"David from Oz" wrote in message
oups.com...
There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being
rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this
group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his
view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished*
but did not reduce the number of offices. He also disputed figures from
London that had shown congestion had been reduced by their
introduction. He said the figures could be interpreted in different
ways.

Well Paul I disagree with your argument. I think that in the trail
area they have made drivers think twice about stopping in box
junctions, red-light running, illegal turns and driving in bus lanes.
Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences. Furthermore when I visited some friends in Muswell
Hill (a number who had also received fines) they all admitted they had
committed offences and said that they were all extra careful when
driving around Haringey now as this council had put in a significant
number of cameras in the area, and people were aware of the fines and
being more careful.

This is my opinion only, but in my experience offence cameras do make
people think more carefully about their driving, and drive more
carefully. I can't understand the argument that says this is not the
case. Paul: Perhaps you can explain how the figures that show reduced
congestion since the introduction of such cameras can be interpreted to
not show reduced congestion.

I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand.

He's not such a bad guy, most of his comments are pretty decent, if a little
strangely worded at times.

I think there should definitely be a system for appeal with regards to
box-junction-hogging. Perhaps even a grace shot of 'one' - if you get a
nasty letter through the door explained nicely (contradiction alert) that
you've been caught, but pelase watch what you're doing, it would make people
more aware to some extent, than just instantly fining someone who's made
genuine driver-error without realising the consequences.

"David from Oz" wrote in message
oups.com...
There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc), as following successful trials in London they are now being
rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this
group) was interviewed and argued against such measures stating his
view that that they did not *prevent * such offences, merely *punished*
but did not reduce the number of offices. He also disputed figures from
London that had shown congestion had been reduced by their
introduction. He said the figures could be interpreted in different
ways.

Well Paul I disagree with your argument. I think that in the trail
area they have made drivers think twice about stopping in box
junctions, red-light running, illegal turns and driving in bus lanes.
Since my box junction offence fine (from the North Circular documented
on these groups) I have been extra vigilant to ensure I do not commit
further offences. Furthermore when I visited some friends in Muswell
Hill (a number who had also received fines) they all admitted they had
committed offences and said that they were all extra careful when
driving around Haringey now as this council had put in a significant
number of cameras in the area, and people were aware of the fines and
being more careful.

This is my opinion only, but in my experience offence cameras do make
people think more carefully about their driving, and drive more
carefully. I can't understand the argument that says this is not the
case. Paul: Perhaps you can explain how the figures that show reduced
congestion since the introduction of such cameras can be interpreted to
not show reduced congestion.

I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand.

David


Well, my opinion, for what it's worth, is that I wouldn't have any problems
with automated cameras being used to fine everyone for any offence, as long
as it is done with common sense and some correlation to the extent of the
resulting problem.

It could all be done so well. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated with
automated speed enforcement, the moment a potential to make automatic income
from any kind of trivial offence is realised, it is exploited to the full
for income purposes only.

There is never any reason to block a box junction, but I'm afraid on the
success I've seen so far about automated camera prosecutions, I'd have to
say, no matter how unnecessary and stupid blocking a junction is, stick you
box junction cameras up your a*s

So, I think Paul is doing a great job, in highlighting the stupidity
implemented by the "authorities". As always, the correct answer is somewhere
between.

Brimstone wrote:
David from Oz wrote:

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)

Paul hasn't posted on this group for a considerable period of time, not
under his own name anyway.

Perhaps he is too busy running the vast organisation that is Safespeed,
with its membership (at 45 quid a year) numbering, erm, curiously the
web site doesn't give any indication.

But hey, it must be for real, becase it has a bank account and
everything. Oh, hang on ...

========

How do I pay?

By Cheque

Make your cheque payable to Paul Smith and send it to ...

========

Very impressive.

Ian

Conor wrote:
In article , TripleS says...
Conor wrote:
In article .com,
David from Oz says...

Well Paul I disagree with your argument.
Situation Normal then.


I have an open mind and am genuinely interested to understand.

Unlike blinkered Paul.

I don't know about all the detail issues, but I think Paul's overall
approach to road safety is a good and positive one. We tend to have our
own pet ideas as to how we think things ought to work, so probably we
could all be accused of being blinkered to some extent, and a bit biased
now and again.

My problem with Paul is that despite clear evidence to the contrary, he
will fudge whatever figures he has to to suit what is needed to get
him on TV/Radio/in the papers.


I don't know about that one way or the other, because I pay little
attention to the figures. This is far from ideal but I so distrust the
statistics (wherever they come from) that I merely base my opinions on
my own observations of how things seem to be working and my own
instincts for what is right.

That's not very scientific, but it's all I can offer.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Ian wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
David from Oz wrote:

Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this group)
Paul hasn't posted on this group for a considerable period of time, not
under his own name anyway.

Perhaps he is too busy running the vast organisation that is Safespeed,
with its membership (at 45 quid a year) numbering, erm, curiously the
web site doesn't give any indication.

But hey, it must be for real, becase it has a bank account and
everything. Oh, hang on ...

========

How do I pay?

By Cheque

Make your cheque payable to Paul Smith and send it to ...

========

Very impressive.

Ian


OK Ian, what is your manifesto for giving us a high level of safety,
reasonable freedom for drivers, and pleasant and harmonious conditions
for all road users?

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.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Knight Of The Road wrote:
"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--





You are at liberty to opt out...



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

Conor wrote:

My problem with Paul is that despite clear evidence to the contrary, he
will fudge whatever figures he has to to suite what is needed to get
him on TV/Radio/in the papers.

Such as?

--
(remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there..

.... There's pleasure sure in being mad
That none but madmen know...
Dryden

"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.



--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

"Knight Of The Road" wrote in message
...





"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.

OK - How am I to opt out of driving at 40 on a road good for 60, or even 70
mph?




--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

TripleS wrote:
Ian wrote:

Perhaps he is too busy running the vast organisation that is Safespeed,

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. That would be a more convincing claim if he gave membership
numbers, and wasn't putting any donations and membership fees straight
into a personal bank account.

Oh yes, and my manifesto ... 90mph on motorways, 80mph NSL, both -10mph
at night or in rain, rigorously enforced. Wanna send me 45 quid? Make
it out to "Creating A Safer Highway". The initials will do ...

Ian