PDA

View Full Version : Speeding rated 7th in accident survey


yintsinmerite
6th Apr 2004, 13:36
Well, just thought I would fuel the old speed camera debate again..

This morning I heard a radio piece in which in a study of 60000+ accidents in I think it was 2001, it was found that speeding was only rated the 7th most popular cause of accident. Not suprisingly not paying attention, without due care etc. all featured above it. The most interesting part was that the figures were apparently gleaned from appendix A of a Home Office report. Further analysis is taking place to identify if there is any correlation between camera's and accidents caused by people not paying attention to the roads.

So, how come we have a plague of camera's ??

High Wing Drifter
6th Apr 2004, 13:43
yintsinmerite,

I think the point about speeding is that not only are you less likely to crash should you or somebody else do something stupid, but also when you eventually do come to a halt you and your fellow occupants are more likely to be alive and in one piece. Having said that, FWIW, 70mph on the motorway is too slow. I think an 80 limit would be more sensible. There are too many idiots blasting along at 100+ which is way to excessive.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a 20 limit on residential streets will save lives because drivers and kids don't give their fullest attention to the situation. The fact that people will still be speeding at 30 rather than 40 will be a big help methinks.

Cheers!
HWD.

eal401
6th Apr 2004, 14:04
So, how come we have a plague of camera's ??

Because it's the easy option.

The London Road Safety Partnership have just spent over 80,000 on a leaflet campaign. What topic do you think was covered?

a) The importance of wearing a seatbelt
b) Don't drive tired
c) How to adapt your driving for a safer London
d) Why speed cameras are great

I have added an appropriate hint. :mad:

Capt.KAOS
6th Apr 2004, 14:16
So, how come we have a plague of camera's ?? Same as everywhere in da world. Additional income.

Ozzy
6th Apr 2004, 14:47
Statistics and damned lies. I recall a study a few years back that noted one third of car accidents involved alcohol. I had to convince a particularly numerically deficient buddy that this did not mean that drinking before driving reduced the likelihood of having an accident from 66% to 33%:rolleyes:

Ozzy

Blacksheep
7th Apr 2004, 06:00
I had an accident. It was due to driving without due care and attention. I drove over a kitten sleeping on our drive but it could just as well have been a child - I know of someone who drove over his three year old daughter in just the same way. I was doing nearly two m.p.h at the time. My wife hit another car. She damaged both vehicles which needed repairs costing nearly 20 dollars. She was doing one m.p.h. at the time and the other car was stationary. A friend's son was driving without due care and attention and ran into a tree while doing 40 m.p.h. The car was a write-off, he will walk with a limp for the rest of his life. He was in a 30 m.p.h speed limit zone. Speed increases danger - that's what speed limits are for.

Why do the police concentrate on road users instead of dealing with real crime? Because road users kill and maim more than ten times as many people as real criminals. Forget the statistics and stick with common sense. Speed cameras don't just produce revenue, they save lives.

eal401
7th Apr 2004, 08:28
Speed cameras don't just produce revenue, they save lives.

Please back that up with statistics if you don't mind.

The county I live in, Lancashire, has the most speed cameras of any county in the UK. The number of road fatalities has subsequently...........INCREASED!

Explain the above quote when the local Road Safety Partnership ignores residents concerns on a 30mph road which IS a danger, then places a mobile camera on a urban dual carriageway flanked by a factory and wasteland on a Sunday afternoon!!!!

I think some people need to turn down the rose tint on their glasses!

a is dum
7th Apr 2004, 08:46
When reading the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3603439.stm) it talks about THE WORLD:

"By 2020 road injuries could overtake HIV and tuberculosis to rank third in the causes of premature death and disability around the world."


Please go ahead with your UK speed camera debate, but it is not the basis of the report, as far as I can make out.

M.Mouse
7th Apr 2004, 09:00
A friend's son was driving without due care and attention and ran into a tree while doing 40 m.p.h. The car was a write-off, he will walk with a limp for the rest of his life. He was in a 30 m.p.h speed limit zone. Speed increases danger - that's what speed limits are for.

Before seat belts were compulsory a lady friend of mine was flung from a car and survived the crash because she was thrown clear before he vehicle was crushed. I no more find that one off statistic making a convincing case for not wearing a seatbelt than I do your one off statistic convincing me that speed is inherently dangerous. Drive head on into a tree at 20 mph could kill, the cause of the accident you quote was lack of due care and attention, that is what increased his danger.

"By 2020 road injuries could overtake HIV and tuberculosis to rank third in the causes of premature death and disability around the world."

Heck, you are not telling me there is an inherent danger in everyday life , are you?

eal401
7th Apr 2004, 09:08
but it is not the basis of the report, as far as I can make out.

It was also not the basis of this thread either. Please pay attention at the back!!

topcat450
7th Apr 2004, 09:12
The county I live in, Lancashire, has the most speed cameras of any county in the UK. The number of road fatalities has subsequently...........INCREASED

On the police prog on TV last night they said the same had happened in South Yorks. :rolleyes: They still insist on putting up more camera's though.

Loc-out
7th Apr 2004, 09:20
I think one of the biggest causes of accidents is "tailgating"

yintsinmerite
7th Apr 2004, 09:49
Thanks for that EAL - the artical that was highlighted by 'a is dumb' was not what prompted me to start the thread. It was a radio interview on BBC Three Counties (well someone has to listen to it).

Lets get one thing straight - no sane person would ever suggest that speed limits do not have their place. I think 30 in a built up area may in fact be too fast and certainly near schools, the limit should be about 20 and strictly enforced. These are not the speed limits or camera's which wind people up and make them want to vent on this type of board. What annoys people is the
mobile camera on a urban dual carriageway flanked by a factory and wasteland on a Sunday afternoon and the like. It is the feeling that a significant number of these are not there to save lives, but purely as an alternative method of taxation and one I hope will bite the govenment (any government), very hard at some stage in the future. I have been told that statistics show camera's have done nothing to lower deaths (although I cannot back that up and dont have the time at this moment to do any digging around for figures).

I recall seeing an episode of Top Gear in which they looked at the 10 most dangerous roads in Britain and found hardly a camera in place and yet on a whole load of other roads with almost unblemished records, camera's were everywhere.

Come on all you holier than thou people, do you just for a moment suspect that there may be just the slightest hint of a motive other than road safety behind these things?

Contrast this with something going on around our area at the moment. A group of people going around in an old D reg Mercedes, breaking into horse yards and stealing horseboxes, lorries saddles and anything else they can. They have good descriptions of all 3 of the people concerned and apparently have a good idea of who they are. What is the police attitude to these crimes? They have one person working apparently part time covering the whole of Hertfordshire. They can't get a conviction with a camera so they just don't care - leave it to the insurance companies to sort out. Meanwhile, they have a couple of guys sneaking around layby's in their camera equiped transit nicking people for going too fast on an open road. Geez, is this policing by consent?

With camera's we are being taxed in an underhand, deceitful way - while real crime is almost ignored.

(and before anyone asks, no I have not been nicked by one - on roads where they are, I spend all my time watching the speedo.)

eal401
7th Apr 2004, 10:01
I recall seeing an episode of Top Gear in which they looked at the 10 most dangerous roads in Britain and found hardly a camera in place and yet on a whole load of other roads with almost unblemished records, camera's were everywhere.

That is a very good point. The Lancashire County Council website has a very powerful tool called Mario (http://mario.lancashire.gov.uk/) which allows you to view records of accidents etc. plus details of casualties overlaid maps of the area. Looking in depth at this in the Preston area, it is surprising to see not only where cameras are placed, but where they are not!

The mobile camera I refered to above, did not have any collisions recorded apart from at a junction 100 yards up the road. I wonder what caused these accidents, were they speed or were they people not paying attention, jumping traffic lights etc?

I am not against the policing of speed limits, however this country has screwed up royally with deploying the means to do so.

speedbird_heavy
7th Apr 2004, 10:01
Someone I used work with had his house broken into whilst he was on holiday. It took 3 days for the police to arrive and do the usual finger prints and stuff, yet it took 2 days for the police to issue him with a speeding ticket.

Mmmmmm so where is all the police resources going??? Looks like the easy option to me. They get to solve the "crime" if they chase the motorist and make their "Crime Solved" figures look better.

Slim20
7th Apr 2004, 10:30
I got stuck in a jam on the M1 on Friday evening, and decided to exit and rejoin the motorway further down. I passed through a town centre, all brightly lit, then passed into a suburban single-lane carriageway which was unlit and quite dark. There was a 40 limit, I reckon I was doing just under 50 at the time.

As I passed around a bend I was instantly blinded by a speed camera positioned just around the bend facing INTO oncoming traffic. I was dazzled, and had to brake sharply as I honestly couldn't see where i was going.

Once the stars in front of my eyes had gone i proceeded another 200yds down the road where it once again was brightly lit.

Now, you can argue that the speed limit was set because of the change from light into dark, but if I'd had an accident there it would have been directly attributable to the speed camera and not the speed.

I have written to [you know who you are] County Council for the most ludicrous, DANGEROUSLY placed speed camera i have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

phnuff
7th Apr 2004, 11:09
I have had exactly the same blinding experience with a goddam camera. 5 years ago, when the phnufflet was born, I was driving home from Cambridge along the A603 at about 4 in the morning when a motorbike came the other way at one hell of a rate with less lights on than he should have had when suddenly FLASH FLASH, he set of the camera on his side of the road while I was no more than 25 feet from the camera going in the other direction. i.e. In my eyes. Quite apart from the 'what the hell was that' response to the light, my night vision was destroyed for several seconds during which time I wouldn't have had a clue where I was steering.

Thanks Cambs police - a major contribution to road safety. BTW, didnt you let a sex offender be a school caretaker because you didn't understand the data protection act?

(Signed an angry phnuff)

fireflybob
7th Apr 2004, 11:26
All accidents are a product of the "system". It's facile to suggest that the only cause of an accident is speeding (or anything else come to that).

Why in the UK are we having to make these journeys bt car anyway? I think we all know the answer - successive governments have lamentably failed to address the issue of a cohesive planned public transport system which is cheap, regular and reliable.

Many of those who post on Pprune, I guess, are engaged in the aviation business which operates H24. Try and get to work by public transport at 0200 hours - unless you are lucky it's virtually impossible so you end up using the car.

Speed cameras are like putting a band aid on a gaping wound - they might have some effect but it's only cosmetic.

Capt.KAOS
7th Apr 2004, 11:57
I've a drivers license since 1967 and consider myself a fast driver with an average annual mileage of 20K miles. In those 36 years I had one accident which was my fault (one week after I got my license) and another one which wasn't my fault (23 years ago), knock on wood.

I drive fast where I can do it without hindering or annoying the other traffic participants. Yet I'm constantly busy avoiding collisions with careless, ignorant and maybe drunk drivers, egocentric bicycle riders, scooters who think they're above the law, and elder people driving considerably below the max speed whilst never, ever looking in their mirrors.

I would love to use the public transport, but since it cost me twice as much to use the bus to get to the next town once half an hour or hour and subsequently have to change 2-3 busses to get to the next-next town, I'm forced to use my own transport.

Research in Belgium and Holland revealed that it's very well possible to have a free public transport and with a well laid out connection schedule a lot more people would use it.Unfortunately public transport is on a very low level of interest for our government and unfortunately 80% of all traffic, road, gas related taxes goes into other black holes.

If the government would put the same amount of effort into public transport as they do to speeding cars, traffic would be a lot safer.

eal401
7th Apr 2004, 12:18
but since it cost me twice as much to use the bus

Travelling from Preston to Winchester tomorrow, back on Easter Monday.

Filled the car up yesterday for 36, it's about 230 miles, so will use, very roughly, about 25 worth? Same again on the way back (I could work this out, but it's not really needed!) so say a round trip, by car, for 2 people = 50-ish. Oh, and 3 and a half hours each way.

By train, can do it direct both ways, 4 hours 40 down, 4 hours 30 back. Cheapest cost? 147.

Car: 50 tops
Train: 147

Which would you choose?

Lance Murdoch
7th Apr 2004, 17:28
Sorry Ive come to this thread a bit late but Id like to take issue with the poster who stated that 'motorists kill far more people than criminals'. On the face of it, that may be true but I suggest that the real reason this is so is that most people when mugged, for example, hand over their money without argument or a fight, similarly most people wouldnt disturb a burglar. If every victim of crime started fighting back then it would be a different story.
Another point is that I read of a study once that concluded that old people who had been burgled died on average younger than those who hadnt been a crime victim. Lets put a stop to the silly comparison between road fatalities and crime fatalities.

Speed cameras are an excellent idea but unfortunately they have been abused by the partnerships which are nothing more than a self sustaining public sector bureaucracy.

Flying Lawyer
9th Apr 2004, 19:49
BBC News report Radar clocks Mini at Mach 3

A Belgian motorist was left stunned after authorities sent him a speeding ticket for travelling in his Mini at three times the speed of sound.
The ticket claimed the man had been caught driving at 3380 kph (2,100 mph) - or Mach 3 speed - in a Brussels suburb, a Belgian newspaper reported.

However, police later admitted that a faulty radar had been responsible for the Mini's incredible feat.

The police have since apologised to the man and promised to fix the radar.


Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3613715.stm)

henry crun
9th Apr 2004, 22:10
Thats nothing FL, the New Zealand police have done much better than that.

Justin Lee was pulled over in January this year and fined $120 for speeding at 6.25 pm on June 23 1974.

Mr Lee wrote to the police saying " I do not have a very clear recollection of much at all before I was 3 1/2 years old, so I rang Mum to see if she could remember what I was doing that day. She said that coincidentally I was born on that day at around 5 pm.

He was born near Wellington about 650 kms south of where the alleged speeding offence took place, and so would have had to drive at approximately 1000 kph to get there. Pretty good for a new born baby !
:)

visibility3miles
10th Apr 2004, 03:24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3613715.stm

Radar clocks Mini at Mach 3 speed
A Belgian motorist was left stunned after authorities sent him a speeding ticket for travelling in his Mini at three times the speed of sound.

The ticket claimed the man had been caught driving at 3380 kph (2,100 mph) - or Mach 3 speed - in a Brussels suburb, a Belgian newspaper reported.

However, police later admitted that a faulty radar had been responsible for the Mini's incredible feat.

The police have since apologised to the man and promised to fix the radar.

The incident took place in December, but only came to light when Belgian prosecutors were asked to follow up the unpaid fine.

"We called the local police to find out what height the plane caught speeding along the Boulevard Lambermont was flying at," a member of the Brussels public prosecutor's office joked to Belgium's La Derniere Heure newspaper.

Police also said they had made a mistake in still sending out the ticket, given that it was impossible - even for a doughty little Mini - for a car to have travelled so fast.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/3613715.stm

Published: 2004/04/09 10:57:19 GMT

BBC MMIV

henry crun
10th Apr 2004, 03:52
Already posted in the Speeding Rated 7th thread.

mini
10th Apr 2004, 16:23
Not me...

Honest:E

IB4138
10th Apr 2004, 16:31
My son, when aged 15, was stopped for alledgedly going through a speed trap at 41mph in a 30 zone, on his pushbike, by a rabid speed cop!:)

IB4138
10th Apr 2004, 17:46
When I was back in the UK, last summer, their was an article in the local rag regarding the fact that the speed camera in the village had been destroyed with a burning tyre necklace. The police were bemoaning the fact and did the public realise that it would cost 10,000 to replace the camera, the monies having to be taken from the fines pot produced by speed cameras. It also reported three recent similar attacks in the locality, where cameras had needed repairs.

So instead of being able to put up a new camera and increase fine revenue, by catching more evil speeding motorists, the TVP had had to replace one.

The camera destroyed and its replacement are of the type that catches you approaching it and not from behind. Every offender, with this type of camera, gets a blast of bright white light in the face and is blinded for a short period. This is highly dangerous and should lead to these cameras being banned. Written complaints regarding this camera have not had the courtesy of a reply from TVP.

Two years ago, the TVP claimed they did not have enough police over the Christmas/New Year period to open the local nick every day over the holiday period. They did however have sufficient numbers to be able to station a mobile van mounted camera, in the bus layby 20 yards from the above fixed camera site, to catch any motorist who speeded up after passing the fixed camera.

During this period I tried to call the police to take action with vandals throwing bottles at cars and shops on two occasions at the back of our flat. Could they find a patrol car to attend?..could they hell!

phnuff
10th Apr 2004, 21:16
I know, there are never police around when they are really needed. Yesterday afternoon, the family phnuff went visiting and to cut a long story short, while phnuff females went off baby watching I ended up in a wonderful village pub in the Surrey countryside . After a couple of pints of wonderful Sussex Ale (10/10 by the way), we were sitting outside when a Citroen arrived in the car park and out popped a 'resprayed Surrey blond' of about 40 in a leather suit and high heals. It was pretty obvious that she was not 100% on the case as she forgot to put on her handbrake and seemed to have a problem walking straight. Anyway, into the pub she totters, orders and quickly downs a large G&T before tottering back out to her car which had by now rolled back onto the grass, climbing in and in driving off into the distance. The guy I was drinking with mentioned her to the landlord who said he wouldn't have served her had he known she was driving but as he says, when he has called them before, they take at least 20 minutes to arrive. He for one wouldn't have wanted to try to stop her driving because she had she would have shouted the place down.

Still, I bet the speed camera's had plenty of film and managed to nick someone for driving at a non dangerous speed, so that's ok isn't it!!