[Archived] Speed Camera's Again

[tony gale's mic]

Surely you just need to look at the massive distances in stopping distances between 30mph and 40mph to see how big an impact a speed limit has.

[thenodrog]

............... I am insured on the car as well but rarely take up the opportunity. I plan on arranging some lessons in a month (or so) when the evenings are lighter, so I can go after work.

Is there something wrong with the lights on your car bucky?

[American]

It probably has had some effect, but not 100%. There's no way you could stop someone from killing themselves (or someone else) if they were so inclined, but the laws introduced have had a major impact (like that?) on road fatalities

But as I'm sure you've seen while out there driving, laws don't necessarily stop people from driving like idiots and disobeying them. I'm sure it's a combination of both, but I'd argue that safety improvements are the bigger difference.

[Sandiway Blue]

Just thought i would throw in a government stat:

If you hit someone at 20mph 1 in 20 will die

If you hit someone at 30mph 4 in 20 will die

If you hit someone at 35mph 11 in 20 will die

If you hit someone at 40mph 18 out of 20 will die

It didn`t half surprise me too when they told me at the speed awareness course last week....

[Paul]

It didn`t half surprise me too when they told me at the speed awareness course last week....

Did one of those a couple of years ago and must say it makes a real difference. While I will still do 80mph on a motorway if conditions are right I'm much more likely to be found driving at 70mph. It doesn't increase the journey time at all in my experience and is more relaxing / less tiring. After the course I found applying the techniques taught made a real difference to my awareness of speed and to my ability to stay within the speed limit.

There's little doubt modern cars encourage speed and it requires a change in driving technique to stay within the 30mph limit in particular.

I can see why people are so anti speed cameras as many seem to be used just to raise cash. The real solution is to have every camera turned on all the time and then throw the book at speeders, tax and insurance dodgers. Would solve a lot of problems on the road.

[American]

The real solution is to have police out patrolling areas that have speeders. The big complaint about speed cameras is that they are a lazy way out. I've been cautioned about my speed by police officers who had enough sense to know that I might be going a little fast, but considering the area and conditions was not driving dangerously enough to warrant a fine.

[tony gale's mic]

The real solution is to have police out patrolling areas that have speeders. The big complaint about speed cameras is that they are a lazy way out. I've been cautioned about my speed by police officers who had enough sense to know that I might be going a little fast, but considering the area and conditions was not driving dangerously enough to warrant a fine.

But that will take away policing from places that really need it. Stick to the speed limit and you'll be fine, or if you're going to exceed it then don't complain if you get flashed.

[Flopsy]

but that would cause more accidents, surely?

Speed cameras are only effective if you're breaking the law, therefore if you get done, you deserve no sympathy . Its about personal responsibility, and it appears the same people who complain about the nanny state, are the same ones complaining when their personal choice gets them a fine.

[American]

Hasn't the Government's own study not shown speed cameras to be inefective in controling speed on the roads though?

Would like to see if that is true or not - which would then make Flopsy's comment "Speed cameras are only effective if..." incorrect, no matter what comes after it.

Every single ticket I've ever received has been valid, but again, cameras take away the human element of if a fine or warning is warranted. Also, it might take more police away from the money making exercise of speeding tickets, but it takes them away from the safety aspect of making sure all road laws are obeyed, not just speeding. There are many things that will be dangerous which speed cameras will not pick up, but an officer at the side of the road will.

I'm all for police having traffic enforcement traps, as I've seen it make certain areas safer if done on a consistent enough basis, but enforce all of the laws, don't just put up a money making camera.

[BiggusLaddus]

The laws that we have, and that includes speed cameras, have reduced the number of deaths to lower than that in the 1940's.

Think about it, number of vehicles, population etc.

It just goes to show, that if you hit people around the wallet enough, they'll get the message.

Not true, at all. The number of deaths on the road used to fall year on year until speed cameras were introduced. As soon as that happened the number of deaths stayed roughly static for nearly a decade, despite the huge improvement in vehicle safety in that time.

The reliance on speed cameras as the main source of road policing has cost lives, not saved them. How many traffic police cars do you see now, compared to ten years ago? In Staffordshire, where I live, the police have disbanded their traffic unit.

For years the government used to advertise that a third of all deaths and serious injuries where caused by speeding, and used this figure to justify the number of cameras that were rolled out. The official figures (now that they have actually been put together) show that only 6% are caused by excess speed. And that includes both people driving above the limit and excess speed within the limit.

The majority of deaths are caused by driver inattention, alcohol was another high one and I think even vehicle defects causes more than speed. So what do we do? We take away the human beings who can spot the drivers who are half asleep or look drunk, or have wheels about to come off and replace them with automated machines that don't even aknowledge them if they plough through a bus queue. Top.

Also, other people have mentioned stopping distances and pedestrian survival rates. The official stopping distances were put together in the '60s. I don't know about everone else but my Mondeo stops faster than an Anglia or Morris Oxford. To take an extreme example, the McMerc SLR can stop from ~160mph in the distance that the highway code says that you need for 70mph. As for survival rates, if you drove at 5mph with a man walking in front with a red flag then the rate would probably be 1in100,000 (I think the first death was with a car doing 3mph). The very best way to avoid killing pedestrians is to keep your eyes open and not run them over in the first place.

[jim mk2]

The reliance on speed cameras as the main source of road policing has cost lives, not saved them.

Where is the evidence for that statement ?

In Staffordshire, where I live, the police have disbanded their traffic unit.

Which means the speed cameras are doing their jobs and more police resources are available for fighting other crimes.

Good argument for the introduction of more speed cameras, not less, and average speed cameras installed on all main trunk roads nationwide.

[stuwilky]

In Staffordshire, where I live, the police have disbanded their traffic unit.

When did that happen?

I thought they just dicked about with the name?

[yoda]

Would like to see if that is true or not - which would then make Flopsy's comment "Speed cameras are only effective if..." incorrect, no matter what comes after it.

Every single ticket I've ever received has been valid, but again, cameras take away the human element of if a fine or warning is warranted. Also, it might take more police away from the money making exercise of speeding tickets, but it takes them away from the safety aspect of making sure all road laws are obeyed, not just speeding. There are many things that will be dangerous which speed cameras will not pick up, but an officer at the side of the road will.

I'm all for police having traffic enforcement traps, as I've seen it make certain areas safer if done on a consistent enough basis, but enforce all of the laws, don't just put up a money making camera.

If every single ticket was valid as you say, then the camera did not stop you speeding!

As I said previously the Government are starting to realise that they are culpable in giving type approval to cars that will break the law, thats why the are doing this,

"The government are now considering having speed limiters fitted to new cars in the not to distant future based on Sat Nav technology."

The sooner the better in my opinion, then the Police can really be used elswhere

[roversmum]

The very best way to avoid killing pedestrians is to keep your eyes open and not run them over in the first place.

But if the pedestrians were where they should be, i.e. on the pavements, generally speaking they wouldn't get run over anyway. Unless its one of those pesky dual pedestrian/bike efforts and you are jumping out of the way of a cyclist...

[DeadlyDirk]

Just thought i would throw in a government stat:

If you hit someone at 20mph 1 in 20 will die

If you hit someone at 30mph 4 in 20 will die

If you hit someone at 35mph 11 in 20 will die

If you hit someone at 40mph 18 out of 20 will die

It didn`t half surprise me too when they told me at the speed awareness course last week....

Surely it's better simply not to hit them at all?

[thenodrog]

Did one of those a couple of years ago and must say it makes a real difference. While I will still do 80mph on a motorway if conditions are right I'm much more likely to be found driving at 70mph. It doesn't increase the journey time at all in my experience and is more relaxing / less tiring. After the course I found applying the techniques taught made a real difference to my awareness of speed and to my ability to stay within the speed limit.

"It doesn't increase the journey time at all in my experience" Obviously it must! Otherwise you may as well go the whole hog and stop the car!

Btw applying Bacup Blues figures and you admitting to travelling at 70mph am I correct to suggest that you would kill approx 35 out of every 20 that you run over?

[Sandiway Blue]

"It doesn't increase the journey time at all in my experience" Obviously it must! Otherwise you may as well go the whole hog and stop the car!

Btw applying Bacup Blues figures and you admitting to travelling at 70mph am I correct to suggest that you would kill approx 35 out of every 20 that you run over?

They were quoted by the instructors on the course, nowt to do with me!

Apparently government figures.

Surely it's better simply not to hit them at all?

Totally agree,in 20 years of driving i have never been the cause of an accident,although i have had a few numpty`s hit my car though.

[Paul]

"It doesn't increase the journey time at all in my experience" Obviously it must! Otherwise you may as well go the whole hog and stop the car!

I knew it would be you.

Obviously on an empty or relatively empty motorway if you drive at a constant 80 mph you will complete the journey quicker than if you drive at 70mph. The majority of people make there journeys between, I'm guessing, 6.00am and 7.00pm when the motorways are rammed and the chances of doing a constant 80mph, or 70 for that matter, are nil. Under those conditions the difference between driving at 80 for a few seconds or staying at 70 is negligible. Though I do appreciate it makes a certain section of the motoring public feel good about themselves.

[yoda]

I knew it would be you.

Obviously on an empty or relatively empty motorway if you drive at a constant 80 mph you will complete the journey quicker than if you drive at 70mph. The majority of people make there journeys between, I'm guessing, 6.00am and 7.00pm when the motorways are rammed and the chances of doing a constant 80mph, or 70 for that matter, are nil. Under those conditions the difference between driving at 80 for a few seconds or staying at 70 is negligible. Though I do appreciate it makes a certain section of the motoring public feel good about themselves.

I would help on the UK motorways if drivers used the lanes correctly ie 2nd and 3rd lanes for over taking only!

[Paul]

Quite agree yoda. Sadly lane discipline is something 35 - 40% of UK drivers simply do not understand. It's mainly brought about by the unwillingness of many drivers to allow others to move in and out of a lane as necessary.

[thenodrog]

Quite agree yoda. Sadly lane discipline is something 35 - 40% of UK drivers simply do not understand. It's mainly brought about by the unwillingness of many drivers to allow others to move in and out of a lane as necessary.

BMW's hog the outside lane cos they are driven by superior beings. Women hog the middle lane cos the are scared sh1tless by Mways, they seem to need all the room they can get and invariably sit right up to the steering wheel gripping it with white knuckles

I drove through Spain a few years back and lane discipline was fantastic. I noted that was because the police and consequently the general public had a far stricter attitude toward lane clingers. Funniest thing was seeing a policeman on a motorbike in Madrid flying past me to pull over a Renault Espace that had been ambling along in the middle lane lane and disrupting traffic flow .......... with a GB sticker on the back.

Have you taken note Magoo?

I've a feeling that MWays would not require widening etc if this simple discipline were re-introduced.... with feeling! Trouble is that it's gone on for so long that the old Highway code dictat of MIRROR.. SIGNAL.. MANOUEVRE now appears to have been adapted with MIRROR usually put last in the order by the duller of thought amongst us.

[thenodrog]

I knew it would be you.

And I'd an idea that it would be you who would be pedantic enough to challenge the combined intellects of Newton and Einstein......... in a white van!

[jim mk2]

The most dangerous manouevre on a motorway is changing lanes, particularly at speed. Some drivers also think undertaking is clever.

The safest motorways I have travelled on recently have been those with 60mph speed limits where everyone has to stay in same lane.

Self-regulation on the roads does not work because many drivers cannot be trusted to obey the laws and some drivers are downright dangerous.

The satellite technology exists to slow cars down automatically in built-up areas. Together with speed limiters on cars (like lorries) and average speed cameras on the trunk routes driving would be a safer and more enjoyable experience.

If drivers want to play races, they can go go-karting in their spare time.

[thenodrog]

Some drivers also think undertaking is clever.

Need I remind you that no one could undertake if you were in the left hand lane magoo?

[Sandiway Blue]

BMW's hog the outside lane cos they are driven by superior beings. Women hog the middle lane cos the are scared sh1tless by Mways, they seem to need all the room they can get and invariably sit right up to the steering wheel gripping it with white knuckles

I drove through Spain a few years back and lane discipline was fantastic. I noted that was because the police and consequently the general public had a far stricter attitude toward lane clingers. Funniest thing was seeing a policeman on a motorbike in Madrid flying past me to pull over a Renault Espace that had been ambling along in the middle lane lane and disrupting traffic flow .......... with a GB sticker on the back.

Have you taken note Magoo?

I've a feeling that MWays would not require widening etc if this simple discipline were re-introduced.... with feeling! Trouble is that it's gone on for so long that the old Highway code dictat of MIRROR.. SIGNAL.. MANOUEVRE now appears to have been adapted with MIRROR usually put last in the order by the duller of thought amongst us.

Spot on Gordon.There are more people now driving like lunatics than there ever has been.Use of indicators is another bugbear of mine,how hard is it to flick a lever in time so other people know what you are doing?

Despite better training,the overall standards of driving on our roads is getting worse not better.