5903

http://www.speedsafe.co.uk/news.php#news38

jk100

John Rowling, manager of the safety camera partnership, said: "We are extremely pleased that even fewer speeding offences were recorded this year and want to thank motorists for listening to our appeals to drive safely and at appropriate speeds.

What exactly does appropriate speeds mean? Usual drivel from these people - surely he should mean below the speed limit?

Shropshire-Guy

Figures have to be lower. I Marshalled on both Crychan and Margam and went down to felindre service. You could see that there was a huge drop in the amount of speckies out, and everybody i spoke to had the same oppinion, mind you at £25 per head to get in to a stage what the hell do you expect. Looks like Police christmas fund will be a wash out this year. lol. THATS A SHAME.

Graz

Exactly what I was going to say, thought attendence was down this year, hence less motorists to scam money out of in the first place.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Perhaps a load of e-mails to MR Rowling from people explaining why they didn't go to see the rally this time. Listing this years vs lasts years attendance figures would help

And while your at it also mention how you intend not to reccomend anyone you know to bring tourism or spectators to the area ever again whilst they insist on persectuting motorists.

hedgehog

The "appropriate speed" thing is a reaction to some of the abuse the scamera partnerships have been taking in the media and is an attempt to make them look like they are concerned about safety.

Until recently they were asserting that if you drive at 60mph in a 60 speed limit then you were totally safe from an accident but if you should drift to 61mph then you were going to die within seconds. However, there is no evidence of this and it has been a PR nightmare for them.

Every good driver knows that the appropriate speed for the conditions may be considerably less than the posted speed limit and so the partnerships are jumping on this "appropriate speed" phrase to try and give the impression that they know about safe driving and are not just trying to grab cash from motorists. It is also an ambigious term that is difficult to attack with the statistics, unlike like their "exceed the speed limit and you will die" claim which can easily be shot down.

So, that is why their turn of phrase has changed recently. Their plight has been compounded by road deaths actually increasing last year and by accidents increasing at 743 camera sites. They need to imply that people were driving at an inappropriate speed even if they were within the actual speed limit in order to try and hold on to their little money making empire by keeping government convinced that speed kills. In truth their cameras kill drivers and any amount of fancy words will not cover that up. The safety partnerships are nothing but a PR organisation for a network of devices that is causing an increase in road deaths so we've got to expect them to change their position on a regular basis as they thrash about looking for something to convince people of their worth.