Speed cameras N.B.

[squidge]

Speed Cameras in the Solent ! Now there's an idear. Anything moving over 8Knots SOG gets snapped.
Next they will put cigerette type warning on 4X4s Gulp!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

If there are unrealistic speed limits people will ignore them. The more unrealistic speeds you get the more will be ignored till the speed limits which are reasonable get ignored.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[waterboy]

Re: existential problem

The whole of Portsmouth was gridlocked yeaterday evening for 5 or 6 hours with the M275 closed both ways due to a fatality. I bet a few forumites were caught up in the chaos. Why? Because drivers floor the gas pedal as soon as they pass the last speed camera by the Shell garage. People do it all the time with all-too-frequent accidents and motorway closures. Here surely is a strong case for a 50 mph limit with cameras all the way to the M27/A27.

<hr width=100% size=1>I never make the same mistake twice. I always make new ones.

 

[KevB]

Re: existential problem

Why? Because drivers floor the gas pedal as soon as they pass the last speed camera by the Shell garage

How do you know that was the cause of the a accident, was you in one of the cars? Or are you just "headline" grabbing?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: existential problem

<<Why? Because drivers floor the gas pedal as soon as they pass the last speed camera by the Shell garage.>>
How do you know that's why? Paramedic? Traffic cop?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

If speed camera's are only sited in accident black spots (which is what they say) surely every new car should come with an accident black spot detector (radar/speed camera detector)
If their intention is to reduce accidents, an accident black spot detector would warn the motorist they are entering an accident prone area, allowing them to slow down.

But the Police don't want that...They want your money.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by KevB on 26/11/2004 14:23 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Bergman]

Isn't that what speed limit signs are for?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

My point exactly. If you have unreasonable speed limits ~ (40mph on a dual carriageway) they will get ignored so when you have reasonabel speed limits they too will be ignored. Unfortunately the reasonable limit is assumed to be unrealistic.
Having black spot dectors will let everyone know it's a true accident black spot.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[fireball]

And those of us who prefer to drive around in older cars?

There are some stupid speed limits though.... but what bugs me the most is ppl who drive around at 40mph ... in the 30 limit, in the 40 limit, in the 60 limit - u know the ones.... I think they have a daily outing too ... to the middle lane of the nearest motorway ... via the outside lane of every dual carridge way.....

Speed limits?! we wouldn't need them if we shot these motorists cos the roads would be clear!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Don't entirely follow the logic of this.

Whats a "true black spot"?

Surely the idea is to prevent accidents and moreover to reduce the effects on people when accidents occur.

To the best of my knowledge there are warning signs where speed cameras are installed isn't that enough?

40 mph on an urban dual carriageway may well be quite sensible - depends on local conditions, traffic volumes etc.

Lots of villages in my area have had 30mph limits introduced over the last 3 years or so mainly because of pressure from local people afraid for their children, quite understandably, having seen cars and bike (especially bikes!) travelling on main roads through villages where people live at well over the 60 mph national speed limit never mind 30

Chances of a pedestrian surviving impact from any vehicle doing 70+mph is virtually nil hence the demand for action from police hence the limits and if not effective hence the cameras.

That has a logic to it




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[masterofnone]

Be extremely careful in the Limehouse link tunnel, New digital cameras at work. With these cameras being rolled out, we will all have to obey the limit OR be banned!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlexL]

Re: Life is cheap nb

unfortunately these stats are flawed. I can pick a random piece of road and say -ooh look the accidents have fallen here and ignore the fact that they have risen elswhere. In my part of essex fatalites have steadily risen from 80 odd per year to over 120 per year in the last 5 or so years, and yet the police are still saying the cameras are working and even published stats to show a REDUCTION in fatalites using some clever stats on selected camera sites. i.e they have found the areas which have seen a fall in accidents and published those stats and ignored everything else.
One trick used is called ' regression to the mean' whereby you select an area which had a much higher than average number of accidents last year. i.e say it usually averages 15 accidents maybe or - 3 and suddenly last year for whatever reason there were 20 accidents. In random events this sort of 'out lying' event is often evident. However if you do nothing it is pretty much guaranteed that the accident rate will return to 'normal' anyway. If you slap a camera there you can say "hey look at the reduction in accident rates at this camera site this year".

If cameras really worked then the essex 'camera partnership' (viz, tax collectors) wouldn't have to publish a 200 page report trying to demonstrate using lots of fancy maths that somehow 120 deaths is less than 80. If they really worked you could have a 1 page report saying "hey we used to have 80 fatalities, now we only have 60. Job done. Thank you and good night".

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlexL]

Re: existential problem

beacause its alot easier for people to say - he was speeding, than for anyone to be bothered to do a proper job of policing / trafic management etc.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

You say
"Lots of villages in my area have had 30mph limits introduced over the last 3 years or so mainly because of pressure from local people afraid for their children, quite understandably, having seen cars and bike (especially bikes!) travelling on main roads through villages where people live at well over the 60 mph national speed limit never mind 30 "

Well in my experience there's never a speed camera there, there all on stretches of roads which make them economically viable.


In our village I campaigned long and hard for a crossing in the village so that children could cross to the junior school safely. (There's a lot of parked cars on the road. It took 3 years & a lot of hassle to get one. Nearby on the A303, the traffic police using a mobile camera nicked 2000 motorists one saturday morning and they are going to put a fixed camera there. I've lived in the village for 18 years now ... and there has NEVER been a serious accident in that time at the area where the camera is to be placed.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AlexL]

quite agree about the pedestrian not surviving 70mph impacts, but they won't survive a 50 mph impact either - so why are most of the dual carrigeways turning into 50's when they get near a town?
Also just think about the pedestrian issue for a moment. If a pedestrian is run down on a road , whose fault is it? (the clue is in the question!)
I'm pretty sure most people in this country wouldn't have a problem if you put 20mph zones on housing estates and filled them with cameras, but left the proper roads alone.
I mean 30mph on the new 6 lane A13 into east london, give me a break. Am I really going to come across a pedestrian in the middle of the limehouse tunnel?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mirabriani]

Sp++d Cam+++s in S++++t
Oh Dear!
I do wish you had not put it quite as bluntly
I was reading the thread and thinking exactly the same.
There are a lot of peeps who think yachties are rich
Hence what works on roads works on water.
We can already expect to pay more for fuel
How long will it be before the dreaded S+++d Cam+++s
Could they tax air?

Regards (gasp) Briani

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Not knowing your area obviously I can't comment in detail.

In general terms I would agree that many of these things are in places that have little or no history of accidents, but is that not the nature of preventative action.

Fortunately North Yorks (or at least my bit of it) is not too bad, the cameras are placed where speed limits are well established and clearly are there for a reason.

That does not get away from the fact that it is a legal requirement to obey speed limits, just like other laws. I cannot follow the logic that some people believe they have some right to disobey laws that they do not like or do not see the point of. That road (sorry) leads to anarchy.

There are some 3000+ people a year killed on the roads and no government can ignore this. I would agree that more and better things may be possible, but I certainly do not claim to know what, so they do something - simple politics but really is there an alternative. So long as there are people who assume the right to drive at excessive speed (and there are plenty who do) then the speed camera argument will justify itself.

On the positive side I think there might be an argument that there is not a wide enough spread of speed limits. It may be interesting to try a higher speed limit than 70mph on some motorways, if there are any relatively quiet ones left anywhere. perhaps the Northern bit of the M6, the M18, M180, part of the M11 maybe.

Main problem today seems to be driving anywhere in a respectable time due to volume of traffic. So everyone gets delayed, impatient and then hurries breaking speed limits etc to make up time.

Spent 9 hours driving home from S London last week speed limits were irrelevant, most of the time I could have walked faster, rest of the time - well - err - we will gloss over that.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[StugeronSteve]

>so why are most of the dual carrigeways turning into 50's when they get near a town?<

In many cases it's in order to reduce noise pollution, although getting rid of concrete road surfaces would probably prove a site more effective.

<hr width=100% size=1>Think I'll draw some little rabbits on my head, from a distance they might be mistaken for hairs.

 

[Bergman]

Right on the limit

if booked at 65 ok on fixed penaly

if 66+ could be nasty - 4 or 5 points or up to 42 days disqualification fine up to equivalent of 1 weeks disposable income.

Best take the ticket if offered I think.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

OK

Never been in Limehouse tunnel
Never intend to go into it

So can't really comment on that.

Whose fault is it - Is that really what matters? Are you seriously saying that you don't mind killing people so long as "it their fault" surely not.
Car drivers do not have exclusive right to the roads, People are allowed to cross them, ride bicycles along them even ride horses along them. Try hitting a horse at 70mph and see how you like it!

What if the victim is a child, at what age do they assume responsibility for being run down.

I gave the pedestrian example as the clearest one that came to mind for reducing speed.

If you prefer, consider running into the back of a large heavy vehicle or even one running into the back of you. 70 or 50 which would you rather try?

Not too difficult to answer is it.

<hr width=100% size=1>