Safe Speed organisation name
Safe Speed organisation name
Author
Discussion

reAnimate

Original Poster:

418 posts

312 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
Brake.
Transport 2000.
Safe Speed.

I think that if the organisation "Safe Speed" was renamed with a less speed related title, "Safer Roads" or "The Road Safety Trust" then more of joe public would accept all the hard work done by Paul.

Just a thought ...

BliarOut

72,863 posts

269 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
reAnimate said:
Brake.
Transport 2000.
Safe Speed.

I think that if the organisation "Safe Speed" was renamed with a less speed related title, "Safer Roads" or "The Road Safety Trust" then more of joe public would accept all the hard work done by Paul.

Just a thought ...



I love that idea

Paul Smith from The Road Safety Trust said:
Speed cameras are making our roads less safe.
The general public said:
Really? Well in that case it must be true.

jaykaybi

3,494 posts

251 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
Not a bad shout IMHO - I've often thought that the name should be reconsidered to seem more instantly acceptable to the majority and the masses.
Safe Speed's a good name if you're already persuaded, but whilst there's still persuading (and motivating) to be done, a simple name change might be effective - the above example, for example, might well be more palatable in the mass media (ever cautious not to play down a good scare story).


safespeed

2,983 posts

304 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
The Safe Speed road safety campaign is highly controversial, and having a controversial or challenging name isn't really a bad thing.

We've also got one hell of a lot of reputation invested in the name at this point, and it would take large scale resources to move that reputation to a new name. It would also tend to give the impression that we have something to hide, which isn't good at all.

Anyway, I've scored loads of points with people who start off with a scathing 'how can speed be safe?' or some such.

Anyway, it's GREAT to associate 'speed' and 'safe' as a strong counterpoint to 'speed kills'.

Anyway, choosing a SAFE and appropriate SPEED is absolutely at the heart of any decent road safety policy.

Anyway, the name 'Safe Speed' strikes fear into the hearts of partnership weenies.

But if anyone wants to come up with £100,000 we'll consider a full professional rebranding.

Or if the name isn't too much of a problem, the odd £25 donation would be nice: www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

jaykaybi

3,494 posts

251 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
You're absolutely right Paul, and I personally like the name, the fact that it acts as the beginning of a thought process, and what it stands for and suggests. Equally, it would quite probably not be worth rebranding at this stage as you have become an established entity under it.
My point was just that many of the average, subservient masses would probably be more willing to listen to some body whose name cannot be construed as an indication of intent against that which they've been force fed by the government for the last few years...
It's just easier for them...bless...



Edited by jaykaybi on Wednesday 28th June 16:33

reAnimate

Original Poster:

418 posts

312 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
Indeed, I agree 100% that rebranding would cost a huge amount of £££ and the "Safe Speed" name is already (fairly) well known now.

And raising enough support and £££ just to change a name does not seem viable.

I still stand by my original post though.

Simon.

safespeed

2,983 posts

304 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
reAnimate said:
Indeed, I agree 100% that rebranding would cost a huge amount of £££ and the "Safe Speed" name is already (fairly) well known now.

And raising enough support and £££ just to change a name does not seem viable.

I still stand by my original post though.


But we still need to stand well clear of the wet road safety establishment...

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

247 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
I'd agree with the original post- Safe Speed instantly polarises people into support/ don't support, whereas a less provoking title would make it easier to get the desired messages through to previously unreceptive people.

PJS917

1,194 posts

278 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
Transport 2000.....Hmmn an organisation that is at least 6 years behind the times!!

apache

39,731 posts

314 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
Speed Matters? it's the juxtaposition of the words that do it, I spose the Sun page 3 surfer might dimly register a more obvious title, but WTFC about them

zumbruk

7,848 posts

290 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
PJS917 said:
Transport 2000.....Hmmn an organisation that is at least 6 years behind the times!!


More like 206 years. They should be called Transport 1822.

*Actually* they should be called the National Association of Public Transport Operators, because that's who they *really* are. Apart from a few suckers like Michael Palin, who can afford to be pompous about transport given that he's a multi-millionaire, lives in Central London and gets chauffered everywhere anyway.

tvr_nut

390 posts

304 months

Wednesday 28th June 2006
quotequote all
The name "Safe Speed" also raises the issue that there is a safe speed for the road conditions at the time - and being able to assess said conditions and apply them is what safe driving is (largely) about.

Sadly, too many believe that the safe speed is the speed limit - not only dangerous but inviting being fleeced by the scammers.

Interested to hear about Ctte of MP's siding with the motorist about parking fines/traffic wardens/private firms. Perhaps they will turn their attention to the safety camera partnerships next?

Edited by tvr_nut on Wednesday 28th June 18:08