speed cameras

[Anonymous]

Someone in todays metro suggested that "everyone knows speed kills" and that "speed cameras should be placed every 180m, and fines quadrupled"


How long do you reckon before we see this very thing? If I could buy a country, I'd fit speed cameras that flashed you if you weren't going fast enough. :D


I can just imagine it though, SPECS camera set at 31mph flashing people left right and centre, banning you from driving in one stretch of road and hitting you for £500 fines. They should have a scoreboard at the end "'Number of banned motorists: "


:shock:

[Spiderman]

Someone in todays metro suggested that "everyone knows speed kills" and that "speed cameras should be placed every 180m, and fines quadrupled"

Who was this? i demand you post his full name and address immeadiately. For research purposes of course :^o


By the way... cant make out the uniform in that pic... are you a copper or a pilot??
Sorry for the insult if your a pilot btw ;)

[Sid Squid]

Speed Kills = B0LL0(K5

We keep hearing this as a mantra for the hang-'em-high contingent, it seems as if this issue is to be spun as hard as most issues of this government.

Surprisingly the governments own statistics suggest that only7% of accidents are as a direct result of speed.

[Anonymous]

[quote=mpaton2005]
By the way... cant make out the uniform in that pic... are you a copper or a pilot??
Sorry for the insult if your a pilot btw ;)

check my profile :)

[Carsick]

I like this as an illustration of how insane people have got http://www.abd.org.uk/ht-kills.htm

[northwind]

Nice one Carsick :) All perfectly logical, in a completely screwed-up way.

I dunno... I can see the point about increasing speed cameras, in certain areas.. The facts about the chances of survival in a pedestrian vs car collision at 40 compared with 30 do speak for themselves, so I reckon speed in residential 30s should be controlled as tightly as possible... I saw someone say once put a speed camera outside every school, and that i'd agree with.

But it's nonsense to suggest speed's dangerous by itself... So I'd balance it with a total review of speed limits- those 30s that everyone speeds in because they feel like 40s, make 'em 40s. Motorways at 70? Makes no sense. Fast duals at 50? Nonsense...

Combine that with marked play streets to help keep kids off busy roads- that's a great scheme that's never really been fully implemented, it worked well in the pilot areas then got more or less ignored in favour of 20mph zones.

In residential areas, develop well-marked quicker trunk routes, cut down parking on them so that visibility's better, so you can flow cars through safer areas and not down back roads.

[embee]

Nice one Carsick :) ... I saw someone say once put a speed camera outside every school, and that i'd agree with.



disagree, the last thing you want outside a school is drivers staring at their speedo to make sure they're not over the limit.

I'd vote for 20 limit but no cameras outside schools.

Overall, the experiments which have removed all road markings, kerbs, footpath edges etc, including at crossroads and T-junctions, seem to work. If you make the roads more puzzling and uncertain, everyone seems to be more careful and tolerant (no priorities = no arguments! :lol: )

[rictus01]

Nice one Carsick :) All perfectly logical, in a completely screwed-up way.

I dunno... I can see the point about increasing speed cameras, in certain areas.. The facts about the chances of survival in a pedestrian vs car collision at 40 compared with 30 do speak for themselves, so I reckon speed in residential 30s should be controlled as tightly as possible... I saw someone say once put a speed camera outside every school, and that i'd agree with.

.

Now to play devils advocate here, have you seen the TV ad with the kid , broken bones, telling us all if she was hit at 30 she had an 80% chance of surviving and at 40 an 80% chance of not, well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:

I've no problem with speed limits if they make sense (at 3 pm I'm the guy doing 15 mph going past the school, terrified one of the mums is going to kill me :!: ), but speed cameras are 24hrs and disregard weather or road conditions, so surely going passed a school is safer at midnight as no-one is there? so why should it be 20 mph.

I temper my compliance to the legalities of road use, with a good measure of common sense, much the same as most motoring laws, a dark visor is illegal, but on a bright winters day, I'm not prepared to risk my life and those around me by using a clear one and compromising my observations.

Speed cameras only tell me someone thinks there's a hazard ahead, so I look for it, if it's there, I'll react, if not it's a skills teat, fast as you can up to it, heavy braking before the first marker, straight on the gas at the last one.


Now that should get someones back up :wink:

Cheers Mark.

[Sholay]

well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:

She has as much right to use the public roads/pavements as anyone else. Every single person is a pedestrian at some time and every single one deserves some protection from the abuse of public areas.

I believe that 30mph limits should be enforced. Don't care much about other higher limits, by definition the most vulnerable are much less likely to be affected.

[rictus01]

well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:

She has as much right to use the public roads/pavements as anyone else. Every single person is a pedestrian at some time and every single one deserves some protection from the abuse of public areas.

I believe that 30mph limits should be enforced. Don't care much about other higher limits, by definition the most vulnerable are much less likely to be affected.

both my kids knew not to play in the road, and before they were old enough to understand, were subjected to parental control around roads?

green cross code? parental neglect?

I'm not advocating driving or riding on a playground here, but if kids are to young to understand and cross a road sensibly then someone should either tell them how or take them across. 30 mph will still kill people and as for "abuse of a public area" isn't that playing in the road and not driving/riding down it?

Cheers Mark.

[Ceri JC]

Now to play devils advocate here, have you seen the TV ad with the kid , broken bones, telling us all if she was hit at 30 she had an 80% chance of surviving and at 40 an 80% chance of not, well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:

I've no problem with speed limits if they make sense (at 3 pm I'm the guy doing 15 mph going past the school, terrified one of the mums is going to kill me :!: ), but speed cameras are 24hrs and disregard weather or road conditions, so surely going passed a school is safer at midnight as no-one is there? so why should it be 20 mph.


I don't like the idea that pedestrians always have right of way- it encourages idiocy. Unless you're old/disabled you are far more agile on foot than any vehicle, in terms of being able to dodge things. You can change direction and stop more quickly, surely it's your responsibility to avoid cars? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not advocating dangerous driving. I'm regularly a pedestrian myself, 99% of car drivers/bikers are too. I just hate the bias of the law to favour cyclists/pedestrians.

I agree with the 30/40mph difference in terms of survivability, but if cars are going quicker you should be proportianly more careful crossing. There are 40mph roads that pedestrians regularly cross, what if they got hit on one of those? Would the driver doing 38mph there be more in the wrong than someone doing 28 in a 30?


Speed cameras only tell me someone thinks there's a hazard ahead, so I look for it, if it's there, I'll react, if not it's a skills teat, fast as you can up to it, heavy braking before the first marker, straight on the gas at the last one.


Now that should get someones back up :wink:

Cheers Mark.

Re: "Skill Test" Yep- I read one officer proposed having secondary cameras, immediately after the first one, to catch people speeding up again. Speed doesn't kill, braking does. How many more people die from trying to stop, rather than accelerating? Why add something that is going to make people slow, speed up, slow, speed up? For bikers in particular, but cars too, this increases the chance of skidding and a loss of control.

There's a road I regularly go along fairly regularly which should be 50 (it does have pavements, but it's 4 lanes- should have pedestrian bridges IMO). It's actually a 30 and most people do 40 along it. You just slow for the cameras and pull away afterwards. Utterly pointless. The fact that 90%+ of vehicles are breaking the speed limit along there and there are hardly ever accidents show that it should, at the least, be a 40 mph area.

Another great example was a section of dual carriageway. People slowed for the tunnel, then accelerated out of it. 70mph speed limit after the tunnel, no problem there. However, one lunatic came out at about 95mph, lost control and rolled his car. Result? Speed limit dropped to 50mph. Consequently, there have been several accidents there since, due to people getting rear ended trying to join the crawling dual carriage way too quickly (would you go down a slip road at 30-40mph joining what could look like, if you were new to the area, a motorway?). They've since put the limit back to 70mph :roll:

[Sincs]

:rant:

OK, it has actually been proved that speed cameras CAUSE more accidents than without them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2212479.stm for instance, but there are loads).

The fact that the police are also looking to reduce the tolerance from 10% + 2MPH on top of the speed limit down to 5% only purely for income generation - it has feck all to do with safety!

Whats the problem with the reduction in tolerance i hear you ask. It is agiven as standard that normal speedos are normally around 8% out, so by reducing the tolerance of speed limit to below this standard, it means that even though your speedo says your doing 30, you could actually be doing 32.4 MPH. If a camera is set to 5% tolerance, then you will be fined for doing 31.5MPH.
Not much difference in speed, but it makes a huge difference to the points on your license.

Also, I am a firm advocate that insurance companies should be EXTREMELY REGULATED in how much extra they can charge you on your insurance premiums due to points for "minor" speeding offenses.

The whole thing of motoring now is getting well out
of hand (especially when you consider the new road tax rules they are looking to bring in :evil:) and it is driving people to drive without insurance, wthout licenses etc.

All I know is, legal or not, as soon as I get a car, Road Angel will be installed as will not be part of the Police's alterior motive of revenue generation just to line their own filth pockets.

As for that speeding advert, I have lodged a complaint against it as it made me throw up the first time I saw it, as it is the ONLY thing so far that has caused me to relive my accident in a severe way.
I understand they are making a point, but FFS they should at least have some consideration for people, Something both the police and the government are severely lacking :toss:

[Ceri JC]

As for that speeding advert, I have lodged a complaint against it as it made me throw up the first time I saw it, as it is the ONLY thing so far that has caused me to relive my accident in a severe way.
I understand they are making a point, but FFS they should at least have some consideration for people, Something both the police and the government are severely lacking :toss:

Yes, the only people the really nasty adverts will have a lasting effect on are those who've been in an accident/seen one/had a loved one in an accident. To those people, who presumably are the ones who need the message least, it is the most upsetting upsetting. The type of cocksure young bloke who regularly does 60mph in 30mph zones isn't going to slow down as a result of seeing it and those are the people you need to target.

[Carsick]

even though your speedo says your doing 30, you could actually be doing 32.4 MPH.
I pretty much see your point or agree with the rest of what you said, but I'm reasonably sure this is wrong.
Speedos are often up to 10% out, but I was under the impression that it was not legal for them to underread, only for them to overread.
So if your speedo says 30mph, you are probably doing more like 27mph.
This is confirmed anecdotally by more than a few people having their bikes speedos checked using radar/laser guns.

[Balky001]

Now to play devils advocate here, have you seen the TV ad with the kid , broken bones, telling us all if she was hit at 30 she had an 80% chance of surviving and at 40 an 80% chance of not, well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:
.

Hang on, your bike tip says 'Observation, you can't go any faster safely without improving it'. Did you miss the kid in the road whilst you were watching your mate? :wink:

[rictus01]

Now to play devils advocate here, have you seen the TV ad with the kid , broken bones, telling us all if she was hit at 30 she had an 80% chance of surviving and at 40 an 80% chance of not, well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:
.

Hang on, your bike tip says 'Observation, you can't go any faster safely without improving it'. Did you miss the kid in the road whilst you were watching your mate? :wink:

not having hit any pedestrian (without meaning to :twisted: ) my observation skills are fairly good and better than most, the point in case you missed it was the one sided portrayal of the thing.

[Balky001]

Now to play devils advocate here, have you seen the TV ad with the kid , broken bones, telling us all if she was hit at 30 she had an 80% chance of surviving and at 40 an 80% chance of not, well me question would be, what the f**k is she doing in the road in the first place :?:
.

Hang on, your bike tip says 'Observation, you can't go any faster safely without improving it'. Did you miss the kid in the road whilst you were watching your mate? :wink:

not having hit any pedestrian (without meaning to :twisted: ) my observation skills are fairly good and better than most, the point in case you missed it was the one sided portrayal of the thing.

Cheers mate, I didn't miss it. I appreciate the alternative view too, but in my mind justifying exceeding the speed limits in built up areas by putting the responsibility on a child (that they should be 100% focused all the time, never ever distracted) does make me think its a cop out. Might as well have no limits - just rely on the drivers/riders to find their own 'safe' speed, be it 20mph or 90. But it is nice to play devil's advocate once in a while :twisted:

[mysteryjimbo]

even though your speedo says your doing 30, you could actually be doing 32.4 MPH.
Speedos are often up to 10% out, but I was under the impression that it was not legal for them to underread, only for them to overread.
So if your speedo says 30mph, you are probably doing more like 27mph.


You ARE right.

[northwind]

Also, I am a firm advocate that insurance companies should be EXTREMELY REGULATED in how much extra they can charge you on your insurance premiums due to points for "minor" speeding offenses.


Funnily enough, I'm just reinsuring the bike now, and I noticed a lot of the companies are asking for details of any points/offences you have on your record, but allowing you to not mention one SP speeding offence- step in the right direction, I'm sure they weren't doing that last year.

[northwind]

I've no problem with speed limits if they make sense (at 3 pm I'm the guy doing 15 mph going past the school, terrified one of the mums is going to kill me :!: ), but speed cameras are 24hrs and disregard weather or road conditions, so surely going passed a school is safer at midnight as no-one is there? so why should it be 20 mph.

I temper my compliance to the legalities of road use, with a good measure of common sense, much the same as most motoring laws, a dark visor is illegal, but on a bright winters day, I'm not prepared to risk my life and those around me by using a clear one and compromising my observations.


2 very good points there- no reason speed limits should be 24 hour in fact. Though in practice most have to be constantly set, I saw a pilot in the Netherlands IIRC where LED limit signs were being used to vary speeds so that limits went up later at night on fast roads, and brought down to lower limits at risk spots- schools, playgrounds- during the hours they were likely to be used. Complicated, but could be a good idea. Equally could confuse matters so I'm not 100% on whether it's a good idea...

One of the speed limit review organisations is calling for motorway and dual limits to increase from 9pm to 5am, seems a very good idea to me too...

And the visor point- I know what you mean, it's hard to take laws seriously when some are so obviously absurd...

[northwind]

:rant:

OK, it has actually been proved that speed cameras CAUSE more accidents than without them (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2212479.stm for instance, but there are loads).

That article is "may" and "could be used better", and points out that covert cameras were more effective but were changed entirely because of public pressure. I know there are better examples, of course, but then there's an equal number that "prove" the exact opposite.

Just by coincidence I found P19 of today's Scotsman, independant study shows that speed cameras can cut road deaths by 71%- based on a survey from every country using speed cameras as a major part of speed policies. Across those countires as a whole, deaths reduced between 17% and 71%, collisions reduced by between 5% and 69%, and injuries fell by between 12% and 65%.

The jury's out there, but everyone seems to agree that cameras could be used better. As much as I like visible cameras- they're the only reason I have a clean license, frankly- covert cameras work better (that's properly covert, not just grey boxes- they're still visible and cause panic-reactions)

But they're seen as "unsporting" and are unpopular, even though they resulted in the massive cuts mentioned above where they were used.

[embee]

Ah, statistics!

I think that road casualty rates are inversely proportional to house prices. Casualty rates have been coming down for years, and house prices have been going up. QED. [-(

[northwind]

Yeah, i know :wink: But Sincs started it :)

Though you can get good reslts from statistics as long as you don't trust them.

[Balky001]

Ah, statistics! [-( - 36-24-34 - ah yes, statistics. :wink:

[Sincs]

even though your speedo says your doing 30, you could actually be doing 32.4 MPH.
Speedos are often up to 10% out, but I was under the impression that it was not legal for them to underread, only for them to overread.
So if your speedo says 30mph, you are probably doing more like 27mph.


You ARE right.

It is illegal for them to overread at time of sale, but with age these get a bit slack and can underread.

Mate of mine has a Omega estate with a standard speedo and also a speedo as part of the computer. His GPS system also tells his speed and on the way up to banburry both the GPS & Computer speedo read 87, and the analogue speeedo read just under 80.

Car is about 6 yrs old.

I am not sure if it is part of the MOT to ensure that the speedo is correct, ubt even if it is, it is still open for some play between MOT's

[Sincs]

Ah, statistics! [-( - 36-24-34 - ah yes, statistics. :wink:
I'm more of a 38 - 26 - 36 guy myself.. need some meat on em :thumbsup:

[Dicky Ticker]

Speedo,s truck speedo[tachographs]are tested every two years and removed and bench tested every five and are only allowed a 1% tolerance
plus the disc is admissable as evidence for both prosecution and defence

When was the last case of Jaywalking in this country?????

I do think that variable speed limits are a good thing and seem to work on the M25 as they are phased with the speed cameras

Why design transport capable of 120+mph if you cant use it also this "blackbox" GPS guff is a waste of time Fit a max speed limiter/electronic tacograph to all new cars with heavier fines and 3months auto disqualification for tampering with it At least cure one part of the problem

Whats happening with our friend fighting the GATSO case?????

[northwind]

Why design transport capable of 120+mph if you cant use it

Because speed limits don't apply in other countries, or on private roads. The onboard tach would only be useful if the police can also place you on a public road at the time, and if they can do that they don't need the tach. Doesn't apply so much for an artic as they don't do trackdays often...

(though the going abroad thing would apply- how's that dealt with?)

[Dicky Ticker]

NO Go to truck racing I had one truck that when you removed the fuse for the limiter it was capable of over 100mph

I was thinking more along the little girl accident lines and the major issue
of mad asre speeding where the elect/tacho is a record of your conduct

This would only be a requirement for road use track days are on private property so wouldn,t apply i do take your point though

[rictus01]

by putting the responsibility on a child (that they should be 100% focused all the time, never ever distracted) does make me think its a cop out.

isn't that why they have PARENTS

[Balky001]

by putting the responsibility on a child (that they should be 100% focused all the time, never ever distracted) does make me think its a cop out.

isn't that why they have PARENTS

Rictus, I don't know about you but my mum or dad didn't always come out and play with me and my friends when we walked over to the park for a game of footy. Thank god! How embarrassing would that have been in front of your mates? :oops: :oops:

[rictus01]

As per the TV add the age of the child indicates supervison was required,
otherwise she wouldn't have been in the road, and would have crossed safely.

Spoty youths hanging around on a corner should know better, trying to look cool to their mates by dodging traffic makes them fair game :wink:



Cheers Mark.

[Clunk]

Just by coincidence I found P19 of today's Scotsman, independant study shows that speed cameras can cut road deaths by 71%- based on a survey from every country using speed cameras as a major part of speed policies. Across those countires as a whole, deaths reduced between 17% and 71%, collisions reduced by between 5% and 69%, and injuries fell by between 12% and 65%.


Maybe the fact that cars are getting better at protecting the occupants in a collision could account for the reduction of casualties ?

There are other statistics that say only 7% of accidents are due to excess speed.
Over 50% of accidents occur on rural roads where there are fewer cameras, so how can they reduce these accidents?

Any statistics refering to the reduction in accidents being atributed to cameras are unreliable as there are too many other variables which haven't been taken into account.

[Balky001]

Spoty youths hanging around on a corner should know better, trying to look cool to their mates by dodging traffic makes them fair game :wink:

Cheers Mark.

Can't disagree there! :wink: :lol: