Reason for SPECS
Discussion
www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=66056&command=displayContent&sourceNode=65583&contentPK=2503499
Tragic storey but is speed the real culprit here.
The guy was over the drink drive limit which must lower reaction times.
The particular road is quite long and a major feed to the M1 motorway but dosnt have many 30 limit signs. I use it quite a lot and am never sure if its a 30 or 40 as it has 4 lanes.
Cant wait for the blanket covering of Nottingham with speed cameras.
Tragic storey but is speed the real culprit here.
The guy was over the drink drive limit which must lower reaction times.
The particular road is quite long and a major feed to the M1 motorway but dosnt have many 30 limit signs. I use it quite a lot and am never sure if its a 30 or 40 as it has 4 lanes.
Cant wait for the blanket covering of Nottingham with speed cameras.
Tragic blah blah blah. Sorry the kid died & all, but it's nothing more than emotional bullshit.
It says so right there! The guy was over the drink drive limit - were that not the case, he'd probably not have hit the kid!
And It's easy to be Pro-Specs when you're a biker, who can't be caught by it.
It's also easy to be sucked in by this emotional blackmail of branding people who break the speed limit as child killers. If your brain is stuck in neutral.
It's bullshit.
It says so right there! The guy was over the drink drive limit - were that not the case, he'd probably not have hit the kid!
And It's easy to be Pro-Specs when you're a biker, who can't be caught by it.
It's also easy to be sucked in by this emotional blackmail of branding people who break the speed limit as child killers. If your brain is stuck in neutral.
It's bullshit.
quote:Well, your topic is entitled "Reason for Specs" and the closing line of your post was "Cant wait for the blanket covering of Nottingham with speed cameras"quote:Who said anything about being pro SPECS.
And It's easy to be Pro-Specs when you're a biker, who can't be caught by it.
So excuse me for jumping to conclusions.
Speed doesn't kill - Morons kill!
This is a tragic case and I feel sorry for the family involved. But this is the sort of bad reporting that is putting across a completely wrong message. This quote says it all.
Sergeant Paul Preston, traffic safety camera project officer, said: "I got a letter the other day from a man who claimed that 'speed doesn't kill'.
"Hopefully this letter will educate people that is not the case."
The guy was over the limit and the circumstances of the accident are not explained. I am completely fed up will this "SPEED KILLS" message. We need to direct this publicity money into better driver and pedestrian traing.
Sergeant Paul Preston, traffic safety camera project officer, said: "I got a letter the other day from a man who claimed that 'speed doesn't kill'.
"Hopefully this letter will educate people that is not the case."
The guy was over the limit and the circumstances of the accident are not explained. I am completely fed up will this "SPEED KILLS" message. We need to direct this publicity money into better driver and pedestrian traing.
quote:Far from it - this nonsense amounts to cynical exploitation and nothing more. What makes it worse is the blessing the childs parents have given to the scheme. Okay - they're emotionally screwed by losing their child. That, IMO, makes it all the more digusting that the authorities have availed them of the opportunity to endorse this scheme.
Call me a heartless bastard by what a pile emotional slop....
Chief Constable Steve Green said: "I think this will bring home to people the potential consequences of speeding.”
What???????????? So Drink Driving is less important to the police than speeding?
Surely a misquote by an inept reporter, maybe what he actually said was "I think this will bring home to people the potential consequences of drink driving.”
Oh sorry, I forgot, catching drink drivers requires police manpower and doesn’t produce a net profit for Tony. But speeders are very profitable, so lets blame all accidents on speed, even the ones caused by drunk drivers (and potentially by negligent pedestrians?). That way we can justify loads more cameras and return an even better profit for Tony and his chums to spend on all Prescott’s houses and cars.
What a load of Cr@p.
What???????????? So Drink Driving is less important to the police than speeding?
Surely a misquote by an inept reporter, maybe what he actually said was "I think this will bring home to people the potential consequences of drink driving.”
Oh sorry, I forgot, catching drink drivers requires police manpower and doesn’t produce a net profit for Tony. But speeders are very profitable, so lets blame all accidents on speed, even the ones caused by drunk drivers (and potentially by negligent pedestrians?). That way we can justify loads more cameras and return an even better profit for Tony and his chums to spend on all Prescott’s houses and cars.
What a load of Cr@p.
quote:
Sergeant Paul Preston, traffic safety camera project officer, said: "I got a letter the other day from a man who claimed that 'speed doesn't kill'.
That was me
, the letter was a bit more in detail than that tho'. I went on to explian that the speed camera's are not to catch the real criminals on the road i.e. Driving without due care and attention, Drunk Drivers, Driving without insurance, and so on. if you want to see the letter i'll e-mail it to you. I have to warn you though, I done it on when i was having an incredably bad day
, so the aggressiveness is a bit much, there are responses from the W@nkers aswell.I totally agree with the 'cynical exploitation' and emotional blackmail comments. May be Sergeant Paul Preston actually believes that he is doing some good by hijacking a flawed headline story and quoting the usual fictitious statistics.
“Since the cameras were introduced there has been a 54% reduction in those killed or seriously injured at those sites. The revenue from the ensuing speeding fines goes back into the road safety program.”
Even the council responsible for installing these cameras has acknowledged that they have been a resounding failure, albeit and with no regard for road safety, because they ‘failed to generate the projected revenue’. It has also been shown there has been no overall effect on road safety.
The reality is that he is preaching to the converted and worse than that. By perpetuating the ‘speed kills’ nonsense (Do a search for ‘Height Kills’ and for the real results of the governments own survey results showing the major influences on road deaths, 34 ish % inattention, 33ish % poor driver skills vs 4% for speed) he is diverting attention and effort away the real causes. Whilst the government is collecting its ‘extra taxes’ and safety campaigners congratulate themselves on chastising those naughty motorists, people are dying because of the real causes. In my book that is a far greater crime.
“Since the cameras were introduced there has been a 54% reduction in those killed or seriously injured at those sites. The revenue from the ensuing speeding fines goes back into the road safety program.”
Even the council responsible for installing these cameras has acknowledged that they have been a resounding failure, albeit and with no regard for road safety, because they ‘failed to generate the projected revenue’. It has also been shown there has been no overall effect on road safety.
The reality is that he is preaching to the converted and worse than that. By perpetuating the ‘speed kills’ nonsense (Do a search for ‘Height Kills’ and for the real results of the governments own survey results showing the major influences on road deaths, 34 ish % inattention, 33ish % poor driver skills vs 4% for speed) he is diverting attention and effort away the real causes. Whilst the government is collecting its ‘extra taxes’ and safety campaigners congratulate themselves on chastising those naughty motorists, people are dying because of the real causes. In my book that is a far greater crime.
Sorry for the long post - I had a spare few minutes so sent in this letter to the feedback option on the website .....
Dear Sir/madam
I am writing in response to your article highlighting the tragic death of Christopher Maxwell - killed - according to your article by a "speeding" driver.
This is possibly one of the most sentimental and one sided pieces of journalism I have come across in quite some time. It does not examine all the sides to this story, nor to it contribute anything to genuine road safety - something that I do care about.
As usual anyone who objects to speed cameras is being subliminally linked to being a child killer. I quote from your article
Sergeant Paul Preston, traffic safety camera project officer, said: "I got a letter the other day from a man who claimed that 'speed doesn't kill'.
Well Sergeant, that man was correct, inattentive road use kills people, not speed. The article supplies no information on whether the child was supervised crossing the road, was he crossing at a recognised and safe place ? What sort of road safety skills did the child display ?
Instead, the article chooses to highlight the dangerous speed of the car, well naturally the driver IS breaking the law and should not be speeding, however as your article quotes Chief Constable Steve Green said: "I think this will bring home to people the potential consequences of speeding.
So this is the police highlighting the speed issue, NOT the fact the driver was over the limit ! This is madness, this is a drunk driving incident - tragic none the less but we are supposed to follow the logic - it was speed that killed not the fact that the driver was drunk and therefore incapable of taking any kind of meaningful avoiding action or indeed of controlling the his car.
Why does the headline not scream " DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE"
Because the Police and the media are trying to push a simplistic message that speed kills ... well this is rubbish. It is the inappropriate use of the road by poorly trained people that kills.
Road safety campaigns used to inform and educate, now the seek to apportion blame.
Why no Motorway training for learner drivers, why no five year road test, why no incentive to learn advanced car control, why not have better segregation between road users - these would be important contributions to road safety.
Well I think I may have an inkling why these aren't promoted, they don't raise revenue - they are a cost. The hypothecation scheme for fines is an absolute red herring - it doesn't get spent on road safety - it gets spent on more cameras - these contribute nothing to improving driving skills and wider road safety amongst pedestrians and cyclists.
I hope you have the courage to print a counter argument, there is even evidence that the simplistic statistics you quote are somewhat suspicious and in other parts of the country road deaths have actually increased. Until you can get road user standards raised you will not deliver a lower accident record, which is something I would fully support.
But articles like this with a simplistic tone and using emotive language really have no place in this debate. My sympathies go out to the family for their loss, and I welcome the contribution they are making , but I think education or a foundation to improve skills is a better way forward.
Dear Sir/madam
I am writing in response to your article highlighting the tragic death of Christopher Maxwell - killed - according to your article by a "speeding" driver.
This is possibly one of the most sentimental and one sided pieces of journalism I have come across in quite some time. It does not examine all the sides to this story, nor to it contribute anything to genuine road safety - something that I do care about.
As usual anyone who objects to speed cameras is being subliminally linked to being a child killer. I quote from your article
Sergeant Paul Preston, traffic safety camera project officer, said: "I got a letter the other day from a man who claimed that 'speed doesn't kill'.
Well Sergeant, that man was correct, inattentive road use kills people, not speed. The article supplies no information on whether the child was supervised crossing the road, was he crossing at a recognised and safe place ? What sort of road safety skills did the child display ?
Instead, the article chooses to highlight the dangerous speed of the car, well naturally the driver IS breaking the law and should not be speeding, however as your article quotes Chief Constable Steve Green said: "I think this will bring home to people the potential consequences of speeding.
So this is the police highlighting the speed issue, NOT the fact the driver was over the limit ! This is madness, this is a drunk driving incident - tragic none the less but we are supposed to follow the logic - it was speed that killed not the fact that the driver was drunk and therefore incapable of taking any kind of meaningful avoiding action or indeed of controlling the his car.
Why does the headline not scream " DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE"
Because the Police and the media are trying to push a simplistic message that speed kills ... well this is rubbish. It is the inappropriate use of the road by poorly trained people that kills.
Road safety campaigns used to inform and educate, now the seek to apportion blame.
Why no Motorway training for learner drivers, why no five year road test, why no incentive to learn advanced car control, why not have better segregation between road users - these would be important contributions to road safety.
Well I think I may have an inkling why these aren't promoted, they don't raise revenue - they are a cost. The hypothecation scheme for fines is an absolute red herring - it doesn't get spent on road safety - it gets spent on more cameras - these contribute nothing to improving driving skills and wider road safety amongst pedestrians and cyclists.
I hope you have the courage to print a counter argument, there is even evidence that the simplistic statistics you quote are somewhat suspicious and in other parts of the country road deaths have actually increased. Until you can get road user standards raised you will not deliver a lower accident record, which is something I would fully support.
But articles like this with a simplistic tone and using emotive language really have no place in this debate. My sympathies go out to the family for their loss, and I welcome the contribution they are making , but I think education or a foundation to improve skills is a better way forward.
I hate hate hate the 'SPEED KILLS' crap. Umm so why am I not dead then? or have killed any one? ive broken the posted speed limit (when I think it is appropriate & safe to do so) for many years. I mean what do these dimwits realy think? that the second you go 1 mph over the number painted on a sign that you will kill someone?? Surely they must see the time, place coupled to the driver's experience and the machinery are more appropriate for the velocity that the number on a sign. So while 3am on a deserted motorway 'may' be fine for a treble figure blast but equally when its pissing down with rain and crowded as hell 50mph on the same bit of road could be very stupid & dangerous as hell.
So why not change the line to 'INAPROPRIATE SPEED KILLS'?
I can't see anyone with half a brain cell argueing against that line. As fans of fast machinery we already know that but the problem is how to we convince the bloody speed kills lot??
So why not change the line to 'INAPROPRIATE SPEED KILLS'?
I can't see anyone with half a brain cell argueing against that line. As fans of fast machinery we already know that but the problem is how to we convince the bloody speed kills lot??
I would like to re educate some of these policemen with the aid of a baseball bat. How dare our employees spew this sentimental and spurious crap out in the press. SO someone died, so what shit happens I am sick of the media driving up mass hysteria over merely tragic deaths. All during last weekend the service for those 2 kids murdered by a lack of care in the community. Now we are ramping up the Diana story all over again. More sodding radio four reporters "And for the laaaast time before we plant (insert name here) (describe trivial event here) repeat until entire population wailing like an air raid siren" What a load of shite.
Simplistic Message?
I read the term "Simplistic Message" earlier in the thread....
Last night at 11.00pm, every traffic information message board on the M25 displayed the same "Simplistic Message": -
"THINK DON'T EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT."
A patronising useless message that was a waste of electricity
What is the point...I am begining to think there is a national, government backed conspiracy against motorists.
I read the term "Simplistic Message" earlier in the thread....
Last night at 11.00pm, every traffic information message board on the M25 displayed the same "Simplistic Message": -
"THINK DON'T EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT."
A patronising useless message that was a waste of electricity
What is the point...I am begining to think there is a national, government backed conspiracy against motorists.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff