Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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.


--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

David from Oz wrote:
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.

Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at
all........

I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone
blocking a box junction.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

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.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
David from Oz wrote:

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.


Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at
all........

I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone
blocking a box junction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...achine_gun.jpg

would probably work. Bit messy though.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Tosspot wrote:
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
David from Oz wrote:

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.


Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a
deterrent at all........

I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent
someone blocking a box junction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...achine_gun.jpg

would probably work. Bit messy though.

Nice idea in theory , but the wreckage could end up blocking the junction
for far longer than a three series....

--
Alex - posting using all 64 bits in widescreen :0)

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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 suite what is needed to get
him on TV/Radio/in the papers.

--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

David from Oz wrote:

rolled out nationally. Paul from Safe Speed (a regular poster on this
group)

Which group? Has he been using an alias?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Conor wrote:

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 suite what is needed to get
him on TV/Radio/in the papers.

Unlike the government which consistently fudges figures to justify yet
more automated revenue cameras?
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

surely as all the boy racers who have been complaining that speed cameras
only catch people who drive "safely" at 70mph in town and 120 on motorways
should be glad that all misdemeanours will be caught on camera ?

Now come the new excuses --------------

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"David from Oz" wrote:

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.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any 12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.
--

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Tom wrote:
surely as all the boy racers who have been complaining that speed
cameras only catch people who drive "safely" at 70mph in town and
120 on motorways should be glad that all misdemeanours will be caught
on camera ?

Now come the new excuses --------------

I doubt it.

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.




--
Alex - posting using all 64 bits in widescreen :0)

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--





You are at liberty to opt out...



--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

nospam wrote:

"David from Oz" wrote:

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.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

You can read about my one (and only) offence here
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....2e88cb0d92173b
which was a result of me misunderstanding the rules on right turning at
box junctions.

I don't really follow your point on vigilance.

Cheers,

David

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

David from Oz ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc)

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

Not for years.

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's wrong. They do.

What they DON'T do, though, is do anything whatsoever about those whose
vehicles aren't registered legitimately.

They also fail to truly reflect the gravity of many of those offences. In
many cases, there's no "victim" - it's a purely administrative offence.
Quite often, though, it's a far more serious offence - DWDC&A or
careless/reckless driving.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

nospam wrote:
"David from Oz" wrote:

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.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined? I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any 12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.



I think it's a completely wrong assumption to treat stopping on a box
junction as a minor offence not related to safety. If I remember
rightly, the Highway Code says that you shouldn't go past a green light
unless you actually have somewhere to go to beyond the junction. So
the rule isn't really any different for box junctions, although maybe
the penalty is.

But my point is that doing so is definitely a safety issue. When the
lights change to red, they therefore change to green for other road
users, including pedestrian crossing lights. I have lost count of how
many times I've been in a crowd of people crossing with a "green man",
only to find several motor vehicles still trying to drive through it
because they had previously driven on to the junction.

They have the choice of staying in the path of other vehicles or
driving at the pedestrians. Neither is safe, but as a pedestrian I
strongly object to the latter.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
David from Oz ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

There was an item on driving offence cameras (e.g. box junction
offences, red light offences, right turn offences, bus lane offences
etc)

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

Not for years.

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's wrong. They do.

What they DON'T do, though, is do anything whatsoever about those whose
vehicles aren't registered legitimately.

They also fail to truly reflect the gravity of many of those offences. In
many cases, there's no "victim"

Depends on your understanding of 'victim'. 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. If I can't
proceed due to their lack of consideration am I not a victim? Obviously not
in terms of being injured but of being inconvenienced.

Ian

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Ian ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

They also fail to truly reflect the gravity of many of those
offences. In many cases, there's no "victim"

Depends on your understanding of 'victim'. I am quite often unable to
proceed due to traffic illegally blocking a box junction

There y'go, then - they're not committing a minor administrative box
junction offence (£100, no points), they're DWDC&A, and they should be
prosecuted as such. CD10, 3-9 points plus fine up to £2500.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"MIG" wrote in message

nospam wrote:
"David from Oz" wrote:

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.

How many further offences did you intend to commit before you got fined?
I
mean were you aiming at 4 or 5 a week and now that is down to zero or
something?

Apparently you were driving around with spare vigilance which you are now
applying to avoid minor traffic offences, don't you think that spare
vigilance would be better applied avoiding something of more consequence
like crashing and running over pedestrians?

So yes enforcement and fines will cause persistent offenders to change
their behaviour. Everyone else will carry on making the occasional
mistake
but now they will get ****ed off, poorer, and probably more dangerous as
they devote a disproportionate amount of attention to avoiding offences
of
little consequence.

Is it worth doing? It depends of how many persistent offenders there are
and what problem they cause, I'm very doubtful.

The only sure thing is offences will be committed, and enough revenue
will
be generated to pay for the enforcement and turn a profit.

It would be more effective to not penalise drivers for making an
occasional
mistake, say to notify but not fine them for the first 2 offences in any
12
month period. Persistent offenders would change their behaviour for the
better and the large majority would not have to change their behaviour
for
the worse. Of course it will never happen because such a scheme would
generate far less income and the authorities like to **** off motorists
anyway.



I think it's a completely wrong assumption to treat stopping on a box
junction as a minor offence not related to safety.

Quite agree. It depends on the location of the box junction. One I come
across daily is at the roundabout at the end of the M275 coming into
Portsmouth. Traffic coming from the next junction around the roundabout
blocks the box junction preventing traffic coming down the motorway from
proceeding which leads to stationary traffic on the motorway, especially in
the outside lane.

Ian

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"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.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"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.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

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.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

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.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

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?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"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

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"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

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

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

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Silk wrote:
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?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Jerry wrote:
"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?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Jerry" wrote

OK

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


If the road is good for 60 or 70, then you won't be penalised for driving at
60 or 70.


--
Regards, Vince.

www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Silk wrote:

snip

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

Knock it down a gear and floor it. Sounds simple enough to me, whats
your problem?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

TripleS wrote:
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.

*not at all scientific*, and probably the worst possible way of
learning about the world, especially things and events that are rare.

If they don't happen to you, you'll decide they never happen.
If they do, you'll think they happen more than they do.

One of the main benefits of civilization is that people can learn from
others' mistakes, and not just their own. The main benefit of
statistics is that they can be used to spot the difference between one
in a million and one in a thousand.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Colin McKenzie wrote:
TripleS wrote:
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.

*not at all scientific*, and probably the worst possible way of learning
about the world, especially things and events that are rare.

Nonsense. Given sufficient experience one can form a reasonable view of
how things are. If that is inadequate for your purposes ignore it by
all means, but it doesn't mean that what I'm saying is totally invalid.

In any case, so far as driving is concerned, what does your experience
amount to?

If they don't happen to you, you'll decide they never happen.

Nonsense. I draw no such conclusion.

If they do, you'll think they happen more than they do.

Nonsense. I draw no such conslusion.

One of the main benefits of civilization is that people can learn from
others' mistakes, and not just their own. The main benefit of statistics
is that they can be used to spot the difference between one in a million
and one in a thousand.

That's more like it, so long as the statistics are reasonably reliable. :-)

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
David from Oz wrote:
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.

Hmmm , so an increased chance of being caught doesn't act as a deterrent at
all........

I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone
blocking a box junction.

How about one of those electromagnet based wrecking cranes to lift the
offender out of the way so that traffic can move freely again? And
maybe leave them in the air for an hour or two as a warning to others.
I think the claw type grab might be a bit too brutal.

If you think we have a problem there are countries where traffic light
discipline is so bad that without policemen on every junction at rush
hour it all grinds to a complete standstill - think herringbone
pattern of cars in every junction all moving and hooting at random.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Martin Brown wrote:

If you think we have a problem there are countries where traffic light
discipline is so bad that without policemen on every junction at rush
hour it all grinds to a complete standstill - think herringbone
pattern of cars in every junction all moving and hooting at random.

I've been at junctions where it ends up a free-for-all. The light goes
green for one road but access is obstructed, so they go on red. And
then it goes on from there - just go when you can. Many would say that
if the lights don't do their job, that's probably the best option.

Most gridlock (or starvation to be more technical) occurs where there
are two signals in close succession, such that the space between the
signals is filled quickly by one side and then the other side will have
nowhere to go. Actually this is commonly the situation at Henlys Corner
for the A406 Westbound. In the last couple of weeks they have been
resurfacing and there is currently no box junction and the approach has
become a lot emptier as a result.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

David from Oz wrote:
..
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.

Actually that was discussed on uk.legal and it was questioned whether
you had committed an offence at all as you were waiting to turn right
onto the A406 Eastbound and the exit was presumably not blocked at the
time you entered the box. The only question was whether there was one
box or two.

I used to go ahead, U-turn then turn left. Was always a much quicker
way to get through that junction.

If they really wanted to reduce congestion at that junction then the
options a

1. (Preferable). Back to the original plans.
2. Ban all right turns at that junction. Traffic wishing to head for
the A406 Eastbound from there should find an alternative route. This
might be achieved with a U-turning area in Bowes Road.
3. One way system along Telford Road, Bowes Road, Green Lanes and
Bounds Green Road. Not sure how feasible that would be.

The problem with a box junction can be:

- do you really only enter when the exit is clear or when you predict
the exit will be clear? In free-flowing traffic, for example, but the
car in front hasn't got to the other end yet.

- What do you do then if there would be room but the car in front
stopped just after they had cleared the junction, rather than moving
into the space in front? You know what some are like in traffic queues
with their enormous gaps.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

In article , TripleS says...

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.

It's probably far more accurate as well.

--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm