What's annoying me right now...

[safespeed]

Hi All,

I remember my reaction when speed cameras for the UK were first talked about in about 1989. Having taken a serious interest in driving over the previous decade it was immediately obvious to me that speed cameras were a bad road safety idea. I didn't need to carry out a scientific study. I didn't need to install them experimentally. I didn't even need to ask the audience.

And here we are 15 years later. The whole sorry idea is still being played out and the price has been paid in blood, misery and countless millions of pounds.

Why oh why didn't they just ask a few road driving experts in the first place? Why oh why do the politicians and the "researchers" think they know enough about driving to impose their stupid ideas on the rest of us?

Grrrrr!

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[hertsbiker]

...errr, 'cos of the money? surely not..

[nonegreen]

Ah well, they never ask bums. You have to have lots of letters after your name like Begg Professor David Begg (Public enemy No 1) PHd no driving license and completely off his trolley. In dire need of a before someone decides to interpret this as a death threat

[Kurgis]

The human body is designed to run at a maximum of around 10 mph (possibly not that fast - can't remember the athletics I was watching). Quite simply our bodies are only designed to withstand impacts at that speed without serious injury.

The Car..

Designed to travel at anywhere from 0 to 250mph - which is why we have roads, and pedestrians have footpaths.

It isn't rocket science to realise when the 2 meet - something bad is going to happen, or 2 cars at any speed for that matter. Some little ..person... has decided that by reducing speed - you will reduce the chance of death in an accident - unfortunately forgetting that life isn't as simple as that - there are a myriad of ways cars (and drivers) have accidents, drunken pedestrians stumbling into the street, kids zipping out of alleyways on cycles and motorcyclists just giving it "the extra" round a bend.

Speed plays a factor in severity of accidents - but has little bearing on whether the accident would of taken place in the first instance.

We have moved from a nation trying to prevent accidents - to a nation trying to reduce the severity - a fundamental flaw.

If there was no accident/crash - speed would not matter..

Not the best argument in the world - but how I see it at the moment - sorry for the ramble.

[streaky]

nonegreen said:

Ah well, they never ask bums. You have to have lots of letters after your name like Begg Professor David Begg (Public enemy No 1) PHd no driving license and completely off his trolley. In dire need of a white hot poker up his jacksi. Bags me work the forge please.

Or Professor Meadows - another over qualified, ego-maniac who has caused so much distress to families that there should be a special part of Hades set aside for him - Streaky (a parent of grown-up kids)

[mrmaggit]

streaky said:

nonegreen said: Ah well, they never ask bums. You have to have lots of letters after your name like Begg Professor David Begg (Public enemy No 1) PHd no driving license and completely off his trolley. In dire need of a white hot poker up his jacksi. Bags me work the forge please. Or Professor Meadows - another over qualified, ego-maniac who has caused so much distress to families that there should be a special part of Hades set aside for him - Streaky (a parent of grown-up kids)

Intellectual Idiots, I call them. All the qualifications in the world to have absolutely no idea on what to do.

[safespeed]

nonegreen said:

Ah well, they never ask bums.

Oi! Who you calling a bum?

[safespeed]

Kurgis said:

It isn't rocket science to realise when the 2 meet - something bad is going to happen, or 2 cars at any speed for that matter. Some little ..person... has decided that by reducing speed - you will reduce the chance of death in an accident - unfortunately forgetting that life isn't as simple as that...

Exactly. It's far more complex. We're subjected to a conspiracy of stupidity.

They think accidents are rooted in physics. But the physics doesn't get a chance to take over until it has all gone wrong and an accident is inevitable. Accidents are rooted in psychology. How else could the average driver go 7 years between accidents? The physics is the same day after accident-free day.

Kurgis said:

Speed plays a factor in severity of accidents - but has little bearing on whether the accident would of taken place in the first instance.

Impact speed certainly does. But see above. Impact speed and accident severity are rooted in psychology too. The contribution to accident severity of free travelling speed is absolutely tiny compared with the contribution of road user response.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[CraigAlsop]

Kurgis has got it right on the button I reckon...

[nonegreen]

safespeed said:

nonegreen said: Ah well, they never ask bums. Oi! Who you calling a bum?

Certainly not you. You have my full support and respect. I was in fact alluding the fact that local unqualified people often have the solutions to problems based on thorough understanding gained from years of local know how. This is often trashed by total wits like Begg et al who impose stupidity. Hence since Livingstone became Mayor Journey times in London have increased. (Is that Better )

[wrinkly]

Technological advances in vehicles also have a lot to answer for. Although cars are far, far safer and reliable nowadays - they are also capable of performance that is now outside of the capabilities of many/most drivers. The car may have advanced, but IMHO, driving skills have not - and may even have deteriorated. With the advent of ABS, traction control and many, many other improvements, much of the actual skill and expertise necessary to drive safely is actually removed from the driver, and also gives a false sense of security to the point that the car, not the driver, is in control. This reliance on the vehicle and its capabilities leads many drivers to be totally unaware of their own capabilities and inadequacies. In other words (again, IMHO of course) it cannot and never will be speed as such that kills, but almost without exception, lack of driver skill, awareness and ability.

[Kurgis]

Spot on wrinkly - Paul is right it isn't a simple subject - and one that certainly a simple camera isn't going to solve..

[safespeed]

wrinkly said:

Technological advances in vehicles also have a lot to answer for. Although cars are far, far safer and reliable nowadays - they are also capable of performance that is now outside of the capabilities of many/most drivers.

Let me say first that I fully agree with your conclusions.

But we must be careful about blaming vehicle improvements for driver inadequacies.

Sometimes it's been said that modern cars are quiet and smooth and that leads drivers to exceed safe speeds. If it were true the quietest and smoothest cars would be the most involved in excessive speed accidents. But that's not the case - many low powered small cars are involved in excessive speed accident.

The same follows for other technical advances. In general there's no difference in crash rates between advanced vehicles and more modest metal. Occasionally they might find a marginally elevated accident risk in a car with technical safety equipment. (Two studies found elevated accident risks in ABS equipped vehicles.)

So as a general rule we cannot blame driver failings on technical advances. The drivers themselves (and the cultural influences that set the standards of drivers) must take full responsibility for their failings.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[Tafia]

safespeed said:

wrinkly said: Technological advances in vehicles also have a lot to answer for. Although cars are far, far safer and reliable nowadays - they are also capable of performance that is now outside of the capabilities of many/most drivers. Let me say first that I fully agree with your conclusions. But we must be careful about blaming vehicle improvements for driver inadequacies. Sometimes it's been said that modern cars are quiet and smooth and that leads drivers to exceed safe speeds. If it were true the quietest and smoothest cars would be the most involved in excessive speed accidents. But that's not the case - many low powered small cars are involved in excessive speed accident. The same follows for other technical advances. In general there's no difference in crash rates between advanced vehicles and more modest metal. Occasionally they might find a marginally elevated accident risk in a car with technical safety equipment. (Two studies found elevated accident risks in ABS equipped vehicles.) So as a general rule we cannot blame driver failings on technical advances. The drivers themselves (and the cultural influences that set the standards of drivers) must take full responsibility for their failings. Best Regards, Paul Smith Safe Speed www.safespeed.org.uk

Hola Paul,

And of course we are told that 85% of accidents involving pedestrians are caused by the pedestrian.

[safespeed]

Tafia said:

safespeed said: So as a general rule we cannot blame driver failings on technical advances. The drivers themselves (and the cultural influences that set the standards of drivers) must take full responsibility for their failings. And of course we are told that 85% of accidents involving pedestrians are caused by the pedestrian.

Absolutely, which is why I wrote: "The drivers themselves ... must take full responsibility for their failings.

Equally pedestrians must take full responsibility for their failings too.

Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk

[flooritforever]

safespeed said:

The drivers themselves (and the cultural influences that set the standards of drivers) must take full responsibility for their failings. Best Regards, Paul Smith Safe Speed www.safespeed.org.uk

Trouble is, the so called 'safety' cameras etc are, according to the scamera partnership, supposed to address the drivers worst failing i.e speeding. But as we all know, they don't work.

Only the other day, I was driving to work following some guy who clearly didn't know the road. We came to one of the camera's along the route, and he only spotted it at the last minute and panic braked. I had left a reasonable distance, so only had to brake hard, but it still made me drop my razor into my lap, spilling my cornflakes all over my crossword!

Of course the above is a joke, but the camera wouldn't have picked me up even if I had been engaged in such an activity, because I wasn't speeding. So many highly dangerous driving practices, much more dangerous than speeding, go unchecked because of this.

[puggit]

At the moment we have to agree with the fact that cameras en-masse haven't been around long enough for the true stats to bear out.

We all know the short term effects of cameras on the road are nothing, zero, zilch - in terms of deaths.

The scameraships are, at the moment, able to deflect this by using their maniputable statistics of KSIs. BUT - how long can this last? The next step will be KSMIs (M for minor)...then what?

a) more cameras in an attempt to slow traffic down
b) The truth will out
c) Heavier congestion to slow traffic down to create less accidents.

I agree that the scameraships are, by themselves, unable to create the congestion needed - but as we've seen in London the local authority are. Apart from in North Wales I believe its the local authorities who are mainly driving the scameraships.

So - I propose a) and c) will be the paths followed

[Flat in Fifth]

puggit said:

Apart from in North Wales I believe its the local authorities who are mainly driving the scameraships.

Actually this is so near the truth. Article in the local paper about a problem road which has indeed seen a number of serious accidents. Quite sensible stuff being spoken by police, county road safety officer and the highway dept, basically saying stuff along the lines said in PH and elsewhere everyday.

Of course Mr Local Numpty Councillor has to have his picture and contribrute his 2p. This more or less consists of "b*gger what everyone else's opinion is, I want a 50 limit and a camera."

It is the idiot politicians at both national and local levels that are the real problem. Personal opinion is that Richard (Head) Brainstorm is a politician and not a chief police officer.

[XM5ER]

nonegreen said:

Ah well, they never ask bums. You have to have lots of letters after your name like Begg Professor David Begg (Public enemy No 1) PHd no driving license and completely off his trolley. In dire need of a before someone decides to interpret this as a death threat

Just to correct a few points here.

"Professor" David Begg has a second class honours in economic something or other from a low grade Polytechnic. He is a Professor of a department of 4 (including secretaries) which provides no tuition courses.

[puggit]

And one day - when I have time - I'm going to nail him!

Note for Brake and other lurkers - this is in a professional sense, I have no inclination to hire a hitman or have sexual contact