Scamera poll

Nigel wrote: I don't really know Mark, but I'd try anything. We need to stop this rot of restricting us, lowering speed limits etc, because any results will only be temporary. We need to train people, all age groups, you included !

Point taken!! When?

Floody wrote: Nigel wrote: I don't really know Mark, but I'd try anything. We need to stop this rot of restricting us, lowering speed limits etc, because any results will only be temporary. We need to train people, all age groups, you included ! Point taken!! When?

Your too far North for me I think, but I can put you in touch with people, I can even arrange you a free, no obligation, assessment drive in your own area, just pm me your name, address, phone number, and I'll get someone locally to contact you.

Just got your last one ...pm on its way

I've just checked, he isn't online, let me know if I can pass your details to him, it may come to nothing, but who knows, I know he tries very hard to get the local youngsters involved.

Nigel wrote: I can't do that Mark, he's a serving traffic officer, IAM senior observer, and ROSPA examiner, so I can't go giving his details out, I can possibly get him to look on here, if you don't want him ringing you.

That is the sort of guy I need to take my tests with

I have tried to answer most of the points raised by others & forgive me if I missed any but I was in abit of a minority & may have missed some.

I haven't seen many answers given to the questions I raised in my original post of why if it is about money those thing happen

livvy wrote: Hi Newbie here with a first post so please be gentle, particularly as it looks like I might be a bit of a minority voice. I am really struggling to see how cameras are about making money , which seems to be the concensus view. If you want to make money from motorists surely slipping half a penny extra on a litre of fuel would be far easier, less aggravation, less polarising for the government & be guaranteed to raise far more money. With cameras there is no control over how much money you can raise, infact no guarantee of raising any at all (especially if nobody is speeding). They are painted yellow (not good if you want to hide them & make money). They have them listed on websites & where they are situated (not a good move if you want to make money) You can legally use GPS warning devices that warn you of their location (not a good move if you want to raise money) If you also look at what happens with tickets you get both a small fine & points. In giving points you are moving people towards disqualification. You are effectively getting a customer base & then banning them from being customers (not a good move for any business that wants to make money). Surely if it's about money they would make it no points & bigger fine wouldn't they ? What appears to have been lost here is that speeding is an offence & don't we expect that people who commit offences should be punished? I know someone will say that there are more serious offences & that's true there are, but surely that just deflects from the fact that speeding is still an offence & should be punished as the law has been broken. With regards to the speed limiter topic on the link that Nigel mentioned, surely if they are talking about speed limiters that will completely remove any chance of getting money from speeders on camera. Why invest all that money in cameras to catch speeders & then make them put adevice in the vehicle that stops them speeding if you want to make money ?  Doesn't that show that it is about reducing speeding ? If it is about revenue & we hate it, why do we supply them with it by speeding ?

spokey wrote: Why do people speed? They're in a hurry or they're not paying attention to the speedo or they have a fine car build to travel at 155MPH and no one else is around or ... There are a million reasons. Petty, venal, stupid, but no more so than the limits themselves. The interesting question for me is why is it that people who drive a lot feel that the speed limits are set at the wrong level. Another interesting question for me is why we can't have a tiered system for car drivers, since we already have a tiered system.

That still doesn't answer my questions that if it is about money why do the government do the things I said

I drive a lot & I don't think they are wrong.

I could accept a variable limit on motorways (a bit higher at times & lower at others dependent on conditions) but I wouldn't change any others. That said the last time a speed increase was looked at on motorways it was rejected on environmental reasons because of the extra noise it would create.

We have a tiered system built on class of vehicle currently, which is easy to measure, identify & monitor. It is not easy to do the same with ability of the driver. Who has the required experience to teach & test you to drive in excess of our limits ? Are you going to like what they tell you about your driving ? Where we start to get larger variables in the speeds between the vehicles on our roads this is where risk significantly increases, where we are travelling at broadly similar speeds things are safer. The increase in risk of potentially catastrophic mistakes is not only to those who are travelling faster, but those who are less experienced & travelling slower, because they will find it more diffciult to interact safely with the faster car. They will find it more difficult to judge the speed & distance of others well & safely.

As I've said before, speed may not be the major contributory factor in causing a collision, but the people who investigate collisions will tell you that it is both a contributing factor & it is the one factor that if reduced makes it much easier to avoid collisions. In short it is the easiest most cost effective tool to crack a difficult nut. It will also, as the easiest & most cost effective tool produce the fastest results in reducing collisions.

Increases in speed inherently carry an increase in risk because it removes the most valueable commodity with which we can use to rectify other mistakes. That commodity is time. Most people don't realise this until it is too late. They get away with their mistakes so often that they don't even see the danger in what they do, then when they make that mistake at speed in less favourable conditions they have a collision. Because of the speed that collision is more serious & how do they retort. "It wasn't my fault there was nothing I could do".

The limiting factor in driving successfully & always safely at speed is rarely the car, it is the driver.

When people look at speed limits they look at them in relation to themselves & themselves only they don't look at the broader picture. They just look at the impact on their lives not others. They also generally look at them in comparison to an over inflated opinion of their own driving ability. Most people are nowhere near as good as they think they are & the reason is that in driving people just don't know the difference between them & someone who genuinely is really good because they seldom see it.

The evidence of 3,500 killed a year & tens of thousands seriously injured is testimony to the fact that people are not as good as they think they are & that they struggle to remain safe in our current limits. Some will view speed limits simpy as a hinderence to their driving enjoyment, I view them as an attempt (maybe a crude attempt) to reduce the numbers of fatalities & collisions on our roads by giving people more time to avoid them. Some people are not willing to make a sacrifice to their fun in order to assist in that. I am & society places a demand that you must with penalty if you don't.

The fact you don't have a collision isn't likely to be indictative of most people being good either, it is more likely to do with luck.


Edited by livvy

spokey wrote: I don't think most people ARE good. I think most people are really bad drivers. I sometimes make mistakes, and I know I have some bad habits. But as long as I keep my eyes open for a camera, I'm likely to make it through my life with my bad habits uncorrected and even unchallenged. Fighting bad driving by speed limits is lazy thinking and does nothing to encourage people to fix their driving. Why is it that you don't find people moaning about laws that insist that you have to stop at traffic lights, even in the middle of the night when there is no-one about? Why is it that you don't find people moaning about laws prohibiting shoplifting or rape or murder? Because those things require intent, cause harm every time they occur and are natural crimes. Enforcement of a speed limit is something arbitrary and given the millions / billions of miles driven every year, criminalises something that is statistically less likely to kill you than a week in hospital having a carbuncle removed.

But four times more likely to kill you than murder or manslaughter.

I said earlier speed limits are preventative legislation, so of course the danger is not required to be seen to deal with it. It is an attempt to reduce the chances of it happening before it comes along, which has got to be better than waiting for the fatality & saying, "speed helped cause that, if we had intervened it may never have happened."

People moan because it affects them. Other criminals moan about the law not being fair on the crimes that they commit, all criminals want to deflect the view of authority away from their transgressions and towards others. "Look at him, he's doing....."

There is no point in a limit without the threat of enforcement & I think that even with a group that have a huge interest in the enjoyment of driving that they will accept the need for limits. But it will usually be from them "a limit for others but not for me"

Other people will of course moan, people drive too fast today & the Police should be prosecuting them. Just because they don't like spirited driving doesn't make their voice any less important & they can't be dismissed just because they don't come from a social group predisposed to the same values as you.

Don't think for a minute that I don't think that training & re-testing etc need to be addressed. I applaud those that do it & the government should do more on these matters, but that doesn't alter the fact that not enforcing speed limits is not the way to go about making our roads safer.

Edited by livvy

Hi livvy , promise to be gentle with you-- for the moment eh??----I know that some Scamera partners get very upset when their political doctrine is questioned.

Your answers and replies seem like all good advice on the surface, from the official party line.As WE all know, the Complete subject of Road safety is one of Politics--what are quick fixes at the most suitable time, with maximum show         &n bsp;         &n bsp;         &n bsp;         &n bsp;          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1858368,00.html when times are bad for Govt, with the minimum results for REAL improvements.

So much success are the Scameras that, on 5th November--as I am sure you know-a press release was issued regarding the Govt rethink on the whole subject.   seems that there ARE alternative ways to Improve the safety on the roads----What a surprise that with the 70 Billion ££,s paid by motorists Each year---NO EXPERTS thought of it.

AS you well know stats can prove anything, as stated earlier on this thread--and all the research carried out by the "Independant" BUT funded by Govt, dont really count for much by the public who funded them in the first place, and know how much massage was involved in getting the correct message for publication.

By the way---your comments on the 2004 Great Scamera success,s in a paper reduction of KSI, forgot to mention that the Ex Scamera-in-chief Brainstorms County of North Wales ,showed a 20+% Increase in KSI--Why was that.

 Checkout www.abd.org.uk and www.safespeed.org.uk , it may give you a more enlightened and balanced view of WHY Drivers, do not trust the Govt-Safety partnerships which include the Police. 

 

 

Edited by Nigel

livvy you wrote "This is not new to us. People have actually been prosecuted in this country for speeding for over 100 years" ??????

you gotta be kidding me here.

i get all my evidence from as many places as possible before i put them on here.

you it seems to me are just too set in your view to see the bigger picture, no insult intended.
my driving has been overseen by many people more qualified to judge it that the bloody government are.
i have always driven to conditions and always do.
this is never to a speed limit , ime not saying i speed or dont speed but there is a time and place for everything in life regarless of what anyone says.
speed is not the be all and end all of our problems.
and my statment when i said about who is safer nigel doing 80 on a motorway etc etc was a for instance not a fact but you can and did not see this and then do not understand.
this topic just goes round in circles and is getting riddiculas .