RE: Safe Speed scores media victory
Monday 6th November 2006
Truvelo speed cameraRoad safety campaign Safe Speed, in the shape of founder Paul Smith, scored a media victory over the weekend.
Safe Speed scores media victory
Much coverage in mainstream outlets
Truvelo speed camera
An article in the Observer's colour magazine looked into the question of speed cameras, and the last half was a largely favourable description of Safe Speed's forensic approach to road safety statistics.
Smith was quoted lambasting the Government which, in 1992, brought in the first speed camera. They seemed almost like magic at the time: "If you're not looking into it in too much detail, the promise of a magic accident-reducing machine is very persuasive, but it ignores all the other psychological factors that ensure we avoid carnage on the roads", said Smith.
The feature then went on to describe Smith's discovery that the real fatality rate on the roads is not diminishing but getting worse, as a result of an increasing reliance on speed cameras for roads policing.
The article points out: "Taken as a whole, we are left with one broad problem: there is still no fundamental agreement on how speed relates to danger."
Safe Speed has figured heavily in PistonHeads' coverage of speeding issues, and we agree with Smith that the government has got the balance wrong. Here's hoping that this is the start of a national debate, rather than slogan-slinging.
Discussion
PetrolTed said:
Just wait. The emphasis will once again shift to speed = bad for the environment, citing the oil crisis some decades ago being responsible for speed limits in the first place.
Doing more than 70mph will soon be a threat to the environment.
Doing more than 70mph will soon be a threat to the environment.
I'll name that tune in one...
Congratulations on your article. With yourself and the News of the World using a well known solictor/lawyer to assist the motorist with the ever increasing use of detection devices that most feel compelled to accept and pay the fines...
....I will never pay a fine without first checking all the informaiton. I have been caught once in 23yrs of driving, and like most I do use the road and their conditions to determine the speed at which I should drive. I got caught doing 36 in a 30mph, on a dual carriageway on a Sunday at 8:10am!! - I know better now!
Good Luck
....I will never pay a fine without first checking all the informaiton. I have been caught once in 23yrs of driving, and like most I do use the road and their conditions to determine the speed at which I should drive. I got caught doing 36 in a 30mph, on a dual carriageway on a Sunday at 8:10am!! - I know better now!
Good Luck
It's good that a major newspaper has printed this, and it's just the start i hope of a long campaign to get this really into the public eye. Wishfully thinking though... a road safety debate special on Question Time with the head of the scamera partnership, road and transport minister and Paul Smith would push the issue and get the public really thinking about it.
PetrolTed said:
Just wait. The emphasis will once again shift to speed = bad for the environment, citing the oil crisis some decades ago being responsible for speed limits in the first place.
Doing more than 70mph will soon be a threat to the environment.
Doing more than 70mph will soon be a threat to the environment.
But that one can be dispelled with more easily - after all we all pay about 75% tax on our fuel, in direct proportion to its actual usage. Perfect.
Now a) I think still, by law you cannot be punished twice for the same 'offense', b) getting flashed for using too much fuel seems a bit random to me as I'm using less of it when doing 100 mph in my MINI than mr. Premier League Footballer doing 40 in his blinged-up Hummer, c) are they going to write tickets for unneccesarily using the air con, low tyre pressures, having a roof rack on the car with nothing on it, having loaded the boot up with 350 lbs of thumping stereo gear, et cetera, too? Might as well send me a NIP for having had the shower on for longer than five minutes, this morning...
Nick_F said:
Don't give them ideas: I'm sure that even now someone, somewhere is working on a solution for Council Tax that allows for swingeing increases on the grounds of energy use...
Why do you think the government are driving (yes I know I said driving!) the council reforms bill through parliament at the moment? It will give councils the rights to impose local bye-laws at will without any reference to Parliament or the Lords.
Democracy does not work when a party has a huge majority.... that's called communism Mr Bliar.900T-R said:
.....c) are they going to write tickets for unneccesarily using the air con, low tyre pressures, having a roof rack on the car with nothing on it, having loaded the boot up with 350 lbs of thumping stereo gear, et cetera, too? Might as well send me a NIP for having had the shower on for longer than five minutes, this morning...
I thought some local authorities (in London I think) already hand out fixed penalties for waiting in your car with the engine idling, for environmental reasons obviously.
stenniso said:
900T-R said:
.....c) are they going to write tickets for unneccesarily using the air con, low tyre pressures, having a roof rack on the car with nothing on it, having loaded the boot up with 350 lbs of thumping stereo gear, et cetera, too? Might as well send me a NIP for having had the shower on for longer than five minutes, this morning...
I thought some local authorities (in London I think) already hand out fixed penalties for waiting in your car with the engine idling, for environmental reasons obviously.
Wouldn't it take just as much, if not more fuel to start the engine again after turning it off?
(Not sure but I think engine's use alot of fuel when you start them, as they have to break initial inertia.)
Lord-Flasheart said:
stenniso said:
900T-R said:
.....c) are they going to write tickets for unneccesarily using the air con, low tyre pressures, having a roof rack on the car with nothing on it, having loaded the boot up with 350 lbs of thumping stereo gear, et cetera, too? Might as well send me a NIP for having had the shower on for longer than five minutes, this morning...
I thought some local authorities (in London I think) already hand out fixed penalties for waiting in your car with the engine idling, for environmental reasons obviously.
Wouldn't it take just as much, if not more fuel to start the engine again after turning it off?
(Not sure but I think engine's use alot of fuel when you start them, as they have to break initial inertia.)
With a fully warmed up engine, I think the threshold for shutting the engine off and restarting being less pollutant is about 30 seconds.
But surely it's beyond the point - what's so hard to understand about the concept of 'you pay for what you use, and the pollution it causes' that governments need to infringe all kinds of abritrary and frankly condescending regulations? Schemes like that only reinforce the belief that the general populace is just there to support the politicians' gravy train.
Only 'sense' I see all this making is when you regard it as some kind of stealth income policy - after all, the rich are more likely to be 'wasteful' with resources than those of us needing to turn every penny twice before we spend it, and some might believe slapping on a fine whilst saying 'tut tut' might make them see the (perceived) error of their ways. In that case, the whole environment thing is just a feeble excuse for folks not having to say out loud that there are people earning way too much for whatever their added value to society is - a message that is rather harder to swallow politically than 'saving the environment'...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff