Safespeed scrap camera petition

I'm sure most of us have signed the road pricing petition on the No10 website, its up to nearly 900,000 now, but Paul Smith, founder of safespeed ,has created another on calling for the abolition of speed cameras and some proper road safty policly in their place.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scrapcam/

I doubt Blair and co will take any notice, and i have a feeling that the website will crash on the 19th Feb, taking all the names with it, but it cant hurt to sign this one as well.

I agree. Speed cameras are a pain in the arse. Not because i get caught out because i never have.

however this comment...

We must measure what is important, not make important that which is easily measured - and you can't measure safe driving in miles per hour

What is supposed to be measured? how many G's you pull in the corner down the high street? what geer your in? how fast you accelerated form the lights? Or even how many minors you got on your test?

I can imagine the following...

Plod - "ello ello ello, 50 in a 30 area sonny jim!"

Mr Smith - "Thats ok i only got 3 minors on my test"

or

Plod - "ello ello ello, going a bit fast there sir..."

Chav in nova - "Tis safe man i is a rite wickid driver innit, i always win on ma ex-box"

Plod - "Oh well thats ok then carry on"

I believe that is misleading, Speed has a massive impact on accidents. And the advert with the little girl on the road against the tree shows that. I dont believe speed cameras make any difference. There are not that manny arround northampton.. but i know where every single one is. Cameras are the wrong way to stop speeding. But because i cant agree with the comments with the petition i wont sign it.

Cameras are the wrong way to stop speeding. But because i cant agree with the comments with the petition i wont sign it.

Those two sentences agree and disagree with the text you quoted.

I think you have misunderstood what was meant about safe driving not being measured by MPH.

It's all about driving appropriately for the area/situation/conditions. They aren't suggesting that something other than speed is measured as an arbitrary limit.

It's all about driving appropriately for the area/situation/conditions.

Judging a persons driving purely on the speed that they are driving, without taking any other factors into consideration is ridiculous.

Sometimes its safe to exceed the speed limit, other times its not safe to be doing speeds anything like approaching it.

The current obsession with enforcing speed limits (as a cash generator,) encourages drivers to concentrate more on the speedometer, than the road.

I've got no sympathy for those who speed inappropriately and get punished (even though in the past I'll admit to doing it myself) but to condemn a person just for exceeding an arbitrary limit which is constant 24hrs a day regardless of road conditions, is short sighted in the least.

These days a lot of our attention, that should be spent observing the road, is instead spent constant checking the speedometer, in case we happen to have drifted slightly over the limit.

Couple that with the other (unnecessary) observations needed these days to be aware of fixed and mobile camera sites , then its amazing that we find any time to actually concentrate on the task in hand, namely driving in a safe manner.

Good posting Geoff.

We really need to teach kids at a young age that roads are dangerous, you can't get away with simply stepping out whenever you feel like it and expect the cars to stop - It's irrelevant really whether you're doing 30mph or 40 when a kid runs out in front of you, is it easier to stop 1.5 tonnes of metal travelling at 35mph, or stop 40kg of kid from chasing his ball?

Agree with the above.

It's the drivers I feel sorry for when a kid runs out between cars for his ball, driver has no time to react, one dead child. The driver gets done for manslaughter and his name dragged through the mud. Don't people think that it is bad enough that he has to live with the fact that he killed sombodys child for the rest of his life!

At the end of the day it was not his fault, but societies.

1. No road safety in schools, TV or by a lot of new parents

2. All these new housing development and no areas for children to play.

3. As said before....speed cameras that make you watch your speedo and not the road!

One last rant....

Why can't people learn what the speed limits are on roads.

Dual carrige way in Lincoln, speed limit 70mph, speed camera on the hill. Driving down the hill watching you don't drift over 70mph, glance up to make sure your still between the lines and.....IDIOT in front braking for the camera down to 60 or sometimes 50mph.

Learn the limits idiots:bang:

I very rarely adhere to the speed limits, I drive to the roads (which I'll grant usually means following someone at the limit!!). I pay attention to what it happening and drive accordingly - sometimes over the limit and sometimes below it.

It's funny when there's a police car around, and I'm the only one willing to overtake and drive like I usually do - haven't been pulled yet!!

I posted this on another forum a few years ago after seeing Auto Express No. 731, there was an article about speed limits being brought down to 20! With various views included, it also asked for readers views so I sent in the following:

"Picture a network of tarmac tracks, similar to the roads we see around us. Now imagine there are solid wedge-shaped blocks, each weighing between 1 and 3 tons, travelling in random amounts and at various intervals, down these tracks in either direction at speeds that vary between 25 and 40 mph.

These blocks are NOT manned, they are uncontrolled and are simply carrying a particular cargo to a particular destination with basic safety features, can you imagine under any circumstance that these tracks would be readily accessible to the public? That there would not be fences and ‘level crossings’ to prevent injury to the public? And especially that they would be running outside of schools and through towns with no barriers at all? No. If this were the case, would it be acceptable to simply limit the speed of these blocks to 20 mph (knowing that in fact most would still travel faster in order to deliver their cargo on time). No. So why, just because these blocks have a human being ‘at the wheel’, do we insist on blaming these drivers for the injuries they cause. Obviously in some circumstances that is the case, human error must account for some of the crashes that occur on our roads. But a human driver is generally unable to stop 1.5 tons of metal from hitting an object that is put in front of it, whatever the speed; after all we can’t fight physics.

Reducing speed limits is only going to slow down the people that crash through no fault of their own. Along with the fact that the continuing emphasis on reducing speed is only seeking to distract the driver more from the act of driving, as they now need to concentrate more on avoiding fines and persecution, rather than looking where they are going.

The only way to prevent accidents on our roads is to think about the problem from a different perspective, stop the pedestrians getting in the way of the vehicles in the first place, rather than trying to prevent the vehicle from hitting the pedestrian that is standing in the road. Although I am an Engineer this is not my field so I would not know the best way to do this, but clearly for this idea to work a radical solution is required. Fencing off the roads around schools, playgrounds and busy towns would be the first step. Introducing a gate system of some kind, maybe amalgamated with a Puffin Crossing system to only allow pedestrians onto the road when the traffic has stopped, and close the gates before the traffic light goes to green. Almost as though we treat the roads with the same respect as railway lines are treated with by traffic – after all, it’s a similar situation to a lesser extent.

If this were to happen then drivers could concentrate on driving, and speed limits could be kept at a reasonable level (30 and 40 as they currently are, or even more). The persecution of speeding drivers would not be such an important matter, and most importantly, no more pedestrians would be injured or killed on our roads. There will be a huge increase in the number of traffic light systems but they will only be red where there is a large pedestrian population, like at school starting and finishing times, and I would rather be stopped by a red light than worry about hitting a child!

Why has this not been done already? Simply, because the cost would be vast and nobody will be willing to pay it. But attempting to stop injuries and deaths by adding speed bumps into roads, and reducing speed limits to nothing is NOT going to work. Maybe the above idea is also not the answer, but what is clear is that instead of trying to get around the laws of physics by reducing every factor to a minimum, we should try to educate people about just how dangerous the roads are to be around. Currently it seems most pedestrians are completely unaware of the risks."

I think I sent an email to Top Gear at the time too!