is safe speed spreading bull
Discussion
Sometimes I am forced to agree with the Scamera PR. They are not wrong but the premise of their existence is flawed.
This country needs much stricter enforcement of who is allowed to drive at all. This would of course roger the exchequer most royally.
Excessive speed causes inumerable accidents in the UK each year but until there is serious action to cure the cause rather than nurse the effect then I fear we shall see no serious improvement in road accident mortality.
THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE AND IRREFUTABLE.
Too many people with too much money buy cars which they are incapable of safely controlling at the speeds they are so very easily capable of.
Too many people think they are driving at safe speed due to the secondary safety systems fitted to those cars.
Too many people flaunt the basic rules of road safety such as - though shallt be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead.
How many drivers are really aware of the distance it takes to stop on a tightening blind corner whilst remaining in full control?
I am not an angel. In the past I have driven like an utter clown because of ignorance. I had an Impreza which I thought was better then me and so would sort me out if I cocked up and had to depend on primary and secondary safety.
No longer. I now have a TVR Tuscan. It does not lie. It tells you all the time just how foolish you are if you let it. Never does it relent from inducing fear in losing concentration, braking while turning (was a positive benifit in the Scooby)and not looking way way way up the road for the slightest nastiness approaching.
The solution?
Everyone must pass the test in a TVR. After that they are ready for anything.
Tuscans at BSM? Watch this space.
This country needs much stricter enforcement of who is allowed to drive at all. This would of course roger the exchequer most royally.
Excessive speed causes inumerable accidents in the UK each year but until there is serious action to cure the cause rather than nurse the effect then I fear we shall see no serious improvement in road accident mortality.
THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE AND IRREFUTABLE.
Too many people with too much money buy cars which they are incapable of safely controlling at the speeds they are so very easily capable of.
Too many people think they are driving at safe speed due to the secondary safety systems fitted to those cars.
Too many people flaunt the basic rules of road safety such as - though shallt be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead.
How many drivers are really aware of the distance it takes to stop on a tightening blind corner whilst remaining in full control?
I am not an angel. In the past I have driven like an utter clown because of ignorance. I had an Impreza which I thought was better then me and so would sort me out if I cocked up and had to depend on primary and secondary safety.
No longer. I now have a TVR Tuscan. It does not lie. It tells you all the time just how foolish you are if you let it. Never does it relent from inducing fear in losing concentration, braking while turning (was a positive benifit in the Scooby)and not looking way way way up the road for the slightest nastiness approaching.
The solution?
Everyone must pass the test in a TVR. After that they are ready for anything.
Tuscans at BSM? Watch this space.
The text referred to comes from a gentleman who I know to be a serving traffic officer in the area. I have reproduced his words verbatim.
I am happy to accept that his word may not be perfectly accurate, but since his opinion is being expressed, I don't see that as a problem.
I note with disgust spin, bull and deliberate deflection in Dr Sinclair's comments. A number of the issues are deliberately fudged. Take for example paragraph 5. Where does it deal with warning letters? That part has been deflected and ignored.
I am annoyed that she (he?) quotes from my site and cuts off in mid paragraph... take for example:
Sinclair: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers..."
Safe Speed: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. However, in most cases the conspiracy is born out of sincere but mistaken and simplistic beliefs rather than any more sinister intent."
Nasty eh?
The "Hampshire" page that causes them ire is:
www.safespeed.org.uk/hampshire.html
Perhaps a complaint is in order?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
I am happy to accept that his word may not be perfectly accurate, but since his opinion is being expressed, I don't see that as a problem.
I note with disgust spin, bull and deliberate deflection in Dr Sinclair's comments. A number of the issues are deliberately fudged. Take for example paragraph 5. Where does it deal with warning letters? That part has been deflected and ignored.
I am annoyed that she (he?) quotes from my site and cuts off in mid paragraph... take for example:
Sinclair: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers..."
Safe Speed: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. However, in most cases the conspiracy is born out of sincere but mistaken and simplistic beliefs rather than any more sinister intent."
Nasty eh?
The "Hampshire" page that causes them ire is:
www.safespeed.org.uk/hampshire.html
Perhaps a complaint is in order?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
PetrolTed said:
Given the volume of information on Paul's site, I suspect there are going to be innaccuracies. To suggest that he's trying to undermine road safety is a cheap shot though.
He's exposed the fact that we're in a propoganda war and that facts should be given great scrutiny.
The factual information is pretty tightly controlled. In about three years there has been no challenge to any significant fact displayed on the site.
I certainly don't know of any factual errors, and if I did I'd fix them pronto.
If anyone does ever find a factual error, I'd really like to hear about it.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
mcspreader said:
Sometimes I am forced to agree with the Scamera PR. They are not wrong but the premise of their existence is flawed.
This country needs much stricter enforcement of who is allowed to drive at all. This would of course roger the exchequer most royally.
Excessive speed causes inumerable accidents in the UK each year but until there is serious action to cure the cause rather than nurse the effect then I fear we shall see no serious improvement in road accident mortality.
THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE AND IRREFUTABLE.
Too many people with too much money buy cars which they are incapable of safely controlling at the speeds they are so very easily capable of.
Too many people think they are driving at safe speed due to the secondary safety systems fitted to those cars.
Too many people flaunt the basic rules of road safety such as - though shallt be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead.
How many drivers are really aware of the distance it takes to stop on a tightening blind corner whilst remaining in full control?
I am not an angel. In the past I have driven like an utter clown because of ignorance. I had an Impreza which I thought was better then me and so would sort me out if I cocked up and had to depend on primary and secondary safety.
No longer. I now have a TVR Tuscan. It does not lie. It tells you all the time just how foolish you are if you let it. Never does it relent from inducing fear in losing concentration, braking while turning (was a positive benifit in the Scooby)and not looking way way way up the road for the slightest nastiness approaching.
The solution?
Everyone must pass the test in a TVR. After that they are ready for anything.
Tuscans at BSM? Watch this space.
mscpreader
I thing if you get down to the actual problems on the ground, you will find that speed cameras have replaced traffic officers. Only traffic officers can deal with those offenders that drink/drug drive, drive carelessly, drive a car unlicensed/uninsured/untaxed, etc..
There is no incentive for people to take the advanced test. Perhaps RoSPA/IAM should be merged into the DSA so that it demonstrates that we are really serious about road standards rather than leaving it to two charities.
There needs to be incentives for people to take the advanced test and there needs to be consequences for people who flout the law.
At the moment, it is all a complete shambles. Al the while, the scamera partnerships are coinging it in and more people continue to die needlessly on our roads.
safespeed said:
Sinclair: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers..."
Safe Speed: "We believe that the Government, the DfT and their subcontractors are conspiring to mislead the public about the nature of road dangers. However, in most cases the conspiracy is born out of sincere but mistaken and simplistic beliefs rather than any more sinister intent."
Nasty eh?
I agree! sneaky... very sneaky...
Igiots...
pbrettle said:
I am sure there are good SCP's and bad ones too - but while they remain unaccountable to the public, can walk through the APCO / DoT guidelines and they lie about statistics - then I am afraid they must still go. Put the control back into the hands of the police forces (accountability and focused responses) with independent auditing of the statistics (no hiding behind this 35% reduction in casualties figure!) with consistent and complementary programmes for education and support....
Until then, I am afraid all SCP's have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo and deceiving us with lies and statistics. Like I said, this one might be one of the "better" ones, but its still set-up incorrectly and they are all still tarred with the same brush.....ALL SCP's MUST GO....
I agree with your conclusions, but fail to understand why you believe there are good and bad SCPs. To my mind they all have the same status as paedophiles.
nonegreen said:
I am sure there are good SCP's and bad ones too - but while they remain unaccountable to the public, can walk through the APCO / DoT guidelines and they lie about statistics - then I am afraid they must still go. Put the control back into the hands of the police forces (accountability and focused responses) with independent auditing of the statistics (no hiding behind this 35% reduction in casualties figure!) with consistent and complementary programmes for education and support....
Until then, I am afraid all SCP's have a self-interest in maintaining the status quo and deceiving us with lies and statistics. Like I said, this one might be one of the "better" ones, but its still set-up incorrectly and they are all still tarred with the same brush.....ALL SCP's MUST GO....
I agree with your conclusions, but fail to understand why you believe there are good and bad SCPs. To my mind they all have the same status as paedophiles.
...agree entirely!motorbiker said:
We are obliged to employ a data analyst to ensure that the data we use is correct and up-to-date.
Together the speed and casualty criteria are considered to have a natural cause-effect relationship.
Pity they are not obliged to employ a data analyst who actually has some qualification in that field.
It is a fundemental essential of any analysis to demostrate the cause and effect are linked
I'd be interested to find out how many journeys past scameras there now as opposed to before the scamera was in place...I for one will avoid (ahem) 'accident blackspots' if there's another route that will do the job without too much more Optimax being used...if we can demonstrate that the casualty figures have gone down by less than the number of journeys past a scamera site have reduced, thereby increasing the casualty-journey ratio (does that make sense?) it'd be proof they don't work once and for all.
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
MR2Mike said:
Excessive speed causes inumerable accidents in the UK each year
What evidence do you have for this? Excessive speed certainly causes some accidents each year, but in terms of overall road deaths, they are very much in the minority.
He looks at those Pratnership sites - such as the one that claimed that 187 serious incidents occurred on A14/A141 on 19 March 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Drove on those roads on 19 March 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988,1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Never held up in "accident clear up", never saw or heard anything in any media about this very high serious-fatal accident toll, nor were local hospitals flooded by a "major incident" on that particular date - yet the Pratnership claimed that these "accidents caused by excessive speed justified the talivan activity on those roads on that day!"
Have no patience for this kind of spin! Suppose if challenged - they would say it was an "adminstrative or typing error" - like the ones on the NIPs accusing people of driving at 406mph etc.
If they want to nit-pick about marginally over a posted - then we have right to nit-pick over their clumsy, inefficient and downright unprofessional standards of work!
Standards and codes of practice should be uniform - we are all subject to same law. There should be no differences whereby one pratnership allows 10%+2 and others do not. And the Speed Course should be offered by all - and offered at the same price!
And we should have automatic right to see the evidence and the proof before we sign anything incriminating ourselves!
Too many mixed messages, phony and massaged figures, wild claims. - And no real means of challenging them. We really need exact and accurate statistics from both sides of the argument.
(Though - the anti-brigade's claims on the whole seem to have a bit more substance)
loaf said:
I'd be interested to find out how many journeys past scameras there now as opposed to before the scamera was in place...I for one will avoid (ahem) 'accident blackspots' if there's another route that will do the job without too much more Optimax being used...if we can demonstrate that the casualty figures have gone down by less than the number of journeys past a scamera site have reduced, thereby increasing the casualty-journey ratio (does that make sense?) it'd be proof they don't work once and for all.
Just a thought...
That's just one of the errors. There's a whole catalogue:
www.safespeed.org.uk/gambling.html
Especially "regression to the mean":
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
nonegreen said:
I agree with your conclusions, but fail to understand why you believe there are good and bad SCPs. To my mind they all have the same status as paedophiles.
Maybe what I should have said that there are some bad ones and some very bad ones..... there certainly seems to be a few SCP's who at least try to offer some levels of transparency. On the other hand there are some which positively try to evade any responsibility or transparencey. They are all bad in principle, its just that some might try a little harder than others....
But you are absolutely right though - they all must go.
pi55edoffnow said:
DR MARION ---- DR OF WHAT?. WE NEED REAL DOCTORS NOT PRTEND ONES WHO DONT LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD .WHY DO WE NEED A DOCTOR FOR SCAMMERAS ?.OH YES ITS SO THEY CAN DOCTOR THE FIQURES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST GOT BACK FROM SPAIN AND NOT A CAMERA IN SITE ARE WE THE ONLY REAL TURKEYS IN THE OVEN?.
'real" doctors are people who have a PhD. Many "doctors" that are GPs have only a bachelor's degree, and are using the title "doctor" incorrectly. It is a sort of courtesy title.
oyster said:
I don't care about whether speed causes 1/3 or just 3% of fatal/serious accidents.
What I care most about is what theis the government doing about the other 2/3's of accidents it claims are NOT caused by speeding?
Well, they have the "Think" campaign going on, and the campaign aimed at teenagers, pointing out that life is not like a videogame.
Then there was that ad-campaign where the unbelted lad n the read seat headbutted his mother to death in a crash.
They also have websites, and leaflet campaigns, and provide funds for the polie to give advanced training to people.
Oh, I forgot, they are labour, so anything good is to be ignored or derided. Sorry, my misteke, please carry on.
northernboy said:
Well, they have the "Think" campaign going on, and the campaign aimed at teenagers, pointing out that life is not like a videogame.
Then there was that ad-campaign where the unbelted lad n the read seat headbutted his mother to death in a crash.
They also have websites, and leaflet campaigns, and provide funds for the polie to give advanced training to people.
Oh, I forgot, they are labour, so anything good is to be ignored or derided. Sorry, my misteke, please carry on.
How about they do something REALLY radical and spend some money fixing the roads? It's all very well and good hearing SCPs harping on about accident black spots, but why doesn't anyone actually do anything about it?
We've got a safety awareness "initiative" at work (in an office). Mainly stuff like not leaving cupboards open or having boxes and files scattered on the floor. Do you think I could get away with leaving all my cupboard doors open and having cables trailing all over tha place if I were to designate my desk an "accident blackspot"? Maybe I could put up a sign saying something like "15 twisted ankles in the last month"? Maybe I could take photos and send a FPN to my work colleagues!
What do the safety partnerships actually DO towards making our roads safe other than administer a revenue rasing operation?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff