Speed cameras N.B.

small point Becky but most actually do it because they think they know better than those setting the guidlines (limits) ; and of course they expect to get away with it.

re early points about speed cameras and boats I believe that some do exist in teh following areas from time to time -
Broads
Thames (upper)
Poole Harbour (it's been on the post just inside the entrance a year now I believe)
River Frome

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif
 
Gosh

Where to start?

Over the Xmas/New Year period of 2000/2001 the police, as a matter of policy, breathalised everyone involved in an accident.

The result was that 93% of those involved in accidents were NOT over the limit.

That is a fact

So obviously the drink driving laws do not make a significant contribution to road safety. Therefore we should stop breathalising people and allow them to drive when drunk.

Speed only contributes to 1% of accidents - OK

So we abolish speed limits

You do not mention how many accidents are caused by driving on the wrong side of the road - I suspect very few so lets abolish the keep left principle.

Sounds fun

Bad driving kills. Perhaps you could define that for me, clearly driving at 120 on the M1 on a wet Friday night is not bad driving - so what is?

The un-arguable fact is that the faster you go the harder you hit things. That is the law of physics

Whether speed contrinutes to the probability you can argue about, that it contributes to the consequences of an accident is beyond debate.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Soapbox, I,m staying on mine

"The drunk weaving around at 20 mph in a 30 zone, is far more dangerous than someone exeeding the limit on a motorway,"

Interesting point - at 20 mph he is unlikely to kill anyone but can certainly cause serious injury, The 70+ man is much less likely to have an accident but also much more likely to cause death if he does.

An interesting question for any risk manager - which is the highest risk?

Why do cyclists think rules don't apply to them - er well mainly because in practice they dont!

Very very rare for a cyclist to be prosecuted so they believe that they are not subject to law so they happily continue to break it more and more blatently. Rather as I suspect car drivers would without cameras.

PS

Many many years ago when I was young and fit I was actually pulled by the Bobbies for speeding on a bicycle. Got off with a warning, bit disappointed really I would have liked to have kept the summons for proof.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The problem is, that it just isn't that simple.

Speed does not kill. If it did, all formula one drivers would be dead. All trains that exceeded 100mph would explode. Aircraft would fall out of the sky.

Bad driving kills, and inappropriate speed in the wrong place leading to an impact kills.

Putting cameras up all over the place means that people don't think about speed any more, they think about the cameras. You can't tell me that someone driving past a school looking for the camera is a good thing. Cameras give the driver the feeling that if he drives like a loony but avoids the camera, he's okay, and the penalty system reinforces this.

Conversely, if you drive considerately most of the time, but occasionally go a little over over the limit and ignore the cameras, you stand a high chance of getting totally banned.

dv.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Life is cheap nb

Dear AlexL

I have given up on this post. It is growing faster than I can read them!

I did not master 'statistics' at three seperate colleges but treat them with the same caution I treat religion [ in case God exists.]

[If you want to do some work on the raw stats. They are on the Humberside Safety Camera Partnership when you get to the annual report - appendix. If you can undo them I would be intersted in the correspondance ]


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The advantage the F1 and train drivers have is that the _know_ that everyone else is (well - should be!) going the same way and similar speed ... anyway - its a crap argument ...


So - as cameras are the product of the devil, trying to trap us in our ultra fast cars we should get rid of them - fine! So - what _WILL_ make you slow down? Perhaps we'll have to import some youngsters to walk infront of every vehicle waving a red flag?

Speeding is a risk you take - you risk getting caught or having a more serious accident - don't want the risk of being caught? Don't speed! Simple! and if you can't concentrate enough to drive within the speed limit then I suggest you don't drive.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Actually your wrong there was a recent case of zero speed in a car causing lots of deaths .. when the car parked in front of a train .. should we now restrict all trains to 20mph to avoid such occurrences in future? Or impose a minimum speed for cars?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: The nanny state at work again.

Re the A2, if you want to see a guaranteed accident on this road, drive past the Bluewater exit, coastbound, any weekend morning between now and Xmas and there will be at least 2 cars on the hard shoulder with front / rear end damage.

There was a fatal accident a few years back also on the A2 near Falconwood where a motorist swerved to avoid a fox and crashed as a result. I'll bet a fair number of accidents are caused like this and, in the event of no witnesses, are put down to driver error.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Not often speechless but this just about does the trick

I leave the field - bloody but unbowed

Going to bed really - its too late for this nonsense

I think Becky closed the book on the subject anyway.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Now, had the car been towed away for causing an obstruction ...........

No no no....

forget it

Good night




<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Becky, serious point.. I have seen a few accident caused by slow driving which has provoked the reckless into a stupid overtake. Yes the cosequences of a high speed collision are bad .. if its a head on, however most speed cameras are not in these situations they are on dual carriageways where people can speed safely. It is worth thinking that two cars hitting each other at 40mph is the same as a car hitting a brick wall at 80 mph. So speed alone is not the issue it is infrastructure and sensible policing rather than point and pound collecting which is the key to safer roads. Anyway as far as cameras go, most of us drive on roads we know, and know where the cameras are so they're just another hazard. They only really become relevant in unfamiliar roads and even then not if you've invested in Cyclops or similar. Actually just back from a couple of days in N Germany where there were no cameras and the driving standards were better than ours .. but then again the roads were a lot better .. wonder if there is some sort of correlation!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Thing that surprises me about those who support strong policing of speed limits is they seem to think there is some sort of scientific merit in the fixing of the limit.

Some even try to contrive scientific merit by stating the kinetic energy thing (proportional to speed squared) which ignores the fact that physical law applies at all speeds, so whatever lower limit one sets using that argument the same argument can be reapplied until you get the speed limit to zero.

Whereas, in fact, all a speed limit says is "We think the death toll from driving at or under the limit is acceptable, but the death toll that may exist if it is exceeded or a higher limit is set is not".

Sad part is that so many get blinkered into thinking speed limits mean "safe" (and often, that is regardless of weather or other temporary road conditions) so we must have them and little public emphasis is placed on other, perhaps more important, road safety initiatives.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.
 
I think you'll find that hitting a solid stationary object such as a tree at 60mph has the same effect whether the traffic around you is going in the same direction or the opposite direction. The point is, that "speed kills" is a duff message, discredited by early train passengers that emerged alive from their 30mph ordeal.

The difficult truth is that fatal accidents are complex, and cannot be neatly summarised or categorised. I know of at least two TVR owners that have left the road backwards at high speed, have bounced off trees, and walked. Also, mistakes at junctions resulting in side impacts that have caused fatalities, and relatively low speed collisions with pedestrians with similarly tragic consequences. In all these cases, misjudgement or crap road/junction/signage/bonnet design hasn't helped, and the end result has been a "speed" incident, despite "speed" not being the root cause.

What will make me slow down ? When I can achieve a reasonable average point to point speed, say 50mph, using A roads or Motorways. At the moment, due to congestion, and other slower vehicles (tractors, lorries, milk floats, Hyundais, Hayling Islanders etc.) this is not normally possible.

To improve the situation, we really need take a lead from the airline industry. Root cause analysis for every serious accident (following up with fixes), training and regular retraining for drivers, and an increased focus on the road network as a safety system.

dv.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Speed kills - no argument. But why do you suppose that overcrowded motorways, with the highest average speeds, are the safest of all roads?

Has anyone noticed how the slowest drivers seem least aware?

Travelling faster does tend to concentrate the mind.

It's a sad fact that the slower we drive, the less alert we become.

I'm not advocating driving like boy racers - just trying to establish a truth that it's not speed that causes accidents - it's lack of skill, judgement of road conditions and experience that are the primary cause.

I don't think people can afford to be too holier than thou on this. I'm always amazed when I travel at 70mph on a motorway at how few cars I overtake. Does anyone obey the law?



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
If speed is dangerous and speeds over 70mph are ALWAYS illegal then why are vehicle manufacturers allowed to make family vehicles capable of well over 100mph?

Why are they allowed to advertise the top speed of their vehicles as a selling point? Advertising of other dangerous items is much more strictly controlled. Drinking is not allowed to apear clever or sporty, while smokling ads are simply banned - so why do motor manufacturers get awaya with this drivel?

If the speed limit for my old Ford Anglia was 70mph with dodgy brakes, skinny crossply tyres and no airbags how come it is the same for my new Ford Focus?

Why do any of you expect this to make any sense? Cars are ridiculous on almost every level, but we will fight to the bitter end to keep them.

To be caught by a speed camera you have to be a) prepared to break the law for your own personal convenience and b) unobservant and therefore you probably should drive slower.

Speeding fines hopefully help to keep my council tax down and are a much fairer form of tax. What is wrong with taxing the guilty?

No sympathy - but then I haven't been caught recently :-)

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>
 
Quote; "The factt is that bad driving kills, regardless of what speed, and also, believe it or not, accidents, which are no-one's fault."

It 's extremely rare that an accident really is no-one's fault. In the vast majority of cases human error has been a major contributor.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Would have nothing against SC if. One. They were actually put in dangerous places. Two. They did not keep changing the speed limit on the same length of identical duel carrageway. One road in Wales goes 50, 60,40, 60, and even 70 on a duel carrageway, which I thought was illegal anyway!! So they've got you totally confused, speed up, brake, fast slow, quick, quick, slow. Then of course theres the road up signs in two languages with words like Gggpphhride and Flkingroooom to take in and either understand or carry on down the sign till you find a word you can understand. By the time you've done all this, your completely knackered and dont realy care how fast your going and are a sucker for the umpteen cameras. Mind you have probably run over quite a few pedestrians and the odd bike rider. But you would hardly have noticed!!

<hr width=100% size=1> No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.

Haydn
 
That stretch of road is a real nightmare to drive, we use it on the way to Hollyhead for the ferry to Ireland. We are not locals so we are trying to route find at the same time as double guessing which of the multiple choice speeds applies for the bit of that road you are currently on. I will admit to getting it wrong several times, either going at 50mph in the 70mph bit or viceversa.

I was also stopped on this road at 2am, having just returned from Ireland on a ferry delayed by bad weather, I was doing 55mph in a 50mph section through some roadworks, there wasn't another car in sight and I hadn't seen one for several miles and I didn't see the police car parked behind the bridge supports and off the road. I was asked where I had come from (Irish Ferry), when did I last have a drink (Ireland 36 hours back) and told that there would be no action for speed but they would breathalise me, by the look on their faces they thought they had a customer, after all everyone drinks their way across on the ferry don't they. Well the breathaliser showed I hadn't had a drink, their faces were a picture, and they let me go with a very stern warning about excess speed (55mph in a 2 lane piece of roadworks all of 100 yards long). They took off up the road like Starski & Hutch, but that's OK isn't it.

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top