Oh dear-think I've upset someone
Discussion
Oh dear. I seem to have upset a few people.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=556406
It's good to see the usual well-informed and reasoned comment from Transport 2000 - they're a smart lot. Just a shame they responded to what they thought I wrote rather than what I did write...
----------------------------
From the Independent letters page.
Sir: I read with some bemusement the article by Mark McArthur-Christie, the Road Safety Spokesman of the Association of British Drivers (24 August), on how speed cameras are wrong.
There seems to be a victim mentality amongst drivers at the moment: put upon by fuel prices, plagued by Vehicle Excise Duty and now we have the humble speed camera. This not some horrific uniped from H G Wells. It's large, painted yellow and has warning signs before it, and you really have no excuse if you are caught by one. A recent survey found that most drivers don't know what a lot of road signs mean anyway, probably mistaking the speed camera symbol for "Camera Museum" or "Photo-Me Booth".
Reduced speed gives the driver more thinking time, reducing the potential for accidents. Speed cameras are not put there as a cash cow, nor as some cat-and-mouse game by the local constabulary against the decent driver. They are there to catch people driving irresponsibly. From the moans of "advanced" drivers like Mr McArthur-Christie, they seem to be doing their job.
JAMES DAVIS
Godalming, Surrey
Sir: Mr McArthur-Christie asks if there is some physical law that makes speeding dangerous. Well, yes: specifically, the fact that the kinetic energy of a moving body is proportional not to its speed but to the square of its speed. In other words, in a collision, a car travelling at 30mph does not 50 per cent more damage but 125 per cent more damage than the same car travelling at 20mph.
This is fairly basic physics. If Mr McArthur-Christie doesn't understand it, he has no business being a "road safety spokesman".
MIKE WRIGHT
Nuneaton, Warwickshire
Sir: Mark McArthur-Christie, in his defence of what he sees as his right to drive as fast as he likes, ignores the danger of speed and the good work speed cameras are doing in cutting road crash casualties. In the 24 speed camera areas in operation in 2002-03 there was a 40 per cent reduction in people being killed or seriously injured at camera sites, saving around 105 lives.
The Government, police and road safety camera partnerships are doing their best to make the roads safer for us all but organisations like the Association of British Drivers seem to be desperate to undermine these efforts.
Nowhere is this backlash against common sense more obvious than the rise in the use of speed camera detector equipment. These in-car devices are hugely irresponsible because they encourage drivers to stick within speed limits only when alerted to the presence of a nearby speed camera. At other times motorists know they are free to break the law. Newspapers that carry adverts for these devices help to fuel the myth that speed cameras do not perform any useful function.
Motorists who like to drive fast might not like speed cameras, but most people do. Opinion polls consistently show that more than 70 per cent of people support the use of speed cameras.
STEVE HOUNSHAM
Communications Manager
Transport 2000
London N1
>>> Edited by MMC on Tuesday 31st August 00:21
http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=556406
It's good to see the usual well-informed and reasoned comment from Transport 2000 - they're a smart lot. Just a shame they responded to what they thought I wrote rather than what I did write...
----------------------------
From the Independent letters page.
Sir: I read with some bemusement the article by Mark McArthur-Christie, the Road Safety Spokesman of the Association of British Drivers (24 August), on how speed cameras are wrong.
There seems to be a victim mentality amongst drivers at the moment: put upon by fuel prices, plagued by Vehicle Excise Duty and now we have the humble speed camera. This not some horrific uniped from H G Wells. It's large, painted yellow and has warning signs before it, and you really have no excuse if you are caught by one. A recent survey found that most drivers don't know what a lot of road signs mean anyway, probably mistaking the speed camera symbol for "Camera Museum" or "Photo-Me Booth".
Reduced speed gives the driver more thinking time, reducing the potential for accidents. Speed cameras are not put there as a cash cow, nor as some cat-and-mouse game by the local constabulary against the decent driver. They are there to catch people driving irresponsibly. From the moans of "advanced" drivers like Mr McArthur-Christie, they seem to be doing their job.
JAMES DAVIS
Godalming, Surrey
Sir: Mr McArthur-Christie asks if there is some physical law that makes speeding dangerous. Well, yes: specifically, the fact that the kinetic energy of a moving body is proportional not to its speed but to the square of its speed. In other words, in a collision, a car travelling at 30mph does not 50 per cent more damage but 125 per cent more damage than the same car travelling at 20mph.
This is fairly basic physics. If Mr McArthur-Christie doesn't understand it, he has no business being a "road safety spokesman".
MIKE WRIGHT
Nuneaton, Warwickshire
Sir: Mark McArthur-Christie, in his defence of what he sees as his right to drive as fast as he likes, ignores the danger of speed and the good work speed cameras are doing in cutting road crash casualties. In the 24 speed camera areas in operation in 2002-03 there was a 40 per cent reduction in people being killed or seriously injured at camera sites, saving around 105 lives.
The Government, police and road safety camera partnerships are doing their best to make the roads safer for us all but organisations like the Association of British Drivers seem to be desperate to undermine these efforts.
Nowhere is this backlash against common sense more obvious than the rise in the use of speed camera detector equipment. These in-car devices are hugely irresponsible because they encourage drivers to stick within speed limits only when alerted to the presence of a nearby speed camera. At other times motorists know they are free to break the law. Newspapers that carry adverts for these devices help to fuel the myth that speed cameras do not perform any useful function.
Motorists who like to drive fast might not like speed cameras, but most people do. Opinion polls consistently show that more than 70 per cent of people support the use of speed cameras.
STEVE HOUNSHAM
Communications Manager
Transport 2000
London N1
>>> Edited by MMC on Tuesday 31st August 00:21
Messrs. Davis, Wright and Hounsham are merely trotting out the usual irrelevant nonsense that one has come to expect from people who probably have no understanding of what good driving is all about. All they seem to do is to keep repeating statistics that are probably not reliable anyhow.
What I would ask them to bear in mind is the fact that good driving is primarily about avoiding collisions, as it is the violent impacts that injure or kill people. Speed itself does not hurt anyone.
Rather than directing so much criticism at those of us who at times enjoy driving reasonably fast, they would achieve much better road safety by seeking to raise driving standards generally. There are lots of ways of having serious accidents at speeds well within the arbitrarily posted limits we currently have. Dealing with those factors would be much more rewarding if road safety is truly what they care about - but is it?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
What I would ask them to bear in mind is the fact that good driving is primarily about avoiding collisions, as it is the violent impacts that injure or kill people. Speed itself does not hurt anyone.
Rather than directing so much criticism at those of us who at times enjoy driving reasonably fast, they would achieve much better road safety by seeking to raise driving standards generally. There are lots of ways of having serious accidents at speeds well within the arbitrarily posted limits we currently have. Dealing with those factors would be much more rewarding if road safety is truly what they care about - but is it?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
MMC said:
Oh dear. I seem to have upset a few people.
<a href="http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=556406"><a href="http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=556406">http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=556406</a></a>
It's good to see the usual well-informed and reasoned comment from Transport 2000 - they're a smart lot. Just a shame they responded to what they thought I wrote rather than what I did write...
----------------------------
From the Independent letters page.
Sir: I read with some bemusement the article by Mark McArthur-Christie, the Road Safety Spokesman of the Association of British Drivers (24 August), on how speed cameras are wrong.
There seems to be a victim mentality amongst drivers at the moment: put upon by fuel prices, plagued by Vehicle Excise Duty and now we have the humble speed camera. This not some horrific uniped from H G Wells. It's large, painted yellow and has warning signs before it, and you really have no excuse if you are caught by one. A recent survey found that most drivers don't know what a lot of road signs mean anyway, probably mistaking the speed camera symbol for "Camera Museum" or "Photo-Me Booth".
That include the bloke who sauntered across road at scam site thinking mistakenly thinking that the yellow tin and marks on road were some kind of "new zebra crossing?"
Lot of pedestrians have neverheard of Green Cross Code either ....
letter said:
Reduced speed gives the driver more thinking time, reducing the potential for accidents.
And more pedestrians are led to believe that the reduced speed will not kill them .... Wrong message again - Should be C.O.A.S.T....
letter said:
Speed cameras are not put there as a cash cow, nor as some cat-and-mouse game by the local constabulary against the decent driver. They are there to catch people driving irresponsibly. From the moans of "advanced" drivers like Mr McArthur-Christie, they seem to be doing their job.
If only they did - catch the irresponsible numpty
They catch the just over blips, prosecute those who speed by a fraction, are placed on straight and safe roads.
They certainly do not catch out the drunk driver, drugged driver, the driver who has no idea what mirrors are for ....
Nor the one who continues driving at the speed limit - even though weather conditions dictate otherwise..
Nor the one who does not reduce speed past the line of parked cars ...... but stays at the speed limit "because it is safe"
Do they?
letters said:
Sir: Mr McArthur-Christie asks if there is some physical law that makes speeding dangerous. Well, yes: specifically, the fact that the kinetic energy of a moving body is proportional not to its speed but to the square of its speed. In other words, in a collision, a car travelling at 30mph does not 50 per cent more damage but 125 per cent more damage than the same car travelling at 20mph.
Ahhhh! basingwerk ......
(Either BW or 'e's been lurkin' on my fave playground ..... 
