Letter in The Mail today.
Discussion
Saw this just now in reply to a previous contributors letter critisising scameras.
'David Wright complains that his holiday was spoiled by 'speed' cameras. We at the Support and Care After Road Death And Injury (SCARD) charity call them safety cameras. My son Steven was killed by a driver doing 80mph in a 30mph zone, so dont complain about safety cameras - youre invisible to a sefety camera if you stick to the speed limit.
More than 3500 people lost their lives on our roads last year, and most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed and so were avoidable.
F C Whittingham.'
Quick look at the SCARD website..
www.scard.org.uk/index.htm
..shows it to be a worthy and well meaning cause set up by some people who had obviously suffered a tragic loss. But why do these people jump on the Speed/Safety camera bandwagon ?? Discounting the utter rollocks of their last paragraph it seems their son was killed by a teenage driver of a stolen car !! very much doubt he'd have been saved by a stragegically placed gatso.
Anyone fancy writing a sympathetic but factual letter pointing them and the Daily Mail letter reading public in the right direction ?
'David Wright complains that his holiday was spoiled by 'speed' cameras. We at the Support and Care After Road Death And Injury (SCARD) charity call them safety cameras. My son Steven was killed by a driver doing 80mph in a 30mph zone, so dont complain about safety cameras - youre invisible to a sefety camera if you stick to the speed limit.
More than 3500 people lost their lives on our roads last year, and most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed and so were avoidable.
F C Whittingham.'
Quick look at the SCARD website..
www.scard.org.uk/index.htm
..shows it to be a worthy and well meaning cause set up by some people who had obviously suffered a tragic loss. But why do these people jump on the Speed/Safety camera bandwagon ?? Discounting the utter rollocks of their last paragraph it seems their son was killed by a teenage driver of a stolen car !! very much doubt he'd have been saved by a stragegically placed gatso.
Anyone fancy writing a sympathetic but factual letter pointing them and the Daily Mail letter reading public in the right direction ?
Why don't you write a letter in to the Mail?
A carefully and sympathetically worded letter could suggest to Mr Whittingham that he is fighting for an overall good cause but is focussing his efforts in completely the wrong area.
If indeed his son was killed by a teenager in a stolen car then that is a seperate issue to one of speeding and that would not have been solved by putting up speed cameras. A speed camera would have put an offer of fixed penalty and small fine into the envelope of the OWNER of the car - not the actual driver.
We the speeding drivers are not always the ones that cause deaths. Its usually another group of people entirely (drunks, joyriders, criminals etc) who happen to be behind the wheel of a car at the same time.
Cameras do not support the removal of this group of people from our roads to make them safer for everyone. One would hope further education and better policing would.
A carefully and sympathetically worded letter could suggest to Mr Whittingham that he is fighting for an overall good cause but is focussing his efforts in completely the wrong area.
If indeed his son was killed by a teenager in a stolen car then that is a seperate issue to one of speeding and that would not have been solved by putting up speed cameras. A speed camera would have put an offer of fixed penalty and small fine into the envelope of the OWNER of the car - not the actual driver.
We the speeding drivers are not always the ones that cause deaths. Its usually another group of people entirely (drunks, joyriders, criminals etc) who happen to be behind the wheel of a car at the same time.
Cameras do not support the removal of this group of people from our roads to make them safer for everyone. One would hope further education and better policing would.
point. I can be high on drugs, smashed out of my mind and in a stolen car, on fire. Unfortunately, the daily mail web site does not advertise an address to write to the letters section - however I did manage to find a way to reply to F C Whittingham and have done so - here's what I wrote
Quote
To whom it may concern...
You replied to a letter in the Daily Mail stating:
Quote
'David Wright complains that his holiday was spoiled by 'speed' cameras. We at the Support and Care After Road Death And Injury (SCARD) charity call them safety cameras. My son Steven was killed by a driver doing 80mph in a 30mph zone, so don't complain about safety cameras - you're invisible to a safety camera if you stick to the speed limit.
More than 3500 people lost their lives on our roads last year, and most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed and so were avoidable.
F C Whittingham.'
Unquote.
Whilst I sympathise with you over your loss, I notice that you did not actually state that the speeding motorist was actually a joy rider.
No Safety Camera would have stopped him or others of his ilk and it is wrong of you to portray this accident as being preventable by a Speed Camera.
I would also question your statement that 'most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed'. This is simply not true - by far the greater number of deaths were caused by drunkenness and the next highest total by use of drugs. Tired drivers cause 7 deaths per week according to Green flag - would your 'safety cameras' have stopped or helped reduce these deaths?
The aims of your group are admirable, but please do not sully them by propagating known myths and untruths.
Yours respectively,
Unquote
At the same time as I was searching for addresses I came across this site which seems to imply that only 3% of accidents were attributable to speeding - wish I'd found it earlier
http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html
Regards
David
>> Edited by Piccy Mate on Tuesday 7th September 13:37
Quote
To whom it may concern...
You replied to a letter in the Daily Mail stating:
Quote
'David Wright complains that his holiday was spoiled by 'speed' cameras. We at the Support and Care After Road Death And Injury (SCARD) charity call them safety cameras. My son Steven was killed by a driver doing 80mph in a 30mph zone, so don't complain about safety cameras - you're invisible to a safety camera if you stick to the speed limit.
More than 3500 people lost their lives on our roads last year, and most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed and so were avoidable.
F C Whittingham.'
Unquote.
Whilst I sympathise with you over your loss, I notice that you did not actually state that the speeding motorist was actually a joy rider.
No Safety Camera would have stopped him or others of his ilk and it is wrong of you to portray this accident as being preventable by a Speed Camera.
I would also question your statement that 'most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed'. This is simply not true - by far the greater number of deaths were caused by drunkenness and the next highest total by use of drugs. Tired drivers cause 7 deaths per week according to Green flag - would your 'safety cameras' have stopped or helped reduce these deaths?
The aims of your group are admirable, but please do not sully them by propagating known myths and untruths.
Yours respectively,
Unquote
At the same time as I was searching for addresses I came across this site which seems to imply that only 3% of accidents were attributable to speeding - wish I'd found it earlier
http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html
Regards
David
>> Edited by Piccy Mate on Tuesday 7th September 13:37
I would suggest SCARD and their like set themselves up based upon their first thoughts of the issue and the most apparent facts.
So, a car doing 80mph in a 30 zone kills a child. Therefore speeding kills.
Catch speeders.
This is enough information for them, and afterall without thinking too deeply about it, its easy to come to see a link between speeding and road deaths.
It is only those that look deeper into situations and the details that can get a better perspective on the issues.
So, stolen car doing 80mph driven by unskilled teenage joyrider kills child.
Therefore joyriders and dangerous drivers kill.
Better car security and catch joyriders and dangerous drivers.
So, a car doing 80mph in a 30 zone kills a child. Therefore speeding kills.
Catch speeders.
This is enough information for them, and afterall without thinking too deeply about it, its easy to come to see a link between speeding and road deaths.
It is only those that look deeper into situations and the details that can get a better perspective on the issues.
So, stolen car doing 80mph driven by unskilled teenage joyrider kills child.
Therefore joyriders and dangerous drivers kill.
Better car security and catch joyriders and dangerous drivers.
The road where I live is a 30mph limit and opposite a school.
In the evenings we regularly get all sorts of cars, white vans and motorbikes driving past at 80mph plus.
Maybe some of them are stolen by joyriders but lets face facts the vast vast majority are 'law obiding' motorists who would have to have slowed down if there was a camera.
Which is why local residents are campaigning for one.
In the evenings we regularly get all sorts of cars, white vans and motorbikes driving past at 80mph plus.
Maybe some of them are stolen by joyriders but lets face facts the vast vast majority are 'law obiding' motorists who would have to have slowed down if there was a camera.
Which is why local residents are campaigning for one.
On one page...
"He called at the T.S.B bank in Heckmondwike to draw £10 from the cash machine and then called at the Morison's supermarket for his petrol."
On another...
"He had called at the Yorkshire bank in Heckmondwike to draw £10 from the cash machine and then called at the Morrisons supermarket for the petrol."
Well...which bank was it?
"""Dear Mr Whittington.
I share your sorrow about the death of your son, but you yourself have admitted that it was a stolen car that killed him. A speed camera would have had no effect whatsoever on the way this car was driven, as any tickets would be sent to the owner, not the thief who stole it and drove it recklessly. Once a thief has stolen a car, they are beyond the rules of normal society, so there could've been a camera every mile along his journey and he would still have killed your son. The only thing that would've stopped him is a traffic policeman, on patrol, acting as a useful and acceptable deterrant on our roads. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of these as our Government has chosen electronic persecution as the preferred method of maintaining safety on our roads, rather than invest in well trained traffic police. A policy that is doomed to failure, as the increase in road deaths over the past few years has shown. Speed cameras do not make our roads safer, traffic police, good training and good engineering do, but then that costs money which Government is loath to spend on the middle classes, seeing them as a tax income stream, rather than the deserving backbone of Britain.
Speeding is not the cause of the majority of accidents - the DfT have admitted this and are abandoning the "Speed Kills" slogan as it is not supported by fact. Speeding is in fact the cause of less than 3% of accidents - most accidents, including fatalities, occur at speeds well below the posted limit and are caused by inattention and poor observation, the classic being the motorist driving in front of a motorcyclist, "sorry, I didn't see you" being the usual response.
Yours Sincerely......"""
Something like this perhaps?
>> Edited by mondeoman on Tuesday 7th September 13:48
I share your sorrow about the death of your son, but you yourself have admitted that it was a stolen car that killed him. A speed camera would have had no effect whatsoever on the way this car was driven, as any tickets would be sent to the owner, not the thief who stole it and drove it recklessly. Once a thief has stolen a car, they are beyond the rules of normal society, so there could've been a camera every mile along his journey and he would still have killed your son. The only thing that would've stopped him is a traffic policeman, on patrol, acting as a useful and acceptable deterrant on our roads. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of these as our Government has chosen electronic persecution as the preferred method of maintaining safety on our roads, rather than invest in well trained traffic police. A policy that is doomed to failure, as the increase in road deaths over the past few years has shown. Speed cameras do not make our roads safer, traffic police, good training and good engineering do, but then that costs money which Government is loath to spend on the middle classes, seeing them as a tax income stream, rather than the deserving backbone of Britain.
Speeding is not the cause of the majority of accidents - the DfT have admitted this and are abandoning the "Speed Kills" slogan as it is not supported by fact. Speeding is in fact the cause of less than 3% of accidents - most accidents, including fatalities, occur at speeds well below the posted limit and are caused by inattention and poor observation, the classic being the motorist driving in front of a motorcyclist, "sorry, I didn't see you" being the usual response.
Yours Sincerely......"""
Something like this perhaps?
>> Edited by mondeoman on Tuesday 7th September 13:48
mondeoman said:
Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of these as our Government has chosen electronic persecution as the preferred method of maintaining safety on our roads, rather than invest in well trained traffic police.
Bollocks I believe. Maybe Streetcop can confirm but the reduction in numbers of traffic police started way before the introduction of speed cameras and the two are not linked. Another 'Speed Matters' lie?
As long as this is not exaggerating then I have every sympathy with you and would support a speed camera under these circumstances - there really is no excuse for exceeding a speed limit by such an amount.
However, Speed humps also make a very good deterrent as we found out when they were installed on a road near us that also suffered from excessive speeding.
David
However, Speed humps also make a very good deterrent as we found out when they were installed on a road near us that also suffered from excessive speeding.
David
spnracing said:
The road where I live is a 30mph limit and opposite a school.
In the evenings we regularly get all sorts of cars, white vans and motorbikes driving past at 80mph plus.
Maybe some of them are stolen by joyriders but lets face facts the vast vast majority are 'law obiding' motorists who would have to have slowed down if there was a camera.
Which is why local residents are campaigning for one.
Piccy Mate said:
As long as this is not exaggerating then I have every sympathy with you and would support a speed camera under these circumstances - there really is no excuse for exceeding a speed limit by such an amount.
However, Speed humps also make a very good deterrent as we found out when they were installed on a road near us that also suffered from excessive speeding.
David
Or maybe a sign that flashed up your speed and told you to slow down.
Oh, that doesn't raise money does it!
spnracing said:
Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of these as our Government has chosen electronic persecution as the preferred method of maintaining safety on our roads, rather than invest in well trained traffic police.
Bollocks I believe. Maybe Streetcop can confirm but the reduction in numbers of traffic police started way before the introduction of speed cameras and the two are not linked. Another 'Speed Matters' lie?
Ummm nope, not a lie - general police numbers have risen over the past decades, but front-line police numbers have fallen, with traffic police being the latest casualty. The choice was made to invest in gatsos, as they were seen as a money spinner rather than an expensive education - a ticket fourteen days after the offence is not going to have the same effect on a driver as a bollocking or summons from a real, live trafpol, costs less to enforce and generates a lot more income.
spnracing said:
mondeoman said:
Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of these as our Government has chosen electronic persecution as the preferred method of maintaining safety on our roads, rather than invest in well trained traffic police.
Bollocks I believe. Maybe Streetcop can confirm but the reduction in numbers of traffic police started way before the introduction of speed cameras and the two are not linked. Another 'Speed Matters' lie?
Just been reading a good book called The Abolition Of Liberty, it plots the history of the UK police/justice system and you are correct. Most of the reduction in police started way back in 1965 with a pilot scheme in Kirkby that grew into a governmental obsession. Great book, very 'Pistonheads'
Edited to say... As good as the book is, some parts are a bit too 'Daily Mail' for me
>> Edited by forever_driving on Tuesday 7th September 14:22
forever_driving said:
Edited to say... As good as the book is, some parts are a bit too 'Daily Mail' for me
>> Edited by forever_driving on Tuesday 7th September 14:22
Nothing wrong with the 'Daily Wail' gets right up B.Liar and Co's noses. Red Ken always writes into the letters page and it always upsets the BBC!:-)
David
>> Edited by Piccy Mate on Tuesday 7th September 15:04
moreymach said:
Saw this just now in reply to a previous contributors letter critisising scameras.
'David Wright complains that his holiday was spoiled by 'speed' cameras. We at the Support and Care After Road Death And Injury (SCARD) charity call them safety cameras. My son Steven was killed by a driver doing 80mph in a 30mph zone, so dont complain about safety cameras - youre invisible to a sefety camera if you stick to the speed limit.
More than 3500 people lost their lives on our roads last year, and most of these deaths were caused by excessive speed and so were avoidable.
F C Whittingham.'
Quick look at the SCARD website..
www.scard.org.uk/index.htm
..shows it to be a worthy and well meaning cause set up by some people who had obviously suffered a tragic loss. But why do these people jump on the Speed/Safety camera bandwagon ?? Discounting the utter rollocks of their last paragraph it seems their son was killed by a teenage driver of a stolen car !! very much doubt he'd have been saved by a stragegically placed gatso.
Anyone fancy writing a sympathetic but factual letter pointing them and the Daily Mail letter reading public in the right direction ?
Obviously not very good at teaching his son the Green Cross Code was he! I'd keep quiet if I was him.
spnracing said:Without knowing the road it is, of course, difficult to comment. However, while 80mph does indeed seem to be rather excessive for a 30mph zone, I notice that you refer to times when it would be rare for many (if any) people to be in the school. This, to me would seem to rather lessen the dangers posed.
The road where I live is a 30mph limit and opposite a school.
In the evenings we regularly get all sorts of cars, white vans and motorbikes driving past at 80mph plus...
Which is why local residents are campaigning for one.
If you read the aims page, www.scard.org.uk/aims/aims.htm it makes no mention of speed at all.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff