Slower-speeds.com

[P*Ting]

I was referred to their site by another post in this forum. Decided that with such people a simple letter begging them to leave us alone is unlikely to work. Besides which I happen to agree with some uses of speed cameras.

The result of my frustrations, beliefs and a pretty stressful week are all rolled up in the letter below, which I think I'll send to some other places, most notably Transport 2000 and my MP.

Let me know what you think, from what I've read on here there are some of you who agree with what I'm saying, but I'm almost more interested to hear from anyone who disagrees...

All critisims are very welcome as they'll allow me to prepare a more effective reply.

Please note that I have used the MS-word 'numpty friendly' option for the final draft to make sure they don't just bin it.

Dear sir,

Firstly, allow me to assure you that I am not opposed to speed cameras, and that this message is in no way intended to detract from the safety campaigns that your organisation promotes. I would however like to make a few points about the overall speeding debate, which you may or may not wish to take on board.


I quote from your site;

"The table below shows that our urban roads are disproportionately dangerous for vulnerable road users."

I agree that this is true, so why does your organisation accept the placement of so many cameras on dual carrigeways and motorways? May I remind you that these are, according to official figures, the safest roads in the country? They are also the roads where a pedestrian/cyclist is least likely to be, hence a reduction in vehicle speeds of 4.2 mph (which I have taken from your site- quote below) is unlikely to have significant safety benefits.

"A 1996 Home Office study found that cameras used in 10 police force areas had reduced crashes by 28% and speeds by an average 4.2mph per site."

In other words, these locations do generate large amounts of revenue, but do not give the maximum benefit to safety that a camera is capable of delivering.


My next example is rather severe, but I feel it is the best way to make my point.

A car hitting a pedestrian at 140 miles per hour will not make them twice as dead a car hitting that same person at 70 miles per hour. In both cases the pedestrian will undoubtedly die. They probably would not survive even a crash at 50miles per hour. Overall it is unlikely that motorway limits can be reduced to such and extent as to eliminate speed related deaths.

In the same way, a head on crash between two cars at 55mph on a rural 'A-road' will not be significantly less likely to cause death than the same impact at 60 mph.

Again, it is unlikely that blanket speed limits will solve this problem.

What I am trying to say, is that cameras, whilst good at what they do, CANNOT tackle the causes of most accidents. Would it not be better, then to position them where they are most likely to prevent accidents?

Surely your organisation should be campaigning for more cameras in urban areas, near schools, parks, care homes and high streets? Places where vulnerable road users are likely to come into contact with cars.

I have felt for a long time that cameras beside motorways are for revenue and those in towns are for safety. I view this as deeply cynical by transport planners.

I would be very greatful if your organisation would give some thought to my views, and ideally apply pressure for the re-distribution of cameras away from motorways and into towns where they can do maximum work for everyone's safety.

Thanks for taking time to read this, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Regards,
P*Ting

In other words, get the damn things out of our way...

[Mr2Mike]

A good letter. It'd be nice to think that they'd give you a reply, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Still heard nothing from an email I wrote to them about a week ago, expressing very simmilar sentiments.

[mybrainhurts]

Agree with your message, but you don't understand the anti brigade.

They fall into three categories.

1 Commercially sponsored to get us out of our cars and onto buses/trains by making motoring as miserable as possible. Example...Transport 2000.

2 The old hard left that thrives on control.....nay, is addicted to it. Example.....any green organisation you care to mention.

3 Bloody minded, misearble sods who can't survive unless everyone else is as miserable as them.

Unfortunately, rational letters mean nothing to them, but it's good to let them know they have opposition.

That means you won't be ing in the wind, so let it rip.....!!

[Alan420]

mybrainhurts said: Agree with your message, but you don't understand the anti brigade.

Oh I do, that's why I've tried to present an utterly reasonable argument, just to make it all the more difficult for them to reply. I'd have much preffered to really vent steam at them, but they'd just have fun quoting the number of toddlers killed on the A1M yesterday.

I want to strip away their arguments a bit at a time. Starting with 'safety not revenue' and taking it from there. I've sent similar versions to the Transport Secretary and Transport 2000. If I get any repiles (doubtful) I'll post them here.

Edited to add I'm P*Ting, but as I'm hoping to start attending PH meets soon I thought I'd change to a less stupid nickname. It was ok having a dodgy sounding nickname when this was just another internet forum, but if I'm actually going to meet some of the people on here...

>> Edited by Alan420 on Monday 24th March 13:19

[JohnL]

Try your MP and councillor as well.

www.faxyourmp.com

[Alan420]

Keep meaning to, but I'm not exactly sure what my situation is. I'm a student at uni, but still registered at home for some things, so who do I fax?

[regmolehusband]

I think you should suggest they be removed not only from motorways but also from trunk roads where the same argument applies.

[Alan420]

Yeah, I'm trying to imply that they should be relocated into pedestrian dense areas to the exclusion of all else. In my opinion that's the only way they can truly be considered to be safety cameras.