Talk:Safe Speed

message: This section didn't represent Safe Speed's claims except in a very vague sense. I have now updated it but it still needs more.  (unsigned commend by user:Soundwave)
*"Disprove it and I'll remove it": actually several people have disproved the one in three claim, which Smith still uses, and the 12mph claim, which is still there; other things have been disproved but he rejects the proof as "flawed" (in a way which the evidence he likes, strangely enough, is not).  So this claim is highly problematic.  It is also a reversal of the burden of proof, since none of the evidence supporting his claims, with the possibleexception of regression to the mean, stands up to the degree of scrutiny he demands of contradictory evidence. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 08:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safe Speed's claims 

message: The point made that the Association of British Drivers gives limited support to SafeSpeed is abject nonsense.  Paul Smith is a member of the ABD and is officially listed as their representative for Northern Scotland.unsigned comment by User:62.253.245.4
*So when one of their officers was interviewed about Smith's one in three claim, and repudiated it, that was not a limitation to their support?  Or are you claiming that they do not support SafeSpeed at all, and it is merely coincidental that Smith is a member of the ABD? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABD Support?? 

message: This article reads like one long ad-hominem from someone who has serious personal issues with Paul Smith. It is given a veneer credibility by the use of some jargon and a selection of "statistics" - most of which are old, discredited, or just plain wrong.
Rubbish like this has no place in a supposedly authoritative source of information.Unsigned comment by User:Jeff11
:Nominate it for deletion then. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you speedy tagged it.  That is not the same thing: the article as written does not qualify as a speedy candidate. You need to go to WP:AFD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought Wikipedia was a source of information. 

message: The section headed "Paul Smith" ends with Smith also has outspoken views on issues such as disabled parking, and has been.  Any idea what the rest of that sentence is supposed to say?  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Copy & paste error, I think.  It's been fixed now (by someone else). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Truncated section

message: *User:82.4.3.177 (Special:Contributions/82.4.3.177) - NTL, Renfrewshire, Scotland
*User:62.253.245.4 (Special:Contributions/62.253.245.4) - Mitel, Glasgow, Scotland, apparently registered to Hillhead High School - close enough to Renfrew to support the inference (apparent in the text) that the two anons are one and the same.
:You are right, the comment about other users at the same ISP is unfair.  I have removed it.  I have re-inserted the IP info because (until you register and start signing your comments) it's the only way of telling if this is two anonymous posters or one.  I take it you do not dispute that both are you?  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP Information

message: Reverted addition of panic braking, lack of observance of basic road sense, and behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists. Members AND guests can register and discuss their views on a wide range of topics concerning motorists and road users. from the last para noting that Smith has outspoken views on issues such as disabled parking.
I did this because:
* phrases like "and rightly so" are POV
* the second sentence has nothing to do with Smith, it's about the SafeSpeed web forum, and is generic to most web forums anyway (the fact that they have one is sufficient)
* his views on behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists are of no particular note, being widely held (see TRL Report 549, 2003: A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’)
* Smith's views on panic braking are adequately covered (depersonalised) later on
Modified the following: Even the drivers they do detect speeding, are allowed to continue speeding - perhaps to kill or maim a child, just a few yards along the road. This flies in the face of the so called "Safety Camera" label they are usually given. Even shoplifters - a so called victimless crime, where nobody gets killed, are detained as soon as possible!!
I did this because:
* it is speculative
* it is stated in strongly POV terms (note multiple shrieks)
I have left the comment in the section in a toned-down version. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed 28/11/05 

message: I've removed most of the external links, because they make absolutely no mention of SafeSpeed or Paul Smith. Instead, they are more generally about the issue of speeding in the UK. Of the three that are left, one is SafeSpeed's own site, one is a profile of Paul Smith, and one is broadly opposed to their aims. (I'm still working on a major rewrite, but have limited time at the moment). OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 18:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I broadly agree, with the possible exception of the PACTS document which specifically tackles some of SafeSpeed's claims, but I'm content to wait for your proposed new veriosn and see how you handle it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The following was removed:
Paul has been described as "the Martin Luther King of road safety", and is passionate in his belief that saving lives is more important than obeying arbitary laws. He has brought the horrendous level of UK road deaths to international attention, and has been opposed in this at every turn by the Safety Camera Industry. Paul has been the subject of some outrageous smears from this opponents, but refuses to respond in kind to such provocations - he has said he simply will not descend to the level of people who knowingly cause thousands of deaths in order to make millions from otherwise law-abiding motorists.
I can't find anything in there which meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style etc.  Anyone who feels motivated to try NPOVing it is welcome to try.  - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFLMAO!  Presumably he walks on water as well :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I want to know where those supposed cheques are going :-D Apparently the anon troll has not yet worked out that Soundwave is not me, either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My word, you do catch on quickly.  Yes, I am indeed denying that I work for a safety camera partnership.  Never have, probably never will. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobody says he did.  The point is that Grahame satirised speed-obsessed motorists and action against them a century ago - this is clearly not (as Smith claims) a recent problem. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 5 December, 2005 

message: Is there any evidence available that the UK Government, or any of its agencies, had acknowledged the likely magnitude of the contribution of the RTM phenomenon to the KSI benefits of speed cameras prior to its inclusion in their 2005 four-year report? - De Facto 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant.  They have always known about, and discussed, RTM.  The fact that they did not quantify it before this is of no relevance to their recognition or otherwise of the phenomenon, which is discussed in other contextx in reports commissioned by them from TRL among other sources.  You are painting this as if it's some kind of Damascean conversion, or perhaps a humiliating climbdown - the fact that there is "only" a 10% reduction in fatalities is still a pretty significant reduction (note: this reduction does not factor in extra safety measures applied at speed camera sites such as central reservations, pedestrian crossings, junction engineering and so forth) , and the fact that RTM applies when the siting of speed cameras has, as a result of lobbying fomr the likes of the ABD, been restricted to situations where RTM will by definition apply (the "three coffin rule") is a surprise to precisely nobody. Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I have been able to discover, up until the 2005 report, they had failed to accept that RTM made any significant contribution to the results at speed camera sites - otherwise why did the partnerships continue to make claims of vastly overstated figures (as some still do).  If they knew about it why did these figures persist?  Is there evidence that they knew the size of it?  Did they wilfully ignore it?  Has recent research revealed something Safe Speed has suspected to be the case for years?  - De Facto 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanlon's Razor applies in respect of the camera partnerships, which are relatively recent bodies.  DfT is run by civil servants who routinely provide highly detailed, accurate and balanced advice to Ministers (I have seen some of this).  By the way, regression to the mean "particularly" to mobile cameras?  Research on RTM centres on long term analysis of step change interventions at fixed sites.  I know of no research which looks at RTM in the context of mobile enforcement of laws across multiple sites. Just zis Guy you know? 21:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official recognition of RTM 

message: What was the thinking behind editing out the references to this ?
:The fact that SafeSpeed is not a recognised authority, so there is no need to quite their view on every tiny facet of British motoring life (any more than we should quote George Monbiot's view on the scheme, or mine for that matter).  This article is about Safe Speed the organisation and its major claims.  Smith's view on the Pace scheme has no more place here than the fact that he "can't see why disabled people should have special treatment" and sees nothing wrong with parking in blue badge bays.  Just zis Guy you know? 10:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Doncaster scheme was something that Paul released a press release about, and his supporters' hysterical reaction to it on the SafeSpeed web forum gives an interesting ( disturbing ? ) insight into their mentality. Still, I agree we can't clutter the page up with every example of Paul's lunacy.62.172.132.228 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doncaster Pace Car Scheme 

message: The idea of "accident blackspots" is regarded as excessively simplistic by many road safety activists, being subject both to regression to the mean and accident migration, and the Government's "three coffin rule" for siting, combined with the high visibility of fixed cameras, means that camera sites have now been placed in the same general class as accident "blackspot" treatments, with similar problems, rather than being used to reduce speeds over the road network in general.  Location constraints and conspicuity are a response to opposition to speed cameras – it could be argued that Safe Speed has actively contributed to reducing the efficacy of speed enforcement; that if cameras were concealed and their locations unrestricted, contributing to an overall reduction in speeding over the wider road network, the regression to the mean effect would be decreased.
It has recently been announced by the government that the criteria for siting cameras are to be relaxed to "take account of all injury accidents as well as the level of KSIs, look back five years rather than three; and allow camera enforcement on routes where there is a serious problem of speeding and casualties, without the problem necessarily being concentrated at one particular location."  This may address the regression-to-the mean issue.
:As much as I hate removing well-cited sources, these two aren't relevant:
See the DfT "three-year" report  and "two-year" report , which take no account of RTM, for differing conclusions to that of Safe Speed.
:I will move the remaining "four year report" to a "further reading" section, as the discussion on regression to the mean is quite interesting. Stevage 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More original research attempting to debunk Safe Speed's claims. Possibly relevant at a Speed kills article? Stevage 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regression to the mean

message: Speed enforcement goes back to the earliest days of motoring and the slogan speed kills has been used since at least the 1970s, a period over which, as Smith notes, road fatalities declined steadily.  Some motorists have opposed regulation since the beginning of motoring - the UK’s largest motorists’ organisation was founded to warn members of speed traps, and the problem was clearly significant in the public mind by 1908 when Kenneth Grahame satirised the conflict using the character of Mr Toad.  
There appears to be no evidence to link the slogan, or the idea that speed kills, with the advent or growth of cameras.
:Smith claims "Speed Kills, Kills", but the slogan has been used since the 1970s.  In Davis' "Death on the Streets" there is a 1970s poster with that on it. The fact that the Automobile Association was founded to spot speed traps is also a matter of record and we say so in the article.  The point here is that none of this is new, it's been going on since forever. -  Just zis Guy you know? 16:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reduced this section to a simple statement - can someone fill in the relevant details of exactly what was originally claimed, what Jocksch took objection to, and in what form he expressed that? Stevage 17:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed kills, kills 

message: 1 link removed - Clip was possible TV news footage, but no indication that uploader had rights in footage concerned.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  You tube link removal 

message: This page reads worse than the Post Office union page did.  I shall attempt to clean it up, and improve the formatting.  The article should be completely non-biased. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a great deal of content here which is not referenced in any way.  I have added more than a few, but many of the claims made on behalf of the SS site are not referenced.  I would be grateful if anybody who knows where these claims are, could include them in the article using the ref template. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I will delete any unreferenced material from this article in a few weeks, if no such references are found by those who insert them.  Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad article 

message: Mr Smith claims to be a professional engineer, but many people have doubts about this. Mr Smith has refused say what his engineering qualifications are, and to which professional engineering organisation he belonged to. 82.2.141.215 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe you are correct about 'professional engineer' being a reserved title.  Controversies_over_the_term_Engineer#United_Kingdom.  The article says that a Chartered engineer is a reserved status, and that a Chartered engineer may be a professional engineer, but it does not state that use of the term 'professional engineer' is reserved - only that use of the term 'chartered engineer' or 'incorporated engineer' without said qualifications is illegal.  If you feel so strongly about use of this word then perhaps you should create an article about Paul Smith, and link to it from the SafeSpeed article.  Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion was not to create an article solely to rebut his claim, but to expand on his personal life and qualifications.  He was certainly a notable figure and worthy of an article.  Do you have any evidence to rebut his claim to be a 'professional engineer', other than the limited internet research you have likely conducted?  I'm guessing you have not.  Anyway, I will change the article to read in a manner that perhaps you will find more acceptable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Smiths professional engineering qualifications. 

message: I think the fact that SS are a pressure group is one that is easily discovered by observation rather than by research or reference to the use of English by journalists. The approach of lobbying through the media and public opinion is that of a pressure group. The term pressure group is in no way defamatory.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure Group 

message: The subject of this article is most certainly notable.  The group may be found in various reliable sources including The Telegraph ,  Paul Smith was a regular interviewee on BBC News, and various radio stations.  George Monbiot has devoted more than a 'trivial' amount of his time refuting the claims of this group. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: None of which is cited on the article itself, bar George Monbiot's article. Even on of the articles cited isn't about Safe Speed - the mention of them is truly incidental. Just because the group was notable to Monbiot, doesn't make them notable to society at large. The cited references aren't verifiable - every reference other than Monbiot's is either from the Safe Speed website, or in the case of MCN uploaded by a reader (or not about Safe Speed at all). And whilst Paul Smith may have been a regular interviewee, there has rarely been any other representative of Safe Speed right up until his death. Safe Speed is barely a group. Perhaps an article on Paul Smith as a notable person would be more appropriate? Kouros (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel the article needs more citations (it certainly does, but I'm far too busy with other things), then rather than propose deletion you should perhaps add them.  It isn't difficult, an hour of work could see most claims in this article full cited.  A quick search of Google News reveals dozens of hits for Safespeed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't feel the article needs more citations - I feel it should be deleted. A quick search of Google News reveals mostly barely disguised press releases from Safe Speed, and articles which are about speeding in general, but mention Safe Speed in passing. And that's pretty much what Safe Speed amounts to - the work of one woman and her late husband self promoting their beliefs. Its hardly a group, and certainly not a national or international organisation any more than any online forum is. In fact, I fail to see anything which Safe Speed have done which is even remotely noteworthy. Kouros (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the ABD they are just about the only group to have opposed the activities of Safety Camera Partnerships, and to denigrate the modern fallacy that reducing speed will improve safety.  I think that makes them notable.  You don't.  Take it to AFD if you want a full discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the organisation exists any more. It was one person and a web site, since his death the site has frozen and its only activity is an intermittent press release on a yahoo! mailing list. I don't know if there is any hard criteria for liveness of an organisation, but this one is pretty close to breaking anything which exists. That means put it up for deletion, or rework it in the past tense. Another option would be to create page "UK motorists rights groups" which would cover this, ABD, RAC/AA, etc, etc, let there be one argument about the existence of a "war on motorists" in one place, rather than scattered through the site. SteveLoughran (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: What is effectively the last sentence of this article says "Reduction of traffic speeds in residential areas (including by use of home zones and shared space) remains a core road safety policy in the UK." It seems totally without context. It is also unarguable. Why is it there?
HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the article is in a very poor state, feel free to delete or tag whatever is not cited, I'd attend to that myself but I'm away from my desktop. Parrot of Doom 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange and pointless sentence at the end