What DO you do for a living nedrapier?

Hi GrahamS

He didn't give any outcomes as to whether the accidents had fatalities or just chipped paint. He just seemed to be using figures in totally the wrong way given that we were all there for being caught speeding. I thought (and still think) that he should have tried to scare the pants off us all by interpreting the figures in the bleakest, most horrific way possible.

It was almost like people who roar down the motorway rarely crash while the rest of us bimble around at low speeds bashing and banging into each other wholesale. It really was most bizarre.

I didn't go home and find any tables to support/undermine his figures.

I was cross at the whole thing. I don't think I should be allowed to go round speeding BUT if it had been a cop not a speed camera there is no way he would have ticketed me at that location at that time of night. Particularly as I was coming down a hill with the caravan SLOWING down because I had seen the 30 sign. The camera was just inside the 30 limit just behind the sign. Grrrrr.

Re. insurance going up that is not my experience with the first 3 points. I'm not a nutter driver and certainly not of the Clarkson school of machismo but when the speed camera thing started a few years ago I got caught by a mobile unit (43 in a 30 on the edge of a village). My insurance didn't change. A couple of years later I got caught again by a static camera (edge of village again) and that DID lead to an increase in my insurance. I've not been on a course – I'd have taken the option – but just getting caught made me think more when driving around. The problem is modern cars. They are so quiet, smooth and insulated from the outside that 30 seems like crawling along. Obviously they still do as much damage as a car 25 years ago (maybe a bit less). The other problem is that driving around at the speed limit can induce a sort of torpor as there isn't much stimulation from your insulated modern car.

I won't bore you with the stats for 2003, but let me assure you that they are very similar. You can read them for yourself on the link above.

If the stats from 2003 are 'very similar' to those 5 years later, are the 'safety measures' (speed cameras etc etc etc) actually working? or are the stats used as propaganda to push certain agendas?

same here,nico. mine stayed the same and he said "thankyou for being so honest.. and as a good will gesture we will give you free breakdown cover"

that was MOREthan.

Karin: I'm a flagpole painter. I paint flagpoles.

(I had some notice that time) 8)

LOL

I didn't go home and find any tables to support/undermine his figures.

Sadly that's exactly the kind of thing lonely internet geeks like me enjoy doing 😀

Looking at the 2003 report, they didn't give such a full Contributory Factors breakdown back then, but it does state:

Excessive speed was the most frequently cited contributory factor to fatal accidents, recorded in 28 per cent of such accidents between 1999 and 2002. This compares with 18 per cent of severe accidents and 11 per cent of slight accidents.

So it still accounts for 11% even if you only look at the minors.

Of course these are "reported accidents", most "scratched paint" accidents aren't likely to be reported, so wouldn't be covered by these figures. It may well be that 95% of ALL accidents, including the non-serious unreported ones, occur in those conditions.

But you can't really use the number of scratched-paint accidents where no one was speeding to support your statement that "THUS SPEED DOES NOT KILL".

GrahamS, stop using cold hard logic and reasoning will you FFS!! I'm seeing far too much sense in your posts. We are discussing the right to speed – and didn't you know it's stupid drivers that kill, not speed (let's forget that one of the things that stupid drivers do a lot of the time is break the speed limit….).

are the 'safety measures' (speed cameras etc etc etc) actually working? or are the stats used as propaganda to push certain agendas?

Hard to say. The number of killed or seriously injured casualties has fallen every year.

1994-98 average: 47,656
2003: 37,215
2006: 31,845
2007: 30,720
2008: 28,572

This could be due to speed awareness, drink drive campaigns, better safety features in cars, better road design, less pedestrians and cyclists or many other factors.

Some safety measures are clearly working, but it is very hard to pick out the effect of individual measures.

GrahamS, stop using cold hard logic and reasoning will you FFS!!

Apologies, I realise it's not the STW way 😀

I did one in Preston last year, I walked in with a right attitude, but walked away happy I had learnt something

My wife driving home last week from work when she stopped to help a group of people carrying out CPR on a woman. They were wasting their time really as the car that had knocked her over had already killed her….

Grow up people.

From what I've seen they only help for people who are a bit thick or arrogant and don't understand why speed is dangerous. But it's better than three points and I guess some people go away educated. The rest will carry on as they are but as I say, thick and arrogant.

From the original post

"Shall i just have three points instead?"

Why would you take 3 points which last some 5 years, that will only ever add to your other points and not take the 4hr punishment course & be done with it?

Ti29er

I'm taking the course, it seems the opinion is that i might learn something 😉