) Tell you what .... I won't do any more joggin' and I'll give up rugby lest my sprinting injures someone... The wife will give up her alpine sports too - and we will be mouse potatoes insteads ....
Cars have been around for a long time - and speed limits of 30 mph and higher on certain roads have been around for almost as long now. Accidents are not result of speed - but result of missing letter of COAST (Concentration ...observation... anticipation ...space...time .... good old fashioned driving plan ...) Works for all road users ...
letter said:
This is fairly basic physics. If Mr McArthur-Christie doesn't understand it, he has no business being a "road safety spokesman".
MIKE WRIGHT
Nuneaton, Warwickshire
And if you cannot cope with car driving at above 30 mph Mike - better stay in your schoolmasters physics prep lab....
(Or your computerised doo-dah thingy if you are Bw....) letter said:
Sir: Mark McArthur-Christie, in his defence of what he sees as his right to drive as fast as he likes, ignores the danger of speed and the good work speed cameras are doing in cutting road crash casualties. In the 24 speed camera areas in operation in 2002-03 there was a 40 per cent reduction in people being killed or seriously injured at camera sites, saving around 105 lives.
Really? Then EXPLAIN to me why I have run on my blood banks up here to deal with RTAs .... Largest forest of speed cams in UK and highest numbers of incoming wounded from RTAs ... No use spouting figures at me sunshine from T2K - have other figures which contradict ....
Reduction at these sites - down to two possibles - they were not occurring in first place (certain road in Cambridge comes to mind - which I KNOW reported death rate there was complete fabrication on the official site for that day - based on driving on that road on that date every year for as long as I've been married ... 19 years ....
It could also have somply regressed back to the mean..
letter said:
The Government, police and road safety camera partnerships are doing their best to make the roads safer for us all but organisations like the Association of British Drivers seem to be desperate to undermine these efforts.
Why hide some of theses cams then?
Why does DicK's chap hide behind a wall in a car park?
Why set a trap yards inside a speed limit change - and prosecute car which is decelerating but just over for couple of yards?
Why prosecute a senior surgeon colleague of mine who pings camera at 4mph above a speed limit when he is returning to save a life and speed is of essence?
So where are the driver information adverts? Green Cross Code saturation? Constant two second rule inputs?
And why is there only one trafpol on patrol in big area like Lancs? Suffolk?
In fact, how come wife and self do not see these guys anywhere?
Oh forgot .... sighghhhhh! A speed camera cops the twazak in his throw away car who causes an accident which kills a 12 year old - and no-one can bring him to justice. A trafpol would at least have had more chance of seeing this guys...
T2K wally said:
Nowhere is this backlash against common sense more obvious than the rise in the use of speed camera detector equipment. These in-car devices are hugely irresponsible because they encourage drivers to stick within speed limits only when alerted to the presence of a nearby speed camera. At other times motorists know they are free to break the law. Newspapers that carry adverts for these devices help to fuel the myth that speed cameras do not perform any useful function.
And this proves that you are only interested in money/
These detectors have speedo right in front of your line of vision - and they warn of schools, black spots (which are not at cam sites according to data bases of the gadgets - but tally with local knowledge... how strange!)
If whole point is to slow down for hazard (which of course where these cameras are sited) - then the gadget is a useful tool insofar as it slows people down. If it did not slow people down for the camera - then perhaps you would not be bragging about your 40% reduction success rate at these cameras
DOH! You walked into that one Mr T2K...
T2K said:
Motorists who like to drive fast might not like speed cameras, but most people do. Opinion polls consistently show that more than 70 per cent of people support the use of speed cameras.
STEVE HOUNSHAM
Communications Manager
Transport 2000
London N1
>>> Edited by MMC on Tuesday 31st August 00:21
Yes - and we know that you poll people on a known list.
You even polled me once - lovely wording appealing to me as "caring doctor" and "sympathies for my wife having been injured by a speeding car...
Yes - I know exactly where you get your 70% from - and it is not indicative of wider public opinion either. Lot of other telephone votes to local papers show otherwise. Straw polls in any pub, club, golf, club, pony club, gym ... prove otherwise.
Only people likely to vote for them are militant factions in cycling fraternity and your own people who need their jobs!
>> Edited by Mad Moggie on Tuesday 31st August 08:05
Just sent this to Indy letters:
After reading the usual outdated views from an out-of-date organisation (30 August) I suggest that Steve Hounsham and his public transport loving colleagues in T 2000
limit their pronouncements to issues on which they are better qualified to comment. These include diesel bus emissions that contain the two most carcinogenic chemicals known to science, trains that are less energy efficient than cars for family transport, and an entire public transport network that is costly, a risk to personal safety, unreliable, and very unpleasant to use. Nobody in their right mind would choose public transport over a car for environmental, safety or logistical reasons, and the experience if one does is enough to deter future travel by cattle market mode. Moreover the transport demands of modern life and work are too complex for any form of crude bulk movement to satisfy. Of course we can and should build roads to alleviate congestion. Of course speed cameras have revenue as their main purpose. Of course the kinetic energy safety argument is specious, collisions are to be avoided not geared to the speed limit. Of course the type of transport policies supported by Hounsham and his ilk are failing the country and putting more lives at risk. 
Aaaahhh, that's better. Letter sent, sun out, kids still off school, time for some serious
After reading the usual outdated views from an out-of-date organisation (30 August) I suggest that Steve Hounsham and his public transport loving colleagues in T 2000
limit their pronouncements to issues on which they are better qualified to comment. These include diesel bus emissions that contain the two most carcinogenic chemicals known to science, trains that are less energy efficient than cars for family transport, and an entire public transport network that is costly, a risk to personal safety, unreliable, and very unpleasant to use. Nobody in their right mind would choose public transport over a car for environmental, safety or logistical reasons, and the experience if one does is enough to deter future travel by cattle market mode. Moreover the transport demands of modern life and work are too complex for any form of crude bulk movement to satisfy. Of course we can and should build roads to alleviate congestion. Of course speed cameras have revenue as their main purpose. Of course the kinetic energy safety argument is specious, collisions are to be avoided not geared to the speed limit. Of course the type of transport policies supported by Hounsham and his ilk are failing the country and putting more lives at risk. Aaaahhh, that's better. Letter sent, sun out, kids still off school, time for some serious
Usual utter innacurate rubbish.
I see the number of people they say speed cameras have saved has gone up to 40% now. The only thing that has changed is the size of the lies.
More people have died, not less
Look on the bright side, they all believe slowing down saves lives. Darwin theory should take care of them soon enough.
I see the number of people they say speed cameras have saved has gone up to 40% now. The only thing that has changed is the size of the lies.
More people have died, not less
Look on the bright side, they all believe slowing down saves lives. Darwin theory should take care of them soon enough.
More power to your elbow ABD and SS. Mr Hounsham of Transport 2000 seems to be unaware that the 105 lives he claims to have saved have in fact died somewhere else. Just normal statistical variation would predict exactly this, and all he is measuring is regression to the mean. I found this interesting ..
www.numberwatch.co.uk/2004_June.htm
Or the story about getting 100 people to throw a dice. About 16 will throw a 6. Give them a drink of water to cure the tendancy to throw sixes, and retest. Hey presto, only about 2 or 3 of them now throw a six, so the other 13 or 14 are cured!! Exactly what the speed camera enthusiasts are doing. Double blind medical trials are another example whereby the drugs industry knows all about this effect and designs tests to eliminate the bias. No-one seems willing to test this on our roads, and in the meantime all we do is move the corpses from one place to another.
www.numberwatch.co.uk/2004_June.htm
Or the story about getting 100 people to throw a dice. About 16 will throw a 6. Give them a drink of water to cure the tendancy to throw sixes, and retest. Hey presto, only about 2 or 3 of them now throw a six, so the other 13 or 14 are cured!! Exactly what the speed camera enthusiasts are doing. Double blind medical trials are another example whereby the drugs industry knows all about this effect and designs tests to eliminate the bias. No-one seems willing to test this on our roads, and in the meantime all we do is move the corpses from one place to another.
Do you know the really stupid thing about the whole road safety situation? The ABD, Safespeed, BRAKE, T2000, Roadpeace et al all want essentially the same thing - safe roads. The trouble is, the more vocal pressure groups have such an ingrained anti-car agenda that they are blind to even the most obvious truths. 6000 speed cameras, deaths up, cameras reduce accidents by 35%. 70% of the public support cameras...except the 96% who don't when polled on the BBC site. Or in local papers. Or anywhere at all that isn't "on message" frankly.
You can almost see them sat in some office somewhere congratulating themselves that they're right every time the latest obviously skewed statistic is issued. I've also never really worked out what gives T2000 any real qualification to talk about road safety issues relating to motoring anyway, as they seem to me to be a bunch of militant cyclists who think the average motorist is in league with Satan. At least people like Critical Mass and Reclaim the streets are so obviously raving anti motorist that we know where we stand!
You can almost see them sat in some office somewhere congratulating themselves that they're right every time the latest obviously skewed statistic is issued. I've also never really worked out what gives T2000 any real qualification to talk about road safety issues relating to motoring anyway, as they seem to me to be a bunch of militant cyclists who think the average motorist is in league with Satan. At least people like Critical Mass and Reclaim the streets are so obviously raving anti motorist that we know where we stand!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff