RE: Hide the Cameras Says Another Top Cop
Monday 18th November 2002
Hide the Cameras Says Another Top Cop
Thames Valley Cop wants everyone to slow down
Discussion
Why can't they just start educating bloody motorists? I was nearly caught up in 3 shunts last night and none of them had anything to do with speed. Total lack of observation and awareness, yes, but not speed. I had a grandstand view of dithering idiots at it was quite scary.
Speed may kill, but just travelling at/below the speed limit does not make you a good driver. This is propaganda at its worst - Goebels (sp?) would be proud of these w@nkers.
(I know this is just a repeat of so much that others have put far more eloquently than I, but it makes me bloody angry.)
Speed may kill, but just travelling at/below the speed limit does not make you a good driver. This is propaganda at its worst - Goebels (sp?) would be proud of these w@nkers.
(I know this is just a repeat of so much that others have put far more eloquently than I, but it makes me bloody angry.)
GGGGRRRRRR!!!!!
"there are 10 million speeding offences a year"
EXACTLY !! that means that there must be at least 9 million people speeding that don't cause accidents (depending on how many accidents there are.. I guessed 1 million).
well speeding must be really dangerous if 9 million can do it without hurting a fly !!!!
GGGRRRRR!!!! AGAIN!
Piers
"there are 10 million speeding offences a year"
EXACTLY !! that means that there must be at least 9 million people speeding that don't cause accidents (depending on how many accidents there are.. I guessed 1 million).
well speeding must be really dangerous if 9 million can do it without hurting a fly !!!!
GGGRRRRR!!!! AGAIN!
Piers
I'd hope that there were less than 1 M accidents a year! Going by your figures, if we assume that all accidents are caused by speeding then the chances of a speeder having an accident are 1 in 10!
Pierscoe1 said:
"there are 10 million speeding offences a year"
EXACTLY !! that means that there must be at least 9 million people speeding that don't cause accidents (depending on how many accidents there are.. I guessed 1 million).
Obviously this isn't true (I hope!), but I thought I'd play devil's advocate.
Dan
I seem to remember reading (last week) that the ten million figure was daily not yearly, and I do believe that is about right, nearly everybody speeds at some point, intentionally or unintentionally, every time they drive. Therefore the annual figure is 10 million x 365 = 3.65 billion occurrences a year, hardly goes to show that speeding causes accidents does it?
intersting
Be a part of the vociferous minority ... here are all the email addresses you need to object to these.
www.roadsafetysoutheast.org.uk/contacts.html
Be a part of the vociferous minority ... here are all the email addresses you need to object to these.
www.roadsafetysoutheast.org.uk/contacts.html
'Vociferous minority' - sorry, but putting motorists on the same level as the BNP isn't clever. Everyone who knows anything about driving knows those things are, on the whole, a useless waste of taxpayer's money, but unfortunately this government runs Absolutely Everything on statistics, so they need these things to be able to say 'statistics show...' Educating motorists would result in less statistics to play with, so no 'performance targets' requiring glossy presentation and more taxpayer's money. If they were really bothered about improving road safety, they would rationalise 'accidents' and treat them on an incident-by-incident basis. 
The thing is they promote cameras as 'safety devices' and definately not 'revenue devices' the simple fact of the matter is people do slow down when they see a camera. now if they were placed at 'accident blackspots' or outside schools like they are supposed to then people would give them far more respectand they would be doing their job: catching DANGEROUS drivers.
The hypocracy of the those who promote the cameras (as we all know EVERY one does it at some time) and the ill placement of such devices (hidden behind signs, on dual carriage ways with artificially lowered speed limits, the M25, A45 etc etc) mean people do respect them and thats why we're having this conversation.
so putting up "signs everywhere" is the answer is it??
lack of education in the governing bodies is more of a problem i think!! if there were signs everywhere with hidden cameras NO-ONE would pay them any attention and the police and government would make a killing!! Genius!
the difference between people who speed outside schools etc and people like us is that we choose good conditions and appropriate roads - just where they like to put their cameras!!!
The hypocracy of the those who promote the cameras (as we all know EVERY one does it at some time) and the ill placement of such devices (hidden behind signs, on dual carriage ways with artificially lowered speed limits, the M25, A45 etc etc) mean people do respect them and thats why we're having this conversation.
so putting up "signs everywhere" is the answer is it??
lack of education in the governing bodies is more of a problem i think!! if there were signs everywhere with hidden cameras NO-ONE would pay them any attention and the police and government would make a killing!! Genius!
the difference between people who speed outside schools etc and people like us is that we choose good conditions and appropriate roads - just where they like to put their cameras!!!
Just posted following letter to all the listed e-mails sites for you guys!
Dear Sir or Madame,
Due to the totally spurious statistics which are being bandied about, especially by so-called safety groups, I would like to protest your use and propagation of such deliberate political lies and your continued efforts to dumb down the British public with your propaganda.
Instead of encouraging driver education, you are using a typically political lie that “Speed kills!” This is blatantly untrue! However “Inappropriate speed kills” is true!
Fact is, that less than 7% of ALL accidents in GB have speed as a causal factor. These are the governments own figures. No matter how much political spin is put on this, these figures remain a fact.
No one I know of has any problem with inappropriate speed, which may well be within a 30mph limit at a school where a speed of 15mph may well be totally irresponsible. But there are no road tax cameras near such schools are there? No, these are errected instead on perfectly straight pieces of road, with no history of accidents whatsoever.
The mothers on the school run who drive at irresponsible speeds, but perhaps within a 30mph limit, talking on the phone, doing their make-up, with unbelted children in their £40000 4x4 desert-capable SUVs are never stopped! Why not? Because the Traffic Police are no longer there!
These are, using your own statistics, a major percentage of all accidents i.e. the 95% of ALL accidents that take place within built-up areas.
The deliberate use of road tax cameras or as I prefer to call them “electronic highwaymen” are an insult to the intelligence of any good driver, and lead, as it has done in many civilised parts of the world like British Columbia, to an absolute disrespect for any government agency, especially the police. This is the reason they are no longer used!
If I may give you an example of the stupidity and inflexibility of these cameras;
let us assume one is errected on a straight piece of road where a 70mph speed limit is in force. The camera is set to 71mph to start its taxation cycle. It is 3 o’clock in the morning, the road is completely empty, no hazards whatsoever, and someone does 72mph. The taxcamera trggers and theres some more money in the coffers of local government! Nobody endangered, no accident!
One hour later however, there is a thick fog, where 40mph would be dangerous. The average motorist who has listened to your spurious argumentation thinks because it is a 70mph limit it is therefore safe to drive at 70mph! Accident, and 3 killed! Who has the responsibility now?
A lot of this responsibility must be down to you, for not investing in driver education.
If the enormous amounts of money, which are being sunk into inefective Gatsos set up solely for taxation purposes, was sunk into investment in Traffic Police who are capable of making a good judgement (which an electronic highwayman cannot) on the behaviour of a driver, this would lead to a very much higher respect from the general public for the police and their very difficult job. And these police can also catch the uninsured, the untaxed or un-MOTd drivers, no camera can!
As someone who has driven 1.7 million kilometers at very high speeds (regularly at 200kph plus) throughout Europe within the last 20 years without a single accident or speeding fine, I can only appeal to you to get rid of the wrongly placed Gatsos, re-invest in a good Police Force who have the ability to solve your problems; otherwise the British public, I am sure, will have it’s way at the next election and solve it for you.
I was recently back in the UK and I was astonished at the extremely poor driver awareness on all types of road. People speaking into hand-held phones, women doing their makeup while driving, white-van-man tailgating in the outside lane of the motorway, and especially the idiotic cramming on of brakes at a supposed Gatso site!
Please invest in driver education, even if it means putting up signs on the motorway saying “Keep LEFT except to overtake”. These will bring better results than any “electronic highwayman”!
Hoping to be able to return to a more democratic Britain when I retire,
I remain
Yours sincerely
John M. Gray
Lörracher Strasse 5
D-79595 Rümmingen,
Germany
18th November 2002
Dear Sir or Madame,
Due to the totally spurious statistics which are being bandied about, especially by so-called safety groups, I would like to protest your use and propagation of such deliberate political lies and your continued efforts to dumb down the British public with your propaganda.
Instead of encouraging driver education, you are using a typically political lie that “Speed kills!” This is blatantly untrue! However “Inappropriate speed kills” is true!
Fact is, that less than 7% of ALL accidents in GB have speed as a causal factor. These are the governments own figures. No matter how much political spin is put on this, these figures remain a fact.
No one I know of has any problem with inappropriate speed, which may well be within a 30mph limit at a school where a speed of 15mph may well be totally irresponsible. But there are no road tax cameras near such schools are there? No, these are errected instead on perfectly straight pieces of road, with no history of accidents whatsoever.
The mothers on the school run who drive at irresponsible speeds, but perhaps within a 30mph limit, talking on the phone, doing their make-up, with unbelted children in their £40000 4x4 desert-capable SUVs are never stopped! Why not? Because the Traffic Police are no longer there!
These are, using your own statistics, a major percentage of all accidents i.e. the 95% of ALL accidents that take place within built-up areas.
The deliberate use of road tax cameras or as I prefer to call them “electronic highwaymen” are an insult to the intelligence of any good driver, and lead, as it has done in many civilised parts of the world like British Columbia, to an absolute disrespect for any government agency, especially the police. This is the reason they are no longer used!
If I may give you an example of the stupidity and inflexibility of these cameras;
let us assume one is errected on a straight piece of road where a 70mph speed limit is in force. The camera is set to 71mph to start its taxation cycle. It is 3 o’clock in the morning, the road is completely empty, no hazards whatsoever, and someone does 72mph. The taxcamera trggers and theres some more money in the coffers of local government! Nobody endangered, no accident!
One hour later however, there is a thick fog, where 40mph would be dangerous. The average motorist who has listened to your spurious argumentation thinks because it is a 70mph limit it is therefore safe to drive at 70mph! Accident, and 3 killed! Who has the responsibility now?
A lot of this responsibility must be down to you, for not investing in driver education.
If the enormous amounts of money, which are being sunk into inefective Gatsos set up solely for taxation purposes, was sunk into investment in Traffic Police who are capable of making a good judgement (which an electronic highwayman cannot) on the behaviour of a driver, this would lead to a very much higher respect from the general public for the police and their very difficult job. And these police can also catch the uninsured, the untaxed or un-MOTd drivers, no camera can!
As someone who has driven 1.7 million kilometers at very high speeds (regularly at 200kph plus) throughout Europe within the last 20 years without a single accident or speeding fine, I can only appeal to you to get rid of the wrongly placed Gatsos, re-invest in a good Police Force who have the ability to solve your problems; otherwise the British public, I am sure, will have it’s way at the next election and solve it for you.
I was recently back in the UK and I was astonished at the extremely poor driver awareness on all types of road. People speaking into hand-held phones, women doing their makeup while driving, white-van-man tailgating in the outside lane of the motorway, and especially the idiotic cramming on of brakes at a supposed Gatso site!
Please invest in driver education, even if it means putting up signs on the motorway saying “Keep LEFT except to overtake”. These will bring better results than any “electronic highwayman”!
Hoping to be able to return to a more democratic Britain when I retire,
I remain
Yours sincerely
John M. Gray
Lörracher Strasse 5
D-79595 Rümmingen,
Germany
18th November 2002
Even PC plod here accepts that virtually everybody speeds. So given that on the roads there's so many accidents occurring, you'd expect that even if speeding had no effect on safety, that they'd still be a high percentage of accidents that involved a car who was breaking the speed limit.
Yet anyone who bothers to look at the facts would discover that only 2% of accidents involve someone who is over the limit! This clearly suggests that speeding prevents accidents. Which is obvious because IF YOU'RE LOOKING WHERE YOU'RE GOING YOUR SAFER THAN IF YOU ARE STARING AT YOUR SPEEDO!!!!!!!!!
PC Plod and is his mates are putting lives at risk and telling lies to the public for the sake of money.
If you find the 2% figure hard to believe after all the governments propaganda I refer you to the safe speed web site.
>> Edited by Froth on Monday 18th November 14:51
>> Edited by Froth on Monday 18th November 14:51
Yet anyone who bothers to look at the facts would discover that only 2% of accidents involve someone who is over the limit! This clearly suggests that speeding prevents accidents. Which is obvious because IF YOU'RE LOOKING WHERE YOU'RE GOING YOUR SAFER THAN IF YOU ARE STARING AT YOUR SPEEDO!!!!!!!!!
PC Plod and is his mates are putting lives at risk and telling lies to the public for the sake of money.
If you find the 2% figure hard to believe after all the governments propaganda I refer you to the safe speed web site.
>> Edited by Froth on Monday 18th November 14:51
>> Edited by Froth on Monday 18th November 14:51
Oi, Dan, that's my job!
And that's 3.65Billion x £60 = £219Billion of earning potential!
This officer's drivvel that there are 10M speeding offences, annually or daily, simply destroys any argument they had in favour of road safety. The places where most accidents occur are car parks. Slow speeds, yet more accidents???
Their arguments don't add up and they never will, there will never be enough accidents to make a statistical need for cameras, with or wthout excessive speeds being involved.
However, show Joe Public a pile of photos of accidents and the only one he will remember will be the high speed head on crash, not the other 100 bumps and scrapes. One horrifying motorway pileup, where someone says the cars were travelling too fast, and that's all the justification they'll need. As far as I can remember, the NSL on motorways only came about because of one AC Cobra. It's all in the spin.
The only serious angle the BDA and other motoring organisations can take is one based on "Driver Error Kills". All the statistics support it, both real and fake, and the drivers support it too. The BDA need to stop worrying about cameras and speed limits and concentrate on improved driver training for all as it’s goal. Then, if they look to the Insurance companies, they may find the financial clout they need as well as an ally.
Andy
kevinday said: I seem to remember reading (last week) that the ten million figure was daily not yearly, and I do believe that is about right, nearly everybody speeds at some point, intentionally or unintentionally, every time they drive. Therefore the annual figure is 10 million x 365 = 3.65 billion occurrences a year, hardly goes to show that speeding causes accidents does it?
And that's 3.65Billion x £60 = £219Billion of earning potential!
This officer's drivvel that there are 10M speeding offences, annually or daily, simply destroys any argument they had in favour of road safety. The places where most accidents occur are car parks. Slow speeds, yet more accidents???
Their arguments don't add up and they never will, there will never be enough accidents to make a statistical need for cameras, with or wthout excessive speeds being involved.
However, show Joe Public a pile of photos of accidents and the only one he will remember will be the high speed head on crash, not the other 100 bumps and scrapes. One horrifying motorway pileup, where someone says the cars were travelling too fast, and that's all the justification they'll need. As far as I can remember, the NSL on motorways only came about because of one AC Cobra. It's all in the spin.
The only serious angle the BDA and other motoring organisations can take is one based on "Driver Error Kills". All the statistics support it, both real and fake, and the drivers support it too. The BDA need to stop worrying about cameras and speed limits and concentrate on improved driver training for all as it’s goal. Then, if they look to the Insurance companies, they may find the financial clout they need as well as an ally.
Andy
Firts reply received, can anyone confirm their position, do they realy only support non-gatso solutions there?
Dear Mr Gray
It is interesting that you should send such views to Surrey Police as (a) we are not part of the hypothecation (netting-off of fines) scheme, (b) do not support the installation of safety cameras other than where there is a proven excess speed related casualty programme, (c) have introduced an intelligence-led programme of education for offending drivers and (d) carry out appropriate enforcement using an intelligence model.
Yours sincerely
Paul Beard
Safety Manager - Road Policing, Surrey
Mobile Support Centre, Coltsfoot Drive, Burpham, GU1 1YG.
Dear Mr Gray
It is interesting that you should send such views to Surrey Police as (a) we are not part of the hypothecation (netting-off of fines) scheme, (b) do not support the installation of safety cameras other than where there is a proven excess speed related casualty programme, (c) have introduced an intelligence-led programme of education for offending drivers and (d) carry out appropriate enforcement using an intelligence model.
Yours sincerely
Paul Beard
Safety Manager - Road Policing, Surrey
Mobile Support Centre, Coltsfoot Drive, Burpham, GU1 1YG.
Froth said: Even PC plod here accepts that virtually everybody speeds. So given that on the roads there's so many accidents occurring, you'd expect that even if speeding had no effect on safety, that they'd still be a high percentage of accidents that involved a car who was breaking the speed limit.
Yet anyone who bothers to look at the facts would discover that only 2% of accidents involve someone who is over the limit! This clearly suggests that speeding prevents accidents. Which is obvious because IF YOU'RE LOOKING WHERE YOU'RE GOING YOUR SAFER THAN IF YOU ARE STARING AT YOUR SPEEDO!!!!!!!!!
PC Plod and is his mates are putting lives at risk and telling lies to the public for the sake of money.
If you find the 2% figure hard to believe after all the governments propaganda I refer you to the safe speed web site.
>> Edited by Froth on Monday 18th November 14:51
>> Edited by Froth on Monday 18th November 14:51
Ooh, get off that thin ice Froth.
He stated that "there could be as many as 10 million speeding 'offences' a year and the current figure of one million fines doesn't even 'scratch the dust". These 10 million offences are pure guess work, besides if you said that each "offender", breaks the limit only once per day, then that's only 27,000 or so motorists involved per year. A long way off "virtually everybody". If you accept the 1 million fines figure and assume that each person got only one fine per year, it's still only 2,700 per day caught.
Arguing that there are, in fact, more than that actually does your argument more harm than good. You are telling people that the "danger"(as percieved by Joe Public) is far more widespread than they had been told.
The Police argument is based on the fact that the number of fatalities or serious injuries is disproportionately high in accidents where excessive speed is one of the primary factors. OK, only 2% of the total, but how many result in death compared with low speed impacts?. Don't allow your argument to focus entirely on the speed issue. Fire a machine gun at a group of people and lots of speeding bullets come out, only the ones that hit kill, it doesn't mean the other bullets were safe.
I agree with you on the clock watchers, but after a while you get to know what certain speeds "feel" like and so tend not to look down too often.
Andy
Well I really struggle to tell the difference between 30 and 40 - modern cars nowadays are so comfortable and quiet that you cant rely on engine/road noise to tell the speed - you HAVE to check your speedo.
As for the number of potential "speeding offences" - I'm likely to do 28 a day on a 50 mile round-trip commute. With 22 million cars in the UK, with say 75% used at any one time, and assuming ONLY 1 offence per driver per day, that makes 16.5 million offences a DAY (dont forget about the lorries that are only allowed to do 40 on single carriageway A roads (anyone every seen a lorry going that slow? - thought not
) So thats 4.3 trillion potential speeding offences a year!!!!!! Now tell me that Speed Kills .......
edited to say make that billion, not trillion! (oops!)
>> Edited by mondeoman on Monday 18th November 15:57
As for the number of potential "speeding offences" - I'm likely to do 28 a day on a 50 mile round-trip commute. With 22 million cars in the UK, with say 75% used at any one time, and assuming ONLY 1 offence per driver per day, that makes 16.5 million offences a DAY (dont forget about the lorries that are only allowed to do 40 on single carriageway A roads (anyone every seen a lorry going that slow? - thought not
) So thats 4.3 trillion potential speeding offences a year!!!!!! Now tell me that Speed Kills ....... edited to say make that billion, not trillion! (oops!)
>> Edited by mondeoman on Monday 18th November 15:57
mondeoman said: Well I really struggle to tell the difference between 30 and 40 - modern cars nowadays are so comfortable and quiet that you cant rely on engine/road noise to tell the speed - you HAVE to check your speedo.
As for the number of potential "speeding offences" - I'm likely to do 28 a day on a 50 mile round-trip commute. With 22 million cars in the UK, with say 75% used at any one time, and assuming ONLY 1 offence per driver per day, that makes 16.5 million offences a DAY (dont forget about the lorries that are only allowed to do 40 on single carriageway A roads (anyone every seen a lorry going that slow? - thought not
edited to say make that billion, not trillion! (oops!)
>> Edited by mondeoman on Monday 18th November 15:57
Stuck with a diesel at the moment, and I did say I didn't look too often, not never! I was using Plod's figures from the top, so if you think 28 times a day would be better, then we get just under 1,000 of you per day out of 16.5million. Your figures assume we will all speed once per day. I prefer mine because they show there's no need for police cameras, don't they? It's all in the spin!
Andy
andyf007 said:
mondeoman said: Well I really struggle to tell the difference between 30 and 40 - modern cars nowadays are so comfortable and quiet that you cant rely on engine/road noise to tell the speed - you HAVE to check your speedo.
As for the number of potential "speeding offences" - I'm likely to do 28 a day on a 50 mile round-trip commute. With 22 million cars in the UK, with say 75% used at any one time, and assuming ONLY 1 offence per driver per day, that makes 16.5 million offences a DAY (dont forget about the lorries that are only allowed to do 40 on single carriageway A roads (anyone every seen a lorry going that slow? - thought not
edited to say make that billion, not trillion! (oops!)
>> Edited by mondeoman on Monday 18th November 15:57
Stuck with a diesel at the moment, and I did say I didn't look too often, not never! I was using Plod's figures from the top, so if you think 28 times a day would be better, then we get just under 1,000 of you per day out of 16.5million. Your figures assume we will all speed once per day. I prefer mine because they show there's no need for police cameras, don't they? It's all in the spin!
Andy
Don't forget that speed is an absolute offence - drive along a road at over the limit and thats an offence - same road 500yds further is another offence and so on and so on. My offences are assumed to occur at changes in limit and along M-ways.... thats 28. If you drive the M25 you could easily get half a dozen offences in one morning if they relied on cameras .....
The point I was trying to make was that their message of speed kills is so blatantly untrue when you look at the figures in this way - the number of drivers, the potential number of "offences", yet the accident rate does not reflect this - and don't forget the number of offences they get by dropping limits and installing cameras......... mad mad world full of PC madness and hypocrisy..
I tell ya, if I had the money, i'd hire a private eye to tail someof these characters and report them for every single thing they did wrong whilst out on the road - crossing white lines, no indications, speeding, fog lights, you name it, name n shame em. Twats the lot of em!
Nice to see Surrey Police have sensible approach tho - well done lads.
JMGS4 said: Firts reply received, can anyone confirm their position, do they realy only support non-gatso solutions there?
Dear Mr Gray
It is interesting that you should send such views to Surrey Police as (a) we are not part of the hypothecation (netting-off of fines) scheme, (b) do not support the installation of safety cameras other than where there is a proven excess speed related casualty programme, (c) have introduced an intelligence-led programme of education for offending drivers and (d) carry out appropriate enforcement using an intelligence model.
Yours sincerely
Paul Beard
Safety Manager - Road Policing, Surrey
Mobile Support Centre, Coltsfoot Drive, Burpham, GU1 1YG.
Yes JMGS. I live about a mile from this address! Surrey has one of the lowest speed camera figures, and seem fairly sensible. However, they still deploy mobile units at stupid places like bridges on the NSL A3. But I guess noone's perfect!
Please do us Guildfordians a favour and send him a nice reply
mondeoman said:
andyf007 said:
mondeoman said: Well I really struggle to tell the difference between 30 and 40 - modern cars nowadays are so comfortable and quiet that you cant rely on engine/road noise to tell the speed - you HAVE to check your speedo.
As for the number of potential "speeding offences" - I'm likely to do 28 a day on a 50 mile round-trip commute. With 22 million cars in the UK, with say 75% used at any one time, and assuming ONLY 1 offence per driver per day, that makes 16.5 million offences a DAY (dont forget about the lorries that are only allowed to do 40 on single carriageway A roads (anyone every seen a lorry going that slow? - thought not
edited to say make that billion, not trillion! (oops!)
>> Edited by mondeoman on Monday 18th November 15:57
Stuck with a diesel at the moment, and I did say I didn't look too often, not never! I was using Plod's figures from the top, so if you think 28 times a day would be better, then we get just under 1,000 of you per day out of 16.5million. Your figures assume we will all speed once per day. I prefer mine because they show there's no need for police cameras, don't they? It's all in the spin!
Andy
Don't forget that speed is an absolute offence - drive along a road at over the limit and thats an offence - same road 500yds further is another offence and so on and so on. My offences are assumed to occur at changes in limit and along M-ways.... thats 28. If you drive the M25 you could easily get half a dozen offences in one morning if they relied on cameras .....
The point I was trying to make was that their message of speed kills is so blatantly untrue when you look at the figures in this way - the number of drivers, the potential number of "offences", yet the accident rate does not reflect this - and don't forget the number of offences they get by dropping limits and installing cameras......... mad mad world full of PC madness and hypocrisy..
I tell ya, if I had the money, i'd hire a private eye to tail someof these characters and report them for every single thing they did wrong whilst out on the road - crossing white lines, no indications, speeding, fog lights, you name it, name n shame em. Twats the lot of em!
Nice to see Surrey Police have sensible approach tho - well done lads.
Sorry Mondeoman, perhaps didn't make it clear, I was showing that the figures are fictitious and even if taken at face value, mean that very little speeding does go on. They shoot themselves in the foot, claiming high figures that aren't really high at all when you do the math. Didn't expect you to claim that the police were right and speeding was rife. Surrey police are certainly a step in the right direction. Isn't it strange though, that our Police Force is in fact made up of several miniforces doing what they want? Who's actually in charge?
Andy
[
Arguing that there are, in fact, more than that actually does your argument more harm than good. You are telling people that the "danger"(as percieved by Joe Public) is far more widespread than they had been told.
[
No it doesn't. We know how many accidents there are, risk involved in a speeding offence is offences divided by accidents. 100 offences and 100 accidents means offences are more dangerous than if there are 200 offences and 100 accidents. If there are more offenses than we thought, each offence must on average be less risky than we thought.
[
The Police argument is based on the fact that the number of fatalities or serious injuries is disproportionately high in accidents where excessive speed is one of the primary factors. OK, only 2% of the total, but how many result in death compared with low speed impacts?. .
You are assuming that accidents caused by excessive speed necessarily involve higher impact speeds.
Going round a bend meet a tractor blocking the road and failing to stop in time because you are doing 40 when you should be doing 35 (accident purely caused by excessive speed) and you will hit the tractor at a little over 5MPH. Go round at a reasonable 30MPH and partly on the wrong side of the road and meet a lorry doing 30MPH the other way, and you potentially have a 60MPH impact speed. But it was position that was wrong, not speed.
Arguing that there are, in fact, more than that actually does your argument more harm than good. You are telling people that the "danger"(as percieved by Joe Public) is far more widespread than they had been told.
[
No it doesn't. We know how many accidents there are, risk involved in a speeding offence is offences divided by accidents. 100 offences and 100 accidents means offences are more dangerous than if there are 200 offences and 100 accidents. If there are more offenses than we thought, each offence must on average be less risky than we thought.
[
The Police argument is based on the fact that the number of fatalities or serious injuries is disproportionately high in accidents where excessive speed is one of the primary factors. OK, only 2% of the total, but how many result in death compared with low speed impacts?. .
You are assuming that accidents caused by excessive speed necessarily involve higher impact speeds.
Going round a bend meet a tractor blocking the road and failing to stop in time because you are doing 40 when you should be doing 35 (accident purely caused by excessive speed) and you will hit the tractor at a little over 5MPH. Go round at a reasonable 30MPH and partly on the wrong side of the road and meet a lorry doing 30MPH the other way, and you potentially have a 60MPH impact speed. But it was position that was wrong, not speed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff