Local rag "Speed traps a success". Oh no you don't
Discussion
Couldn't let it pass, here's my response to the editor ...
quote:
No!
I have to protest at your misleading article on page 33, May 2nd.
"70% of residents support the use of cameras ...". Yet the survey was of a limited group, the "citizens panel" (who are they then?), of whom 50% did not even respond. So 140% of those who did respond were in favour then? How does that work exactly? I think I must have fallen asleep in too many maths lessons, I can't seem to get that to work out.
What we have here is spin, nothing more. A dubious conclusion is reached from a very small survey of a selected group of people, which gave no conclusive result from those who did respond. A success? Come on.
In the real world very few people support the use of stealth tax cameras. Certainly no-one in my acquaintance.
I made the mistake of voting once in a survey on speed cameras. In response to the question "Are you in favour of the use of speed cameras at accident black spots to improve safety?". I responded Yes, as any right minded person would. When the survey results were published, the question was reported as "Are you in favour of the use of speed cameras?" and was cited as vindication for their indiscriminate use, supported by 80% of the population! This kind of manipulation of the public seems to be endemic these days.
If Chief Superintendent Bond genuinely believes the cameras are a safety measure then he ought to be abiding by the recommendations of Mr Blunkett and making them visible by painting them in highly visible yellow paint. Or would that lead to a similar situation to that in Northampton, where expensive revenue cameras have been deemed a failure by the Chief Inspector because they are failing to generate enough revenue to cover their maintenance cost, let alone generate surplus revenue as was expected. The same Chief Inspector who was adamant that the introduction of cameras was primarily a safety measure just a year before.
Your article makes reference to the use of cameras "to cut motorists speed and reduce accidents". As ever, it seems that speed and accidents are inextricably linked. The truth is that the majority of accidents take place at less than 30mph, and excessive speed is the major contributory factor in less than 5% of accidents. The fastest roads in the country, motorways, are statistically the safest - a direct contradiction of the "speed kills" mantra. The recent trend to rename stealth tax cameras as "safety cameras" rather than "speed cameras" is shameful hypocrisy. They ARE revenue cameras. Ask Northampton. Or ask yourself why Warwickshire sees fit to have 7 fixed cameras and 35 mobile ones; surely the accident black spots don't move about that much?
As pointed out on 5th Gear this week, if there were a genuine will to reduce accidents and save lives, and also to save money in the long term, it would be more sensible to invest money in genuine safety measures. Instead we get half baked measures at new junctions, such as tight entries onto roundabouts designed to reduce speed (remember, that means reduced accidents!). Take the new roundabouts on the A427 as an example. Not only sharp entries (and these ARE designed in deliberately), but three lanes feeding into two on the roundabout! Works a treat, as the driver of the Mr Kipling lorry couple of months ago would no doubt attest. Elsewhere we get fences and hedges planted on the approach to roundabouts to reduce visibility, hence speed, hence ... the stupidity of this sort of reasoning is beyond belief. If the A45 Ryton junction had been changed to a roundabout years ago lives and money would have been saved.
Speed does not kill, bad driving does, and bad planning (or lack of it) does not help.
A good percentage of the public are motorists, and we are growing ever more resentful of being exploited, over taxed, persecuted, victimised, and most importantly lied to.
camera's we wouldn't have any complaints. 
good man!
However I have disturbing news, from a "straw poll" of work colleagues... they infact do seem to support speed limits, cameras, and are against the raising of limits. Apparently the gov'mnt has won the propaganda war..
There was some light at the end of this tunnel - one guy out of a room load, AND maybe surprisingly, the lone female are pro-speed. But 50% or more really seem to be in favour.
Worry? me? you bet.
C
However I have disturbing news, from a "straw poll" of work colleagues... they infact do seem to support speed limits, cameras, and are against the raising of limits. Apparently the gov'mnt has won the propaganda war..
There was some light at the end of this tunnel - one guy out of a room load, AND maybe surprisingly, the lone female are pro-speed. But 50% or more really seem to be in favour.
Worry? me? you bet.
C
quote:
good man!
However I have disturbing news, from a "straw poll" of work colleagues... they infact do seem to support speed limits, cameras, and are against the raising of limits. Apparently the gov'mnt has won the propaganda war..
There was some light at the end of this tunnel - one guy out of a room load, AND maybe surprisingly, the lone female are pro-speed. But 50% or more really seem to be in favour.
Worry? me? you bet.
C
I am sure an orator of your calibre Carl will manage to change their minds.
quote:
they infact do seem to support speed limits, cameras, and are against the raising of limits. Apparently the gov'mnt has won the propaganda war..
Enquire as to have anyone of them seen a 'safety' camera outside of a school, or perhaps down a busy high street where one might anticipate a child being hit (as in their own advert)
Also enquire as to the logic of Mobile speed traps if cameras can ONLY be placed at accident black spots and they are not revenue collectors
And ask 'em why they are all placed on nice long straight dual carriageways with little accident history but where amazingly a new lower speed limit has been set
And last but not least ask them if they are so f
stupid as to believe that sticking to a speed limit rigidly makes them safer than if they managed to pay some attention to the road instead of reading/applying make-up/smoking/on the mobile/being drunk or high Just a point or two that MAY sway some opinions
quote:
quote:
they infact do seem to support speed limits, cameras, and are against the raising of limits. Apparently the gov'mnt has won the propaganda war..
And last but not least ask them if they are so f
Just a point or two that MAY sway some opinions
Works for me! Had a simialr discussion in the pub last night with twat who actually boasted about installing the damn things. He was in the minority as to support and when questioned under duress he admitted that the sites chosen were for revenue, not safety. Got im!
Top letter BTW - should be sent to all local papers!
quote:
Works for me! Had a simialr discussion in the pub last night with twat who actually boasted about installing the damn things. He was in the minority as to support and when questioned under duress he admitted that the sites chosen were for revenue, not safety. Got im!
Pity he wasn't caught admitting that on tape or, better still, hidden camera.
Sorry Philshort Have to disagree with you on the part
`speed does not kill, bad driving does and bad planning (or lack of it)does not help.
Speed is undoubtedly the cause of most deaths on the road. But not on its own. If the drunk driver drove at only 10mph he wouldnt kill many people. Bad driving alone does not kill either if done slowly and everyone sees examples of that. Put the two together though and whammo Recipe for disaster. The reason why motorways are the safest Roads per mile travelled is not because they are fast but because they have few sharp bends few junctions and hopefully no plonker coming the other way unless of course he has employed speed and bad driving!!!
Sorry lost the thread on this. Just been reading another on similar with ref to M/Ways
>> Edited by Madcop on Thursday 9th May 17:13
`speed does not kill, bad driving does and bad planning (or lack of it)does not help.
Speed is undoubtedly the cause of most deaths on the road. But not on its own. If the drunk driver drove at only 10mph he wouldnt kill many people. Bad driving alone does not kill either if done slowly and everyone sees examples of that. Put the two together though and whammo Recipe for disaster. The reason why motorways are the safest Roads per mile travelled is not because they are fast but because they have few sharp bends few junctions and hopefully no plonker coming the other way unless of course he has employed speed and bad driving!!!
Sorry lost the thread on this. Just been reading another on similar with ref to M/Ways
>> Edited by Madcop on Thursday 9th May 17:13
quote:Why? In the Leonie Shaw case the driver was driving at *under* the speed limit. Speed was not a factor, an unsupervised 6 year-old stepping out onto a busy road after dark and a driver with a provisional license were the factors there.
Speed is undoubtedly the cause of most deaths on the road.
Or are you saying that most deaths on the road are attributable to non-stationary cars, so all cars should be fitted with wheel-clamps?
I accept what you say but you are refering to only one case. I have attended many serious and fatal accidents on the roads. Only a very small number have been as a result of circumstances where people have run under slow moving or stationary traffic. The vast majority involved inappropriate speed in the wrong place. One accident 15 years ago in Gerrards Cross Bucks involved a double fatal with two cyclists head on. Had they been going slowly and looking it wouldnt have happened.
quote:
The reason why motorways are the safest Roads per mile travelled is not because they are fast but because they have few sharp bends few junctions and hopefully no plonker coming the other way unless of course he has employed speed and bad driving!!!
Or is a 70/80/90 yr old duffer who has never had a driving test, has no idea what day of the week it is, and can cruise at 20mph the wrong way down a motorway..
quote:
I accept what you say but you are refering to only one case. I have attended many serious and fatal accidents on the roads. Only a very small number have been as a result of circumstances where people have run under slow moving or stationary traffic. The vast majority involved inappropriate speed in the wrong place. One accident 15 years ago in Gerrards Cross Bucks involved a double fatal with two cyclists head on. Had they been going slowly and looking it wouldnt have happened.
Inappropriate speed: spot on. 100mph on a deserted motorway isn't inappropiate, but 25 mph alongside a school at 08:45 is. And who gets done by the cameras?
Madcop
Sorry mate, you just negated your own argument by qualifying "speed kills" in exactly the same way as us more reasonable folk do.
Speed kills in the same way as guns or knives. There has to be someone on the end of them doing something they shouldn't.
To say speed is a factor in the majority of accidents is as meaningless as it is unarguable. You could as easily say tyres are a factor, fuel is a factor, engines are a factor, steering wheels are a factor. All these things will be present at any accident. Accidents involving moving vehicles will by definition involve speed.
Oh fd, why bother 
Oh BTW, the letter didn't get published. No big surprise. The cameras have turned yellow this week though, but I'm not claiming any credit for that. Haven't seen them yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a small yellow dot to comply with the home office requirements while still being as visible as a black cat in a coal hole.
quote:
The vast majority involved inappropriate speed in the wrong place
Sorry mate, you just negated your own argument by qualifying "speed kills" in exactly the same way as us more reasonable folk do.
Speed kills in the same way as guns or knives. There has to be someone on the end of them doing something they shouldn't.
To say speed is a factor in the majority of accidents is as meaningless as it is unarguable. You could as easily say tyres are a factor, fuel is a factor, engines are a factor, steering wheels are a factor. All these things will be present at any accident. Accidents involving moving vehicles will by definition involve speed.
Oh f
d, why bother Oh BTW, the letter didn't get published. No big surprise. The cameras have turned yellow this week though, but I'm not claiming any credit for that. Haven't seen them yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have a small yellow dot to comply with the home office requirements while still being as visible as a black cat in a coal hole.
quote:
Sorry Philshort Have to disagree with you on the part
`speed does not kill, bad driving does and bad planning (or lack of it)does not help.
Speed is undoubtedly the cause of most deaths on the road. But not on its own. If the drunk driver drove at only 10mph he wouldnt kill many people. Bad driving alone does not kill either if done slowly and everyone sees examples of that. Put the two together though and whammo Recipe for disaster. The reason why motorways are the safest Roads per mile travelled is not because they are fast but because they have few sharp bends few junctions and hopefully no plonker coming the other way unless of course he has employed speed and bad driving!!!
Sorry lost the thread on this. Just been reading another on similar with ref to M/Ways
>> Edited by Madcop on Thursday 9th May 17:13
I don't agree with you either Madcop. Have you had a look at www.abd.org.uk/one_third.htm at the beginning of the "WHEN 1/3 = 7%" thread?
Roms
Sorry philshort have to take you back to INAPPROPRIATE IN THE WRONG PLACE. 15mph you would agree is not fast. 15 mph for instance in a nursery playground with the kids around is too fast ( I have seen this)and is likely to kill. 150mph on M4 at 0300 a.m. is maybe not inappropriate (highly illegal though) and getting it wrong is likely to kill you and possibly someone else. Had you been doing only 50mph in that place you would more than likely survive. This is just common sense. Shame more people cant see it!!! To say that steering wheels tyres etc can also be a cause is correct too. Without all of these things you are unlikely to be able to travel at all. Without the components of a car bolted together we would all have to walk. then maybe very few people would die
You say speed kills when there has to be someone on the other end of it like a knife or a gun. What about a large waggon parked, unattended on a steep hill and the brake fails? No one on the end of that other than mechanical failure if it runs out of control and squishes someone. Knives and guns dont jump into animation. Purely hypothetical of course and even unrealistic but an illustration!!
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 16th May 13:12
You say speed kills when there has to be someone on the other end of it like a knife or a gun. What about a large waggon parked, unattended on a steep hill and the brake fails? No one on the end of that other than mechanical failure if it runs out of control and squishes someone. Knives and guns dont jump into animation. Purely hypothetical of course and even unrealistic but an illustration!!
>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 16th May 13:12
Hi MadCop
I'm afraid your arguments are severely flawed and self-contradictory. It worries me that a policeman has such a limited outlook on such a serious issue, but I suspect that, sadly, you're not alone.
You say that 'speed kills'. Ultimately, yes it does. Your grossly simplified argument (which in fact I would venture is not YOUR argument but something you have been indoctrinated with by the government) is based upon an object of a given mass having a greater kinetic energy (of which a proportion is passed to the object it hits) the greater the velocity at which it is travelling. In fact, kinetic energy and velocity are related by a square function, hence if we double the velocity we quadruple the kinetic energy. Thus, what you are effectively saying is that reducing the amount of energy and the scale of the decelerations involved in an accident reduces the risk of serious injury. This makes perfect sense in terms of physics. However, in terms of the world in which we live, which I'm sure you would agree is more relevant, it is a gross simplification applied to an incredibly complex system.
In reality 'speed kills' in the same way that choosing to drive at all kills. Consider this:
If we are to get from A-B in a time period less than infinity we need to travel at a speed greater than zero. Based on your argument, the logical conclusion is that if we all travelled at 1mph (to choose an arbitrary limit) there would be few or no deaths on the road. And you would probably be right. However, consider how our economy and society would bear the burden of restricting speeds in this way. It doesn't work does it? But that's ultimately where your argument is going.
I could equally have chosen 20mph, since most people survive being hit by a car at this speed, but if I wanted to commute from Manchester to Chester (which I did a few years ago) it would take me 5hrs of driving per day based on a 100 mile round trip at a CONSTANT 20mph. Now add-in the effects of traffic lights, congestion, etc. and we're looking at well in excess of that. Is that practical IN THE REAL WORLD - no it isn't. Just like your 'speed kills' tag line.
So, what about public transport then? That's the obvious alternative. Well, here's the killer MadCop...
Please explain why trains are allowed to do 100mph+ within the context of your 'speed kills' argument? You know the answer, it's because 100mph+ is deemed APPROPRIATE for the track upon which they operate, the only thing is that this answer is outside the context of the ridiculous 'speed kills' mantra. If the train that was derailed recently had been travelling at 20mph no one would have been seriously hurt in all likelihood, but not a single word was mentioned about 'speed kills' because it would have been stupid - just like it is for cars. If all forms of public transport were limited to a speed at which if they were involved in a 'typical' accident no serious injury would result, the British economy would be destroyed within weeks.
Still not convinced? Well, planes often travel at 500mph+ lets slow them down to a speed where if they were involved in an accident no serious injury would result. Or better yet, lets reduce them to a speed where they'd be able to avoid any foreseeable accident. Oh, hang on a minute, physics dictates that they wouldn't be able to take off unless we made some SERIOUS progress in aeronautical engineering.
Your argument doesn’t hang together and this is proven by the point upon which several other posters have picked up. You felt the need to qualify your initial ‘speed kills’ argument with the statement, ‘The vast majority involved inappropriate speed in the wrong place.’ Hopefully the argument above has made this clear, but just in case…
‘Speed kills’ is not the same as, (i.e. does not equal, is different to, is a different kettle of fish, etc.) to ‘Inappropriate speed kills’.
Fittingly, I think the final nail in the coffin also comes from reading your own argument. 'The reason why motorways are the safest Roads per mile travelled is not because they are fast but because they have few sharp bends few junctions and hopefully no plonker coming the other way….’ Hmmm…. Correct me if I’m wrong but having few sharp bends, few junctions and ‘no plonker coming the other way’ is very different to ‘speed kills’ isn’t it? (I’ve cut off the rest of the sentence because it adds nothing to its meaning or value when one considers the points I have raised above). The reason you can’t sustain consistency in your argument is because your argument doesn’t cover the issues you are trying to address.
Ultimately you can’t have it both ways so I suggest you make up your mind and then people might take notice when people like yourself talk about safety on the road.
Regards.
roadsweeper.
PS: I hope no one takes offence at this post, especially MadCop, but when something this obvious appears to be totally misunderstood I felt I had to explain it in what are hopefully incontrovertible terms.
I'm afraid your arguments are severely flawed and self-contradictory. It worries me that a policeman has such a limited outlook on such a serious issue, but I suspect that, sadly, you're not alone.
You say that 'speed kills'. Ultimately, yes it does. Your grossly simplified argument (which in fact I would venture is not YOUR argument but something you have been indoctrinated with by the government) is based upon an object of a given mass having a greater kinetic energy (of which a proportion is passed to the object it hits) the greater the velocity at which it is travelling. In fact, kinetic energy and velocity are related by a square function, hence if we double the velocity we quadruple the kinetic energy. Thus, what you are effectively saying is that reducing the amount of energy and the scale of the decelerations involved in an accident reduces the risk of serious injury. This makes perfect sense in terms of physics. However, in terms of the world in which we live, which I'm sure you would agree is more relevant, it is a gross simplification applied to an incredibly complex system.
In reality 'speed kills' in the same way that choosing to drive at all kills. Consider this:
If we are to get from A-B in a time period less than infinity we need to travel at a speed greater than zero. Based on your argument, the logical conclusion is that if we all travelled at 1mph (to choose an arbitrary limit) there would be few or no deaths on the road. And you would probably be right. However, consider how our economy and society would bear the burden of restricting speeds in this way. It doesn't work does it? But that's ultimately where your argument is going.
I could equally have chosen 20mph, since most people survive being hit by a car at this speed, but if I wanted to commute from Manchester to Chester (which I did a few years ago) it would take me 5hrs of driving per day based on a 100 mile round trip at a CONSTANT 20mph. Now add-in the effects of traffic lights, congestion, etc. and we're looking at well in excess of that. Is that practical IN THE REAL WORLD - no it isn't. Just like your 'speed kills' tag line.
So, what about public transport then? That's the obvious alternative. Well, here's the killer MadCop...
Please explain why trains are allowed to do 100mph+ within the context of your 'speed kills' argument? You know the answer, it's because 100mph+ is deemed APPROPRIATE for the track upon which they operate, the only thing is that this answer is outside the context of the ridiculous 'speed kills' mantra. If the train that was derailed recently had been travelling at 20mph no one would have been seriously hurt in all likelihood, but not a single word was mentioned about 'speed kills' because it would have been stupid - just like it is for cars. If all forms of public transport were limited to a speed at which if they were involved in a 'typical' accident no serious injury would result, the British economy would be destroyed within weeks.
Still not convinced? Well, planes often travel at 500mph+ lets slow them down to a speed where if they were involved in an accident no serious injury would result. Or better yet, lets reduce them to a speed where they'd be able to avoid any foreseeable accident. Oh, hang on a minute, physics dictates that they wouldn't be able to take off unless we made some SERIOUS progress in aeronautical engineering.
Your argument doesn’t hang together and this is proven by the point upon which several other posters have picked up. You felt the need to qualify your initial ‘speed kills’ argument with the statement, ‘The vast majority involved inappropriate speed in the wrong place.’ Hopefully the argument above has made this clear, but just in case…
‘Speed kills’ is not the same as, (i.e. does not equal, is different to, is a different kettle of fish, etc.) to ‘Inappropriate speed kills’.
Fittingly, I think the final nail in the coffin also comes from reading your own argument. 'The reason why motorways are the safest Roads per mile travelled is not because they are fast but because they have few sharp bends few junctions and hopefully no plonker coming the other way….’ Hmmm…. Correct me if I’m wrong but having few sharp bends, few junctions and ‘no plonker coming the other way’ is very different to ‘speed kills’ isn’t it? (I’ve cut off the rest of the sentence because it adds nothing to its meaning or value when one considers the points I have raised above). The reason you can’t sustain consistency in your argument is because your argument doesn’t cover the issues you are trying to address.
Ultimately you can’t have it both ways so I suggest you make up your mind and then people might take notice when people like yourself talk about safety on the road.
Regards.
roadsweeper.
PS: I hope no one takes offence at this post, especially MadCop, but when something this obvious appears to be totally misunderstood I felt I had to explain it in what are hopefully incontrovertible terms.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff