letter to sussex "safety" camera partnership
Discussion
I've sent this letter to the sussex safety camera partnership, I will keep you up to date with any replies I get 
Hi
Quoting from your webpage you say:
"The Sussex Partnership, which is responsible for this site, endeavours to provide up-to-date and accurate information."
you also say (on your front page)
"Speed costs lives
Speed causes serious injury
Speed can lead to unemployment-eviction-debt"
I regularly travel in cars (sometimes at speeds exceeding 100 mph, on a private road of course) and in aeroplanes (somewhere around 500mph i believe), I also race go karts (these travel at around 80mph). I don't ever appear to have been seriously injured and I still consider myself to be alive. Perhaps given your policy of providing accurate information you should rephrase the statement on the front page to say "Inappropriate speed may be dangerous." This statement is much more accurate. There are times when driving that I feel it is much too dangerous to travel at the speed limit and others (mostly on motorways at times of low traffic) when I feel it is safe to be traveling faster than the speed limit (given these limits were set 40 odd years ago and took into account the machinery of the time - cars are much improved today).
I feel that by blindly emphasising the "speed kills" mantra you are brainwashing drivers into believing that as long as they are not speeding they will be safe. Clearly this is not the case. Do you not feel that rather than spending money on speed cameras, increased investment in driver training would give better results? After all, drivers take their traning with them wherever they go and speed cameras can only enforce the area that they are situated in.
As a more general comment on your website, I feel that the size of the box for comments on your feedback page could be increased so that it is easier to send longer messages such as this one (I will give you the benefit of the doubt in not assuming that this was precisely the reason it was set at this tiny size).
I would appreciate a response from you and would like to hear your thoughts on the topics I touched on in this email. I do not disagree with the main aim of your partnership - reducing road deaths is afterall a laudable aim - but I do have some doubts about the method chosen to achieve these aims.
I look foward to your reply
xxxxxxxxxxx (this is my real name not kisses)
Hi
Quoting from your webpage you say:
"The Sussex Partnership, which is responsible for this site, endeavours to provide up-to-date and accurate information."
you also say (on your front page)
"Speed costs lives
Speed causes serious injury
Speed can lead to unemployment-eviction-debt"
I regularly travel in cars (sometimes at speeds exceeding 100 mph, on a private road of course) and in aeroplanes (somewhere around 500mph i believe), I also race go karts (these travel at around 80mph). I don't ever appear to have been seriously injured and I still consider myself to be alive. Perhaps given your policy of providing accurate information you should rephrase the statement on the front page to say "Inappropriate speed may be dangerous." This statement is much more accurate. There are times when driving that I feel it is much too dangerous to travel at the speed limit and others (mostly on motorways at times of low traffic) when I feel it is safe to be traveling faster than the speed limit (given these limits were set 40 odd years ago and took into account the machinery of the time - cars are much improved today).
I feel that by blindly emphasising the "speed kills" mantra you are brainwashing drivers into believing that as long as they are not speeding they will be safe. Clearly this is not the case. Do you not feel that rather than spending money on speed cameras, increased investment in driver training would give better results? After all, drivers take their traning with them wherever they go and speed cameras can only enforce the area that they are situated in.
As a more general comment on your website, I feel that the size of the box for comments on your feedback page could be increased so that it is easier to send longer messages such as this one (I will give you the benefit of the doubt in not assuming that this was precisely the reason it was set at this tiny size).
I would appreciate a response from you and would like to hear your thoughts on the topics I touched on in this email. I do not disagree with the main aim of your partnership - reducing road deaths is afterall a laudable aim - but I do have some doubts about the method chosen to achieve these aims.
I look foward to your reply
xxxxxxxxxxx (this is my real name not kisses)
D_Mike said:
I feel that by blindly emphasising the "speed kills" mantra you are brainwashing drivers into believing that as long as they are not speeding they will be safe.
Good point - I seem to recall years ago when Volvo were heavily promoting the "safe car" image I used to pick up a lot following accidents.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff