Speed Cameras

[comedyjock]

Don't know if this affects many people but have a look at this site and you may get a clean licence back like I have (hopefully).....
http://www.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk/

[cobaltfrog]

Worked for Mrs CF. Points removed and £60 big ones back with a letter of apology!

Nice when it happens but I guess christmas is now over!!

[Thud_and_Blunder]

:rolleyes: :*

...so you got off on a technicality eh? Oh, jolly well done the lot of you. Enjoy the smug feeling while it lasts - Christmas you say?

I'm sure you'll cheerfully donate the umpty-quid you received back to some deserving charity, just to remind yourselves that you broke the law but got away with it, won't you? No, I didn't think so...

[Safeware]

Thud_and_Blunder,

You seem to be somewhat miffed here, rather mistakenly I think. This issue isn't about people flouting the law, it is about a speed camera being set up with no indication that a new speed limit had been set. I don't know anyone who was caught, but it caused a lot of grief.

[Training Risky]

Safeware: You are being too kind. Thuddy obviously wants to throw his dosh to the reptilian Chief Constables who see motorists as a handy cash cow.

"Broke the law" - don't make me laugh...

[exvicar]

Thud-and-blunder

Think I will put my refund towards one of those GPS & laser 'safety' alerting devices.

[Hueymeister]

Mine would go on one of those new jamming devices (illegal..if you get caught) you can 'hide' under the bonnet....harder to find..you can get them from the States/Europe for a few hundred poooonds..yes I know it would be easier to stick to the limit...but in these days of being hit for 45 in a 40, why not? A pal of mine has one that allegedly merely confuses the gun and doesn't let the operator know that it's been jammed, unlike the one they tested on topgear.

[comedyjock]

As an aside, do you think you will be able to claim compensation for increased insurance premiums, loss of earnings (if applicable) etc

[totalwar]

How about an even better Idea....I use something which didn't cost hundreds of pooooonds...it works every time and its legal......

Yep, I keep to the speed limit.

If you were to keep to the speed limit there would be no need for jammers, entrapment devices or the like...in fact, if everyone kept to the speed limit there would be no need for speed cameras.

So, top tip... keep inside the speed limit. It saves money AND it saves lifes.

[kippermate]

I don't see what the problem is.

I just drive ridiculously fast and keep a good look out.

Then, when I see a speed camera I just jump on the brakes and reduce speed to the ludicrously slow speed limit.

Especially near schools!

Or when it's foggy.


Or,

I sometimes drive at a speed somewhere near the legal speed limit., therfore reducing the likelihood of being prosecuted.

:confused:

kipper

[rafloo]

Good man....

Between 1994 and 1998 an average of 468 people were killed or seriously injured each year in road traffic collisions in Wiltshire and Swindon.

Excess speed, or the inappropriate use of speed, is held to be a factor in 33% of all collisions.

Studies have shown that for every 1mph reduction in speed there is a 5% reduction in the number of collisions.

SLOW DOWN - SPEED KILLS

[cobaltfrog]

Thunder and blunder

I suggest you know who it is on the forum you direct your comments too before making statements like "I suppose you will donate to charity......"

I have raised over £163000 pounds for nominated charities over an 18 year period.

Just exactly how much have you bothered to contribute! Get back in your box!

[ShyTorque]

Thud,

I once went above the speed limit decided by bureaucrats and have points to prove it. I only did it because it was safe to do so. The policeman who stopped me agreed it was a technical offence.

I do sometimes drive under the limit because it's not safe to drive at the posted speed limit. The bureacrats were wrong. But they didn't give me any credit.

I suggest cameras take pictures of us going slow due to our inadequate road system and give us money back on a monthly basis.

What about those roads with a MINIMUM speed limit. How can it be safe to drive fast? :confused:

[exvicar]

Does anyone know where I can buy a set of front mounted rockets to dispose of those who insist on hogging the middle & outside lanes of a near empty dual carriage way? Are lane hoggers ever pulled over & told to revisit the Highway Code?

[US Herk]

SLOW DOWN - SPEED KILLS

Speed does not kill anymore than spoons make you fat!

Speed merely reduces the time available to react to a given situation. It will, obviously, increase damage if you are in an accident. However, speed, in and of itself, does not kill.

Speed too fast for conditions is another thing entirely - failure to maintain control of your vehicle due to excessive speed does not mean speed kills, rather it means poor judgment.

Excess speed, or the inappropriate use of speed, is held to be a factor in 33% of all collisions.
Studies have shown that for every 1mph reduction in speed there is a 5% reduction in the number of collisions.


Statistics also show that 75% of traffic accidents occur within 25 miles of your home.

Figures lie and liars figure...statistics can be manipulated to serve any purpose whatsoever.

If you could demonstrate that speed, and speed alone, was the only causal factor in those 33% of accidents, you might have something there. However, any sensible person will tell you there are a multitude of factors involved in every accident. Speed is actually causal in very few. Where speed is ticked on the investigating official's sheet, more often than not, it was judgement that was in error...

[waivar]

Sorry chaps, thought this was an AVIATION website. As an aviator one drinks too much, charms beautiful girls and of course drives too fast (when the motorway / dual road allows.)

:} :}

[stiknruda]

"Statistics also show that 75% of traffic accidents occur within 25 miles of your home."

That's it then, I'm going to move house!


Stik

[Thud_and_Blunder]

Waivar,

You're probably right about the choice of site - this will probably end up shunted off to JetBlast to join the other reiterations of the same old positions.

Shy,

Should've reined-in the GG's then, eh? Second beadwindow call in 3 days, methinks - you got summat against our company?! :p

CF,

Congratulations on knowing to within 3 sig figs how much you've donated. Why not make it 163060?

All,

You'll see from the sig where I live - if you want to see the anarchy and carnage which results from inappropriate use of speed and total disregard for motoring law, spend a day by Ring Road 6 or the Fahaheel Expressway. If that doesn't cure your heavy right foot then you're beyond help - or possibly a Kuwaiti on holiday. (There's a website here (http://www.crazy****.org/Crash/carcrash.html) which apparently shows the results - we can't view it in-country because it upsets the Government to see their citizens foibles so publicly pilloried. Moderators - if the site is inappropriate please remove the link, thanks.)

Think it's a bad law? Well, you can either go for civil disobedience or you can get the law changed. There's an election coming up - if it's so important to you, find out what your candidates' positions are on speed limits and vote for the one that agrees with you. If you can find one; most are probably more concerned with boring stuff like health and education. You could even start your own political party and harness the energy of that massive groundswell of public approval for your cause... I wouldn't plan on hanging-on to your deposit, though.

[November4]

Between 1994 and 1998 an average of 468 people were killed or seriously injured each year in road traffic collisions in Wiltshire and Swindon


I assume that 1998 was when speed cameras were introduced to the Wiltshire area.

And since 1998 the figures are....

How much of a reduction have these camaeras made to the number of people injured or killed?

[jindabyne]

US Herk

Tell that to my paramedic son - 'speeding' kills!

[ShyTorque]

Thud, "Second beadwindow call in 3 days, methinks - you got summat against our company?"

Nah, used to work for the same one, just in a mischievous mood! Gone back to protect the guilty, now you know that "we" know ;)

[Flying Lawyer]

jindabyne

Declaring that "'speeding' kills!" is like declaring that 'driving motor vehicles kills'. Both propositions are true, but both are meaningless in isolation.

With great respect to your son, paramedics aren't qualified to make informed judgments about the cause of an accident. They arrive after the event, and aren't trained in accident investigation or reconstruction. I don't doubt dealing with the immeditate aftermath of a fatal accident is very emotionally harrowing but, emotion isn't conducive to detached rational reasoning. eg My objective view is that the annual death on the roads figure is reasonable, but I doubt if I could be objective if I lost a loved one in a road accident. Don't misunderstand - I'd like to see lower figures, but not if it means making speed limits even lower.

Of course, if there is an impact, greater speed increases the likelihiood of someone dying rather than being injured but, if that proposition was carried to what some might regard as its logical conclusion, we'd have to limit speed to that which a human body could withstand (without sustaining fatal injury) in the event of an impact.

US Herk is right - inappropriate speed is a potential killer, or at least increases the risk of someone being killed.
Breaking a speed limit isn't necessarily dangerous, any more than driving within a speed limit is necessarily safe.

[Divergent Phugoid!]

Rafloo what utter codswallop!!

SO, you mean that if I drive my Audi RS4 long the road at 165 mph I am dangerougly close to death but if I reduce my speed by 20 mph that reduces the risk of being killed or injured by 100 percent?? (work out the maths 20mph x 5pc)

So if I reduce the speed by further 20mph I become totally invincible do I??? Don't think so matey!!

The speed partnership in Notts have posted this information in a safety leaflet and when it was pointed out that the stats were incorrect they withdrew the notice with very red faces!!

Anyhow its not the speed, its the sudden stop that kills you!!:E :E :E

[waivar]

Well, seeing as this thread is ongoing.... Why dont we lift speed restrictions on motorways between the hours of 0300 and 0600 Autobahn style

Phugoid, i thought RS4's were restricted to 155 mph like most German cars nowadays.

And bringing the AVIATION part back in to the frame, does the aerofoil create enough down force over the rear at these speeds?

As you rightly say its the sudden acceleration that does the damage, so are the brakes cross drilled or grooved?

[Blue_wolf75]

Excess speed, or the inappropriate use of speed, is held to be a factor in 33% of all collisions.

Studies have shown that for every 1mph reduction in speed there is a 5% reduction in the number of collisions
Statistics also show that 75% of traffic accidents occur within 25 miles of your home.
Did you know that 76.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Figures can be played with to get them to say whatever you like. The government would have you believe taht speed is the main factor in 33% of all collisions, the ABD would have you believe that excess speed only accounts for about 5%.

Personally I think that it is very rarely possible to attribute an accident to one thing. Many factors come into an accident, you would be nieve to think that staying below the speed limit automatically makes you safe.

[BEagle]

I'm all for sensible speed limits - such as 30 mph ones in large towns or the generic German 50kph between the netry and exit signs to any village.

But most assuredly NOT the plethora of ridiculous nanny-state limits imposed by the mad vegetarians on bicycles who infest Oxfordshire's councils!

4 star unleaded and tyre smoke are the smell of freedom!

Oh - and NEVER slow down going past schools! Because:
1. Some tw@t will think you're a paedophile leering at the kids.
2. The little buggers will think it's safe to try to run across the road in front of you.
3. If you hit one, it'll probably make a mess of your paintwork.

Remember - the difference between hitting a pedestrian at 20 mph and hitting one at 30 is only the size of the stain left on the road. If they weren't on the pavements or a pedestrian crossing, it must have been their fault in any case.

[airborne_artist]

County of Durham has no speed cameras, and the lowest accident rate of any English county.

Cameras havn't saved a single life in Durham ......

[Avoiding Action]

...and the other thing I always notice when cruising down the Durham stretch of the A1 is that the local constabulary seem(subjective I know) to have a lot more traffic car patrols than many of the other counties between the Scottish Borders and Rutland.

I'm a firm believer that well-trained constables in cars are more likely to improve the nation's driving standards (speed, middle lane hogging, etc etc) than any number of grey money-making boxes stuck up on a pole at the side of the road!

[Divergent Phugoid!]

Waivar, yep as standard they are limited but its only ellectronic gadgetry..

A friendly word with your automotive ellectrician and the crossing of palms of a few pieces of silver and hey presto, De-restricted and 176 mph!! (genuine!)

Oh and it works for the most of the other german cars too, unless they are already running close to 155 max, then you probably won't notice a difference and isn't worth spending the money on.

And the answers to your other questions, mine are cross drilled discs 365mm front 324 rear and the spoilers are there for a reason not for looks.

Do I take it you also have one of these fine beasts??

Oh and I only use the extra mph responsibly and only on track days!! :E :E :E

[pilotwolf]

THIS paramedic denies the statement that speed kills too!

PW

[soddim]

I've always known as a fighter pilot that speed is life. Anything else is rubbish.

However, I guess there are a lot of posters on this thread who deliberately sit in the outside lane and block the progress of those who have a life to lead and claim that they have paid their road tax and are quite entitled to drive at what they consider to be a safe maximum speed. This is a peculiarly british habit and needs to be actively discouraged by a pass either side law as practised in USA for years.

And for those mentioned above who parsimoniously claim that one should obey all speed limits, of course one should but just remember that nobody is perfect and who wants to be a nobody?

It's not speed that kills but those who do not drive safely.

[Beeayeate]

Phugoid

Word to the wise when chipping the 4, increase the oil change frequency as the "on-board" comp's servicing advice can get tad confused.

These days I doubt I could handle an RS4 at full chat but my A4 does 130 comfortably on the 'bahn past Saarbrucken and it's only a 1.8T Sport.

And yes, I felt safe! In fact I think I would have felt more anxious if I couldn't have kept up with the traffic flow.

Regarding the subject though, I guess speed cameras are a necessary feature on the roads these days with everybody driving around in fast versions of their living rooms. Modern cars can and do tend to isolate you from the road and velocities (and dangers) unless you concentrate fully at all times and actually drive your car rather than just guiding it.

There is, however, a case to be made for "information overload" on UK roads, especially at night. The over abundance of road "furniture" in the form of signs, lights, notices, etc, can be and is distracting.

[John Eacott]

This is a peculiarly british habit and needs to be actively discouraged by a pass either side law as practised in USA for years

Soddim,

We're allowed to overtake on either side, but it doesn't stop the right lane hogs :( They just match speed to a kindred soul (or truck) in the left lane, and count how many they can bank up behind them :mad:

Our State (Victoria) is obsessed with speed as a root cause of accidents, and are quite feral in their fund raising: 40kph school area limits, variable freeway limits, cameras (fixed and mobile), time/distance travelled cameras, etc etc. Budget allocation for speeding fine income, $A400million per year, from a population of 5 million :eek:

My 285Kw's just seem to get me down the freeway onramp quicker, to join the lemmings at 10kph below the posted limit. Sad, really ;)

[allan907]

Beags You are a little off the mark when referring to speed limits outside schools. The problem is NOT with the little buggers who attend same - it's the feckwit mothers driving them there.

In my day (and I suspect yours) one walked to school. As you grew up you got a bike, but you weren't allowed to bring the bike to school until you had passed the bike test run by the road safety people.

Now, it seems that little Johnny can't manage even 500 metres on his own little legs (either because he's a fat little Johnny or the local paedophile is lurking around every bush) so mummy gets out the 4WD for the journey. Mummy is, as we all know, adept at multi-tasking which is why she is driving Johnny to school, making sure he's got his fat-boy lunch, making sure that even littler Susan isn't throwing up in the baby seat, and is glued to her mobile phoning her mates to arrange their tennis/talk about the good looking bloke that just moved in next door/bollocking her husband for not taking the bin out etc etc. And while she's doing all this she drives out from the school, across a major junction or into the stream of traffic, with nary a look at what the hell is happening.

.......and the normal driver gets penalised!

....... and prats spend time typing the words "It's easy - just stick to the speed limit".

all right, all right - I'll get me coat!

[SASless]

Forgive them Father for they know not what they speak!

Pray tell in the USA you refer please? We may have pass on the right laws...for motorways but there are plenty of rocks parting the flow on our roads. We have folks that think the left lane is the dedicated lane for cruising and it should be reached in as short a distance as is possible...held to the very last second and then the exit is reached by a screeching swerve across all the lanes of traffic. We have those who obey the speed law just as you do....never mind the flow of traffic is 10-30 mph faster than they.....thus the "rock parting the flow". Of course they have to be in the middle of three lanes...not the right hand lane which is supposed to be the "slow" lane. I might also mention the slalom drivers....weaving in and out of traffic dodging rocks and others that are doing a mere 30mph over the speed limit. We cannot leave out the truckers....riding three feet off your bumper as if that might enable you to drive any faster than the traffic in front of you.

Are your countries infested with moronic twits that can get completely baffled on how to accomplish the complicated act of entering or leaving a motorway with all those huge overhead signs that warn of the upcoming exit for miles and miles....or the on ramp that stretches out in front of them for a mile....with broad white stripes designed to funnel them into the traffic after they accelerate to at least 50 mph below the oncoming traffic's speed?

Why is it....you can march a company of troops and they all step off with the same command....or a formation of aircraft can depart with a single command.....but a line of automobiles will depart singularly with the onset of the green light?

However, there is a bright side to this....in a former life I drove big trucks for awhile....triple trailers....105 feet long....as Digger O'Dell the Undertaker says....while driving his hearse.....you get on in front or you get on behind. (Whilst entering the motorway).

It is the one, two, three, four, method of motorway joining....the wee naughty person accelerates down the on ramp (one)....they ride along side the big truck until they see the end of the ramp looming (two)....then they swivel their head left to see....surprise-surprise....a very big truck (three).....and (four) wind up jamming the brakes on and swerving onto the gravel apron there being no way to join the road.

These people are actually having offspring....scary thought that!

[US Herk]

I've always known as a fighter pilot that speed is life. Anything else is rubbish.

If speed is life, then surely altitude is life insurance! :D


Speed cameras are nothing more than another tax, pure & simple. The politicos can prattle on and on about safety, but at the end of the day, it is revenue they're interested in.

This public obsession with safety, however, trivial, really will be the ruin of all of our rights. The prats go on & on about "if it will save just one life, it will be worth it," ignoring the fact that the individual is not nearly as valuable as the collective rights. It's rubbish!

When this fact is pointed out, these same idiots will usually counter with logic such as, "you'd think differently if it was your family!" No, I wouldn't. I might not be happy, but guess what, life is not, never has been, & never will be, Fair. **** happens.

The constant erosion of rights & civil liberties sacrificed on the altar of safety needs to end or else we'll wind up in a police state with cameras watching our every move - wait a minute!

The sad bit is, this has begun to permeate the military to some degree. Safety is paramount in everything we do. If safety is paramount, might as well disband the military - it is quite unsafe to point guns & things & others, kill them, break their stuff and expect no retaliation!

[allan907]

US Herk ... and all the other RAF mates. Just bringing this thread back to an aviation theme. When I first became acquainted with the Vulcan force in 1965 the 1 (B) Gp SOP for the Vulcan was a fairly slim volume. When I left the force in 1974 the SOPs had grown to 2 fairly hefty volumes. And guess what? Vulcans still had accidents and incidents!

Yer can't legislate unforeseen incidents away. Accept the inevitable.

[SASless]

They also serve who sit and write SOP's. One must not be too free at breaking other's rice bowls. They were hoping for advancement as well.

[ShyTorque]

Didn't realise the Vulcan had a problem with speed traps!

[soddim]

SASless,

I knew things had changed since the mid-70s when I revisited the USA in 2002. Your western drivers seemed to be much more laid back when I lived there in the 70s and instances of bad driving were rare. Now it is more crowded and many many people seemed to want to end their life and others on the highway. However, I didn't see any examples of stubborn obstructionism the like of which our drivers are too good at.

Wish we had pass either side and left on red (your right on red is right-on).

[Lead_Kevlar]

As far as im concerned speed does kill.

A LOW SPEED kills.

I drive on a lot of country roads and I must have seen so many crashes, nearly all of them involving someone overtaking.

Why are they risking their lives you ask?

Cos the annoying F*ck In front is only doing 40!

This makes it impossible to overtake before the next corner without some serious timing luck. My journeys take twice as long as they should because im stuck behind these people. And yet they dont seem bothered by the 20 or so cars behind them trying to overtake.

Did they ever think of saving some lives and driving a bit faster?
Even pulling over every so often might be helpfull.

Sorry but I think everyone gets pissed off driving on country roads when these people are about.

[soddim]

Where I live many drivers seem to travel at a more or less constant 45mph regardless of road conditions or speed restrictions. Frequently one waits for an overtaking opportunity only to be tailgated by said moron in the next 30 limit.

[Training Risky]

.....that's probably Thud-and-Blunderer - gnashing his teeth at you for having the temerity to overtake him and (GASP) "Break The Law) :8 :8 :8

[jindabyne]

US Herk

I generally agree with your overall argument; my own wording was a kneejerk. I was trying (probably too cleverly) to differentiate speed from speeding. For me 'speed' is quickness, as opposed to 'speeding' which I regard as driving too quickly for the road/weather conditions/driver ability - regardless of the speed limit. 'Tis in that context that I still maintain that speeding kills.

[pulse1]

A programme on BBC South last night was about the claimed inaccuracies of the LT 20-20 laser speed cameras. Evidently, the laser gun and video camera have to be accurately synchronised and the laser has to be held on exactly the same part of target vehicle thoughout the measurement. This is extremely difficult with hand held devices.

In seven recent cases, where the victim has employed a laser specialist, the police have dropped five charges.

[Vage Rot]

The answer is simple, less cameras and more cars on patrol. A fixed camera only slows traffic for about 100 yards, usually with a plethora of brake lights followed by rapid acceleration.

No, a partol car, a human being (I think!!) that can apply a bit of discretion, judge the road conditions and judge whether 35 is too fast, just moving with the flow of traffic or a brief excursion to overtake safely.

Besides, when the bank down the road was robbed, the gatso outside was unable to give chase and as the robbers didn't run faster than 30mph, the useless thing didn't even take a picture!

[WebPilot]

"The answer is simple, less cameras and more cars on patrol. "

<Applause>. Traffic police numbers have declined by something like 70% since the introduction of the revenue cameras in 1994. Traffic police have the advantage of being adaptable, their location varies and they act as a major deterrant. Cameras fulfill none of these valuable functions, but unlike Trafficpol, they are a profit centre, not a cost.

QED.

We did this with Crossbow a while back when he came out with the Speed Kills nonsense and I'd reiterate what I said then:

Oh dear, the speed argument.

"Speed" does not kill - inappropriate or bad driving does. This may involve speeding as an element. The following table showing accident causes is taken from the DETRs own report into road safety.

Inattention: 25.8%
Failure to judge other person's path or speed: 22.6%
Looked but did not see: 19.7%
Behaviour: careless/thoughtless/reckless: 18.4%
Failed to look: 16.3%
Lack of judgement of own path: 13.7%
Excessive speed: 12.5%

Furthermore, a large number of the excessive speed accidents are not caused by /illegal/ speeds. Avon & Somerset Police published some stats that showed just 30% of excessive speed accidents took place in excess of the speed limit, and 2% of excessive speed accidents involved a stolen vehicle. The 68% of remaining excessive speed accidents involved speeds inappropriate for the conditions.


"For every one mph reduction in speed accidents reduce by 5%."

This is utter hogwash, coming from a pair of TRL reports that used some very creative statistical methods and relying on some very big assumptions. A causal relationship was assumed, and no allowance was made for any knock on effects. In fact, if you look at the stats, you find that the safest roads in the UK are the fastest - the motorways. This is nothing more than god old fashioned "spin".

[MadsDad]

Couple of years ago, A316 at Twickenham, 40mph limit, loads of cameras. It's early (5.45) morning and I'm wombling along on my way to work, no hurry, doing about 40.

Car comes up in a hurry, 60+ probably, in outside lane. Overtakes me then brakes hard to slow down for the speed camera. Goes past than then floors it back up to 60 or so again, overtaking the police car that is a couple of hundred yards in front of me.

Loads of blue lights and an 'in a hurry are we Sir?' interview starting as I go past.

Shows how easy it is to get into a habit. Also how much attention the driver was paying to the rest of the road conditions round him - deserved to be done for driving without due care and attention if nothing else.

[engineer(retard)]

.... that recent Government legislation changing the Freedom of
Information Acts gives you access to speed camera offences registered
within the last twelve months and placed on a freely accessible website?
Did you know that every time your car goes even over a mile or so over
the speed limit, it is registered and placed on the database? They only
send a ticket if you are way over, OR if you receive over 20 near misses
You can now check how many you have against your car's registered
number.

Check this page: http://www.e-database.co.uk/

It will ask you for a password - but just click on the 'need a password'
link and you'll be given one in a
pop-up window. In the top right hand corner there is a "click-on" window
and it even shows the picture taken by the camera.

Regards

Retard

[BEagle]

If this is the spoof I think it is.....



It was! Good try, but it's fairly well known!

[comedyjock]

Here fellas
I was only trying to help out a few guys with illegal points on their license. Just remember those that were caught were not technically speeding and all those that were obviously did not have accidents.
If sppeding causes that many accidents how come the 3 million people caught last year were not involved in RTA's?

[ORAC]

BBC: U turn over speed camera blunder

Thousands of motorists caught at a speed camera site in Wiltshire are no longer able to challenge their fines.

Originally, people caught speeding at the A303 Folly Bottom roadworks between May 2003 and August 2004 were told they could have fines and points reviewed. Now, the Wiltshire Swindon Safety Camera Partnership says only people caught between October 2003 and 13 January 2004 can apply. The change is down to record keeping, the partnership said.

The original invitation to have convictions reviewed came from the partnership after a woman had her court case for speeding dismissed. Clair Allison was caught on camera exceeding the temporary limit at the roadworks, but claimed there were no warning signs.

A spokeswoman for the camera partnership told the BBC: "The timeframe [for reviewing cases] only relates to when contractors cannot provide documentary evidence to show the signs were there when we say they were."

The partnership will only be contacting 2,467 drivers caught speeding and fined when the temporary limit was in place between October 2003 and January 2004. It cannot say how many people were fined between May 2003 and August 2004.

"We have had letters and calls from people caught outside our timeframe. We are taking advice and will respond individually," the spokeswoman added.

But a Wiltshire Police statement, issued on behalf of the partnership in July 2004, said more than 5,300 motorists were caught and fined in the first six weeks of the enforcement alone. A police spokeswoman then said each case could cost up to £250 to review.

Paul Smith, from the Safe Speed Road Safety campaign, which is critical of speed cameras, claims the signs at the roadworks were faulty throughout the whole period. "The right way forward is for someone with authority to now step in," he said.

Ms Allison's case was dismissed by Salisbury Magistrates' Court on 17 February because of a lack of evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Vage Rot]

Just found this:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/stats/

Would seem that deaths per mile driven have increased since "Safety Cameras" were introduced!!

Funny that beacause the one time I transgressed a word in my 'shell like' from PC pld put the fear of death into me!

[Fg Off Kite]

Cunning system I employ for defeating the speed cameras, (it also works for patrol cars); When I see a sign with a speed limit on it, I simply match the number with the one on my speedo, or less if the conditions dictate.

I can guarantee this works - I have never had a speeding ticket in 24 years of motoring, and motorcycling.

PS. If you wanted a way of discouraging passing idiots on your road trying to mow down your children, here's a device I'd like to see introduced. A GATSO camera linked to a remote controlled stinger, once you'd had a bill for 4 new tyres, you'd think twice next time!!

[Spry]

Chaps,

I do not want to get too heavy with this, but as one of HM's Magistrates and having read this thread I feel I ought to just say a word or two! I would also add that I am an advanced driver trained to the police standard.

I agree that inappropriate speed kills, I have had to hear the evidence on more than one occasion and it is not normally very nice. The description of the injuries sustained can get very gory, it is often made worse by the fact that the victim was a child. Invariablly the driver concerned is devistaed by his actions and I know of at least two people who have never driven again following a serious accident that was their fault. I personally try to remain inside the speed lmit, but as I am only human sometimes the speed creeps up. However, I am not so anally retentive as to stand on my brakes because the speed limit has just changed from 60mph to 30mph.

The real problem is that very few people, and to some degree I include myself in this, can really read the road and select an appropriate speed. They are then travelling too fast for the conditions and an accident ensues. Remember the series of very serious crashes on the M4, all in fog and caused by speeding.

I have been shown some new technology that is based on GPS locators that will electronically limit speed to the local speed limit. The idea being that cars/lorries/buses fitted with the device will not be able to exceed the speed limit. Therefore no need for speed cameras or stealth taxes. It is still in prototype stage, but initial test are very promising.

[Human Factor]

Therefore no need for speed cameras or stealth taxes.

That guarantees it'll never be introduced.

[BEagle]

Spry, one thing that infuriates me most is the 'nanny state' inappropriate speed limits which have sprung up in recent years, particularly here in Oxfordshire.

I have it on good authority that the local Bill are equally scathing of the huggy-fluffies' obsession with lower speed limits, and are often viewed quite wrongly as the villains of the piece. Whereas actually the people to blame are the rabble-rousing local greenies who seem to think that bicycles are the only true way...

Years ago, if you showed someone a photo of a road and said 'guess the speed limit', most people would get it right. But nowadays there is simply no rhyme or reason to the absurdly low limits sprinkled around Oxfordshire. It's always a breath of fresh air when I hit the Warwickshire border and escape to sanity on my drive to Birmingham airport.

There would be much greater respect for speed limits if they were set according to a national policy and not by the local 'mad vegetarians on bicycles' as Jeremy Clarkson so rightly terms them. I can just remember the first 40 mph limits with their odd roadsign and the first of the 'holiday weekend 50 mph limits' as well as the blanket 50 mph era. But now there are places near here (B4022 Witney to Hailey) where the limit is 30, 60, 40, 30, 60 in less than 1.5 mile.... And the only blind 90 deg bend is in the 60 mph section! Barking bloody mad!!

And Kite - keep your bloody kids off the road if you want them to live!

[Training Risky]

Kite, if you could keep your offspring off the roads then we wouldn't need to hear your fantastic willy wonka ideas for gatso/speed camera combos...

If you want to blindly follow draconian, stupidly-outdated restrictions on country roads... then be my guest. But don't complain when I overtake and leave you choking on my dust.

[chromate]

Did they ever think of saving some lives and driving a bit faster?


I've heard this said too many times. Ultimately, it is the driver's responsibility to overtake safely. Simple. If it's not safe, then the overtake shouldn't be chanced. Blaming other people's speed on what is actually inadequate driver decision is just plain irresponsible. I hope the people that can't keep their frustration under control drive themselves off the road as soon as possible, instead of dangerously overtaking or tailgating, endangering the lives of other road users.

True - there always seems to be the annoying driver that slugs along. However, there seem to be even more brain dead idiots that go way too fast and probably don't even realise it until the "unlikely" happens and they lose control, wrapping themselves around a tree - or worse.

[C130 Techie]

A420 Swindon to Oxford. Lots of 50mph sections and speed cameras.

Every Monday morning around 5 - 5.30 AM there is at least one nutter who thinks that tailgating me will make me increase my speed. Or they wait until one of the many junctions and overtake on the cross hatches. What does this achieve. Generally they get to Oxford about three cars in front of me. What is the point.

Also when did obeyance of traffic lights become optional. The problem is becoming enormous in Swindon and I have no doubt that this is repeated in most cities. I`ll bet the government could make loads of money with traffic signal cameras.

[hobie]

I remember a TV prog by Jeremy Clarkson mentioning a bunch of guys (almost a club) who specialized in destroying speed Cameras ...... to see if I could find any reference to the Club I put "speed camera destruction" into my fav. search engine and in just a few seconds my Internet connection was cut off :ooh:

A coincidence? :confused:

[Scud-U-Like]

Great thread.

Let's face it, speed cameras on certain stretches of open, safe road, are nothing more than a tax on speed.

[US Herk]

I have been shown some new technology that is based on GPS locators that will electronically limit speed to the local speed limit. The idea being that cars/lorries/buses fitted with the device will not be able to exceed the speed limit. Therefore no need for speed cameras or stealth taxes. It is still in prototype stage, but initial test are very promising.

Can you spell P-O-L-I-C-E S-T-A-T-E ??

Sound like bollocks to me - automation is NOT/NOT the answer. Rational limits & sensible driving (which does not necessarily equate to slower) are the key. You'll never eliminate the idiots - you need to make examples of them & ban them for a good long time. Real officers in real cars make a real difference - speed cameras levying a surrogate road tax is no way to ensure safer roads, however, it does well for council coffers!

[chromate]

Every Monday morning around 5 - 5.30 AM there is at least one nutter who thinks that tailgating me will make me increase my speed.

Indeed. Yet amazingly, I think it surprises them when I have to decrease my speed to minimise the risk of them running into the back of me ;)

In general, I do agree that speed cameras are barely anything more than revenue generating boxes. Mainly because their positioning is quite often completely ridiculous.

But to be honest, they don't bother me. If you can't safely slow down in time when you notice a speed camera, then I reckon the chances are you're either going too fast anyway and / or you're not alert enough.

The real problem is the ever more common succession of speed limit changes imposed along short stretches of roads.

Of course, I suppose cameras are also a distraction. I've often thought that about those speed bumps that, if you get your wheels positioned just right, they don't slow you down too much. Problem is, some attention inevitably gets used on the bump positioning instead of the road sides, other traffic etc.

As to that club of losers dedicated to burning the speed cameras - what a bunch of a*se holes. The cameras get replaced within a couple of days anyway. What does it achieve? Just costs us all even more money.

[Human Factor]

....if you get your wheels positioned just right, they don't slow you down too much.

You also risk knackering your tracking or your sump. Be careful if you find a speed hump which you can put your wheels either side of.

[WebPilot]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been shown some new technology that is based on GPS locators that will electronically limit speed to the local speed limit. The idea being that cars/lorries/buses fitted with the device will not be able to exceed the speed limit. Therefore no need for speed cameras or stealth taxes. It is still in prototype stage, but initial test are very promising.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's called "Intelligent Speed Adaption". If you want to be truely worried, type that in to Google and see some of the results. Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands are among the countries most keen on it and it's way beyond prototype - it's into trials stage. The thing that the politicoes are still struggling with is how to get it introduced with the minimum of fuss and accusations of Big Brother. But they fully intend that every car sold in roughly ten years time will have this fitted.

Sweden has gone so far as to suggest that their aim to to reduce the number of road deaths to Zero. Cloud cuckoo land, obviously, but there it is.

The thin end of the wedge was the Revenue Cameras....

[FJ2ME]

So when someone changes the limit, say for roadworks etc, and forgets to adjust the gps data, who gets the fine? Computer company? Negligent workman? Driver? I bet I know the answer.

Surely these devices encourage INATTENTION at the wheel rather than the reverse? Belgium is banning cruise control for that reason, due to an increase in related accidents. Surely this is just a modernised cruise control. If you can't monitor your speed and the road conditions/limits yourself, then shouldn't be on the road fact. Likewise, if you can't use cruise control sensibly and resist the temptation not to disengage it until the last moment, you too deserve to be taken off the road.

Why we should all have to suffer because a select few morons (who shouldn't be licenced anyway) can't keep a good lookout is beyond me. I bet these are the same fu*kwits that drive around all day long with their fog lamps burning holes in everone's retinae!

