safespeed, what is your goal?
Discussion
Hi safespeed, I was just enquiring as to what is your objective? Are you after complete removal of cameras, and push toward better policing and enforcement of bad driving tied to increased driver training?
I ask, as, although I hate cameras (I hate talivans more), It has to be said that when a danger isnt clear, or a road encourages high speed, there will always be a minority of drivers that will not use due care or skill and need either to be taught or punished.
A police officer cant always wait on a section of road waiting for bad drivers, so a camera CAN have its place in society.
I refer to your photo
You seem to take pleasure in its destruction, but to me I see a road begging to be blasted along, yet there is also a junction where potentially an old codger with bad eyesight could trundle out of or into.
This is also a busy road, and anyone waiting at the junction may be encouraged to take a dive through gaps, forcing a higher speed driver into a dangerous position. There would be no need for a camera if people slowed down for the area, which advanced skills would teach you to recognise in this picture, but they dont do they?
If the wiff of exhileration at the available opportunity to blast along over rides your common sense to take it easy, which advanced driving would teach you, then disaster may occur.
Yes, I understand better training will allow you to judge it correctly, but we are not at that stage where training is given ; cameras can temporarily provide a control until the nations driving skills are improved.
A skilled driver wouldnt be caught by this camera, as the judement call would have you slower anyway, so this camera seems ideally located to catch the underskilled speeder who hasnt slowed to take in the risk situation that is present. ie this camera can catch bad skills, not skilled speeders.
Due to the ever increasing number of new drivers, without experience, who would be tempted to go for a blast, then what better way to enforce them to be aware of the danger, is a danger marker ; a camera.
To re-insate, I hate cameras, they are over used, and a poor substitute for real police, safe driving is key, as you say yourself on the site;
"You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."
But without a nation of skilled drivers, there is still a place where they can play a role, *until* skill can be improved.
I accept, speed isnt the crime thats its flaunted as, but skill would tell you in the photo above, that you need to slow down in order maintain safety at this junction ; and not speed up as the initial view of an open road would invite.
I support your site and what I believe are your aims, but I think there is better examples of badly placed cameras that are available than this one to highlight our cause.
Cheers
stooz (camera hating, highspeeding biker)
>>> Edited by stooz on Friday 28th November 10:50
>>> Edited by stooz on Friday 28th November 10:52
I ask, as, although I hate cameras (I hate talivans more), It has to be said that when a danger isnt clear, or a road encourages high speed, there will always be a minority of drivers that will not use due care or skill and need either to be taught or punished.
A police officer cant always wait on a section of road waiting for bad drivers, so a camera CAN have its place in society.
I refer to your photo
You seem to take pleasure in its destruction, but to me I see a road begging to be blasted along, yet there is also a junction where potentially an old codger with bad eyesight could trundle out of or into.
This is also a busy road, and anyone waiting at the junction may be encouraged to take a dive through gaps, forcing a higher speed driver into a dangerous position. There would be no need for a camera if people slowed down for the area, which advanced skills would teach you to recognise in this picture, but they dont do they?
If the wiff of exhileration at the available opportunity to blast along over rides your common sense to take it easy, which advanced driving would teach you, then disaster may occur.
Yes, I understand better training will allow you to judge it correctly, but we are not at that stage where training is given ; cameras can temporarily provide a control until the nations driving skills are improved.
A skilled driver wouldnt be caught by this camera, as the judement call would have you slower anyway, so this camera seems ideally located to catch the underskilled speeder who hasnt slowed to take in the risk situation that is present. ie this camera can catch bad skills, not skilled speeders.
Due to the ever increasing number of new drivers, without experience, who would be tempted to go for a blast, then what better way to enforce them to be aware of the danger, is a danger marker ; a camera.
To re-insate, I hate cameras, they are over used, and a poor substitute for real police, safe driving is key, as you say yourself on the site;
"You can't measure safe driving in miles per hour."
But without a nation of skilled drivers, there is still a place where they can play a role, *until* skill can be improved.
I accept, speed isnt the crime thats its flaunted as, but skill would tell you in the photo above, that you need to slow down in order maintain safety at this junction ; and not speed up as the initial view of an open road would invite.
I support your site and what I believe are your aims, but I think there is better examples of badly placed cameras that are available than this one to highlight our cause.
Cheers
stooz (camera hating, highspeeding biker)
>>> Edited by stooz on Friday 28th November 10:50
>>> Edited by stooz on Friday 28th November 10:52
That piece of road is the A508 and the scamera is actually situated on the bridge over the A14. The junction you can see is the slip road exit off the A14. The limit is a ridiculously low 40.
Visibility is quite good so you would have to be doing some serious speed (or have really crap brakes) to hit anybody coming out of the junction if the person turning out started to emerge before you came into their view. Any accidents that happen there are almost certainly caused by people pulling out without looking rather than people speeding. If the authorities were really interested in stopping accidents they’d put in a small roundabout – there’s enough room. But then that would cost money rather than make money
Visibility is quite good so you would have to be doing some serious speed (or have really crap brakes) to hit anybody coming out of the junction if the person turning out started to emerge before you came into their view. Any accidents that happen there are almost certainly caused by people pulling out without looking rather than people speeding. If the authorities were really interested in stopping accidents they’d put in a small roundabout – there’s enough room. But then that would cost money rather than make money
stooz said:
A police officer cant always wait on a section of road waiting for bad drivers, so a camera CAN have its place in society.
What function does a camera fulfill?
Does it phone the police when a dangerous/drunk driver passes it?
Does it attempt to stop such drivers?
Does it warn pedestrians crossing the road of approaching speeding vehicles?
Does it call the ambulance when said pedestrians are run over?
Does it judge the road conditions as inappropriate for speed AT or BELOW the posted limit and advise so?
Camera's only take pictures, a record of a single instant in time, used solely to send you a bill.
Cameras do have their place IMO - our local school would benefit - people hoon past at all hours of the day and the entrance is very poorly sighted. Theres not only a risk of kids being run over but also of accidents being caused by people pulling out of the entrance. A camera there would deter people from speeding and would thus be a good idea. Unfortunately the powers that be prefer to frequently site a Scamera van 500yards away on an uphill straight, NSL with nothing but a couple of well sighted laybys.
I've avoided quoting any text, and I hope I don't miss anything important...
First of all forget that photo. It's completely unimportant.
What is important is that we return to the policies which gave us the safest roads in the world in the firt place and build from there. It's as if we've turned off the road safety motorway and we're on some poxy narrow badly surfaced B road. We don't even know if we're going in the right direction. We've just got to get back on the motorways as soon as possible.
We don't need speed cameras. Numerical speed is just a distraction from the requirements of safe speeds for experienced and responsible drivers.
We do need speed limits to inform the experienced about hazard density, to guide the inexperienced away from massively unsafe speeds, and as an easy tool to prosecute those who use speed dangerously.
We do need skilled traffic police spotting dangerous behaviours and to deliver the classic road side lesson.
Most of all we need a good road safety culture. It the difference in culture which makes the UK roads three times safer than those in Belgium, and if we want three times safer roads, it's the culture that could do it and nothing else in the medium term.
We need to do all we can to give drivers the right safety priorities and to encourage them to improve. WE need to run TV adverts explaining to drivers how not to repeat mistakes. We need an advanced driving licece with privileges which make it worth having. (incentives and social value)
Drivers are the key to road safety and responsible drivers should be praised, nurtured and cultured to make them better. Not slapped about with pointless fines and licence points.
Iresponsible drivers need the attentions of the cops. No change there.
Speed cameras won't feed anything positive into the safety culture and are just a complete distraction from the things that really matter. We didn't need cameras to earn ourselves the safest roads in the world and we don't need them to make great strides in the future.
First of all forget that photo. It's completely unimportant.
What is important is that we return to the policies which gave us the safest roads in the world in the firt place and build from there. It's as if we've turned off the road safety motorway and we're on some poxy narrow badly surfaced B road. We don't even know if we're going in the right direction. We've just got to get back on the motorways as soon as possible.
We don't need speed cameras. Numerical speed is just a distraction from the requirements of safe speeds for experienced and responsible drivers.
We do need speed limits to inform the experienced about hazard density, to guide the inexperienced away from massively unsafe speeds, and as an easy tool to prosecute those who use speed dangerously.
We do need skilled traffic police spotting dangerous behaviours and to deliver the classic road side lesson.
Most of all we need a good road safety culture. It the difference in culture which makes the UK roads three times safer than those in Belgium, and if we want three times safer roads, it's the culture that could do it and nothing else in the medium term.
We need to do all we can to give drivers the right safety priorities and to encourage them to improve. WE need to run TV adverts explaining to drivers how not to repeat mistakes. We need an advanced driving licece with privileges which make it worth having. (incentives and social value)
Drivers are the key to road safety and responsible drivers should be praised, nurtured and cultured to make them better. Not slapped about with pointless fines and licence points.
Iresponsible drivers need the attentions of the cops. No change there.
Speed cameras won't feed anything positive into the safety culture and are just a complete distraction from the things that really matter. We didn't need cameras to earn ourselves the safest roads in the world and we don't need them to make great strides in the future.
safespeed said:
First of all forget that photo. It's completely unimportant.
IMHO having anything to do with the speed camera 'terrorists,' even if it's only showing deceased cameras is unwise, given your rising media profile. Anyone checking you out on the internet would find that picture and might not be inclined to agree that it's 'unimportant.'
Allowing yourself to be aligned with 'direct action' (and this thread clearly indicates that this may happen) may not help the cause for sensible speed limits, education and enforcement.
sparkyjohn said:
First of all forget that photo. It's completely unimportant.
IMHO having anything to do with the speed camera 'terrorists,' even if it's only showing deceased cameras is unwise, given your rising media profile. Anyone checking you out on the internet would find that picture and might not be inclined to agree that it's 'unimportant.'
Allowing yourself to be aligned with 'direct action' (and this thread clearly indicates that this may happen) may not help the cause for sensible speed limits, education and enforcement.
And free speech then goes down the crapper a little further...cos its not PC to display such brazen acts of heroism?
sparkyjohn said:
First of all forget that photo. It's completely unimportant.
IMHO having anything to do with the speed camera 'terrorists,' even if it's only showing deceased cameras is unwise, given your rising media profile. Anyone checking you out on the internet would find that picture and might not be inclined to agree that it's 'unimportant.'
Allowing yourself to be aligned with 'direct action' (and this thread clearly indicates that this may happen) may not help the cause for sensible speed limits, education and enforcement.
You may well be right. The problem comes from the vast range of visitors. Do I cater for the Times readers or the Max Power readers or both? As time has gone on, SafeSpeed has been gradually drifting up market to the serious "Times reader" end of the scale. Those photos are left over from earlier days and it probably is time they went. Thanks.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Given the recent publicity and the fact that this is a political issue, I'd say that going towards the "Times" end of the scale is a good thing. Politics is a dirty world where anything possible gets used as ammunition even if it irrelivent.
I'd like to see photos showing real life examples such mentioned by Mad Dave.
(Edited since it's been a long week and I couldn't spell ammnnutitionionion)
>> Edited by RichardD on Friday 28th November 16:14
I'd like to see photos showing real life examples such mentioned by Mad Dave.
(Edited since it's been a long week and I couldn't spell ammnnutitionionion)
>> Edited by RichardD on Friday 28th November 16:14
There is no example of a 'well placed' camera because they do sweet FA to safety. How on earth does fining and adding points to a drivers licence make anything safer? Stats provided by Autocar show that tens of millions of pounds have been removed from motorists and for what?, no discernable difference in fatalaties.
To use your own example, Why should we have to make amends for an old codger with poor eyesight, get the bugger on to a bus where he belongs. Why place a revenue grabber when a roadsign would do. Why place a revenue grabber to compensate for inadequate driving skills. A case of bolting the stable gate methinks, don't be taken in by the spin.
To use your own example, Why should we have to make amends for an old codger with poor eyesight, get the bugger on to a bus where he belongs. Why place a revenue grabber when a roadsign would do. Why place a revenue grabber to compensate for inadequate driving skills. A case of bolting the stable gate methinks, don't be taken in by the spin.
Apache said:
There is no example of a 'well placed' camera because they do sweet FA to safety. How on earth does fining and adding points to a drivers licence make anything safer? Stats provided by Autocar show that tens of millions of pounds have been removed from motorists and for what?, no discernable difference in fatalaties.
To use your own example, Why should we have to make amends for an old codger with poor eyesight, get the bugger on to a bus where he belongs. Why place a revenue grabber when a roadsign would do. Why place a revenue grabber to compensate for inadequate driving skills. A case of bolting the stable gate methinks, don't be taken in by the spin.
Amen!
thanks for the reply safespeed. I agree whole heartely with all your sentiment. But as you have said, the state of the power in the country, they wont listen if you seen to be "just a vandal" or to encourage the demolition, even if in my heart I wish I had the bottle to tear a few down myself!
Your move to be more of a "voice of the sensible person" is going to get you accepted far higher as a voice of reason.
Hence my query over the photo. there some good strength in the camera arguement currently, and its seems to be the current "hot tomato", I would encourage you to get fully behind it as a reasoned articulate force, rather than a whinging, burn a camera thug.
Good luck with your campaigns.
NB: i had mailed my thoughts to you directly a month ago, via your site, but I have enjoyed bringing it up in PHland, for a more open discussion.
stu. >> Edited by stooz on Friday 28th November 17:37
My local school is at its most hazardous at arival and kicking out time, cars parked everywhere on both sides of the street, pedestrians (about to become drivers passengers) trying to cross between them etc. Why don't schools have car parks? if nothing else it could be a netball / tennis court the rest of the day.
safespeed said:
We do need speed limits to inform the experienced about hazard density, to guide the inexperienced away from massively unsafe speeds, and as an easy tool to prosecute those who use speed dangerously.
If we have speed limits they have to be enforced - otherwise they are pointless.
Another point - reducing speed is not just about safety, many people would argue that our urban areas would be far more pleasant if traffic speeds were reduced. Nothing to do with safety.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff