I am not the worlds greatest fan of speed cameras (having being nicked by one) however I'm sure they are effective in certain circumstances.
In the village near to where I live there is a long straight main road (about 3/4 mile long). Alongside it are a mix of houses and a secondary school.
It has always had a 30mph limit. Up until about 2004 it was not unusual to see drivers doing 50mph+ along that road - sometimes more. There were quite a number of accidents involving children, one of which resulted in a death.
In 2004 mobile speed camera signs were errected and every now and then a camera van turns up. Almost everybody now sticks to the 30mph. I don't think that there have been any more pedestrian accidents since then - I have not heard of any, anyway.
Another thing that gives me some reason to support cameras in the right cicumstances is that our local IAM driving examiner is a traffic officer and goes out to, and investigates, accidents - and he's a strong supporter of cameras on the grounds of safety.
|
but for every reasonable one......... and there are some...............there are loads more unreasonable ones and that is the problem. It is the same with speed limits..... no one in their right mind objects to speed limits, of some sort......it is just that they must be reasonable..... and many are not.... If you had the motorways on a 40mph limit no doubt you could argue it is safer and there would be less accidents, but is it reasonable?
If they are unreasonable in the first place, there is a temptation to ignore them (rightly or wrongly).
Even the Human Rights Act, imposed on us from Europe, says things should be Proportionate, Lawful, Appropriate and Necessary... i don't think they are........ and a fair number of other people don't either.
|
The only unreasonable speed cameras are hidden ones. They are there to slow people down, a camera you cant see does not slow anyone down only prosecute after the event, Horse & stable door syndrome.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
But, TVM, as a lot of people point out, visible cameras distract motorists from the real job in hand (which is driving properly, not staying below some arbitrarily defined speed) and cause them to drive erratically. They are dangerous in themselves, as well as a galloping pain in the fundament. Can't think why anyone without a financial interest has a good word to say for them.
|
But, TVM, as a lot of people point out, visible cameras distract motorists from the real job in hand (which is driving properly, not staying below some arbitrarily defined speed) and cause them to drive erratically. They are dangerous
Fatuous argument, anyone who cant use a speedo and still concentrate on driving properly should be banned anyway.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
I agree with TVM
Letter in Saturday's DT from one reader to HJ saying to the effect "with speed cameras I can't drive properly as I am also glancing down to check my speed"
To which my response is: "failure to control a car properly: unfit to drive... self admitted.."
Some of the muppets I see speeding and on a mobile and passing cars when crossing a pedestrian crossing...
madf
|
But, TVM and madf, why should they be distracted and harassed by silly flashing yellow boxes by the side of the road? You must have noticed that most of them are in places where it is natural to exceed the speed limit. The posted speed limit is often too low. Or don't you agree?
Why are you defending this awful, pointless, tiresome nanny stuff? Just because it's there?
|
Do we argue against limits that are 'too low' or the enforcement of limit?
I think it is difficult to argue against the enforcement of the law. If its OK to do 40mph in a 30mph is it equally OK to do 50, 60 ?? Where does it stop. Is it OK for the exec in his Merc to break the limit, but not the 'Chav' in his Corsa? I think the problem with speed cameras is that it catches people who are normally honest 'middle class' citizens who don't normally have much interaction with 'the law' and they get a bit steamed up about it.
On the other hand I think that some limits are too low - particularly are recently built roads that are not in residential areas - they often seem to have low limits. It would be better to campaign against inappropriate limits, rather than the enforcement of limits via camera or anything else for that matter.
I am extremely wary of anyone who uses the term 'nanny' - they want to break any rules that don't suit them but are normally the ones that moan first if someone else breaks the rules. In my previous house I had a neighbour who moaned a lot about cars speeding down the hill past his house because it made it dangerous for him and his wife to pull out. After several moans to the police they posted a copper right at the bottom of the hill with a radar gun. One of the first people to be caught was my neighbour, having pulled out of his own driveway and accelerated away past everyone elses!
I certainly don't accept the 'distraction' argument - that really is moronic. Whichever car I'm in, even if its a 'strange' car, I knock it into the appropriate gear and glance at the speedo. Just by listening to the engine revs you can hold the correct speed. A lot of people can't concentrate on their driving because of fiddling with ICE, climate control, talking on a mobile etc, which is half the problem, the other half are trying to drive at 30mph in 5th gear.
|
I think Aprilia will accept there is a difference between being distacted by a speedometer and not looking at it because you are watching a child on the sidewalk that might run out or fall in front of your car.
HJ
|
Maybe I'm less easily distracted than the average person, but I don't find speedometers especially distracting. If there are children by the road then I would be keeping my eye on them and ease off the throttle - I wouldn't need to check the speedo because I'd be under the limit. Drop to a lower gear (e.g. '3' on a 4-sp auto; '3' on a small 5-sp manual car) when you enter a 30mph limit and one glance at the speedo should help you hold it there. I used to do quite a bit of 'observing' for the IAM and most people found this worked. Problems come when they are in too high a gear and the car's speed wanders.
I'm not being 'holier than thou' about this - I'm not a great fan of speed cameras, but people should argue against them using sound arguments - the distraction one is pretty weak IMHO.
If people genuinely do find controlling their speed to be a problem then consider joining your local IAM group and getting some coaching. They currently have a £75 'Skills for Life' package: www.iam.org.uk/
|
i think the point has been lost here......... the point is speed cameras encourage you to keep to the limit at that part of the road......... and if they have been genuinely sited at a danger point, which they allegedly are (although with many of them i'm not convinced)......... then just as you're approaching the danger zone, then you're encouraged to be concentrating on something else...i.e your exact speed via the speedo
if you were driving down a non camera road and saw some potential danger, you wouldn't suddenly start taking your eyes off the road and look at the speedo, would you.......... you would adjust your driving circumstances accordingly, but keep looking at what was going on
many people approach cameras (and the lines on the road, that are often left months,years after the camera has gone), without the faintest idea of what the speed limit is, then brake suddenly just in case they're speeding and don't know it......... how dangerous is that?
then there's the growing list of people who don't register their cars at all, couldn't care too hoots about anyone else, safe in the knowledge they're permanently home and dry.
personally i'd prefer more traffic cops and less cameras........ because the former have discretion (if they choose to use it) and the latter don't................. there are plently of times when a small indiscretion is acceptable, but others when it most definitely is not
|
the point is speed cameras encourage you to keep to the limit at that part of the road......... and if they have been genuinely sited at a danger point,
if the true intention is safety and to encourage drivers to slow down, i am all for placing those speed display readout boards warning you of excess speed, followed immediately by a camera at the danger zone so that those who have ignored fair warning of the danger spot are then photographed and heavily fined.
|
|
wouldn't have a problem with that..........however without the sneakiness at times there would be considerably less revenue...... and unless you are a complete dingbat, the only people going through the camera then would be the unregistered..... so the point of the camera would have been thoroughly and utterly negated
|
...considerably less revenue...... the point of the camera would have been thoroughly and utterly negated ..
>>
the truth at last. we all know that is what the cameras are for.
|
|
>>But if the DfT implied claim were true we would have 50,000 dead child pedestrians
Complete ******** based upon these stats that would be 50,000 children killed for every 51,000 hit. Surely some mistake. Oh I see to try ridicule the figures we estimate that 200,000 children are involved in near misses and then apply the 20% death rate to them. With the greatest respect to safespeed I think that it is fairly apparent that if I've missed a child it is highly unlikely that I will kill them by having hit them!
Given that level of incompetence I wouldn't trust anything that they say!
|
::: note to hj, or the moderators - ::::
the link in the first post has a superfluos "s". it should be www.safespeed.org.uk/
[Thanks - all fixed now... although I suspect this whole thread could be heading for the general speed camera discussion once someone more technically competent than me comes along... PG]
|
I stand by my comments. Any driver who cannot control the pressure of his/her right foot on an accelerator pedal to keep a constant speed for the 2 seconds it requires to read a speedometer should not be driving.
Any one who seriously suggests that trying to keep a constant speed due to speed cameras causes them to lose control .. should not be driving.
And anyone who breaks speed limits by more than 10% should be fined..
I agree about the needs for more traffic police etc. and for fewer confusing road signage.
But I see enough dangerous driving with people speeding and deliberately not paying attention to driving by phoning/smoking/twiddling controls/speeding past schools/overtaking on blind bends/overatking cars on pedestrian corssings/jumping red lights/overtaking on the inside/etc to recognise that most arguments about speed cameras are fallacious and self serving.
madf
|
Any one who seriously suggests that trying to keep a constant speed due to speed cameras causes them to lose control .. should not be driving. And anyone who breaks speed limits by more than 10% should be fined..
Absolutely.
I know the approximate speed of my car from the tone of the engine. If I can do it, then so can everyone else. If they can't, get off the road.
Half the problem is people's insistance on doing 30mph in 4th gear, 40mph in 5th etc. Of course they have no control, they're in too high a gear!!
*Every* time I have been "scared" by a speed camera, it's because I've known damn well I was breaking the speed limit.
We all speed from time to time. If you speed, are caught, and don't know you're speeding (which is the implication of needing to look down on the speedo all the time) then you shouldn't be driving. If you speed, are caught, and do know you were speeding, well then it's a fair cop isn't it?
The only people I have any sympathy for who are caught by speed cameras are those who are driving on a strange road where the speed limit has not been explicitly stated on signs (and these roads do exist). So I'd be campaigning for better signposting rather than fewer speed cameras.
|
> insistance
hmmm, jase can't spell.....
|
I would say to Aprilia that most drivers, probably, can control their speed and don't drive at mad speeds. The whole point about them is that they are put in places where it's natural to exceed a speed limit which may well be set too low. They make people nervous, and they make a lot of them drive nervously. Not me - I slow down for them without braking - but there are so many jerky unpredictable drivers out there that one really doesn't need them being made more nervous with legal overload. It seeems to me to do more harm than good. And do people who use the term nanny run bleating to nanny if anyone else breaks the rules? I don't think so. It's possible to be a bit too respectable, seems to me.
I think westpig's attitude is pretty sound.
|
|
When I refer to 'them', Aprilia, I mean cameras.
|
|
|
I would say to Aprilia that most drivers, probably, can control their speed and don't drive at mad speeds. The whole point about them is that they are put in places where it's natural to exceed a speed limit which may well be set too low. They make people nervous, and they make a lot of them drive nervously. Not me - I slow down for them without braking - but there are so many jerky unpredictable drivers out there that one really doesn't need them being made more nervous with legal overload. It seeems to me to do more harm than good. And do people who use the term nanny run bleating to nanny if anyone else breaks the rules? I don't think so. It's possible to be a bit too respectable, seems to me.
I can't quite decode all of that, however I do agree that there are places where the limit appears to be set to low. I would lobby against that sort of thing. However the comment about 'nervous' drivers is bizarre - sure its the nervous ones who should be keeping below the speed limit?! The implication is that they don't have good observation or good control of their cars.
|
|
|
|
|
...so I'd be campaigning for better signposting rather than fewer speed cameras.
Better signposting is a great idea. Round here fixed and mobile camera sites have signs up nearby with a pixture of a camera and a reminder of the speed limit; on the dual carriageways, they are electronic and flash a reminder at you.
That is a good idea and seems entirely in keeping with the stated aim of getting people to slow down, but our local camera authority does seem a little more enlightened than some.
|
|
|
|
|
"Complete ******** based upon these stats that would be 50,000 children killed for every 51,000 hit. Surely some mistake. Oh I see to try ridicule the figures we estimate that 200,000 children are involved in near misses and then apply the 20% death rate to them. With the greatest respect to safespeed I think that it is fairly apparent that if I've missed a child it is highly unlikely that I will kill them by having hit them!"
Good point.
At the same time, this still leaves 51,000 children hit with total deaths 47, i.e. 1 in 1000. It's still a valid question to ask where the 20% and 80% figures come from.
V
|
I cannot agree with the prevailing 'petrolhead' opinion that speed does not kill. Of course it does. Speed is a cause in the vast majority of accidents.
I'll explain: If I'm driving along in a 30 mph zone at 30 and some idiot pulls out point blank in front of me from a side turning and I slam on the brakes but can't avoid a collision, that collision might be 100% the fault of the other driver but my speed, even if it is legal and sensible, was still a contributing cause. If I had been doing 25 mph, I might well have been able to stop.
So driving too fast might not be the main blameworthy reason for ann accident but the speed is still relevant.
I'm NOT making a case for bringing back the Red Flag Act or reducing limits, by the way!
|
|
With all due respect SS, everything you say is true enough but all it means is that we would be safer if we kept still. Until we died of starvation, that is.
|
|
|
>>Speed is a cause in the vast majority of accidents.<<
The vast majority? Are you sure about that?
|
|
|
I cannot agree with the prevailing 'petrolhead' opinion that speed does not kill. Of course it does. Speed is a cause in the vast majority of accidents. I'll explain: If I'm driving along in a 30 mph zone at 30 and some idiot pulls out point blank in front of me from a side turning and I slam on the brakes but can't avoid a collision, that collision might be 100% the fault of the other driver but my speed, even if it is legal and sensible, was still a contributing cause. If I had been doing 25 mph, I might well have been able to stop.
And if you were doing 40mph you would have been long gone by the time he came to pull out!
It is the proximity of vehicles to each other rather than speed that is the prime cause of accidents proven irrefutably by the fact that motorways where speeds are higher being statistically safer largely due to the opposing traffic being seperated.
Where speed is an issue however, and with ref to the original post, is outside schools, parks, sports centres etc where children as pedestrians are not seperated from the road way by anything more than a kerb.
|
|
|
|
My concern after seeing how limits are going down faster than John Prescotts trousers is that road safety is all about making us drive so slowly that accidents will by default be safe. I'm going to find a good Chinese source of red flags ready to make a killing when demand rockets.
|
|
|
|
Well Safespeed as quoted by the "reader" have really beaten the "Nanny" state in making up stats to suit their purpose of twisting the truth. The actual stats may look to be a bit out but to add in a random factor of 23x to up the figures in favour of the Safespeed argument is a joke. About the only kids they have forgotten are the 2 million who may have run into the road and been hit had they not been watching Dr Who at the time.
Ah so it is Dr Who that saves lives not drivers reactions or speed cameras... I've just proved it.
And importantly they are missing the actual words of the ad related to the stats. The ad says if a car *hits* me at 30/40mph. The stats relate to injuries/deaths in places where the speed limit is 30/40mph. Not the same thing.
Nanny's argument never claims the kids in their stats were hit at the max speed the limits allow. So the Safespeed use of twisted stats falls down at that point.
No the Nanny figures already allow for the fact that drivers have reduced their speed by braking before impact. .. that is why the figures appear out.
And following on from that those that want to regulate their own speed with no/higher limits and their own judgement will likely be doing another 10mph at the point they see the kid run out and the extended stopping distance could mean certain death.
David
|
Just returned from a trip to germany where i was driving at over 100mph in places (quite safely I may add). i didn't die so I can only assume speed doesn't kill; it is the collision that may!
Speed cameras imo can actually cause accidents because too many drivers drive too close and when 1 car slows too quickly for the camera (even though he may be doing a speed of or around the limit in force) forces each car behind to slow progressively harder until an accident occurs. This makes another accident statistic on that section of road and increases the argument of the need for speed cameras.
Bad driving is the cause of most accidents imo not speed. whether death or injury is involved or not.
30 mph outside a school, factory etc at kicking out time is way more dangerous than 100 mph on a clear motorway at 10 pm (in same weather conditions etc). But the safer one will lose your licence if caught where the dangerous one won't even attract attention !
Bad driving kills ! Please drive better ! Simple. imo anyway.
|
"Speed cameras imo can actually cause accidents because too many drivers drive too close and when 1 car slows too quickly for the camera (even though he may be doing a speed of or around the limit in force) forces each car behind to slow progressively harder until an accident occurs"
Logic:
1."too many drivers drive too close "
2." when 1 car slows too quickly for the camera (even though he may be doing a speed of or around the limit in force)"
Nothing whatsoever to do with cameras.. Muppet driving.
Presumably you'd ban accidents because people slow down to watch? :-)))
"30 mph outside a school, factory etc at kicking out time is way more dangerous"
Agree.. So why do people travel at 35-40 (in a 30 mph limit) outside the local scholl.
I could and would agree with most arguments about speed cameras.. IF 99% of motorists don't speed. Judging by the volume of protests, either more than 1% of motorists speed or those who do protest a lot.
Either way I'm am totally unimpressed. The LOGIC of the arguments is... well carp.. seems like the best word I can use..
As for the supposed "estimated" accidenst which don't happen /are not reported.. it is sheer muppetry to argue as they do. No basis in fact or logic.
So until there is a well reasoned argument bourne out by FACTS (as opposed to suppositions or prejudices), the anti speed camera lobby is losing the debate..
I'd love more cameras near to us to prevent the idiots who speed up and down our road not doing it.. oh and the scholl is 100 metres down the road and it is a 30 mph limit..
madf
|
No problem you have your point of view, others have different.
Mine, I would prefer less cameras and more traffic police. far more chance of catching the people who speed where there are not any cameras and drive bad and go without tax and insurance etc.
But cameras do catch enought to support the argument you have so its ok.
No speeding where the camera is, it will just move 100 yards up the road. the answer then? another camera?
|
|
|
|
"And importantly they are missing the actual words of the ad related to the stats. The ad says if a car *hits* me at 30/40mph. The stats relate to injuries/deaths in places where the speed limit is 30/40mph. Not the same thing. "
Ok, so taking the stats shown above:
If 47 children were killed on the road, then if everyone was hit at 30mph, that accounts for 235 of the collisions. What about the other 50,765? Were they all hit at under 20mph ( I seem to recall that the claimes statistic for 20mph was 5% fatalities, so the rest must have been *below* 20mph if the stats are to be believed). NB On this basis, if they were all hits at 20mph, that would account for 940 collisions, leaving about 50,000 still unaccounted for.
It all seems a bit improbable to me.
Please note, I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs of speeding here, just in the statistics and claims being made by whoever gave us the 20%/80% figures.
V
|
there are many factors that are dangerous... and this can inc speed ....... but not always.
Inappropriate speed....i.e. at a time/place that is questionable.........then fair enough....but...there are times when pushing on a bit is acceptable.....
To concentrate just on one thing... i.e. speed..........is real 'head in the sand' stuff.
examples of other dangerous factors:
-poor eyesight,
-poorly maintained car, (e.g. underinflated tyre, knackered dampers)
-reckless, dangerous or careless driving (which may well be accompanied by speed)
-limited driving skills (not passed test etc)
-poor reaction times (elderly?)
-extreme weather
-poor road surface
-complete 'don't care' attitude (may well be accompanied by no documents etc)
a speed camera will deal with none of these........ however it will criminalise your mum, sister,aunt etc for doing a few mph over the limit somewhere.........and i'm not talking about the one by the local school ot the blind people's home or the hospital etc.......because that's reasonable isn't it.
|
Here's a theory I've often thought when looking at this whole speed camera/killing kids etc debate.
Given that there are a very large number of drivers who insist on driving around 5-10mph over the speed limit at all times, surely one answer is to use a bit of reverse-psychology on them?
IE if the state wants drivers to go at 30mph on a given road, rather than putting cameras everywhere, just reduce the speed limit to 20 or 25.
That way the flow of traffic will level out at the desired 30mph.
Only problem with this would be the muppets who insist on going 5mph *under* the limit....
Of course in ten years, when Big Brother has got round to putting GPS trackers in every car, we'll all be physically limited to the speed limit, which really could cause accidents as the muppets simply stick their foot on the accelerator in the knowledge that they can't break the speed limit, then forget to take everything in around them.
Personally though I think we should get away from the points/fine culture. Here's one for you ... no fines, no points, caught speeding by more than 20mph three times -- permanent ban. This would at least get rid of the worst of the idiots, with no chance of them getting back on the road.
|
|
|
there are many factors that are dangerous... and this can inc speed ....... but not always.
Agreed.
As suggested in my previous post, it's the nit-picking punishments that are being handed out that are doing the most damage. We really should be getting more police out there, and looking for the worst offenders. People who speed excessively and repeatedly, reckless/dangerous drivers, people who refuse to maintain and insure cars, inattentive drivers (bad reactions, can't be bothered to signal etc). You give them two warnings then ban them outright. No namby-pamby 12-month suspensions etc. Licence gone -- bus time for you. And if they're caught driving when banned -- jail.
I can guarantee the bad drivers would fall into line in a heartbeat. No-one wants to take the bus to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>>Department for Transport data published yesterday [1] tells us that 11,000 child pedestrians were injured in built up areas (30mph AND 40mph speed limits) in 2005. We we should expect that more than 20% of those child pedestrians were killed. Right? That's 2,200 dead children.
>>But reality is entirely different. 47 child pedestrians were killed in built up areas, amounting to 0.47% of the total. That's one fiftieth of the implied claim.
As they say there are facts, figures and statistics, but then add a spin doctor to make them what you want them to say.
I was very surprised at how low the figure of child pedestrians being killed per year was. See information below on all road accidents.
In 2005, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain, this was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents, the lowest total for over 40 years.
The total number of deaths in road accidents fell slightly by 1 per cent to 3,201 in 2005 from 3,221 in 2004. However, the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant over the last ten years.
Just over half (52 per cent) of people killed in road accidents in 2005 were car users. Pedal cyclists and two-wheeled motor vehicle users represented 5 and 18 per cent of those killed respectively. Occupants of buses, coaches, goods and other vehicles accounted for the remaining 4 per cent of road deaths.
The total number of road casualties of all severities fell by 3 per cent between 2004 and 2005 to approximately 271,000 in Great Britain. This compares with an annual average of approximately 320,000 for the years 1994-98 and 324,000 in 1984.
The decline in the casualty rate, which takes into account the volume of traffic on the roads, has been much steeper. In 1964 there were 240 casualties per 100 million vehicle kilometres. By 2005 this had declined to 55 per 100 million vehicle kilometres.
The United Kingdom has a very good record for road safety compared with most other EU countries. In 2004 it had one of the lowest road death rates in the EU, at 5.6 per 100,000 population. The UK rate was also lower than the rates for other industrialised nations such as Japan (6.96 per 100,000 population), and substantially lower than that of Australia (8.15) and the United States (14.66). tinyurl.com/q3oxq
So only 7% of all pedestrian fatalities were children. To put it bluntly, I am surprised at how low that is considering how some teenagers are oblivious to danger when crossing a busy road, let alone those playing games of chicken (someone I know killed a child playing a game of chicken).
Our roads are some of the safetest in the world, so may be we should be looking for praise at our remarkably low accident figures. The government's aim is try and reduce them still further by an unrealistic 40%. Any accident that causes injury or death that could have been avoided should give lessons to others. Unfortunately this government seems to think speed is the only cause of accidents, when inattention and distraction are the biggest killers.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
"Our roads are some of the safetest in the world, so may be we should be looking for praise at our remarkably low accident figures. The government's aim is try and reduce them still further by an unrealistic 40%. Any accident that causes injury or death that could have been avoided should give lessons to others. Unfortunately this government seems to think speed is the only cause of accidents, when inattention and distraction are the biggest killers."
I am no fan of the Gov't
but even I can recall:
anti drinking adverts on TV (current)
Think Bike adverts.
which tends to make your "government seems to think speed is the only cause of accidents" rather like your "inattention and distraction " .. cos you obvious were inattentive or distracted when those adverts appeared:-)
Give the Government some credit: they do realise there other other causes of accidents but of course their impact is less if motorists are travelling at or below the legal speed limit....To suggest otherwise is plain wrong for the reasons above..
madf
|
Give the Government some credit: they do realise there other other causes of accidents but of course their impact is less if motorists are travelling at or below the legal speed limit....To suggest otherwise is plain wrong for the reasons above.. madf
yes, but for something to be successful, you need people on your side........ you need to sell it, not be heavy handed with it. Alienating vast numbers of the general public ,by giving them 3 points and a £60 fine for often quite minor transgressions is not 'selling' it, particularly when the limit is set artificially low anyway. If the limit itself was more reasonable, more people would obey it wouldn't they.
The other thing is with the speed debate, how far do you go with it, is 40mph acceptable on a motorway... hopefully most would agree not..........it would no doubt be safer though, wouldn't it...
there has to be a happy medium, a balance.
|
"If the limit itself was more reasonable, more people would obey it wouldn't they."
Well it's 30 past our school and they don't so should we raise it to 50 by your logic?
madf
|
The argument in here reminds me why I never look into the "Speeding" Threads. Conversations about speeding fall into a pattern of abuse, sarcastic responses and deliberate misinterpretation of other's comments.
Why not calm down and accept that there might be a valid viewpoint different from your own.
V
|
I am sort of on the side of those who believe that speed cameras are okay as they can prevent driving at excessive speed in areas that are prone to accidents. Certainly in the Thames Valley area that seemed to be the case. I saw fixed and mobile cameras on roads that looked fast but which were near houses e.g. Bath Road through Slough. They were signposted and probably worked. Speed cameras in local villages are fine and dandy and get my support though some drivers slow for the cameras, and then zoom off after.
But now that I live in Luton, I have noticed that many cameras are poorly signposted. I was nearly nicked twice by a fixed camera on a dual carriageway in Dunstable. I was doing 40 in a 30 and braked at the last minute once I realised that I was exceeding the limit. I went back to work out what had happened, and found that the 30 signs were placed at the junction with a roundabout. I had been too busy worrying about other cars, which in Luton ignore niceties like lanes, to see the signs. I was at fault, but IMO the signs were not well placed. There are also mobile speed cameras on a dual carriageway in the centre of Luton (near the Toyota garage). I suspect that is a safe road (I might be wrong) and a nice money earner as cars zoom round a corner and 'click, you've been nicked'. And yet on our local road cars zoom along at appalling speeds and not a hint of any form of speed enforcement apart from humps that the speeders ignore.
I have seen some shocking and dangerous driving here in Luton. One evening I counted 4 cars without lights on a dual carriageway at night in the space of a few miles. Not long ago I nearly had a head on when I round a corner on a one way street and was faced with someone driving the wrong way. Cars use the left lane to enter a roundabout and then turn right. They routinely jump lights well after the red appears.
My opinion is that the local police for whatever reason (overwork?) do not enforce driving standards. Whether that is the case, or naivety on my part, I can't say. And I suspect if that is the case, that the policy comes down from above, rather than from ofiicers on the street.
|
|
|
|
"If the limit itself was more reasonable, more people would obey it wouldn't they." Well it's 30 past our school and they don't so should we raise it to 50 by your logic? madf
I agree.
I think the problem also is that the safe speed is not always obvious, especially when as is so often the case there are hidden hazards. There are several nasty T junctions to the west of Dunstable. On several occasions I have been waiting to pull out from a side road onto a main road. When there was no traffic I pulled out only to find someone appearing round the corners, at a good rate of knots, lights blazing, and making tut tut head shaking gestures. Clearly these drivers did not notice the warning signs indicating a hidden side road. I sometimes wonder what they think I should do. Get a passing stranger to stand on the far side of the road and act as a lookout?
Leif
|
There is a safe, cheap and effective solution to speeding through built up areas (and consequently reducing the likelihood of hitting a child) - the Spanish one of speed-controlled traffic lights.
Go over the limit and the red lights come on.
Works like a charm.
Only problem is, it doesn´t create revenue, so hasn´t been introduced in the UK.
And the government trumpets that speed cameras save lives etc etc. They are there to provide revenue for scamera partnerships.
Why haven´t *you* written to your MP about this?
|
There is a safe, cheap and effective solution to speeding through built up areas (and consequently reducing the likelihood of hitting a child) - the Spanish one of speed-controlled traffic lights.
Another thing in parts of Spain are sharp double bumps, uncomfortable through any normal car's suspension, on the way into villages. If the official ones don't seem to work, the locals mix up some concrete and put in worse ones of their own. Works a treat. Must wreak havoc on the tyres of hire cars though.
|
|
|
I have written to my MP about cameras and got the usual rubbish about them being effective. He let Ladyman get away with trotting out that last report which clearly said in an appendix they didn't work and what's more the original draft which I saw in the journal clearly stated they did absolutely nothing for reducing accidents. Funny how the DFT had the report mangled so that little bombshell was hidden in an appendix at the back and from which they only quote the headlines from the consultants paid vast amounts of money to spout whatever dogma they're into this week. Serco imports cameras, they get government contracts. I think they're boss man has a peerage or is line for one. Nuff said.
I will be writing to my MP again in light of the DFT & hospitalisation figures and suggest they concentrate on driver education and removing bad drivers from the roads with traf pols if they want to reduce accidents rather than just dumb down the roads in the same way they have ruined education.
Appropriate speed for the conditions shouldn't increase your probability of having an accident or running over a child. Being inattentive always will. One second's inattention at 30 mph is like travelling at 38mph so it is better to be a few mph over the limit not looking at the speedo rather than being bang on 30 and checking it. A 2 second speedo check as one person suggested as being reasonable makes that into the equivalent of travelling at 46 mph fully attentive which most of in most built up places would consider reckless for Joe Average.
teabelly
|
|
|
|
|
no.......... my logic is that at school times 20mph is more acceptable, but if you post it at 20mph all the time, that is excessively slow for other times of the day......... so it's either variable speed limits, or a make do of 30mph. It might still be dangerous to drive at 30mph, in which case you can be prosecuted for careless or reckless driving, even though you're within the limit, but only by a cop, not a camera.
However at 0500 hours, depending on the road, 40 mph might well be perfectly acceptable, particularly if it's sunny, dry, etc....15 mins later when it's raining 40mph might not be acceptable........
speed cameras cannot deal with this...... they just give you a ticket for 36mph and above.....
so you could travel through at 35mph at 0850 hours wipe out a line of kids and still no flash... however at 0500 you do 36 mph and you're in the book.
sensible...i think not
|
My logic - and I promise to say no more- is that if limits are sensible
- on roads that are clearly marked with "School" and
if it is clear by the nature of the road - twisty, sloping, blind corners - that 30 mph is clealry a very sensible limit to all but the most dim-witted and half asleeep
then IF motorists do 40+, given the above, then some permanent method of enforcement is needed.
I agree about more traffic police, better signage, etc.
But the facts are: many motorists speed where and when it is clearly dangerous to do so given any "normal and rational " view of risk.
Will someone who opposes speed cameras please tell me how they intend to ensure such sensible limits will be enforced 24/7? If not by speed cameras? Or perhaps they will suggest speed humps?:-))
madf
|
|
|
this thread seems to be degenerating into a for and against speed cameras on the basis that speeding is a big problem and cameras cure it.
Whether they cure it or not at the point of a camera is debatealbe, (but certainly it raises revenue and feelings).
However they cannot and do not attack any of the other more dangerous motoring problems that cause fatalaties on the roads. Only humans can do that, i.e. more traffic police.
I am not anti speed limits; I support them. But I am anti camera because they only see a snapshot literally and not the real picture.
Using false statsistics to hide behind to promote them devalues them even more.
there is no excuse for bad driving (the real killer) whether speed is involved or not. It is not the speed that kills remember; its the collision. Good driving at high speed does not kill!
Where when and at what speed is totally different to +5mph etc.
|
Where when and at what speed is totally different to 5mph etc.
Reducing speed is one way to lessen the severity of an accident albeit without tackling the root cause. The new Specs cameras get round the snapshot argument. They are using them on the M25 and M1 along roadworks and they do slow traffic.
Leif
|
yes , but how irritating is it to drive through a 40mph specs limit on a motorway at 0500 hours... when there's no one to protect, workforce wise and very little traffic.........50 would be perfectly acceptable then
there's no arguement at 0830, especially if there are other factors such as inclement weather etc
it's about getting the balance right, not just increasinbgly lowering limits and hammering people for minor transgressions at off peak times
|
yes , but how irritating is it to drive through a 40mph specs limit on a motorway at 0500 hours... when there's no one to protect, workforce wise and very little traffic.........50 would be perfectly acceptable then
The fact that passing drivers see no workers does not mean they were not around, or potentaily around. The lanes remain narrow and the absence of a hard shoulder increases the trouble for breakdowns irrespective of the time of day.
How much difference does 10mph off the limit for five miles make on a 200 mile , or even a 50 mile, journey?
|
How much difference does 10mph off the limit for five miles make on a 200 mile , or even a 50 mile, journey?
How much difference does 10mph over the posted limit make even in a coned-off single lane beside empty nonfunctioning roadworks on a motorway at 5 am, on a journey of any length at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