Speed does not kill (even a Chief Constable admitted this- I forget which one), it is irresponsible use of speed that is dangerous and exacerbates accidents. I know from experience that my modern abs-equipped car can stop far more expeditiously than my old 1972 MG, yet the same limits exist. Driving 70mph in the MG feels much more dangerous than driving the modern car at 100mph. Forcing everyone to rigidly, electronically adhere to the speed limit won't stop them from hitting the child who runs into the road, so this 'zero road deaths' idea is complete tosh.

[ORAC]

Never happen. They´d lose all the money they make from the fines.

[soddim]

I find cruise control positively helpful in low traffic density restricted speed areas where there are lots of hazards. Instead of scanning the speedo to stay within the limit I can focus all my attention on the potential hazards.

Shame about the white van driver attached to the rear bumper - guess he will have to stick to the limit too.

[The Burning Bush]

Yes cruise control on, sit back and relax whilst drinking a cup of steaming hot coffee.

And because I'm not going very fast I find I have loads of time to look at all the interesting houses as they go past, and I can try and see in through the windows to relieve the boredom. :rolleyes:

[chromate]

Speed does not kill (even a Chief Constable admitted this- I forget which one), it is irresponsible use of speed that is dangerous and exacerbates accidents.

That's about as clever as saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" :rolleyes:

Fact is, the slower you go, the more time you have to react safely to a given situation. By extension, many road deaths could have been avoided if the driver wasn't going so fast. End of story.

If you can't monitor your speed and the road conditions/limits yourself, then shouldn't be on the road fact.

But that's just the problem. A lot of people think they can limit themselves correctly according to road conditions etc. Unfortunately, they're not always right.

[Bigtop]

Speed is a contributory factor but it is poor driving skills that is the prime culprit.
As all motorcyclists will tell you - failure to achieve and maintain the national speed limit during your test (which must include dual carriageway) will result in failure as this is deemed to display inability to control your vehicle adequately.

The way to reduce death on the road is to improve driver training, including the use of skid pan training and possibly introduce re-training/licencing. At least that way the old boy of 67 who learnt to drive when people walked in front of their vehicles with a red flag would be cpable of dealing with modern traffic.

[WebPilot]

quote:
_______________________________________________
That's about as clever as saying "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is a truism. No gun has ever killed a person without human interaction. Fact.


quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact is, the slower you go, the more time you have to react safely to a given situation. By extension, many road deaths could have been avoided if the driver wasn't going so fast. End of story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, not fact at all, or the end of the story. Check the stats I posted earlier. Speed *alone* is rarely the cause.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't monitor your speed and the road conditions/limits yourself, then shouldn't be on the road fact.


But that's just the problem. A lot of people think they can limit themselves correctly according to road conditions etc. Unfortunately, they're not always right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And people wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't fall off ladders, electrocute themselves etc etc. Life is dangerous. Get used to it.

Very poor troll. Try harder next time.

[emergov]

I love this (endless) discussion...

Moaning about speed cameras restricting your presumably god-given right to drive at whichever speed you choose is like taking up boxing and whining about a bloody nose.

Everyone thinks they are a good driver (hands up who'll admit to being crap behind the wheel?). Everyone thinks they have the ability to judge 'the conditions' or an 'appropriate' speed (anyone know someone with bad judgement?). Everyone knows that speed cameras raise money and do little else.

Why not drive at whatever speed you feel comfortable with, and then have the self-respect and maturity to accept the consequences?

Speed cameras, policemen and pedestrians exist. If you run foul of them. cope. If you don't want to get in trouble, walk - but please don't whine about it.

ps. I ride a sportsbike. They fall over if you go slow ...

[WebPilot]

My issue is not the limits, or the consequences, but the manner of policeing. As I say, thin end of the wedge.

[chromate]

Which is a truism. No gun has ever killed a person without human interaction. Fact

Not necessarily intentful human interaction. The speeding idiot doesn't intend to kill anyone either.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact is, the slower you go, the more time you have to react safely to a given situation. By extension, many road deaths could have been avoided if the driver wasn't going so fast. End of story.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, not fact at all, or the end of the story. Check the stats I posted earlier. Speed *alone* is rarely the cause.

So you honestly think increasing your speed wont reduce the amount of time you have to react? Please do explain.

I don't know how those statistics were put together, so it's hard to comment. Anyway, it's not really the point as those stats deal with the cause of accidents and don't deal with the consequences. Obviously, if you have a collision at speed the consequences of an accident, through whatever cause, are going to be more serious than at lower speeds.

And people wouldn't kill themselves if they didn't fall off ladders, electrocute themselves etc etc. Life is dangerous. Get used to it.

But it's not just "themselves" we're talking about. Road users kill other road users. So everyone is forced to, as you say, "get used to it".

My issue is not the limits, or the consequences, but the manner of policeing. As I say, thin end of the wedge.

Agreed :) But I actually do have an issue with some of the ridiculous speed limits too.

[WebPilot]

posted 16th March 2005 12:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily intentful human interaction. The speeding idiot doesn't intend to kill anyone either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your point is?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you honestly think increasing your speed wont reduce the amount of time you have to react? Please do explain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not arguing the effects of speed, but the absolute relationship between speed and safety, that you allude to when you say "many road deaths could have been avoided if the driver wasn't going so fast". The safest roads in the UK are the fastest, the motorways. Go figure.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know how those statistics were put together, so it's hard to comment. Anyway, it's not really the point as those stats deal with the cause of accidents and don't deal with the consequences. Obviously, if you have a collision at speed the consequences of an accident, through whatever cause, are going to be more serious than at lower speeds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The stats are from the DETR and Police sources. Obvously a higher speed crash will be more damaging, but the relationship of higher speed is not, inter alia, proportional to the likelihood of crashing, as the stats (from every source, other than some very well massaged ones put out by the Speed Kills mob) show.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it's not just "themselves" we're talking about. Road users kill other road users. So everyone is forced to, as you say, "get used to it".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed. It's called Life. If you don't like it, might I suggest staying in bed with the duvet over your head? You'll still not live forever, but that is the nature of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed But I actually do have an issue with some of the ridiculous speed limits too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah. A hobby horse. I thought there might be one somewhere.

[chromate]

I am not arguing the effects of speed, but the absolute relationship between speed and safety, that you allude to when you say "many road deaths could have been avoided if the driver wasn't going so fast". The safest roads in the UK are the fastest, the motorways. Go figure.

Yes, and I could travel for miles in the desert at great speeds without ever having an accident or killing anyone. Surprise surprise! I don't think anyone's arguing this point?

If you want to consider the "speed kills" statement in a completely literal sense, then of course it's not the case. However, anyone with half a brain would realise what the significance is beyond the convenience of the marketing campaign's slogan.

Your stats don't actually show what the relationship of "speed to crash likelyhood" is at all. All they show is the proportion of crashes attributed to speeding compared to other accident causes, which is a completely different thing to showing the proportion of speeders that end up as crash victims. For all you know, that 12% of crashes attributed to speeding could be made up of 100% of the speeding population. Of course this isn't the case, but it illustrates the problem with the conclusions you're wrongly drawing from the stats.


Indeed. It's called Life. If you don't like it, might I suggest staying in bed with the duvet over your head? You'll still not live forever, but that is the nature of it.


This amounts to saying "keep off the road so bad drivers can drive badly without endangering your life". Err no - keep your bad driving under control so I can travel safely. Obviously life has its risks. Some of the sporting activities I do are quite risky. But to not try and minimize the risks is unarguably stupid.

Ok, so you may be able to always drive at the correct speed for the given road conditions / hazards etc? Congratulations. As emergov so rightly says, everyone likes to think they're a great driver. Some people have several crashes and still believe they're great drivers.

Ah. A hobby horse. I thought there might be one somewhere.
How's that then? :confused: I do think, as I have said in previous posts, that a lot of enforced speed limits seem to be both unrealistic and inappropriate. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary?

[WebPilot]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and I could travel for miles in the desert at great speeds without ever having an accident or killing anyone. Surprise surprise! I don't think anyone's arguing this point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem to be. There is no linear correlation between either liklihood of crashing, or severity as you seem to suggest.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your stats don't actually show what the relationship of "speed to crash likelyhood" is at all. All they show is the proportion of crashes attributed to speeding compared to other accident causes, which is a completely different thing to showing the proportion of speeders that end up as crash victims. For all you know, that 12% of crashes attributed to speeding could be made up of 100% of the speeding population. Of course this isn't the case, but it illustrates the problem with the conclusions you're wrongly drawing from the stats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong. The stats cannot show cause, no stats covering the entire population on road users can. They are indicative of trends, from which the "speed kills" mantra can be clearly debunked.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This amounts to saying "keep off the road so bad drivers can drive badly without endangering your life". Err no - keep your bad driving under control so I can travel safely. Obviously life has its risks. Some of the sporting activities I do are quite risky. But to not try and minimize the risks is unarguably stupid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it doesn't. The meaning is clear, however much you try to twist it. There is risk in all activities which cannot entirely be eliminated. To reduce risk is sensible, but to take one aspect of risk and to try to apply it to all situations is nonsense. As a road user you have to assume a certain level of risk, or else stay at home. You again correlate "bad driving" with "speed".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so you may be able to always drive at the correct speed for the given road conditions / hazards etc? Congratulations. As emergov so rightly says, everyone likes to think they're a great driver. Some people have several crashes and still believe they're great drivers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I assume nothing. But I can lay claim to a blemish free record over 25 years of intensive bike and car use.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How's that then? I do think, as I have said in previous posts, that a lot of enforced speed limits seem to be both unrealistic and inappropriate. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the contrary, I think that most current speed limits are reasonable, acheiving balance between safety and the need to keep traffic moving.

[pilotwolf]

Another strange fact is motorways have the highest speed limits and are statisically the safest...

So how can anyone justify the cameras on the motorways and indeed dual carriage ways with derestricted speed limits. Money raising pure and simple!

We have a nice long straight residential road here in the village (and others too which have in appropriately low speed limits), and recently talking with a local traffic sargent I muttered about their missing presence in the village - his reply was "We can't justify it on cost basis..." when asked what he meant he explained that the cost of an officer with a speed gun would not balance the books with the number of people prosecuted... apparently a decision out of the police's hands.

PW

[chromate]

There is no linear correlation between either liklihood of crashing, or severity as you seem to suggest.

Maybe not linear, but there is a correlation. Just to illustrate a point, I don't think anyone would crash if we all traveled around at 5mph. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Though regarding the "severity" you even said yourself, "Obvously a higher speed crash will be more damaging" so I don't really understand why you're disagreeing with me.

Wrong. The stats cannot show cause, no stats covering the entire population on road users can. They are indicative of trends, from which the "speed kills" mantra can be clearly debunked.

I don't see what you're saying here. "The stats cannot show cause"? Isn't that the table you pasted? Explain how the stats you posted shows clearly that speed isn't a factor in a lot of accidents?

To reduce risk is sensible, but to take one aspect of risk and to try to apply it to all situations is nonsense.

I'm not applying it to all situations. I never have done. As I started in my last post, there are a lot of situations where speed isn't so much of a problem. However, the situations where high speeds are a problem are plentiful.

You again correlate "bad driving" with "speed".

No. That's a pretty meaningless statement. "speed" could mean anything. High speed? Low speed? No speed? In what environment? In what car? etc etc

What I do equate to bad driving is selecting the wrong speed in the wrong situation - as so many people do. Nothing more and nothing less.

I don't have a problem with traveling at 100mph on a clear stretch of motorway at 3am in dry weather. However, I do have a problem with traveling at 60mph through a tight residential area. Traveling at that speed in that situation WILL increase the risk of you having an accident. Therefore, there is a correlation between speed and the risk of accident. How can you possibly deny this?

The more time you have, the more likely you are to be able to react to a situation and prevent an accident from happening. The faster you go, the less time you have to react, to the point where if you go too fast you're unable to react in time. It's not hard. It's just a fact.

There's a big deer park near where I live, in Woburn (you may know it, they have a tiger moth rally there each year). There's a road that goes through the park and each year tens of deer get killed because some people go too fast, not leaving themselves enough time to react.

I watched "Traffic Cops" on TV tonight. (exciting life, I know! ;)). One guy lost control on a corner almost hitting on comming traffic because he was going to fast. Another guy came off the road completely, again, because he was travelling too fast. How can you deny that there's a correlation?

Anyway... WHAT'S THIS GOT TO DO WITH AVIATION?! :) Can we not just leave this thread? I'm sure we're all fine drivers etc etc. I think we're just arguing semantics which is a waste of time.

[WebPilot]

<Correlation> To illustrate: Is a crash at 80 going to be autmatically more damaging? By your logic,yes, but in fact not so. Roads where the NSL applies are often dual or motorways, so the rate of closure may be significantly less than in a head on in a 30 limit.

The stats show that speed alone accounts for less than 10% of all accidents, and that is not necassarily illegal speed. Not the 1/3 of all crashes or whatever the Speed Kills mob like to suggest.

Bad driving includes speed, sure, but rarely just that.

[Vage Rot]

:8 :zzz:

This thread is getting pretty boring now!

[teeteringhead]

pretty boring .. so in an attempt to lighten it up...

I give you the theory of my mate Nobby that I was at school with. (and he did finish up an automotive engineer/designer):

Nobby's theory was that the nature and design of roads was such that certain areas (eg junctions, roundabouts etc) were inherently more dangerous than others ....

.... so the less time you spent in those areas the safer you were ...

... and the way to spend less time in dangerous areas ...

... is to go faster!!:E

Discuss! (and Nobby went to Uni which is more than Teeters did:( )

[WebPilot]

Excellent.

When a child, I used to urge my dad to go faster, dad, go faster, as kids do. In his patient way he would explain that going faster would burn more petrol. I always used to tell him that it wouldn't matter as he'd get there faster so it would balance it out..

Maybe this is a clue as to why I was never any good at physics....

[Stax]

Gents

Just joined after reading various threads for sometime. Found this amusing in some cases, very sad in others. Speeding can be dangerous depending on conditons- Agreed? Camera's are a good way for councils/goverment to make money - Agreed? More coppers in traffic cars would be a better detterent to speeding - Agreed? Multiple speed limits within a short area are a nusiance and can be dangerous as you are constantly changing your limits -Agreed? So as (I Believe) most of us agree with these statements, what are we going to do about it - Answer? - Sod all, those who believe they are the greatest racing/rally driver in the world will continue to drive their 3/4 ton lump of sharp edges and flammable liquids at speeds excesive to the conditions and those tree huggers who believe speed limits are only an upper limit will continue to p!55 the rest of us off! Try driving around some of the B roads of Lincs, with steep cambers, damaged and broken sides on the roads, 10 to 20 foot dykes (and I don't mean women in cmfortable shoes), tractors, lorries and various members of the animal kingdom crossing in front of you, then tell me it's fine to speed just cos you can.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Just to illustrate a point, I don't think anyone would crash if we all traveled around at 5mph.
Wrong again I feel. I think there would be thousands of crashes more than now because we would all fall asleep at the wheel through under arousal and boredom, bit like this thread really.....Doh!!! :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: ;)

[Cat5 in the Hat]

If they're soo bl**dy important, why did it take the owners over 3 weeks to replace/realign a camera that got broken into & poointed away from the road (nr me in Reading).

How many lives were lost because the camera was U/S? Didn't heare/see of any in the lcoal rag. Probably because the traffic doesn't move much faster than 5mph due to the sheer weight of traffic!

[comedyjock]

Anyway you will all be pleased to hear I have just got a cheque for £60 and a clean license. Oh and the insurance company is going to refund my increase in insurance premium as well.

[SASless]

In Kansas City, Kansas....one morning there was a collision of two automobiles that resulted in an injury to one of the motorist.

This occurred when there was exactly two automobiles in the enitre city....you figure out the cause....was it speed....inattentive drivers....an improper turn.....wrecks have been happening ever since there have been cars.

As long as there are cars....even a single vehicle will run off the roadway...there will be accidents/crashes.

[airborne_artist]

Detail here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/england/4436849.stm)

[idle-centralise]

Right......

1) Unsafe to do more than 70? Unsafe to more than 70 whoever you are then and that includes the police. However. If you disagree with this statement then allowable speed is based on weight, ability of brakes to stop you and the ability of the driver. Bearing in mind this forum, you wouldn't allow a raw recruit out in a front line fast jet at low level at 420 knots, but that doesn't mean that everyone isn't capable of it just because they've only passed EFT. So if you can prove the ability of your car and your skill there should be variable speed limits on motorways.

2) Anyone that argues that it is not safer to do 100 miles per hour on an empty motorway in the middle of the night than to do 70 miles per hour on a reasonably busy motorway during the day in fog is simply insane. Hence vis rules for aircraft which don't exist for the road despite the speed being just a sixth. Fundamentally it is safe to do whatever speed you like as long as, if the guy in front of you brakes as hard as he can, you can (with reaction time) still stop with a reasonable margin to spare. Most drivers, at 50mph (so i.e. within the speed limit on a motorway and an A-road), will drive close enough that this is not the case.

3) The argument that people have been knocked down by cars only applies within areas the people can cross the road. It does not apply to closed off areas like motorways. Fair play if anyone that is doing significantly over the speed limit in a 30 zone (to the point that it can be proven that they weren't just the victim of a lack of concentration - which can be scientifically determined) and knocks somone over gets sent down.

Bunkered down waiting for rant

I-C

[vecvechookattack]

Speed is the biggest single contributory factor in road crashes, inflicting hundreds of thousands of casualties every year. The relationship between speed and road crashes is straightforward: as speeds go up, the likelihood of crashes goes up, for any given set of road conditions. The reason is simple: increased vehicle speeds are not accompanied by increased thinking and reacting speeds. Because of this the distance needed for responding and braking increases with speed...

And as speeds go up, the severity of crashes goes up. Inappropriate speed choice - driving too fast for the conditions - is the major factor in up to a half of road crashes and contributes to many more.

Speed reductions cut casualties. The likelihood of crashes decreases as speeds are reduced. Although the relationship varies according to road conditions and average speeds, there is an association between speed reduction and crash reduction - every 1 mph reduction in speed reduction in crashes is accompanied by an average 5% decrease in crashes and a 7% decrease in fatalities.

A 10% drop in speeds resulted in a 40% drop in fatalities and serious injuries after speed cameras were introduced in West London.

Where 20 mph zones have been introduced and enforced, all casualties have fallen by around 60%

So there it is. Speed kills. And so surely this warrants added speed cameras along the M4 attempting to catch people fragrantly breaking the law.

[Mad_Mark]

Where 20 mph zones have been introduced and enforced, all casualties have fallen by around 60%

That is due to the location of the 20 MPH zones. They are implemented in the vicinity of schools or housing estates where there is a high chance of children running out into the road in front of a vehicle. That situation does not come into play on the motorway and so the example is invalid in this discussion.

No one is against reduced speed limits with strict enforcement - when it is done for real reasons. However, enforcing the ancient 70 MPH limit on motorways is seen as many as simply money-grabbing.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[BEagle]

The difference between an uncontrolled brat killed at 30mph and one killed at 20mph is merely the size of the stain on the road.

I was brought up never to play in the road and to "Look left, right, then left again before crossing the road keeping looking." Why aren't kids of today?

[skaterboi]

How about the common sense approach....

put most of the speed cameras up in residential areas and outside schools in 20mph or 30mph areas and cane people if they break the law.

And up the speed limit to 80 on the m-way and enforce that too, but with patrol cars that can assess a drivers attitude, the road conditions etc rather than a money grabbing camera.

makes me :mad: mad!

[woptb]

Is'nt this section of the M4 very prone to fog? There was a large multiple with great loss of life in (89?). The main contributary factor was that people continued to speed 'into' dense banks of fog.
Beags i find the "uncontrolled brat" crack somewhat offensive & ill advised. Does'nt really sound like the considered comment your known for.

[FJJP]

A young moron with a baby in a pushchair with another unrestrained brat running loose around her steps onto the road without stopping or looking.

Hears the squeal of hard braking.

Stops and gives the driver a dirty look, a mouthful that would add considerably to vocabulary of the most foul-mouthed thug in earshot and the finger. Clearly the driver's fault. Just as well I was doing less than 10 mph in the High St.

Any wonder that the next generation will end up as stains [of various sizes] on the road?

[airborne_artist]

Is'nt this section of the M4 very prone to fog? There was a large multiple with great loss of life in (89?). The main contributary factor was that people continued to speed 'into' dense banks of fog.

From http://www.learn2live.co.uk/General/News/necessity.htm

"On March 13th 1991, another of Britain's most horrific motorway accidents happened on the M4, between Membury Services and junction 14. Here, 10 people were killed and many others injured, with nearly 50 vehicles (including many large lorries) completely destroyed [in dense fog]."

The irony is that the crash site is just to the E and outside of the section (J14-J18) that will be covered by cameras.

However, 70 mph in dense fog would almost certainly guarantee a major accident

[BEagle]

Tough - I stand by it.

Parents should damn well train their offspring about Road Safety.

When did anyone last see a Road Safety advert on TV? I rmember the old ones years ago in the '60s, then the Green Cross Code - even "Wear something light at night" and "Think once, think twice, think bike!"; however, I don't recall having seen any Road Safety ads on TV for years.

And if you do drive at 20 mph past a school checking the kerb to make sure some little brat doesn't come running out in front of you, some do-gooder will probably accuse you of being a kerb-crawling kiddy-fiddler.....

[vecvechookattack]

Beagle......you need to watch CITv and CBBC more.... there are loads of Road safety films, adverts and messages on....

Nickleodeon even has a programme dedicated to road safety.,,....

[WebPilot]

vecvechookattack - go back and read through this thread in full. Most of what you stated has been discussed and the evidence posted.

To reiterate, there is no direct correlation between speed and accidents and certainly no linear relationship, the "1mph = 5% casualty reduction" is demonstrable hogwash, the West London experiment results were based on some very flimsy statistical protocols, and in essence, "speed" emphatically does not kill.

The safest roads in the UK are motorways, so the justification for speed cameras on the M4 is minimal.

[vecvechookattack]

To reiterate, there is no direct correlation between speed and accidents and certainly no linear relationship, the "1mph = 5% casualty reduction" is demonstrable hogwash, the West London experiment results were based on some very flimsy statistical protocols, and in essence, "speed" emphatically does not kill.

what an absolute load of george....complete and utter george, written by a person who clearly thinks it is his devine right to career along the M4 at moronic speeds.....bet youv'e got a BMW as well

Just sit back for a moment and ponder the fact that today, yep today, 10 people will die on the roads.

One of those will be a child who has been knocked down by a speeding motorist. This evening one mother and one father will be distraught, in tears and completely devastated by the senseless death of their child. That childs parents, grandparents ,brothers, sisters will all have had that child taken away from them needlessly. Road crashes are the single biggest killer of school-age children, accounting for two-thirds of premature child deaths. And typical sentence for a driver who kills is £250 and a few penalty points....

[WebPilot]

"what an absolute load of george....complete and utter george, written by a person who clearly thinks it is his devine right to career along the M4 at moronic speeds.....bet youv'e got a BMW as well"

Ah, excellent. Abuse, the last resort of those who have lost the argument.

If you would care to pay attention, I'm not advocating speeding, simply pointing out that your "speed kills" argument is pure and utter tosh and the figures and stats put out by the police, DETR and motoring organisations support this.

[rafloo]

GEORGE GEORGE GEORGE GEORGE GEORGE GEORGE GEORGE

Maybe I can redirect you to some "official" statistics which ALL confirm that SPEED KILLS

1. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999) Road Accidents Great Britain 1998: The Casualty Report

2. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone

3. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999) Transport Statistics Great Britain 1998

4. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Road Safety Division (1999) ŒSpeed Policy Review Discussion Paper¹

5. Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (1996) Taking Action on Speeding

6. AA Foundation for Road Safety Research (1999) What Limits Speed?

7. Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (1999) Road traffic law and enforcement: a driving force for casualty reduction

8. 1997 Lex Report on Motoring

9. Environmental Law Foundation (1998) Options for Civilising Road Traffic

10. Sustrans (1997) ŒSafety on the Streets for Children¹

11. Webster, D. and Mackie, A. (1996) ŒA Review of Traffic Calming

Schemes in 20 mph Zones¹ Transport Research Laboratory

12. Allied Dunbar National Fitness Survey (1992)

13. Health Education Authority (1998) Transport and Health

14. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997) Road Safety Strategy: Current Problems and Future Options

15. Institution of Highways and Transport (1999) Guidelines for Rural Safety Management

16. MORI (1999) Public Attitudes to Safety on Country Lanes

17. Rural Traffic Surveys undertaken in 1998 and 1999 by branches of CPRE and Friends of the Earth in Shropshire, Worcestershire,Warwickshire and Herefordshire

18. Stephen Bayley and Giles Chapman, eds (1999) Moving Objects: 30 Years of Vehicle Design at the Royal College of Art

19. MPs tell BBC to go slower in Top Gear, Daily Telegraph, 9 November 1999

20. Salter, D., Carthy, T., Packham, D., Rhodes-Defty, N and Silcock, D. (1993) Risk on the Roads: 1. Perceptions of risk and competition¹, Traffic Engineering and Control

21. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999)

Highways Economics Note 1 1998

22. Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety (1999) ¹Road Casualty Reduction, the Law is Failing¹

23. David Davies Associates (1996) At the Crossroads: Investing in Sustainable Local Transport

24. MORI (1998) Public Attitudes Toward Public and Private Transport

25. Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance

26. Department of Health (1998) Our Healthier Nation

27. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1998) UK Climate Change Consultation Paper

[WebPilot]

- Snip links -
All very well, but a list of titles is not much use to us, here and now.

If speed cameras are such a good thing, can anyone explain why the number of road fatalities has gone up by 25% since 1999?

[rafloo]

Oh dear. Where do you get your figures from?

In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced.

Since then results have shown that

Vehicle speeds were down by 7%

At new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit.

At fixed sites, there was a 71% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 21% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (ie 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 80% at fixed camera sites, and 28% at mobile camera sites

Both casualties and deaths were down by 33%

At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer).

There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,030 fewer personal injury collisions per annum.

There was a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221million compared to enforcement costs of around £54million

The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.

[WebPilot]

<Stats>

That actual figure was from the BBC website, but it is not alone in making such an assertion. I can't attribute the source to that so it's not an absolute. However data from the official publication "Transport Statistics Great Britain" shows that in 1990 there were 5217 road deaths, in 1994 3650, in 1999 3423 and in 2003 3431. There is absolutely no credible evidence that the introduction of speed cameras have made any real contribution to overall road safety.


<At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer). >

Most of these sort of stats are very dubious and do not use a mean but the figure for a short prior period. Statistically this is meaningless data.

Speeds will of course fall at camera sites, but the mean road speed has not.


<There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,030 fewer personal injury collisions per annum. >


Source? And what does "fewer" mean? Than the year before, than a 3 year average, a ten year average? Just stating "Fewer" is meaningless.

<There was a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221million compared to enforcement costs of around £54million>

Again, the comparative is unknown.

<The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level.>


Public attitude surveys are notoriously unreliable. Plenty of polls show exactly the opposite, so hardly an authoritative point.

I should also add that the public does support properly targetted enforcement, that is to say cameras near schools etc. What the public does not support is the proliferation of cameras along every length of road where the motive is plainly financial rather than safety.

[Gingerbread Man]

Anyone been on the M42 where there is a 'Police speed check zone'? Fine, but instead of checking that you've braked to 70mph before the camera, they've changed it down to 50mph. :confused: And there are no road works to speak of, just a lot of miserable people crawling along. Speed doesn't kill on it's own, idiots kill by speeding when they can't see into their own stopping distance, etc. I never speed if the limit is below 50mph, but the fact that limits take no account for conditions, time of day or type of car is insulting. A camera has no brain, a police officer does.

Roll out the T5's and lets get some lane discipline back, some tailgating gone, and some morons on the bus. If we had a public transport system in this country (and last time I checked, platforms didn't transport you anywhere) then we could give all drivers the OASC aptitude test and get rid of a huge percentage of people who don't have the mental capacity to drive. Think what that would do for the environment and congestion.
Driving should not be a right, it should be a privilege, and people who don't know where the limit is are just as dangerous as people who don't know where the accelerator is.

In conclusion, look in the rear-view mirror Grandma, and p1$$ off my bootlid Mr Beamer.

Kind regards,

Ginge ;)

[Roland Pulfrew]

rafloo

Speed does not kill! End of story. It has been debated on this thread for a long time and it is a fact. Inappropriate use of speed may kill, but not speed per se! The stretch of the M4 in question, I know it well, does seem to suffer from more than its fair share of accidents but statistically the UK motorway network provides the safest roads in the country (governments own figures), they are also, by definition, the fastest. So how do you correlate safest and fastest with your speed kills argument?

[rafloo]

That’s just a play on words...speed kills, inappropriate speed kills etc etc....."it wasn't me that killed the little child m'lud, twas the bumper on me BMW that did it"

There is no doubt about it. If people stuck to the speed limits instead of haring around the country then the level of deaths on Britain’s roads would reduce - Fact. If you don't believe that then maybe you should talk to the parents of the child who was knocked over and killed today.

[WebPilot]

Rafloo - did you know that the majority of "inappropriate speed" accidents do not happen at illegal speeds - they occur *within* the posted speed limits? Thought not. Speed limits are arbitrary and have little real effect. Even if everyone did 20mph everywhere, there would still be accidents, caused by inattention, impatience and all the other distractions.

Life is not an equation.

[rafloo]

Even if everyone did 20mph everywhere, there would still be accidents................


..............but not as many.

[FJ2ME]

Rafloo, what planet are you on??!!

Why should I slow down because some idiot who shouldn't be on the road can't concentrate on the task ahead instead of munching on a sandwich, talking on the phone, smoking a cigarette (BTW much worse than talking on the phone in my book), arguing with the wife etc...?

Slowing everone down will not, WILL NOT, eliminate accidents because it won't eliminate morons on the road.

I will agree that speed compounds the consequences, but if an incompetent fool slows down, it won't necessarily prevent him/her from having an accident.

Yes I do count myself as a good driver, and the stats support it. As a student of engineering and the sciences I have a very good idea of the forces at play in a motor car, and I have driven high-performance cars for years and have never had an insurance claim (apart from when some pikey put a brick through my window and nicked my toolbox!)

You, and the rest of your looney 'Speed Kills' mates need to get a life, and realise that criminalising most of the law-abiding public is NOT the answer to road safety. Try better training, harder tests and not allowing Burberry cap-wearing, pink golf GTI with noisy turbo added-driving @rseholes anywhere near the public highway.

(And I have also been knocked down by a car- own stupid fault for not looking right again before crossing. Driver wasn't speeding but still hit me and tossed me in the air like an autumn leaf!)

[16 blades]

SPEED IS THE MAIN CAUSAL FACTOR IN LESS THAN 4% OF ACCIDENTS.

Source: TRL's annual accident causation statistics.

Look carefully beyond the words of the 'Speed Kills' brigade. When they state that 'Speed is a factor in XX% of accidents' (whatever percentage they are claiming this week), what they mean is illustrated by this example:

Car A is travelling at 35mph on a road with a 30mph limit. Car B pulls out of a side road, without looking, straight into the path of car A. The cause of this accident? The d1ckhead driving car B not looking where he (or more usually, she) is going. The statistics will record car A's speed as a factor, even though it has cock-all to do with the accident occuring in the first place.

It is interesting to note that the same TRL stats show that 'inattention' is the primary cause of over 40% of accidents. Another things the pinkos fail to mention is that in a significant proportion of accidents where speed is listed as a factor, the driver is also pissed.

Rafloo, you have mentioned dead children in several of your posts. The simple fact is, that if parents had any degree of control over their brats, they would not be running out into the road in front of cars in the first place. The fault lies with parents, not drivers.

When you have to misrepresent statistics to support an argument, that argument is fatally flawed. Resorting to emotional blackmail, rather than logic and common sense, is a sign of desparation.

16B

[WebPilot]

Rafloo said Even if everyone did 20mph everywhere, there would still be accidents................


..............but not as many.

The evidence of the speed cameras would seem to refute that.

If you want a demonstration of whether speed is the prime determinant, try driving a car with a broken speedo or one with misted up windows. Which one do you think will crash first?

[lineslime]

Rafloo

Going back to an earlier post, if for some strange reason I hit a child on the M4 I would like to know what the hell it's parents were doing letting it play there in the first place. Oh and I should that would leave quite a large stain Beags.:E :E :E

[skaterboi]

Rafloo,

you are living up well to your handle and talking a load of sh1te. Stop regurgitating irrelavent, flawed arguments and get a life.

It's inappropraite use of speed that kills. On a foggy morning on the M4 I'll just crack on at 69mph shall I? Well I'm not speeding!

[WebPilot]

It never ceases to amaze me how many safety nazis and people taken in by the propaganda of the state post to this, of all fora!

[US Herk]

It's the loss of reasoning ability. Being bombarded with the "speed kills" mantra of the insurance industry, government regulators, & pinko liberals who want to strip us of our rights daily for 30 years has taken its toll and the younger generation have devolved to allowing the nanny-state to dictate their actions to them.

The slow sacrifice of rights on the altar of public safety has gone on for too long.

It is about precedent. Once the line is drawn in the sand, it is too easy to move the line.

I dare say that most pilots' reaction times are far better than the average plonk multi-tasking in his beamer, mobile at hand. Even a lowly hercules driver like myself toddles along at 4 times the speed limit while OLFing with far more sensory input, three dimensions to think of, & an irritating noise emanating from the nav's mic into my helmet! :ok: All whilst working the radios, running checklists, & prattling on about the latest sports scores. Let's do it at night on NVGs too now. How 'bout our fast jet mates doing it at double those speeds?

Might be the violent reaction to the speed kills nazis...

Michael Schumacher I'm not, but the sensory deprivation of the national speed limit means I suffer a fair chance of falling asleep at the wheel!:p

Speed doesn't kill. Idiots do.

**donning flame retardant suit**:E

[Unwell_Raptor]

The slow sacrifice of rights on the altar of public safety has gone on for too long.
-------------------------------------------------

Absolutely!

When those Liberal panty-waists banned my chimney sweep from sending a boy up to do the cleaning, just because the fire was usually left alight, my right to a cheap clean flue was sacrificed. The bastards sacrificed my right to drive where I want when I want and as drunk as I want to be on some nancy-boy altar of public safety.

As for aircraft! Why in hell do we have to waste all that money on flying training? Any man who can afford a plane has a right to fly it - after all, it's his life at risk, first and foremost.

Safety? Pah!

What about my rights?

[emergov]

OK, so vehicles travelling faster take longer to stop and make a louder bang when they hit something. No-one disputes that.

If an aircraft crashes, an investigation is carried out. Days, weeks and months later, a report is issued, citing a few causal factors, and a dozen or so contributing factors. We would be outraged if it didn't.

So why do we accept banal, inane accident reports from the roads and traffic authorities. "2 people died, and speed was a factor". No sh*t! I wonder if custard tarts were a factor - or were they ruled out at the prelim meeting of the board - like road conditions, weather, training, vehicle serviceability, attentiveness etc, etc.

Hold on, there wasn't a board? You mean the coroner just read a three page report prepared by a constable mumbling about the same old b.s?

And another thing. Why are we governed by the same speed limits as we were 20 years ago? Modern tyre, brake and suspension technology make the average Nissan Pulsar a better handling, faster and stoppier car than the first generation of 'hot hatches'.

[vecvechookattack]

Hahahahaha....yeah right....

So if your car is less than 5 yrs old you can go faster than a car which is 6 years old....

brilliant....

any other funnies ?

Well I for one support the introduction of speed cameras to slow down those morons belting along the M4. More cameras please. and for those criminals who insist on breaking the law then I hope that you never have to knock on a door and expain to a grieving family why their child won\'t be coming home from school.

[BEagle]

"Your child was killed because you hadn't trained it to stay out of the road. Your fault, I'm sorry to say. Now, about the damage it caused to my bumper....."

Although I agree that reasonable speed limits should be observed, the plethora of huggy-fluffy nanny-state speed limits springing up are supported neither by the police nor by anyone except the mad vegetarians on bicycles who advocate them.

Perhaps we should do what the Dutch did and raise speed limits but enforce the fines for exceeding them rigidly. 80 mph on motorways OK (as the Conservatives would introduce), but >88.0 (allowance for 10% error) should attract double the current fine and points.

But >35 mph in an urban area should be a much more serious offence than slightly exceeding the NSL on a motorway.

Improvements in vehicle design sadly haven't been paralleled by improvements in human performance. People who strap their brats into the back of a Chelsea Tractor with power-everything and then speed around as though they own the road would, 40 years ago, have been driving the family 'second car' - something like a wheezing old 36 bhp Ford 100E with 3-speed box, no synchromesh on 1st, drum brakes, cross-ply tyres, pneumatic wipers, no seat belts, no brat seats, no air bags and even heaters and screenwash were options! People rightly drove a bit more carefully in such old death traps than they do in these damn urban safari wagons!

Oh - and vecvechookattack, you wrote:
"Well the Minister for fun couldn't possibly be Beagle....as he stated "drug users will be boiled alive in their own excreta"....and all that just for smokin a few leafs...!!!"

Are you saying that you consider drug abuse to be acceptable? Hardly goes with your views on road safety since the number of people under the influence of drugs who are involved in road accidents is probably far higher than those involved in 'speed related' accidents.....

[HectorusRex]

Vecvechookattack and rafloo could both take note of these findings which run counter to their vehement assertions

Speed cameras 'increase crashes'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4003367.stm

A review of speed cameras has been called for in Blackpool after a report revealed the number of accidents has increased in 11 out of 50 sites.
The findings from the report were due to be discussed by councillors in the resort on Thursday.
The study said although road casualty figures had dropped, this was not linked to the cameras.
The Blackpool Council report says that only a small number of accidents were caused by speeding.
It also acknowledged that road casualty figures have fallen significantly in the town over the past year, but it says there is no hard evidence to correlate the reduction with speed cameras.
The study, commissioned following public concern over the use of cameras, added there are more user-friendly alternatives than speed cameras that should be considered by the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership.

[WebPilot]

I hope that our two currently resident safety nazis can assure us that they have never strayed over the speed limit, ever, or have taken a mobile phone call in the car, or eaten anything while at the wheel. There are just far too many sanctimonious hypocrites pointing the finger and minding everybody else's business.

[US Herk]

Safety? Pah! What about my rights?

Sarcasm duly noted.;)

It is about rights, sadly. Most are lulled into the safety fold with emotional arguments vice logical ones. The endless drivel of "if it saves just one life, it's worth it" is not true at all if the cost is an erosion of your rights. When this is pointed out, most of the imbeciles who allow the nanny-state to do their thinking for them will counter with, "you'd feel differently if it were your son/daughter/mother/father/brother/sister/ad nauseum" errm, not really. I'd be saddened, but I would have a logical look at what happened - if their loss was due to someone else's stupidity, I would ensure that person paid the price. If that means I get in trouble, I accept that too. It's called personal accountability & it is sadly lacking in today's PC society.

There is no longer any personal accountability. Life is not fair, get over it. Save us from ourselves! Survival of the fittest doesn't only mean strength, it means brains as well.

I'm in no way condoning speeding, excessive speed for conditions, reckless driving, etc. But I do not need common sense legislated to me & if there are those out there who do, let them die on the roads & get them out of the gene pool. There is a reason stupid people die. They're stupid. Smart people die because of stupid people too, but that's the vagaries of this chance game called "life" that we all play. Do not save me from myself...

**donning extra layer of flame retardant**

[Canary Boy]

Of course cars are far safer and more generally capable than those of some years ago. Unfortunately the drivers often are not. Until there is a fundamental overhaul in our archaic training and testing of drivers the problems of speed-related accidents will be ever present. I, for one, drive far more defensively now than ever before (my assumption being that all other drivers are out to kill me.) The roads are too busy and many drivers use excessive speed for the prevailing conditions.

[WebPilot]

<The roads are too busy and many drivers use excessive speed for the prevailing conditions.>

And a large part of the reason for the deterioration in driving standards has been the overwhelming and increasing reliance on speed cameras. Traffic Police numbers are a fraction of what they were ten years ago. As a result the less law abiding drivers know that provided they slow down for the cameras, their chances of being brought to book for dangerous driving are minimal.

It's also good to see that the new M4 cameras are making such a contribution to safety.

Only the second day in service and the M4 is shut at J14 & J18 due to two crashes. Care to comment, Camera Fans?

[rafloo]

The more cameras the better and hopefully it will bring in some much needed revenue to allow the government to improve road conditions.

[WebPilot]

.........and so you reveal yourself to be the troll you are........

[Roland Pulfrew]

Having read a few of rafloo's posts recently I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Admin Guru, or prOOne, or totalwar, or woptb or crossbow is back!!! Ignore him. He enjoys spouting b*****ks just to provoke the rest of us! Its last post on this thread is proof positive.:mad:

[lineslime]

Just to add, more rozzers and less cameras are the way ahead. At least the rozzers are able to pull to$$ers who tailgate whilst flashing their headlights at the car in front, which is doing 85 to avoid being rammed up the ar$e by said to$$er, unlike cameras. It ain't speed which is the problem on the motorways just bad driving. If you need to know it was my wife trying to avoid the ar$e ramming (read into that what you like) whilst heading to work on a nice dry clear day on the M4.

Rafloo, I think I said it previously on another thread, you really are full of $hit.

[Yeller_Gait]

For what it is worth, and I don't think it has been mentioned so far on this thread, I think that the main cause of accidents on fast busy roads, and I am mainly referrring to two lane roads, as I do not do that much driving on three lanes, is not the speeders, not even the 70 MPH speed limit, but lorries.

The dramatic effect that lorries over-taking each other causes, concertina-ing of traffic and necessitating rapid breaking as they pull out whether you let them or not, is the major cause of accidents.

The saying about the old driver who has driven all their lives and never had an accident, but has caused hundreds, is never truer for lorry drivers.

My suggestion is that the UK follows the German example where lorries on autobahns (which are predominantly two-lane) are only allowed to overtake in certain stretches of road. The traffic flows far better (and faster).

I would aslo agree with a lot of previous posters that to drive along at a mind numbing 70 does nothing to increase road saftey, and paying more attention while driving faster is far more saftey-conscious.

My final point is against middle lane hogs, too wrapped up in their mobile phone call to be bothered to change lane. In effect they are the over-taking lorry, blocking up the lane un-neccessarily, and ultimately responsible for an accident occuring somewhere behind them.

Now that feels better, now that I have got that off my chest :ok:

[WebPilot]

Having had my car written off last year, when an artic overtook the car behind me, on a motorway, and then pulled back into the "slow" lane where I was already, I find it hard to disagree....

[rej]

I heard today, from a very reliable source, that the feds finish their beat pounding shift and then volunteer for overtime duties to hop in a white van and trap unsuspecting motorists whilst claiming time and a half.

[Pontius Navigator]

Having got a PDA with a GPS/Cam overlay I have been better informed about the cameras. I noted a curious fact.

The number of cameras on a 20 mile stretch of road near here is 9. The number of cameras that I passed on a cross-country journey from Lincolnshire to Gloucestershire was ONE!

Around High Wycombe the number again approached double figures.

One can deduce that the cameras are indeed at black spots/revenue raising places. Of the first 9 I mentioned 3, on a 40 mph dual carriage way, must only function at night as the road traffic by day crawls at about 5 mph.

Quite what they hope to achieve by a cameras in every village and at every junction and then NONE foe 200 miles I do not know.

[copcameraman]

My colleages and I believe that the ''speed cameras'' medicine is working, it 'tastes' a little unpleasant to many, but eventually drivers will get a grip of their self discipline and behave themselves. We believe that when some 3,000,000 irresponsible drivers have been zapped, they and the rest of the motoring community will get the message. Currently we are doing some 2 million a year, so it will be necessary to continue with the medicine until the disease is erradicated, at about the 3 million pa point. Most of us are quite happy to zap the morons until their pips sqeak.

And we have zapped a good number of FJ jockeys near a particular air base in our county. Some throw a tantrum when they are flagged down, but they still pay up. No choice really. The law is the law.

A few have shown they have an 'attitude' problem.:* We hope to meet these particular morons again, soon. .;) ;)

[idle-centralise]

C-C,

Not being one of these FJ "morons" that you are talking about, I would arge that these guys have much more skill than the average driver. They've proved that just by getting to where they are. Empty motorway or A-road, middle of the night, no traffic, what's the prob with speeding. The guys in the police speed "when appropriate" to catch criminals, with "training". I'd love you to have a good argument with me, 'cos I don't think you could justify yourself. The speeding system is unfair and that's a fact. To take it to the extreme, Schumacher in 1980's ***ked cavalier with no brakes and no MOT vs Chavmiester in 1980's ***ked cavalier with no brakes and no MOT, know which on I'd rather have behind me at 30yds when I slam the brakes on...

And realistically Schu would be in an elise 'cos he'd earn more and would stop from twice the speed in half the distance (slight exaggeration I know)

I-C

c'mon, please argue!

[Flik Roll]

Speed cameras are not doing anything. Most people can afford to speed, as long as they don't get the points.

We would be far better off raising the speed limits and bringing everyone to the same driving standard - some people know F A about the rules of the road; and it appears to be the older people causing all the problems

Why aren't the cops catching the grannies + grandads who drive at 40 through a 60 (a fail in todays driving test) and then continue through 40 in a 30 (again, a fail).
These are the people who should be done for speeding, not the poor guy late at night on an empty motorway doing 90!

Lets see the minimum speed limit introduced more and the motorways becoming the autobahn.

Y_G; i agree the A34 is notoriouslybad for lorries overtaking each other, except the one being overtaken gets ar$ey about it and speeds up. Also, isn't it law that in the UK lorries cannot drive in the outside land on a motorway - why do European lorry drivers fin dit hard to observe this rule?

[woptb]

So up to this point its the old,young,lorry drivers,non-pilots, suicidal chav brats & the nanny state. I just stick to the speed limit as its the law.
Obviously middle aged high performance car drivers,with finely honed motor skills & other two winged wonder race super powers, may drive at any speed 'you' think appropriate. Oh & please feel free to 'grease' a few chav brats if you feel the urge.
Alternatively you could use your super powers for the good of all humanity,stick to the speed limit & drive defensively. This may mean some brats live to fight another day - but what the heck! Anyway if you've attended the funeral of one bright & happy 6 year old runover & killed outside his home you've attended them all!

[16 blades]

If your kids get run over it is YOUR fault, end of. If my kids get run over, it will be MY fault. Almost all drivers do not knowingly mount pavements and mow children down (unless they are p!ssed, in which case cameras are useless), so cut the bullsh1t.

Copcameraman, you are a tw@t of the first order. It is directly because of you and your kind that real crime in this country is, and will remain, out of control. I, and I suspect, many like me, will actively refuse to co-operate with the police in ANY circumstances(save where required to by law; and believe you me, if you don't know already, we are required to give you the square root of f*ck all in most circumstances) due to your attitude and behaviour with respect to motoring cases. Your mother must be SO proud of you.

Why did you single out aircrew for criticism? Perhaps because we are better than you EVER will be, and you know it? The fact that we do, and always will, earn VASTLY more that you do in your sad little existence? Does it get to you, big man? Does it make you feel really important, handing out little yellow bits of paper? Enjoy it while it lasts, for it won't last long.

Do be sure to give me a wave the next time I pass overhead you, counting all my money whilst giving you the finger, you sad to$$er.

16B

[Flik Roll]

If cops won't so obsessed by speeding drivers, drunk/disorderly/drugs/guns/knives/fights wouldn't be a problem. Also accidents might get attended to slightly quicker. I was a crash passenger and waited half an hour for a cop to turn up.

People also might have more respect for cops as well if they weren't like the above. A family friend became a cop and turned into a k*ob; even nearly pinching his own bro for speeding.

[wishtobflying]

It's the law. Whether you like it or not, it's the law.

There's a whole bunch of stuff in Aeronautical Decision Making that refers to the Hazardous Attitudes that crop up in making bad decisions. One is the Anti-Authority attitude that says "the rules don't really apply in all situations/this time/to me, they were just made up to make my life harder and I don't have to follow them all the time".

But we should all know this, because we should all have studied it.

Air law applies in the air, what's your attitude to that? Do you bend/break the rules in the air? What's the difference? Your training is better? Worth thinking about.

I've been fined separately for speeding and using my handheld mobile phone, so I'm not saying I'm some paragon of virtue, I just think the attitudes of many posters here are very interesting, given what should have been taught about Human Factors in the cockpit.

[Echo 5]

copcameraman,

............................................................ ............................................
A few have shown they have an 'attitude' problem.
............................................................ ............................................

Bloody right, and I'm one of them when I see the likes of you and your mates blatantly flouting the law by tearing down the motorways at high speed without benefit of blue flashing lights therefore having no valid reason for getting anywhere fast.

16B is right you are one sad to$$er.

By the way, this is our patch so pi$$ off.

[EmergingCyclogenesis]

So there we have it, 5 patrol cars on the M5 manning a speed trap on a motorway and no-one patrolling the town centres protecting innocent shoppers from imigrant gangs!

[BEagle]

Copcameraman, get off your fat ar$e and do some real policing instead of alienating people. :mad:

Sitting in a scameravan 'zapping' motorists to generate revenue for Fatty Brown is viewed by the genpub as the only activity police bother with these days as it is safe, easy and brings you in plenty of key performance indicators. "Oink oink, click click, ching ching".

So how about taking the initiative to dispel that myth? Attitudes like yours really drive a rift between the police and the public.

No-one should consider themselves a better driver simply because they fly high performance a/c. But people who bother to fly at the correct Vat, for example, should also discipline themselves to drive within the limits.

I agree with reasonable limits, I have nothing but contempt for the nanny-state limits cropping up all over Oxfordshire whenever some lentilist bleats that "It's sooo dangerous for the kiddies and cyclists...." :yuk:

[WebPilot]

Copcameraman, whether he's really filth or just some trolling ****, demonstrates exactly why the crime rates are sky high and why respect for Plod is at an all time low.

The story earlier this week in the red tops, regarding the "points targets" given to Thames Valley Police, whether true or not, under which nicking a motorist for being slightly over the speed limit counted for half the points of catching a rapist or some other violent criminal shows the warped sensibilities that have become mainstream in this abused nation.

Those of you espousing "sticking to the speed limits", good for you. I hope you also obey to the letter every other law, and have never bought counterfeit goods from the market or sought to get a cash deal on goods or services, for example. Hypocrits!

[BEagle]

250 KIAS below 10000ft
30 mph in posted areas

Why do you obey one and not the other?

[ORAC]

Are they still using Skyguard to catch people breaking the first?

[vecvechookattack]

and have never bought counterfeit goods from the market or sought to get a cash deal on goods or services


God I must be really sad. I keep to the speed limit. I have never bought any counterfeit goods from a market....BUT I can't see whats wrong with buying goods or services with cash... I always use cash....don't do plastic.

[WebPilot]

<God I must be really sad. I keep to the speed limit. I have never bought any counterfeit goods from a market....BUT I can't see whats wrong with buying goods or services with cash... I always use cash....don't do plastic.>

On the first point, I think that we had already established that beyond doubt. I note that you've used a very Blair-ite response to the points, and I suspect you know exactly the meaning of "cash deal".

[rafloo]

Maybe he is TB in cognito......but whilst we are talking about it....what is a cash deal then?

If you pay cash for someting is that illegal...? I use plastic a lot but don't mind using cash if required...

anyone else know?

[WebPilot]

Go away, Elsan the Troll.

[Beeayeate]

Regarding speed cameras on any multi-lane road. Consider this scene. . .

Three cars, in different lanes, Car A is overtaking Car B at around 80mph. But Car B is motoring at 75mph overtaking Car C who is doing 65. Camera flashes - which car gets the ticket? And how does the camera decide?

Or. . .

Car is motoring at around 80 but passes a huge artic just as the camera flashes so that the artic blocks the view.

Or. . .

On dual carriageways (eg the A45 into Coventry with its 60mph multi-camera enforced limit). One car overtaking another. Overtaking car doing 65, other car doing dead on 60 under cruise control. Both cars "in the frame". Do both get a summons? Probably.

I travel the A45 fairly regularly to and from Bagington and have often noticed drivers looking at their instruments instead of the road. Followed one yesterday who had to brake suddenly as they found themselves nearly into the back of the car in front of them, no doubt as a result of nervously watching the speedo.

[VitaminGee]

I believe it works something like this:

Case 1 - Camera flashes twice, takes two superimposed images. Someone measures the distance covered between flashes for each vehicle using white gridlines on the road. Distance divided by time etc.....

Case 2 - Unless culprit is photo'd/flashed twice, he's in the clear.

Case 3 - Same as 1.

Bikes are better placed than cars since they cannot be ID'd by cameras facing them.

Have a good w/e

VG

[BEagle]

Whilst some truckers seem intent on 'elephant racing', the queue of motorists in the outer lane behind the 'elephant' doing .01 mph more than his colleague will become increasingly concerned as the end of a dual carriageway approaches. Now, when all they had to do was to accelerate past the winning 'elephant', then pull in and adjust to the correct speed, that was one thing. But now drivers often overtake with barely any speed differential as they are so concerned about scameras - and this leads to impatience and outer lane tailgating, both of which are far more dangerous than 80 mph on a 70 limited dual carriageway.

When they were building the Silverstone bypass and the road was single lane 40mph, I followed a truck for miles which kept slowing down to a crawl on the upslopes, then speeding up on the downslopes. Finally we came to the only bit of road which was dual carriageway and I started to overtake whereupon the ba$tard did his speeding up downhill thing as I was half way past. With a queue behind me, the safer option was to continue to overtake and then to pull in. Which I did only to be flashed by a revenue camera at just under 50mph (there were no roadworks of any description on this section which had been 70 mph the previous week but now had the same nanny-limit as the rest of the road). But I didn't get 'done' - the b£oody thing was probably out of film as it was placed in an obvious revenue-attracting spot.

Some weeks later I was driving the same road and noticed that the scamera had been burned out. Shame...:ok:

Personally I now avoid motorways like the plague as scamera-concerned drivers' behaviour has made them too dangerous.

The government doesn't seem to have noticed that most motorway accidents are HGV-related; perhaps that's because they know that their failed rail system is not a viable alternative. I have also noticed a significant increase in poorly-driven LHD trucks from 'new-EU' states which don't seem to worry about anything else on the road.... Perhaps that's just because they can't see anything about to overtake them?

We need Plod out on the roads sorting out the dangerous, untaxed, drunk and drugged idiots, not resting his fat ar$e in scameravans taking piccies for Fatty Brown!

Oink oink, click click, ching ching.....

[HectorusRex]

Further proof, if any was necessary, that the prime reason for speed cameras is REVENUE!

Speeding 'not a factor' in A12 crashes, yet camera is approved
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 19/04/2005)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/19/ncam19.xml
Speeding was not a factor in any of the accidents cited to gain government approval for a new speed camera, it was revealed yesterday.
The disclosure heightened suspicions that speed cameras are being driven by financial motives, but also caused concern among motoring organisations that the devices were being used as an easy alternative to taking other measures at accident blackspots.
At the centre of the row is a new camera site on a busy stretch of dual carriageway on the A12 at Kelvedon, near Colchester. The Department of Transport (DoT) gave approval last month after the Essex Safety Camera Partnership made an application on the grounds of five accidents in recent years.
An investigation by the East Anglian Daily Times - which used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to police records - showed that none of the officers' reports into the crashes listed "excessive speed for conditions" as a factor.
Three of the accidents involved crashes with stationary vehicles and the fourth was a pedestrian who had taken drugs and alcohol and was hit by the wing mirror of a passing lorry. In the fifth, a man was seriously injured when he lost control of his car after a sweeping curve.
Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said the findings raised "major concerns". He added: "We are now seeing cameras being put on motorways and dual carriageways, which are our safest roads by a long way. There are other factors like fog or tailgating, which have nothing to do with excess speed. Yet these partnerships and the police are putting all their eggs in one basket by concentrating on speed cameras and that does nothing to stop dangerous driving."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA Motoring Trust, said: "Speed cameras can be defended because people are getting injured and killed on the roads and something needs to be done about it. But it can be argued that speed cameras are becoming a bit of an easy option for the authorities.
"They are much cheaper than putting an extra lane on a dual carriageway or introducing other measures like improved central barriers to make a road safer."
Essex police insisted yesterday that a follow-up survey had shown drivers regularly far exceeding the speed limit along that stretch of the A12.
Kelly Fairweather, of the Essex Safety Camera Partnership - which comprises Essex police, the county council and the Highways Agency - said the new camera would not be a fixed one, but one that operated at irregular intervals from a van on a bridge over the A12. She added: "This location has been approved as a camera site because it has a very high speeding problem."
A spokesman for the DoT said: "We do not give permission for cameras to be sited in a particular place automatically. It has to be proved that there is a problem with accidents and also with speeding at a site.
"The rules do not state that these serious or fatal injury accidents have to be specifically caused by high speed."

[WebPilot]

I was reading a very interesting article regarding road safety yesterday. The RAC is woried about the level of signs and cameras and other distractions on the roadside that drivers are expected to contend with, and considers that it has become so intense in places that road safety is actively compromised by the proliferation of distractions.

The point is made of speed cameras that the criteria for locating them is simplistic, just 4 serious accidents in the location over 2 years, but no account is taken of the accident cause. The point is made that if, for example, accidents have been caused by a dangerous or badly planned junction, adding a camera is not going to do anything to increase safety, but quite the reverse as drivers instead will be checking their speedo, not looking out for the hazard.

It's becoming very clear that not only are speed cameras purely revenue generators, they are also seen as a cheap cost saver as they are used to replace expensive Police and proper redesign of dangerous roads.

[November4]

The roadworks on the motorways that I have seen have a speed limit of 50mph.

So why does the roadwords at Junct 18 of the M4 have a 40mph speed limit plus speed cameras?

Surely not to catch those who think that the limit is like all other roadworks at 50.

[A2QFI]

Speed Cameras are put up to collect money. A couple of years ago a bypass opened in Essex with speed cameras on from Day 1! No history of accidents, just cameras straight away. Near where I live the local police were fed up with bikers giving 'V' signed to cameras which took a picture of the front of the vehicle ie no number plate in view. They formed a special unit consisting of a car and two motor bikes to chase up the 'offenders'. Meanwhile the clear up rate for burglaries stayed nice and low and plenty of people were driving around in cars with only one headlight working and loads of uninsured, no seatbelts etc. But the targets wwre met so that's alright then!

[jindabyne]

Calm down chaps

[RAFboy83]

Just a thought here,

Speed itself doesn't kill (ref: driver of porsche carrera let off dangerous driving charge for getting caught doing 150mph on M1 at 0300 because it was well within the limits of the car and he had his race licence)...

It's the irresponsible use of speed that kills people... 85mph on the motorway is perfectly safe middle lane speed these days with improvements in braking and tyre technology.

HOWEVER, 20mph outside a school should be law as there are FAR more hazards in such an environment.

The idea of speed cameras on motorways makes my blood boil, but i applaud their use in city centres...

It all comes down to driver education on the responsible use of speed, the government/police admitting that speed cameras are being used as cash cows, and the DVLA re-vamping the highway code to reflect modern day life and technology improvements...

[teeteringhead]

IIRC, many years ago Lord Goddard CJ, hardly a pink and fluffly person said something likeIf existing laws on careless and dangerous driving could properly be enforced, there would be no need for speed limits at all! Discuss!

[Canary Boy]

Policeman nicked for doing 159 on the M54 (and, more importantly 89 in a 30!) - obviously not our esteemed poster! Prat 'inadvertently' switched-on the data logger in his unmarked Vectra GSi. "Just testing the capability of an unfamiliar car M'lud" If he gets away with it do we have a precedent?

[ORAC]

Met traffic chief in speeding car. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4454107.stm) - 82MPH in a 40MPH limit in central London. Driver appealed and got his penalty reduced to 3 points because he was not as dangerous as a normal driver because of his "superior driving skills". :*

[Lafyar Cokov]

85mph on the motorway is perfectly safe middle lane speed these days

Please don't start me off on 'Middle Lane' anything - oopps too late!!!

The Middle Lane is used to overtake vehicles in the left lane - THAT'S ALL!!!

What the F*** is 'Middle Lane Speed'????

LC:mad:

[lineslime]

Middle lane speed is about 65mph for those annoying to$$ers who forget about the existance of the left hand lane on a reasonably clear motorway and feel it is their god given right to pootle along where they like. Surely that is more dangerous than doing 85 on a clear motorway whilst using the lanes as the highway code intended i.e. staying to the left unless you need to overtake.

[teeteringhead]

Speaking of lane discipline, I have noticed it's much better on the M6 Toll, indeed driving in general seems better there.

Is this because oiks and poor people can't/won't afford it?

BEags - you'd love it - "the right crowd and no crowding" as they used to say at Brooklands.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Surprised nobody has posted a link to the latest scamera story (sadly I can't find it, but it was in the Mail this morning and I believe the Telegraph). 'Twas all about a new scamera on the A27(?) that has raked in £750 000 in 2 months. It had been sighted in a newly designated 40 mph zone - down from 70 mph! Local scamera partnership say that new limits are adequately signposted - or apparently NOT!

Another story saying that the AA and RAC are now getting more worried by the proliferation of signs distracting drivers that they are missing the really important ones, or are not concentrating on difficult/dangerous junctions because of the proliferation of signs. This is leading to.........more accidents, whcih means that scamera partnerships can install more scameras!!!

Was driving along a road from my youth this weekend (nice fast winding road) to find that it was now littered with SPECS scameras (the ones that record average speeds over a distance). Northants Police....B:mad:ds!

[BEagle]

Just for how much longer will Bliar's war against the motorist go on? I saw a familiar road today with new 40 mph signs waiting to be revealed - today it is a 60 mph limit. BA$TARDS!!

At least the Oxford County Council boss has said that if there is a Tory majority, then the current huggy-fluffies' war against the motorist WILL stop. Hopefully he'll dig up the speed humps as well.

I'm all for sensible limits, but not the ones inflicted by mad vegetarians on bicycles, as Clarkson put it. Double the penalties for exceeding sensible limits (as they did in Holland) by all means!

Shall be asking OCC how much the ridiculous widening of the footpath between Minster Lovell and Witney has cost the local tax payers. If they won't say, then I think a FOI disclosure might be sought?

[effortless]

So Tories don't like speed limits then. :hmm:

[CANTSAY]

Observant and considerate drivers do not have a problem with speed cameras, do not need to see them, or know where they are located. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about.

Could someone please explain why so many drivers are complaining about the cameras?

[WebPilot]

I would consider myself to be an considerate and observant driver.

I have a great "problem" with speed cameras, _not_ because I wish to drive at great speed everywhere but because the concept under which these dratted things have been foisted on us is fundamentally flawed and inherently dangerous.

I hope that makes things adequately clear for the hard of thinking.

[Beeayeate]

To slide off-topic for a moment, got to agree with teeteringhead about driving on the M6 Toll, a very pleasurable experience, the way driving should be. With, as yet, minimal traffic, especially trucks, the surface is excellent and the road flows smoothly around the agriculture. It won't stay that way I reckon but while it does I can commend it.

Beags, you should definitely point your motor carriage north sometime in the next couple of months and have a shufti, you should try to enjoy it before it becomes just another high-speed traffic jam.

Oh, apart from CCTV at the toll booths, there's no cameras either!

[C130 Techie]

Isn`t the middle lane the one you sit in when you want to use your mobile phone?:mad:

[Snapdragon]

Yes, Speed does kill, However only when the driver drives like a complete W***KER as do the majority of young male drivers here in Riyadh. If Allah wants me to die then so be it and my kids too because they think seatbelts are unkind to children, and indicators will let the devil know where they are going!!! However in the UK my experience of speed cameras is that the police put them where they will earn more money...PERIOD. Anyone driving north from England to Scotland will have had the experience on the A617 through Coldstream en-route to Edinburgh, a slow lorry, windy road, only straight bit for a long time and in the middle of no-where a speed camera... obviously a dangerous spot for the local school/hospital/whatever 10 miles away. The be all and end all is trhat speed cameras do reduce accidents/casualities in urban areas near points of danger such as schools and the like, however, in quiet areas and on motorways they have no place unless you are an investor in your local constabulary or GATSO....... Rant over, sorry SD
P.S. Saw an awesome crash the other day, Large 8.1L Suburban(Large US 4x4) in the top of a palm tree. Guy died doing it, but Bl**dy good effort, Absolute tragedy.....There were 7 empty seats in the car!!!
P.P.S no apologies for the flippancy, I live here with my wife and children and see more ludicrous driving in one day than the most avid tree-hugging weirdo pro camera nutter in the UK has ever seen.......You ain't seen nuthin....!

[CANTSAY]

But, Snapdragon, I and all other law abiding citizens do not wish to pay more taxes in order to finance speed cameras.

It is excellent that the cameras operate at a profit, as it is the guilty sods who then finance them, and all future cameras.

2 million idiots every year getting caught for dangerous speed whilst driving is great news for us safe drivers, is'nt it?

[L1A2 discharged]

2 million idiots every year getting caught for dangerous speed whilst driving is great news for us safe drivers, is'nt it?

If they are travelling at dangerous speeds fair enuff. 32 in a 30 zone dangerous? 74 on the motorway?

Properly zoned, realistic and applied limits are required. The blanket 70 is not conducive to efficient motoring nowadays, similarly 30 outside a school may be viewed as too much.

Also, "Law abiding" ... never taken a pen, envelope, piece of paper, item of 'scrap', gash etc from work?

Which laws do you abide by? all the time? never parked illegally?

[rej]

At the end of the day £750 000 of revenue for speeding in one location in 2 months equates to about 12,500 solved crimes.

Mr B Liar's targets for 'solved crimes' continue to rise and the Chief Constable in that area will be poster boy of the future.

Farce or what?!?

[lineslime]

Guess it will be like this morning, only a bit slower. Oh and I would just like to say a big "go out and learn to drive properly & safely" to the total ar$e in the post office van who thought it was a good idea to tailgate me in the nice wet conditions this morning. He's going to be OK though as speed cameras don't pick up on idiots driving like that.
I say get more coppers in marked cars on the roads as they can apply common sense and pull ar$eholes who endanger others with unsafe driving.

[rej]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Saturday 30 April at 10.00 am, a protest drive will take place along the M4 between Membury Services (just past the Hungerford junction 14) and junction 17 (Chippenham).

Potential conversation between Mr B Liar and Charles Clarke:

'Quick, lets recall parliament and pass a quick bill to put minimum speed limits on the M4. I can see another quick money-earning opportunity here.'

[Stax]

Just picked up again as I have been away.

SO! We all agree to the "Raise the speed limit's on motorways/More cameras in built up areas/Parents chain up your children/More coppers to differentiate between good and bad drivers/Cameras just raise money for Blair and Brown" etc. Fine, we are more or less in agreement, however...........
1995, Winter, A1, Sunday night @2135 (ish) conditions a bit iffy (wet, cold etc) I am in my little 1.3 Mazda driving fairly sensibly due to age of car, size of engine, wet conditions. As I am passing a clapped out Mini, suddenly in my rear view there is a set of flashing head lights of the "Get out of my F**king way you pleb" I pull over and a (Dark Blue/Black) Astra goes by me at a great rate of knots. I didn't have a speed camera with me so I can't say exactly how fast, however he had not been behind me when I signalled to overtake. Several miles up the road I see a blue light flashing, slow down, move to the side of the road and there, embedded into the back wheels of an artic (which was crossing the southbound to get on the northbound lane) is the remains of the Astra. So no worries, he didn't kill a child, or trash a sports car, or get a fine and points, but he did kill himself, stop traffic, cause an investigation, probably put a lorry driver into counselling and tie up those coppers who could have been investigating real crimes! Bottom line gents, if you don't give a "fork" about other road users, at least be selfish and give a "fork" about yourself, that includes our super heros of the FJ world who are so much better than the people who dress them, fasten them in, service the jet, get them their kit, pick them up when they crash, fix them when they are broken, defend them on the ground and generally just feel so priveliged that these knights of the air deem to notice us! (enough sarcasm in that?)

[FJ2ME]

Oh dear, another bashing of FJ pilots....Give it a rest fellas. What have they got to do with the issue anyway? Do you really think a speed camera would have stopped that astra-mangling fool?! There are speed cameras all over the A1 already so obviously not.

As has been said time and time before, speed cameras do not and will not solve this problem, they are a needless method of raising revenue and bumping up solved 'crimes' stats.

Still, if more people get points and end up banned, or priced off the road by their insurance company, or dead by their own stupidity, then that leaves more roadspace for us immortals.:cool:

[BikerMark]

Observant and considerate drivers do not have a problem with speed cameras, do not need to see them, or know where they are located. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about.

Because speed cameras have been used to justify a reduction in traffic patrols and are seen as a panacea.

However, speed cameras cannot detect drunk driving, illegal mobile phone use, tailgating, "I'm sorry I didn't see you mate" near misses (often hits!) for us motorcyclists. They can't stop dodgy looking cars on a hunch and discover all sorts of other criminal activity. They are unable to decide when to book people and when to give a harsh word instead. They can't detect the person who drives uninsured because the fine for this is cheaper than paying insurance premiums.

The implication behind speed cameras seems to be "oh well, they're all going to have accidents anyway, so let's make them happen more slowly" which is an admission of defeat on road safety.

Mark.

[FJ2ME]

I have an answer to those who dislike speed cameras- register your car in another EU country (perhaps your spanish hacienda that decades of flying pay has produced?...):

http://www.roadsafety.org.uk/information/publish/article_256.shtml


...and I bet your insurance is cheaper too. Did you know that the UK is just about the only country in the EU where cover does not mandatorily and without time limit extend to covering the whole of the EU? Most UK companies get a little extra out of you if you have to be abroad for more than 14 days and many will do 30 days as a maximum. On the continent, our smelly-cheese eating brethren have lower insurance costs, automatic any driver cover and EU wide cover. More evidence of rip-off Britain.

[C130 Techie]

BikerMark - You hit the nail smack on the head mate,

More patrols and less cameras = more idiots caught = safer roads.

[Stax]

I would like to apologise to all for my sideswipe at FJP a few posts ago. The following proves it's not always their fault!

True story. 270405 1710(ish) hrs. I am travelling from a large RAF station in Lincs to my home some 25 miles away. Waiting at the B1202/A15 crossroads for a gap to cross I see coming from the Lincoln direction a blue P reg BMW. The driver (dressed in a flying suit with officer rank tabs) does a very nice left hand turn using only his left hand, due to the fact his right hand had a mobile phone clamped to his ear! He then drove for around 5 miles, still with the phone at his ear at around 60 to 65 MPH, still talking and probably changing gear (that left hand was busy). The B1202 for those who don't use it is a typical Lincolnshire B road, steep camber, damaged edges, no kerb, dips you can hide an arctic in, tractors and wildlife appearing in front of you etc.
He actually turned off up a fen road (still talking) whilst driving through a large village beginning with the letter M, I suspect he lives up there so I really can't see what was so important about his call.

Now, I suspect I may get cries of "Aircrew Basher" "If it was that bad why didn't you stop him" type posts coming up, but my point is that this prat, who is supposed to be a grown up, endangered himself and others by flouting one of the few recent laws that makes sense. The BMW and the fact he is aircrew was just a bonus for me!

Seems obvious he serves at the large RAF unit near Lincoln, so if anyone recognises him (dark haired bloke) Then chastise the eejit at every opportunity!

Oh yes, he probably isn't an FJP.

[BEagle]

All very believable but for one thing.......

A P registered BMW? No self-respecting officer aircrew would be seen in such an ancient old banger.

Seriously, he need his ar$e kicked. Proper hands-free kits are only a couple of hundred quid including installation - there is no excuse for ignoring the law and rabbitting away on a spiv phone in such a manner.

I spotted a git driving the car behind me with one hand occupied by a spiv phone and the other clutching a cigarette. So, at every junction I slowed right down rather than just giving way, then watched the juggling act in my mirror as he had to change gear......:E

[strek]

Just one to think about....

Have just been caught in one of the MoDs finest Ford Galaxy Pool Cars doing 83mph on the A303 (dual carriageway, sunny, no other car in sight) I had accepted my fine and points and am now driving slower.

What drives me up the wall was speaking to someone who (also in a pool car) had been stopped twice on the same journey on the A38 in Devon by marked cars doing 107mph and 93mph.

Result?

"You should watch your speed more carefully Sir"

No points, no fine.

This does not fit in with the Government/Police theory on speed. No leeway with cameras - why with policeman?

And in addition there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

Threaders.

[vecvechookattack]

And in addition there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

how about obeying the law and keeping inside the speed limit...?

[rej]

BEags

Moreover, should any self-respecting officer drive a BMW full stop?

[BEagle]

Indeed. Somewhat common, one opines....

[lineslime]

If you saw some of the vehicular contraptions, of many years age, that some of the master race drive through the gate at Lyneham you would be disgusted. Then again it could be the 'K' crews getting the feel of vintage machinery before they go off flying.

[Flik Roll]

In ref to stax post on the page before:
What is so bad about driving while using a mobile?
Ok, It is illegal now, but then why isn't smoking while driving? Or drinking or fiddling with the radio?

People have mentioned speeding and dangerous driving in the same sentence - what is wrong with doing 80 along the motorway? It's speeding but it's not dangerous. The people I wish were off the roads are those who feel that in order to pass you on the motorway, they must undertake and tail gate you until you move; people who are so selfish that they drink drive or drug-drive. Elderly who havent a clue and are so engrossed in their own conversation they don't seem to be aware of what is going on around them. And chavved up boy racers who feel they own they own the roads and generally fill the above descriptions (minus the elderly).

Also, for those in the bath/bristol area watch out for coppers using motorbikes stuck in hedges with no sign and a radar gun on top.

[C130 Techie]

Eating and drinking whilst driving is illegal as highlighted in several recent court cases. I believe the basic fine is generally £20

However, a bite of an apple or a sip of a drink then returning both hands to the wheel may take several seconds. Similarly with smokers and changing the radio station.

People who use mobile phones are distracted for long periods and generally steer and change gear whilst they have one hand stuck to their ear and are generally concentrating on the call and not the road.

Anyone who uses a mobile whilst driving is a danger to other road users and should recieve a hefty fine and a ban.

I am a motorist, a cyclist and a runner and have had too many close calls with these idiots for comfort.

Consideration for other road users is seriously lacking in this country.:mad:

Incidentally I used the "Well Driven" service to complain about a Tesco lorry on the M4 last week and received a very apologetic letter from the Tesco transport manager. The service works and if it potentially stops some idiot lorry drivers tailgating and cutting people up then maybe we should make more use of it.

[Canary Boy]

The policeman who was nicked for 159 on the M54 has been found not guilty (my post 20th Apr). Apparently the bench had a large degree of sympathy with his justification of testing the capabilities of a new car. After slagging-off the West Mercia police service, Judge Morgan went on to say "I have great admiration and respect for those officers who drive at those breathtaking speeds..."

Who's going to be first to use this as a precedent? :confused:

Edited to add that I have only just noticed the thread on Jet Blast :O

[Spacer]

.. my g/f has just been nicked for doing 89 on the M74 :mad: So, 159 is ok, but 89 isn't??!!

Edit: We have a rule! No swearing in disguise.

PPP

[Pontius Navigator]

And the same logic must go to low flying helicopters. Only thing is, they don't go as low or as fast:}

[Grimweasel]

Technicality gets Norfolk motorist off...follow link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/4565321.stm[/URL]

[L1A2 discharged]

Spacer,
It must be good to have a gf who is a class 1 driver, on duty, either attending an emergency or in training to do so exceeding the speed limits by 19/70ths (27%). :(

... I unfortunately hold points courtesy of the ffiremens strike. If I had not been detached to the back of beyond I would not have been there to get diverted onto a backroad with a 30 limit, didn't see the signs - looking for the route markers (none).



:suspect:

[Cusco]

Nearly died today with little old lady doing about 45 in the inside lane, and a lorry swerving to overtake her - and after cleaning out my pants, as I passed her she was obviously none the wiser. Jack-Knifing lorries vs. people going too fast? Got my vote.
I'd Happilly take a test regularly if it meant that that these accident causers were kept off the road unless they can pass a basic test - well no. a pretty f£$%ing in-depth test. I'll give up my licence when I'm incapable, so should they. Sorry to rant, but really feared for my life today. ABS, We love you

[A2QFI]

"The more cameras the better and hopefully it will bring in some much needed revenue to allow the government to improve road conditions."

Motorists are already contributing £20 Billion more, in taX, than is being spent on the roads. More cameras if you must, but only when all the money in the 'kitty' has been spent on what it is collected for.

[tradewind]

'Nearly died today with little old lady doing about 45 in the inside lane, and a lorry swerving to overtake her - and after cleaning out my pants, as I passed her she was obviously none the wiser.'

Surely the problem here is the lorry driver??!!

If it had to swerve then its their fault for not looking ahead??!!

Sorry to be devils advocate here, but you can't blame the old lady

[adr]

I tend to concur with tradewind as to who is at fault when a driver has to swerve to avoid a car travelling 45mph in the same direction (assuming the L.O.L didn't pull out into the trucker's path).

And I heartily endorse Cusco's idea about periodic testing. Given that there is a perceived need to reduce the number of cars on the road, to do it by taxation -- that is, getting (financially) poor drivers off the road -- is not IMHO the best solution. Let's get the bad drivers off the roads instead. Might even create some driving jobs if some drivers with luxury cars and sub-basic skills had their licences revoked.

Bee, bonnet, mine, escaped! :p

adr

[Grimweasel]

Wrote to Wilts police to complain about a safety camera van parked on a grass verge leaning in toward the road in wilts recently...here's the 'Official' police reply.....(drab government propaganda really).......

"Any person taking a driving test is required to demonstrate the ability to control the speed of the vehicle they are driving and to observe all speed limits if they wish to pass that test. I fail to see why the presence of speed enforcement devices would ever create a difficulty for law-abiding drivers as they only detect people who are exceeding the limit and therefore breaking the law."

"Wiltshire may be the one of the worst areas in the country to commit a crime because detection rates are higher than average. In the case of speed and red light camera sites we recorded some of the best figures for reducing injury collisions last year. I am not aware of any change in government policy with regard to Safety Cameras. The activities of Camera Partnerships are linked directly to national targets for casualty reduction by 2010 so it would seem unlikely that the newly elected government would seek to ban the scheme which it previously introduced"

[Spacer]

All: Apologies for my implied bad language

L1A2: I'm not defending my g/fs breaking of the speed limit, I'm just wondering how my g/f is unsafe at 89, yet their driver is safe at 159? Yes, different conditions, different training, but if I drove at 159, I'd get 6 months inside (as a driver found out on the A90 outside Dundee).... I thought half of the speed limit arguement was about how long cars took to stop, etc. So, surely, the Police must use ceramic brakes, etc. to help make their cars much safer. ;)

[WebPilot]

It's in the Sun, so not exactly a "prime source", however:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005230510,00.html

[STANDTO]

from someone who has done the training and got the t shirt:

same reasons there are some that fly jump jets, and some just gliders.

that said, mistakes happen at any level. Personally, I shut my eyes at anything over a ton fifty, and use the force

[exleckie]

Use the force??

Too much Star Wars mate:yuk:

How about getting back to common sense speed limits for the road conditions and the capability of modern cars???

Hmmmm, then again, you may be right, let the (police) force use their lasers against us all for the sake of revenue.

Darth Taxer will take all of us down to the lawbreaking bank rolling kind.:E

[HOODED]

Just wondering, is this the governments way to get us all on public transport and make the roads less busy? Do everyone, who in a moments inattentiom creeps up to 33mph in a 30 zone and eventually everyone will be banned! No cars on the road that would be this governments dream. They keep putting in the cameras in places where accidents/deaths are a rare occurrence so this must be their aim, unless Brown is using it to fill his black hole so he can give the imigrants more handouts.

[brakedwell]

Hooded
I have spotted a small flaw in your theory. When the newly elected Bliar gang succeeds in banning all drivers for speeding, Prudence will have no milch cows to rob and therefore no dosh to hand out to our new britons.

[teeteringhead]

But how much logic in motoring matters can one expect from a Chancellor who doesn't hold a driving licence.........

[Showtime100]

I thought I would publish a mail a friend sent me today regarding his ongoing baiting of one of the local officers of the Northumberland "Safety Camera Partnership".

I apologise for the length but it does make very amusing reading.

I hope my editing comes out but anway his inital letter is in Italics, her reply is in standard font and his reply to her mail is in red.

Perhaps we can start a trend of baiting the Local "Safety Camera" Officer around the country?

Showtime

------------

Oy chumpy, check this out?.another personal favorite of mine! Speed cameras. I read The Northumberland "Safety Camera Partnership" annual report last week. It was full of crap about how popular they are with the public and what a good job they are doing despite the league tables buried in the back of the report showing quite the opposite and that fatal accident rates are rising in the region. Also showed that they lifted £3.5 million in speeding tickets with their little vans. I wrote their "Communications Manager" (Propaganda minister) a huge snotogram the other day and got a massive PC bite back from them. This is good fun!! Just read some of the nazi propaganda these people drum out.



Excerpts from my original e-mail are in Italics, their initial response in ordinary 10 font and my bite back in red 10 font.



Errrr?You?ll figure it out.


I love torturing public sector drones me.


Jim


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 26 May 2005 19:46
To: 'Safe Speed for Life'
Subject: RE: Question to Safe Speed fof Life re. PR, stats etc.



Dear Sarah



Thank you for your response, I was surprised to get one. Please see my comments below.



-----Original Message-----
From: Safe Speed for Life [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 26 May 2005 16:16
To: [email protected]
Subject: Question to Safe Speed fof Life re. PR, stats etc.



Dear Jim,



Many thanks for your question. You obviously have some burning issues regarding speed cameras and I'll endeavour to answer your questions as fully as possible.



I'm glad to see that you took the time to read the annual report, but obviously disappointed that you didn't feel it was worthwhile.



What is the point of the "safety" camera partnership when your own figures show an steady increase in fatalities, personal injury colisions from 99/00 to 03/04?



The table for camera sites overall shows a decrease against the year you are quoting, whereas at non-camera sites there is an increase. Surely this would show that cameras are actually having a positive effect on road safety at those locations?



All this indicates is that there will be a natural level of accidents in any given year. You have yet to prove that you have achieved anything. As for this blind obsession with making everyone stick rigidly to the speed limit?..are you aware of the study of the 75th percentile? Ask a traffic cop. They know that the people who have the least accidents are the people who typically drive slightly in excess of the speed limit. Funny how this study never reaches your annual report.



You are nothing but a bunch of charlatans who simpy exist for your own ends. The Partnership is another example of New Labour jobs for the boys, you exist solely to fleece the motorist.



The only end we exist for is to try and reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. It's that simple and that's not "slick PR" talk, it's genuine. I have personally been quoted in the media several times as saying our ultimate aim was to put ourselves out of business because no one was speeding any more, and I stand by that comment. Just for the record, there are also not just boys working here. And every motorist has a choice whether to break the speed limit or not.



Do they brainwash you before you start work? Do you really think you would have a job at all if the Government didn?t reap £75 million per annum in tickets. Are you really so deluded to think this has nothing to do with money? The Government doesn?t really care about how many people are killed, it is a quick excuse to make a few quid.



Road traffic fatalities nationally are on the increase despite over 5 years of speed cameras. When are you going to accept that cameras are not making any difference at all and in many cases are probably causing accidents in the first place. Anything that encourages drivers to dedicate part of their mental capacity towards looking towards the kerb for a camera instead of focusing their attention 100% on the road in front of them fundamentally increases the risk of an accident. How many times have you seen huge streaks of rubber on the road just before a camera, indicating last minute panic braking? Any device that can cause this to happen is fundamentally dangerous.



When you read into the figures you are clearly not acheiving anything despite the thousands you blow on slick marketing and PR and the Millions gathered in revenue by your bloody "Tax Vans" More people than ever are dying and being injured on our regions roads. FACT.



That last comment is FICTION: Less people were killed on our local roads last year. We are in the process of auditing the figures for our next year's annual report and these are showing a more than 50% reduction in fatalities at camera sites and about a 30% reduction in serious injuries. Also, across the region, there were almost 200 less personal injury collisions, which is encouraging when you consider the increase in traffic flow year on year.



This is because of the steady withdrawal of dedicated road traffic officers and their replacement by civillian "tax collectors" like yourselves.



Again, your information is incorrect. We have trained traffic police officers working on our team, whose positions were backfilled to ensure that general traffic officers numbers (who deal with other road traffic offences such as drug and drink driving) were not adversely affected.



It is common knowledge that nearly every police force has reduced or "Dual-roled" their dedicated traffic officers since the introduction of cameras. Cameras are cheaper than people??see my point above about money. I don?t know the conviction rates for drink and drug driving but I?ll bet my bottom dollar they have reduced since your cameras were introduced, this reduction being nothing to do with road safety rather than???out of sight, out of mind?



As for your 95% of people being in support of you, what a load of s***, this is yet again slick PR achieving the answer you want through clever questioning.



I do not personally question the people. They are put together by an independent market research firm to ensure people's true opinions are recorded. There has been consistent support in all 3 public opinion surveys carried out across the region over the past 18 months.



Whatever. Any answer can be generated if you ask the question the right way. The figure of 95% public support is so far fetched to be without any credibility whatsoever. Drivers hate cameras??period. Why not get out of your office and ask a few of them yourself?



You are a total waste of time and effort and the sooner the public wakes up to how pointless you are the better.



Despite your less than enthusiatic support of the work that I do, I will continue to strive towards making the roads safer for all of us. Any efforts to save lives is not pointless and I'm glad to say that the vast majority of people do value and appreciate what we do. I hope to help avoid countless families having to suffer needless loss. Trying telling the parents of 7 year -old David Cameron, who was killed by a speeding driver in Newcastle, that getting people to slow down is "pointless".



Whilst any death of a child is tragic there are very few instances where pedestrians are killed on the pavements, when they are it is typically the result of a drink/drugged/dangerous driver (you didn?t mention how many of them your camera had caught?). When I was a kid I was taught the very simple rule that if I played in the road I would get killed. As a consequence, I learned at a young age to take responsibility for my actions and cross the road carefully.



Organisations like yours actively seek to demonise the driver and paint every pedestrian as totally blameless when the fundamental nature of a "knock down" is that the pedestrian has had to enter the driver's territory in order to get knocked down in the first place. The driver is now automatically blamed for every pedestrian related incident and forced to justify themselves whether guilty of any offence or not.



Your organisation is deeply unpopular, driven by the politically correct bandwagon and populated by social engineers who would happily justify bringing the whole of society to a halt down with the tired old ?If just one life is saved?.it will be worth it? Speed is a factor in accidents, of course it is, if you reduce everyone's speed to zero there will be no accidents. Better still lets ban cars entirely and we can all just get about by walking with our shopping carried on our backs in sacks. When are you people going to learn that free-will can't be manipulated just because it suits a politicians narrow purposes? Why do you think cars get more powerful each year and there has been a huge resurgence in the popularity of fast motorbikes? The more organizations like yours try to take our freedoms away, the more people will push back against you.



I hope you all collect your P45s soon.



At last I find something we can agree on. I would also like to be able to collect my P45 soon because it would mean that everyone had woken up to the dangers of excessive and inappropriate speed and had slowed down accordingly so no one was receiving any tickets.



Ha. I suppose you take the bus to work everyday and have never owned a car? I?ll also bet that if you counted up the points on every driving licence in your organisation you would mirror the rest of society exactly. You lot are the biggest bunch of hypocrites I have ever encountered.


Many thanks for your interest in Safe Speed for Life and I'm sorry I could not post all of this on the website as it would have taken up too much space due to the number of points you raised in one question, hence the personal reply.



Regards

Sarah Cossom

Communications Manager

[vecvechookattack]

3600 people die annually and 320,000 are injured on our roads.

70% of car drivers and 55% of HGV drivers exceed the 30 mph speed limit.

A pedestrian knocked down by a vehicle travelling at 40 mph has only a 5% chance of surviving; at 30 mph it is 45%, but at 20 mph the chances of surviving rise to 95%.

Where 20 mph zones have been introduced and enforced, all casualties have fallen by around 60%.

The typical sentence for a driver who kills is £250 and a few penalty points.

"We have been told officially that there will have to be three deaths on the lanes before official action is taken."

6 children are killed every week on our roads.

Road crashes are the single biggest killer of school-age children, accounting for two-thirds of premature child deaths.

Poor children are five times more like to be killed on the roads than richer children.

A 12 - 15 mph increase in speed results in noise levels going up by 4 -5 decibels. A car travelling at 31 mph makes one tenth as much noise as one going 56 mph.

The Transport Select Committee has called for a maximum 30 mph limit through villages.

In 1997, there were 15,000 horse related crashes, many of them involving speeding vehicles.

5000 barn owls, 40,000 deer and 50,000 badgers are killed on the roads each year by drivers driving too fast to take evasive action.

Merely enforcing the 70 mph limit on motorways would achieve between 1-6% of the Government¹s carbon dioxide reduction targets

[The Gorilla]

40,000 deer?? I don't think so. Have you ever seen the mess an adult deer makes of a car when they collide? Usually it goes deer 1 car owner 1..

You do spout some cr*p admin guru

[WebPilot]

Hogwash, vecvechookattack, hogwash.

I know which anti-speed pressure group you got your "stats" from and where they are not simply made up, they are extremely biased.

I mean, even at 10mph, do you honestly think anyone could take evasive action against a _barn owl_ FFS?

You'd do better to think for yourself than simply repeating the prejudices of others and making yourself look stupid.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Web'

If you check out all his other posts on all the other threads then that particular personality trait you refer to is actually quite reserved as the mans a total ar@e:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" a;cohol induced

[vecvechookattack]

Speed kills 800 a year
1 October 2004

New research shows excessive speed accounts for more than a quarter of all road deaths in the UK.

Published to coincide with detailed fatality figures for 2003, released yesterday, the Department for Transport (DfT) report studied tens of thousands of accidents over a four-year period. It shows that excessive speed is responsible for more than 800 deaths a year.

The DfT used 54 different possible causes to judge each accident and decided that excessive speed was a contributory factor in 28% of fatal crashes and 12% of all accidents.

In the research, some vehicles below legal limits were also considered to be travelling too fast, depending on the prevailing conditions.

The DfT says other contributory factors mask the part excessive speed has to play and can lead to its importance being underestimated.

Safety campaign group Brake is calling for an increase in the number of speed cameras and for hidden locations to be used. It says rules on when a speed camera can be used are too strict and need to be relaxed.

At 21%, the second biggest cause of fatal accidents was careless, thoughtless or reckless driving. Impairment from alcohol was identified as the sixth most common factor, with a part to play in 14% of all lethal accidents.



The DVLA is today warning motorists not to be tempted to use sprays which can make number plates unreadable by roadside cameras. It says more and more of the products are available over the internet but that motorists face fines of up to £1000 for attempting to dodge detection in this way.

[WebPilot]

I see you've made no attempt to defend your last risible post.

This may be of interest:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1665429,00.html

(A Police force is dismantling ten speed cameras and removing film from another 50 after the first official admission that badly positioned devices could undermine road safety).

You'll see that people who know about road safety, as opposed to narrow minded fanatics such as BRAKE, realise that road safety is a complicated and multi-dimensional subject that is not going to be be significantly increased by the panacea of hidden cameras et al.

Now then, to turn to your latest parrot-like post

You should be aware that "excessive speed" is not the same as "illegal speed". And to take a rather less emotive view of the results - "some 75% of all road deaths are NOT caused by excessive speed". Therefore, the emphasis on speeding is clearly out of line with the main causes of accidents.

Your headline "Speed Kills 800 a Year" therefore owes more to Tabloid hyperbole than any dispassionate analysis and also shows you have not read and understood the study.

So, please think for yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting this nonsense.

The evidence is so overwhelming, that I have to agree with Always_broken_in_wilts.

[comedyjock]

The original post was only meant to help people who have been wrongly convicted like myself but anyway just to stoke the fire a bit more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4104180.stm

Roads underspending sparks fears

Highway authorities have a legal duty of care to road users
Nearly half of England's local councils may be underspending on road repairs, despite 20% of the country's roads being classed as substandard.
In a survey of 88 authorities by BBC One's Real Story, 47% admitted to spending below their budget on road repairs in the last 12 months.

The AA Motoring Trust claimed that England's roads were worse now than in the 1970s.

But the Highways Agency said the safety of road users was their top priority.

Slippery when dry

In response to the Real Story survey, AA spokesman Paul Watters said: "We looked at some data for 2002 which shows that in areas that had underspent there were 900 more casualties than those that had overspent.

"The overspenders had good reductions in casualties."

Nine out of 10 English roads are looked after by local authorities.

According to the government's own most recent maintenance survey, one in every five miles of existing main roads are now potentially dangerous due to low skid resistance.

Real Story investigated concerns about one of the most widely used road surfaces in the UK - "thin road surfacing", also known as Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA).

Warning signs are critical, as is re-checking

Paul Watters, AA
Eleven English authorities reported problems with "early life skid resistance" - which means that in the first few months after the surface is laid road users are required to drive as if they were in wet conditions, regardless of the weather.

The programme discovered that the Highways Agency is so concerned that it has commissioned a series of skid tests on the surface. The results from the Transport Research Laboratory will be available later this year.

Paul Watters said: " We really need to bottom this out because at the moment if drivers see a new surface they assume it's perfectly good and far better than what was there.

"With Stone Mastic Asphalt, that isn't the case. The road in fact behaves like a wet road, even when it is dry."

A Derbyshire Police accident investigator, Sergeant Jim Allen, told Real Story he became aware of the problems caused by SMA when conducting routine tests in the summer of 2001.

"When we were skidding the police car over these road surfaces we were skidding for further than we would have expected to do and further than we had become used to on older road surfaces."

Compensation claims

As a result of Sergeant Allen's findings, Derbyshire County Council has erected warning signs whenever SMA is newly laid.

He said: "SMA is a kind of cake mix within the tar and it's all laid on the road surface in one go which means that all the stones have a coating of the binder material which is oil based.

"When you skid a car over that, one of the by products of friction is heat and we believed that that heat was melting the binder which was lubricating the patch between the tyre and the road and that's what was extending the skidding distance."

Despite the concerns, Real Story's survey has revealed that at least 16 local authorities plan to increase their use of thin road surfacing over the next five years.

The AA Motoring Trust said there had been a 50% rise in motorists claiming damages against councils after sub-standard roads have damaged their vehicles or caused road accidents in the past 12 months.

"Road users should be left in no doubt if a new surface needs 'bedding in'. Warning signs are critical as is re-checking to establish when a safe level of skid resistance returns."

[Maisiebabe]

Ah yes, SMA, indeed mastic itself, is one of the greatest hazards to those on two wheels. Paricularly when its used on city streets/ring-roads etc. In dry weather you get a build up of deposits, grease, oil diesel, which lurk there waiting for the first shower of rain. Then you have a lethal surface. We can claim if we can prove the surface was a major factor in an accident; you can also claim against the council if your car/bike is damaged due to a poor road surface, i.e potholes.

As for speed cameras, it's the forward facing ones that I love and loath in equal measure. Love them when I'm on the bike, loath them when I'm in the car.

Anybody got any favourite roads? For me the A697, only 10 cameras, great road, great scenery. When you get to the end turn left for the A68 and frighten yourself silly on the switchbacks!

[Facingrear]

Discovered excellent web site at:-

http://www.e-database.co.uk/

Since freedom of information act, all photographs taken on road side cameras that recorded only a small infridgement ie; 32 mph, are stored on a date base for future referal should you speed again. You can log on and request new log on and password for 1st time users and seek wether your registration has been recorded. If found it actually displays time, date, grid refrence of camera and picture taken. Try it....very interesting...big brother is out there!

[skybiggles]

''National security would be endangered'' if idiot squadron leader pilot Philip Whitcombe at Lyneham was to lose his driving licence for 3 months,, according to his economical with the truth barrister, after the idiot was caught doing 119 mph... Would not be able to do his job, apparently...

Should get on his bike :mad:

Still, the ban was only reduced by a month :O

Still use his bike, or walk for 8 weeks. Trust we won't go to war in that time and nat-sy won't suffer.

How many kids or other innocent road users have nearly been killed by this moron ????

Will he learn his lesson, now he has been named and shamed in court ???

Obviously his personal qualities are not of a high standard and he won't be considered fit for promotion anytime soon, or in next decade, will he ???

[Maple 01]

Probably NIL, however, how many have been endangered by those who dodder along, not indicating, not paying attention or have shot responses/poor eyesight but continue to drive? - or are they OK because they drive below the speed limit?

The good Squadron Leader might have behaved like a numpty but I doubt he's deserving of your vitriol (never met the guy BTW)

caught doing 119 mph...

What/where/when?

Do we have to see the old and discredited 'speed kills' debate again? It’s INAPROPRIATE speed that kills, 2am on the M4?

If they refused to promote anyone with driving convictions the armed forces would have problems filling the manning plot

[Training Risky]

I know Phil.

But I'd much rather get to know and be mates with knee-jerk-speed-'safety'-drama queens........ oh yes!:rolleyes:

Thanks for your pearls of wisdom, "Biggles"

[SASless]

"Speed" does not kill or cause accidents.

The lack of maneuver or an improper maneuver immediately prior to the crash causes death and mayhem.

If one drives at 200mph on the motorway and there is no one about to even see that....what is the damage?

If one drives 10 mph over the limit and smacks another....is speed alone the issue? What if one is driving 10 mph under the posted limit but smacks someone....is speed an issue?

It is when one considers all of the other factors does speed become an issue. Traffic congestion, pedestrians, weather, road condition, sobriety, and distractions all affect the issue of "speed".

An example of what I am trying to say here....2AM, after a long day of work, and a stop off at the Pub...very foggy night....car with bad brakes....driver creeping along groping for his home...runs over a kerb and finds himself in a hedge.

Speed had nothing to do with it...beyond maybe he was driving too fast for the conditions then prevailing.

Those that harp about "speed" need to realize it is not just raw "speed" that is the issue.....it is just one of many issues that define a dangerous driver.

[November4]

Fatalities rise in speed camera hotspots (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/19/gatso_deaths_link/)

The UK government recently suspended the deployment of more speeds cameras pending the outcome of of a University College London probe into whether they actually save lives.

We have no doubt, then, that the investigators will be taking a close interest in the Motorcycle News revelation that road deaths have risen dramatically in those areas favoured with the most Gatsos.

According to the MCN figures - joyfully reported in today's Sun - Hertfordshire saw a 24 per cent rise in speed camera numbers between 2003 and 2004. In the same period, road fatalities rose by 34 per cent.

Likewise in Wiltshire, camera numbers went up 14 per cent, and those killed 22 per cent. In County Durham, meanwhile, a lone Gatso oversaw a 22 per cent drop in fatalities

The Sun is also delighted to report that in North Wales, where "Gatso fan Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has a league table for traffic cops", 56,247 speeding tickets were issued although this had little effect on safety, with an 18 per cent increase in road deaths.

The reason? Simple, says safety expert Paul Smith: “Crashes are avoided by making a safe plan based on what you see. Cameras move attention away from hazards to speedometers.”

And according to the Daily Mail, Co Durham have deployed more traffic officers who are reducing accidents by looking out for the uninsured, no MOT, no tax idiots.

[Duplo]

I fully accept I'm guilty of speeding but post this for info:

Both offences within a month of each other and driving a 'reasonably priced car'.

1. Dorset, Stourpaine - just over 30 mph and caught by chap in van... £60 fine and 3 points.

2. Powys, Bwlch - just over 30 mph (but less than above) and caught by chap with speed gun... means tested for fine (which they checked) £250 plus £35 in fees and 4 points.

Like I said, just for info... Dupe's

[brakedwell]

Does it make any difference if a pedestrian is run down by a rich man or a poor man, assuming Mr Rich isn't driving an expensive 4X4? Fines should be relevent to the offence not income.

[adr]

Does it make any difference if a pedestrian is run down by a rich man or a poor man, assuming Mr Rich isn't driving an expensive 4X4? Fines should be relevent to the offence not income.
One way of interpreting that sentence is that it expresses a belief that income should not be taken into account when setting fines.

A fine is a punishment. Not a payment. To ignore income when setting a fine would be unjust. Let me illustrate.

Fred runs over your wife in his car. He is at fault, and is fined £800. Fred's a glass collector in the pub: he arranges a payment schedule with the clerk of the court. It takes him four weeks to earn the money to pay his fine.

Tarquin runs over your daughter in his car, in circumstances astonishingly similar to your wife's unfortunate accident. He, being at fault, is fined £800 (magistrates having been barred, in this hypothetical scenario, from considering income when setting fines). Tarquin is a very successful City trader: he pays the fine there and then out of what he considers looses change. He'll earn it back in less than half a day.

So for the same offence, the poor man is punished with the loss of four week's income, and the rich man, with less than half a day's.

adr

[Echo 5]

Thought I would just add this one for a bit of mischief :

............................................................ ............................................

While I was driving down the A40 the other day, (going a little faster than I should have been) I passed under a bridge only to see a copper on the other side with a radar gun laying in wait.

The copper pulled me over, walked up to the car, and with that classic patronizing smirk asked:

"Runway too short?"

To which I replied,

"I'm late for work."

To which he asked,

"What do you do?"

"I'm a rectum stretcher," I responded.

The copper was surprised and confused.

"A what?

A rectum stretcher??

And just what does a rectum stretcher do?"

"Well," I said,

"I start by inserting one finger, then I work my way up to two fingers, then three, then four, then with my whole hand in, work side to side until I can get both hands in, and then I slowly but surely stretch the hole, until it's about 6 feet."

"Then the copper asked questioningly and cautiously,

"And just what do you do with a six-foot arsehole?"

To which I politely replied,

"You give him a radar gun and park him behind a bridge..."

............................................................ .............................................

[Champagne Anyone?]

Interesting thing found here with the site that facing forward posted....

Inserted my car details and found it to be recorded in Cleveland doing 81.2mph on the 19th of oct. I was however at this time more than 100 miles away fitting radiators in my house! And never went out all day! (nor did the car!)

Funny that the picture evedence wasn't available.

Will wait with baited breath for the next two weeks to see if anything happens to come through the post.



Well this site seems to be a spoof.... Entered another registration number from a mates ex police unmarked 4x4 Sierra Who was working with me.... Guess what, his car was on the same road at the same time and at the same speed!!


Put the Kwakka's number on the screen and that too was doing the same speed at the same time this time in cambridgeshire!

Think I can rest assured that this site is a non starter!

[DuaneDibley]

Champers Anyone......

Was your last a double wind-up?

[southside]

Ha Ha....either Champers is winding us all up OR he really thinks thats a gen site....


Hope its the former.

[Champagne Anyone?]

Nooo guys its all true honest... Just try and put your details in and see......





:E :E :E :E :p :p :p :p