Tax on Guilt

PR145: Proposed speeding tax increase

NEWS: for immediate release

The Daily Express reveals today Government plans to add a levy to motoring fines to support victims of violent crime.

Contained within the "Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill" is legislation to permit increased fixed penalties for motoring offences, including speeding.

Safe Speed considers that this provision is nothing more than a stealth tax. In days gone by motoring laws were used with intelligence against those causing road dangers, but these days normal responsible motorists at safe and responsible speeds are being issued with speeding tickets at the rate of three million each year.

The Government has not produced anything approaching a convincing case to demonstrate that the modern deployment of speed cameras is making the roads safer - how could they when road deaths are now on a true rising trend for the first time since the 1960s?

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "It is abhorrent for the Government to require motorists to contribute to a victims of crime fund on routine speeding tickets. Violent crime has nothing to do with exceeding a speed limit. The government obviously considers motorists to be an easy target."

Paul continues: "But it's far worse than that because forging this false link between minor motoring offences and violence sends a misleading message to road users. Misleading messages cause false priorities. When road users' priorities are distorted they pay attention to the wrong things and danger increases. Road safety absolutely depends on each individual focusing on the most immediate dangers. At its simplest, this gives drivers one more reason to concentrate on their speedometers instead of the road ahead."

Paul continues: "British road safety is the best in the world. Accurate information has been the absolute foundation of our superior performance. But we are going very badly wrong and are squandering our World lead. We have been World leader for 25 years but we are now the slowest improving country in Europe. I am absolutely certain that false and muddled road safety messages are causing our recent bad performance."

<ends>

Notes for editors:

The bill is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u...34/2004134.pdf

See section 16.
About Safe Speed
================

The Safe Speed road safety campaign is primarily the work of engineer- turned road safety analyst Paul Smith.

Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 49, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 7,000 hours of research into the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous. Paul has identified and reported a number of major flaws and false assumptions in the claims made for speed cameras, and the whole "speed kills" system of road safety.

The inescapable conclusion is that we should urgently return to the excellent road safety policies that gave us in the UK the safest roads in the World in the first place.

Safe Speed does not campaign against speed limits or appropriate enforcement of motoring laws, but argues vigorously that automated speed enforcement is neither safe nor appropriate.


Contact Safe Speed:
=================


web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
email : psmith@safespeed.org.uk
telephone: 01862 832000 anytime.
mobile: 07799 045553
note: the mobile does not work well at our office. Always try land line first.
Location: North Scotland

We are available for press and media interviews.

----------------------------------------------------------------

PR146: Speeding tax increase PASSED commons reading

NEWS For immediate release

At 5pm today The House of Commons voted to reject amendment 11 and so allowed the victim levy to be added to speeding fines in the future. The votes were 175 for the amendment and 290 against the amendment.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign comments: "It's a sad day for motoring and an even sadder day for British Justice. Soft targets will pay more than hard criminals."

<ends>

Originally Posted by Mogs

Blah Blah Blah
Since setting up Safe Speed in 2001, Paul Smith, 49, an advanced motorist and road safety enthusiast, and a professional engineer of 25 years UK experience, has carried out over 7,000 hours of research into the overall effects of speed camera policy on UK road safety. We believe that this is more work in more detail than anything carried out by any other organisation. Paul's surprising conclusion is that overall speed cameras make our roads more dangerous.

So why doesn't he publish his findings in a serious refereed journal? Because they don't stand up to critical scrutiny is, I think, why.

Originally Posted by Ken McCulloch

So why doesn't he publish his findings in a serious refereed journal? Because they don't stand up to critical scrutiny is, I think, why.

Our resident Captin Camera strikes again!

I saw an accident today that occured when someone braked before a camera and got shunted. The dangerous driver was the one behind following too closely, not the one in front who might not have been speeding in the first place.

Safety camera now replaces Microsoft Works as my favorite oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Our resident Captin Camera strikes again!

I don't know whether to be flattered or angry . Seriously I think the whole camera thing is pretty difficult and complex. Of course there are situations where the presence of a camera might have an adverse effect but the evidence is very unambiguous that in general their presence does reduce overall speeds and accident rates. I'm not so much an advocate FOR 'safety' cameras as a critic of those who try to claim that they are always and generally a bad thing. In general I think they are a good thing but I would also like to see a lot more active traffic policing.

Originally Posted by Ken McCulloch

I would also like to see a lot more active traffic policing.

Amen to that.

If you talk to the traffic cops they would agree with you too.

Personally, I don't mind speed cameras outside schools and similar locations.

To my mind, the big problem (other than the fact that they are seen a fleecing machines) with them is the fact that offer only single-issue enforcement. At least traffic cops offer a visual deterent to other forms of bad and inconsiderate driving and their very presence makes people think twice before doing something ill-considered and potentially dangerous.

If you belive it or not (and im not sure myself, but I guess its plausable) there are arguments that cameras outside schools are unwise too, due to drawing attention to the speedo when it should be on the road.

As I said before sometimes its safe to exceed the speed limit, sometimes its dangerous to even stick to it. Its all about judgement of the road conditions, traffic, padestrians, weather etc. If everyone could be trusted to judge what speed was safe, we wouldnt need speed limits at all. Because people can't be trusted, we need someone to judge for us ie, the police.

I travel at a speed that I genuinely think is safe. That might mean 20mph over the limit on a straight derestricted road on a sunny day, or 10mph bellow on a busy dark wet road. The case may arise one day where my judgement is off, I'm going too fast for the contidions and I'm pulled over by the police. Since road safety is what they do for a living, if they decide that I deserve a ticket then I would accept that without argument. If a camera ever gives me a ticket for doing 80mph on the motorway (the fastest yet safest roads I might add) in good conditions then I'll be furious because it would let someone doing something infinitely more dangerous like tailgating at 70 in monsoon conditions off the hook.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

If you belive it or not (and im not sure myself, but I guess its plausable) there are arguments that cameras outside schools are unwise too, due to drawing attention to the speedo when it should be on the road.

As I said before sometimes its safe to exceed the speed limit, sometimes its dangerous to even stick to it. Its all about judgement of the road conditions, traffic, padestrians, weather etc. If everyone could be trusted to judge what speed was safe, we wouldnt need speed limits at all. Because people can't be trusted, we need someone to judge for us ie, the police.

I travel at a speed that I genuinely think is safe. That might mean 20mph over the limit on a straight derestricted road on a sunny day, or 10mph bellow on a busy dark wet road. The case may arise one day where my judgement is off, I'm going too fast for the contidions and I'm pulled over by the police. Since road safety is what they do for a living, if they decide that I deserve a ticket then I would accept that without argument. If a camera ever gives me a ticket for doing 80mph on the motorway (the fastest yet safest roads I might add) in good conditions then I'll be furious because it would let someone doing something infinitely more dangerous like tailgating at 70 in monsoon conditions off the hook.

some fair points there squirrel although your judgement and mine or even a copper of what is safe for the conditions would probably all be different and that's just 3 people.What about the gti drivers who feel safe at any speed in their cage? It's too complicated for everyone to decide what a safe speed is at a particular time.

ps. I do this too by the way

The best thing out side schools is buses.. people dropin off there kids in cars is just dangerous and causes major traffic conjestion. Though a improvement in school buses would fix that.
Or speed humps. Cameras would not help as said before they would be looking at their speedo rather than the child stepping out from behind a car.
The only time I think cameras are usfull are at traffic lights to catch those people running the lights.
Or on mobile units doing spot checks at black spots. Then atleast it allows some sort of discretion from the officer at the time.

Originally Posted by chutz

some fair points there squirrel although your judgement and mine or even a copper of what is safe for the conditions would probably all be different and that's just 3 people.What about the gti drivers who feel safe at any speed in their cage? It's too complicated for everyone to decide what a safe speed is at a particular time.

ps. I do this too by the way

There is no perfect solution and yes everyones opinion of whats safe is different. I'd imagine that most experienced police officers judgements would be fairly consistant though. In the end I'd rather have my driving scrutinsed by a human than a money generating machine.