).
3)Do you actually believe that speed cameras are an effective tool for reducing deaths?
4)If yes to q.3) how do you explain the very poor decline in road deaths since their widespread introduction
5)Why are the statistically safest roads in the UK (i.e. motorways) targeted by speed cameras?

[safespeed]

xxplod said:

I've added my name to the petition, but I won't be giving Safespeed any more of my money.
Paul - you've been posting a bit too much crap on PH lately, esp. re: police drivers etc...

Really? I bet you five pounds that it's a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation.

Cite an example...

[safespeed]

Peter Ward said:

slowcoach39 said:

With a name like safespeed you'd be forgiven for thinking that they - Paul Smith that is - campaign for safer speed limits and deterrents that really DO deter. But the opposite is true in effect. Paul Smith and the ABD etc would have people believe that the main cause of fatal and serious injury collisions is 'inattention' and 'driver error'. Well if that is the case, is it really plausible that male drivers are 12 times more inattentive than female drivers, or 12 times more prone to driver error, or could it just be that in general men tend to drive faster and more aggressively than women, and THAT is the reason why they commit 94% of driving offences causing death and serious injury.

"faster and more aggressively"? Speed relates to one but not the other, and they are not the same. Which do you want to propose as the cause? Perhaps you've seen the BBC website where it has been suggested that driving tests should include psychometric testing? I've been suggesting an attitude test for a while as well, though I do hope the tests seek out the right attitude and not just a compliant one . I was surprised that both the RAC Foundation and Paul Smith were quoted as being against the idea.

BTW, I'd be interested to know your sources.

I made no comment on 'psychometric testing'. The quotes come from the following PR:

pr said:

PR499: An interesting admission from Mr Gifford...

news: for immediate release

According to the BBC [1]: "Robert Gifford, director of a road safety charity,
told BBC Radio Five Live the current system failed to root out drivers prone to
breaking rules."

Safe Speed says that that's quite an admission. It points to the failure of
speed cameras and modern policy to identify risky drivers.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "Mr Gifford has been a leading
speed camera proponent. It's extremely interesting to hear him say that the
policy has failed to 'root out drivers prone to breaking rules'."

"What good can speed camera prosecutions be if they don't single out those
prone to breaking rules?"

"Of course, another problem is that 'rules compliance' isn't the proper measure
of a safe driver. If it was, road safety would be easy. Instead road safety is
a complex matter of individual risk management. We could write a million rules,
obey them perfectly, and still fail to observe someone stepping into the road
ahead."

"What's really happening here is that we're seeing the first glimmering
admissions that road safety policy has failed catastrophically. Perhaps it's
time to stop listening to those who are involved in the failure? Department for
Transport is primarily responsible. It is institutionally incapable of
understanding the process of safe driving, and requires radical restructuring."

<ends>

I do have some pretty serious concerns about 'psychometric testing', however.

[safespeed]

slowcoach39 said:

With a name like safespeed you'd be forgiven for thinking that they - Paul Smith that is - campaign for safer speed limits and deterrents that really DO deter. But the opposite is true in effect. Paul Smith and the ABD etc would have people believe that the main cause of fatal and serious injury collisions is 'inattention' and 'driver error'. Well if that is the case, is it really plausible that male drivers are 12 times more inattentive than female drivers, or 12 times more prone to driver error, or could it just be that in general men tend to drive faster and more aggressively than women, and THAT is the reason why they commit 94% of driving offences causing death and serious injury.

This is a carefully calculated smear. I won't afford it the dignity of a response.

[Big Al.]

Is this thread going anywhere? looks like downhill to me.

Enough!