Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:

The paragraph you've snipped is, however.

I think I'll just label you troll...

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

The paragraph you've snipped is, however.

I think I'll just label you troll...

The label that people attach to you is more likely to be of concern I'd have
thought.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't
feature in the original scenario.

Well let's imagine then that there is something coming from behind
towards you that is out of control. Let's say this object, whatever it
is, is approaching at 30mph and there is no way you can get out of its
way. It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

Obviously if you drive faster you will be safer. Duh.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:41:48 +0100, Knight Of The Road wrote
(in message ):

How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera on a
road good for 60mph?


I wouild dispute that 60mph is a safe speed at which to drive in any
built-up area unless there is physical separation between road and
dwellings.


Who mentioned built up areas ?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:45:24 +0100, Brimstone wrote
(in message ):

That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

An interesting statement from someone arguing for rigid enforecement of
arbitrary numbers irrespective of conditions !

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:28:55 +0100, ib wrote
(in message ):

There is never any reason to block a box junction

Oh but there are several :

Local driving standards (politeness) have degenerated so much that if you
don't break the rule you will never get across the junction.

You entered the junction when there was a gap, but some other c**t has nipped
into your gap.

You have estimated that given the speed and spacing of the cars ahead, you
will be able to clear the junction, and by going ahead you will help to keep
the traffic flowing - then some ignorant t**t ahead stops for no reason and
blocks your exit. Of course, he's alright because HE isn't involved with
anything, it's just the trail of problems he leaves behind.

The other side of the junction is round a corner, and you CANNOT see if there
is enough space until you are committed - mostly affects long vehicles, but
not exclusively.


I could go on, but a big factor is the drop in driving standards - which is
being very effectively accellerated by automated enforcement. People ARE now
driving to avoid penalties, not to 'good standards'.



But I have to throw in one other - you are driving a slow vehicle, and the
lights have been through several cycles before you get across ! OK, so it's
rare, but it does apply to some outfits.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:23:59 +0100, Dr Zoidberg wrote
(in message ):

The vast majority of people agree that speed limits are necessary , just
that the ones chosen are often unrelated to safety issues and that
enforcement is often targeted to raise most revenue rather than prevent
accidents.

For things like red light cameras , box junction cameras and so on there is
no such debate over where to draw a line and enforcing them shouldn't be an
issue.

And the other factor that is important today - that enforecement is now
automated and there is little alloowance for the situations. Already we have
heard of people genuinely caught out by box junctions - a common one being
that there's a space when you enter but someone else takes it and leaves you
with no-where to go.

In these situations, I'd like to think that the majority of reasonable
coppers would observe this and not prosecute - whilst throwing the book at
the blatent ignorers. And contrary to what many people claim, most people can
tell the difference.

With cameras, they appear to simply photograph any vehicle stationary in the
boxed area and sent out the penalty notice. Because the system is so geared
up to the motorist being guilty unless proven innocent, most people pay up
because it's cheaper than going to court and winning, even more so than going
to court and losing.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:54:51 +0100, Brimstone wrote
(in message ):

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed does not,
in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

Which is actually irrelevant to the discussion - that driving slowly may well
mean that YOU don't have an accident. I have personally witnessed people who
didn't have an accident themselves but (very nearly) left a trail of
devastation in their wake. Driving excessively slowly for the condition DOES
result in an increase of risk overall due to the effect on other road users.

I dare say you'll argue that this is the fault of those that get frustrated,
but this would be falling into the same trap as those that pass
laws/regulations with no regard to human nature and wonder why they don't
work.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:35:21 +0100, Ian wrote
(in message ):

I am quite often unable to
proceed due to traffic illegally blocking a box junction, and I welcome an
increase in the chances of them being caught and prosecuted.

Surely it's better (in the long term) to create drivers with more
appreciation for others ? And surely the way to do that is not to instill
ever deeper a feeling that you can do whatever you like as long as you don't
break one of the miriad of rules ?

That's the problem with automated enforcement - it removes personal
responsibility and encourages an attitude of "blindingly following the
rules". Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a set of rules that will
cover every situation unless you make one very simple one "drive with
consideration for others and responsibility for your actions" !

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Simon Hobson" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:54:51 +0100, Brimstone wrote
(in message ):

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed does
not,
in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

Which is actually irrelevant to the discussion

The comment to which I responded was that travelling at an inappropriate
speed causes drivers to crash.

- that driving slowly may well
mean that YOU don't have an accident. I have personally witnessed people
who
didn't have an accident themselves but (very nearly) left a trail of
devastation in their wake. Driving excessively slowly for the condition
DOES
result in an increase of risk overall due to the effect on other road
users.

That's a verifiable fact.


I dare say you'll argue that this is the fault of those that get
frustrated,
but this would be falling into the same trap as those that pass
laws/regulations with no regard to human nature and wonder why they don't
work.

Everyone needs to have proper regard for everyone else. Some people need to
slow down (both metaphorically and vehicle speed) whilst others need to get
their wits about them and realise that other people need to make decent
progress..

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Simon Hobson wrote:
Surely it's better (in the long term) to create drivers with more
appreciation for others ? And surely the way to do that is not to instill
ever deeper a feeling that you can do whatever you like as long as you don't
break one of the miriad of rules ?

That's the problem with automated enforcement - it removes personal
responsibility and encourages an attitude of "blindingly following the
rules". Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a set of rules that will
cover every situation unless you make one very simple one "drive with
consideration for others and responsibility for your actions" !


Lovely idea Simon. That gets my vote every time.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Simon Hobson" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:45:24 +0100, Brimstone wrote
(in message ):

That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

An interesting statement from someone arguing for rigid enforecement of
arbitrary numbers irrespective of conditions !

You misunderstand my stance.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Simon Hobson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:28:55 +0100, ib wrote
(in message ):

There is never any reason to block a box junction

Oh but there are several :

Local driving standards (politeness) have degenerated so much that if you
don't break the rule you will never get across the junction.

You entered the junction when there was a gap, but some other c**t has nipped
into your gap.

You have estimated that given the speed and spacing of the cars ahead, you
will be able to clear the junction, and by going ahead you will help to keep
the traffic flowing - then some ignorant t**t ahead stops for no reason and
blocks your exit. Of course, he's alright because HE isn't involved with
anything, it's just the trail of problems he leaves behind.

The other side of the junction is round a corner, and you CANNOT see if there
is enough space until you are committed - mostly affects long vehicles, but
not exclusively.


I could go on, but a big factor is the drop in driving standards - which is
being very effectively accellerated by automated enforcement. People ARE now
driving to avoid penalties, not to 'good standards'.



But I have to throw in one other - you are driving a slow vehicle, and the
lights have been through several cycles before you get across ! OK, so it's
rare, but it does apply to some outfits.


Oh, you've been to Scarborough have you? Bad luck!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Simon Hobson" wrote in message
et...
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:35:21 +0100, Ian wrote
(in message ):

I am quite often unable to
proceed due to traffic illegally blocking a box junction, and I welcome
an
increase in the chances of them being caught and prosecuted.

Surely it's better (in the long term) to create drivers with more
appreciation for others ? And surely the way to do that is not to instill
ever deeper a feeling that you can do whatever you like as long as you
don't
break one of the miriad of rules ?

The trouble is that it's a more deep seated attitude than solely in driving.
"Stuff you" is, in varying degrees, a part of human nature.


That's the problem with automated enforcement - it removes personal
responsibility and encourages an attitude of "blindingly following the
rules". Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a set of rules that will
cover every situation unless you make one very simple one "drive with
consideration for others and responsibility for your actions" !

Until all parents start instilling a some consideration for others into
their children there's little hope.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

In article . com,
says...
Paul has obviously put a great deal of effort and a considerable amount
of his own money into trying to do something constructive. It doesn't
entirely tally with how I would like things to be, but IMHO his regime
would be a lot better that what we have at present.

Nevertheless, he likes to present himself as the head of a significant
movement.


I've just had a large bowl of chilli (with a good 8 chillies in it), and
feel significant movement in the offing.

Pete.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Knight Of The Road wrote:

"Silk" wrote

How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera on a
road good for 60mph?

I wouild dispute that 60mph is a safe speed at which to drive in any
built-up area unless there is physical separation between road and
dwellings.

Do you dispute the fact that there are many 30mph limits which are not in
built-up areas?

Wasn't there one on the A2* at Bexley a few weeks ago?

[* a six-lane expressway with hard-shoulders and full grade-separation - a
motorway in every sense except its classification]

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-


There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.


Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

True - with the "appropriate speed" almost always being some way below the
posted limit on that stretch of road.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.

Indeed they do. And it is whilst the driver/rider is proceeding at a lower
speed than is allowed by law that most accidents occur.

But you know this already.