PDA

View Full Version : Road Safety


Compass Call
6th Apr 2005, 21:48
The Safe Speed Campaign had this to say in the Daily Express today:-

"And though the impact on road safety is often cited as making the cameras necessary, the campaign group said road deaths increased by 2.5% in 2003."

"Our extensive research shows clearly that routine speeding by otherwise responsible motorists is not a serious road safety issue, yet while the focus remains on speed other far more important issues are neglected."

Just goes to show that 'safety cameras' are not as safe as we are led to believe. Still reckon we should have more Plods patrolling and catching the lunatic drivers and boy racers.


CC

Unwell_Raptor
6th Apr 2005, 22:04
There is not enough evidence to prove your assertions. There is an increasing mismatch in terms of weight between the largest vehicles and the smallest . That alone will influence the casualty figures.

Safespeed are single-issue fanatics, and the Express group is more interested in soft-porn chatlines than road safety. There is plenty of room for debate. What is quoted above is not debate.

Onan the Clumsy
6th Apr 2005, 22:28
And though the impact on road safety is often cited as making the cameras necessary, the campaign group said road deaths increased by 2.5% in 2003. So to extrapolate from your assertation, the speed cameras have had no effect and should be removed.

HA!

A little like dusting Picadilly Circus with anti-elephant powder.

Jerricho
6th Apr 2005, 22:42
And so we begin again :rolleyes:

(Feets, you still got that HSV?)

BlueDiamond
7th Apr 2005, 00:09
Here we go again.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 08:49
"Our extensive research shows clearly that routine speeding by otherwise responsible motorists is not a serious road safety issue, yet while the focus remains on speed other far more important issues are neglected."
Well, I can say that half of that statement is absolutely true!!

Hint: It's the second half.

ATNotts
7th Apr 2005, 09:19
Another British pressure group, Brake, ascertains, quite logically, that speed kills. You can't argue about that.

Less speed, as far as they are concerned, kills less - so the logical conclusion, is to return to the early days of motoring and have all vehicles moving at walking pace with a man carrying a red flag in front of each vehicle.

I'm with Compass Call on the real dangers on the roads - boy (and girl) racers, mobile phone users, and druggies.

If we were really serious about road safety we'd tackle those issues, and raise the driving age to 21!

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 09:46
The day we have tailgating cameras, speed cameras that can detect inappropriate speed, mobile phone usage cameras* etc. etc. is the day we'll be serious about road safety. Until then, GATSOs and mobile scameras will continue to be window dressing gimmicks.


*What is it about people who get on their mobile phone when they've just left their house? Tw*ts.

Send Clowns
7th Apr 2005, 11:30
Unwell_Raptor

So you defend the single-issue fanatics of the "Safety Camera" lobby, but condemn this group as single-issue fanatics when they try to point out that safety is not achieved by concentrating on a single-issue? Not sure you have the idea of what "single-issue" actually means, old boy. I assume that the reason you don't think the statistics given and the interpretation are part of the debate is because they don't agree with your viewpoint. Your contiribution, blaming it on lvariation in car size is just made up - not based on any statistics of what sized cars are involved.

Since death rates were falling steadily until the mid 90s, the fall slowed and has now turned to an increase there is something being done wrong. The only major national change that was not happening before the mid 1990s has been the spread of fixed cameras and increase of mobile cameras at inappropriate sites.

As an aside, more "safety" camera farce: I saw a mobile one the other day by a dual carriageway, limit 50 mph. This road (on which 70 mph would be safe - it is isolated from any pedestrian areas) already has 2 cameras each side within a mile or so. The mobile camera was right where the road came out of the built-up area, was then in open fields, and changed limit to 70 mph within 200 yards with no change in circumstances. The cars also approach down a gradient, so if concentrating, say, on traffic rather than staring at the speedometer it is easy for speed to creep up.

Can anyone guess why they sited the camera there?

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 11:54
Can anyone guess why they sited the camera there?
Certainly can!! ;)

The PR person from our local Road Safety partnership is regularly on the letters page of the local paper. Her main role appears to be to show that PR stands for Public Ridicule as she never have anything beneficial to say!

Lancashire have started positioning their mobile cameras on the opposite side of the road to the traffic targeted, particularly on roads as SC has described. Taking them out of the driver's natural sightline proves they have one purpose alone.

And please don't anyone waste our time with the "well don't speed then" whine, that is NOT the point we are arguing!

Grainger
7th Apr 2005, 12:09
Interestingly enough I followed a marked Police car into a 30mph zone last night.

As I always do I slowed down to 30.0 mph as I passed the sign. And - you've guessed it - the cops disappeared into the distance ! Must have been doing 38-40. Not on a call, no blue lights, and no reduction in speed. This on a stretch of road where I've seen them in the past zapping people as they pass the exact same speed limit sign.

One law for them and another for us . . .

Onan the Clumsy
7th Apr 2005, 13:26
You can all argue against speed cameras as much as you want, but let's face it, a drug crazed boy racer gabbing into his phone to his truant girlfriend about her latest pregnancy is a lot more dangerous if his rice burning wing wearing pile of sh!t is going ten miles above the limit.

Laws are after all laws are they not?

High Wing Drifter
7th Apr 2005, 13:44
I'm pretty convinced that speed is the reason for injury and death, but I don't think it is necessarily the cause. I think it is attitude and style. As mentioned before, the pillocks who like to use up 1.5 lanes whilst on the phone, etc.

One possible long term solution that avoid all the Big Brother
gizmos is to limit bhp/tonne. As an example:

The basic driving license (stage 1) would entitle you to a 70 bhp/tonne car. A stage 2 license a 100 bhp/tonne, a stage 3 a 200 bhp/tonne and a stage 4 unlimited.

Any convictions with the last five years would prevent upgrading. Upgrading requires training. A dangerous/due care driving conviction without accident or injury sees you being demoted a stage....


...something like that.

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 13:50
All these pro-speed camera types.

I am driving along a 40mph road. A pedestrian runs/walks/whatever into the road. I hit him/her and injure/kill them.

I was doing 35mph.

What good did the speed camera do?


The speed at which accidents occur compared to the limit of the road always seems to be the missing factor!

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 13:51
Here we go again.

Oi, Bluey. I said that first. ;)


And please don't anyone waste our time with the "well don't speed then" whine, that is NOT the point we are arguing!

But it's true........... :rolleyes:

You speed, you get done, TFB. No matter how underhanded or sneaky you think the law enforcement agency of your choice is.

(Lets see if you guys can get it to page 9 like here again. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147542) )

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 13:57
But it's true...........
So sad Jerricho. I thought you were intelligent.
No matter how underhanded or sneaky you think the law enforcement agency of your choice is.
I'm not talking about "underhanded" (Well, not much but it leads onto....) I'm talking about "inadequate/ineffective/useless/pointless/underacheiving/etc. etc."

But I've been along this road too many times. The "don't speed" whiners are too stupid to understand the concept of being anti-camera/pro-speed enforcement.

If you really, really, really don't get it, drive along a road with a GATSO at the speed limit and see the behaviour of other drivers. Then, it might just squeeze into your brains what my problem with the speed camera system is.

But I won't hold my breath.

Greenie from Hell
7th Apr 2005, 14:05
You speed, you get done, TFB

True,
BUT

You drive without insurance, You don't get done
You drive without an MOT, You don't get done
You steal a car,............
You drive dangerously.................
you drive whilst talking on a mobile...............

etc, etc, etc

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 14:18
You drive without insurance, You don't get done
Not necessarily true. The local paper is full of such incidents daily. However, the fine you receive will be much less than the value of fully comp. insurance.
You drive without an MOT, You don't get done
As above, the fine will equal or be slightly higher than the cost of an MOT. If you are lucky, your being done for both and can get a combined discount. ;)
You steal a car,............
Probably true!
You drive dangerously.................
Ditto!
you drive whilst talking on a mobile...............
DEFINITELY true! I have seen police cars pass drivers yapping on mobiles with no reaction.

Don't forget also, speed cameras only judge based on the speed limit. So, in that 50mph zone, you can do 49mph in thick fog without fear. :rolleyes:

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 14:37
Eal, elicting responses like that from you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Especially when you jump up on your little soapbox and start waving your stinky "speed camera nappy" like a rude little school child with your insults when somebody differs from your opinion. Might work in the school yard mate, doesn't work here.

You're quite happy to sit behind your little keyboard and question the intelligence of others. Get it through your thick head.............IF YOU DON'T SPEED YOU WON'T GET CAUGHT!!!.

On a slight tangent, I would love to see a system that ensures licenced drivers are tested every 3 years or so to enure they can meet a standard sufficient to say "Yup, they can still drive" (like holding a pilots/ATC licence). Ain't gonna happen though in my lifetime.

Are you crusading for all your fellow road users? I highly doubt it. Raging against the system, that sounds a little more like it.

There is no denying there are some real cocks out there on the road. Yes we've all seen Monkey-boy in his XR3i blat along at 55mph, come to the speed camera and hit the breaks for it then speed off again. Thing is, for you to be affected by his breaking means that you must have been at least doing the same speed as him to be close enough to warrant a similar reaction :rolleyes:

There is also no denying it's an easy cop for the law enforcement agency. You hear the constant arguments "Why aren't they out there catching real bad guys etc." Guess what, as long as people are going to speed, the police are happily going to take the revenue. Got that into your thick head? It's not rocket science, it's a good money earner. Is what they're doing right? Under the law, yes it is. Does it make the road a safer place, probably not (as we all know, you can make statistics pretty much support whatever you want.)

Welcome to the world of 2005.

(Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to wash my car)

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 15:02
Get it through your thick head.............IF YOU DON'T SPEED YOU WON'T GET CAUGHT!!!.
I am not talking about me speeding, (how many times am I going to have to repeat this?) I am talking about a system that allows speeding to routinely go unpunished, whilst placing cameras at locations chosen to catch out rather than enforce. I am talking about a system that does not prevent my life and my wife's life being put at risk from those who, unlike me, do not respect speed limits. Remember that if a safe driving loved one of yours gets killed by someone who just brakes for the camera, won't you?
There is no denying there are some real cocks out there on the road. Yes we've all seen Monkey-boy in his XR3i blat along at 55mph, come to the speed camera and hit the breaks for it then speed off again. Thing is, for you to be affected by his breaking means that you must have been at least doing the same speed as him to be close enough to warrant a similar reaction
WTF? You were doing SO well until "Thing is..."
Got that into your thick head? It's not rocket science, it's a good money earner.
Get this into yours. Speed cameras here are not operated by the police, they are operated by an organisation created to reduce speeding on the roads. Hiding cameras away or using cameras that catch before detering does not achieve the aim they exist for.

Still, for as long as the majority shares your defeatist, can't be bothered with it attitude, we will be stuck with such systems.

Wrongstuff
7th Apr 2005, 15:18
This came out of Viz magazine

'The other week I was caught speeding by a Gatso camera and issued with a 60 fine and three points on my licence through the post. However, had there been a police patrol there, they would have noticed that I was at least twice the legal drink-drive limit, with four bald tyres, no insurance and an out-of-date tax disc. People often complain that these cameras are a money-spinner for the government, but this one actually saved me a lot of money and a certain ban. Well done Gatso!'

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 15:24
Wrongstuff, it's funny because it's true. Sadly.

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 15:30
Remember that if a safe driving loved one of yours gets killed by someone who just brakes for the camera, won't you?

And in your profile you say you're not a journo. With sensationalist bullshit like that, one wonders.

Continue your little war there Eal. Throw in a few more insults along the way. Makes for some entertaining reading. (How's the blood pressure? I can almost see you seething as you bash away at your poor computer). :rolleyes:

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 15:36
Seethe maybe, but at least I give a damn about it.

The anti-journo was as a result of idiots elsewhere.

As for the "sensationalist" accusation, that just proves it is impossible to get the point across to some people. You should work for a Road Safety Partnership, you'd be perfect for it.

ATNotts
7th Apr 2005, 15:58
Jerricho,

You completely miss the point. You're quite correct - if you don't speed you won't get caught!!

However, the problem here is that speed cameras don't tackle the really big problems. The biggest, if the reports every Saturday and Sunday morning on local radio are to be believed, is crass driving by boy and girl racers, who's cars regularly "go out of control, hitting either a) a tree, b) a lamppost, or worst c) another motorist, causing mayhem death and destruction on Friday and Saturday nights!

No GATSO on this planet will ever stop this stupidity!

Ban kids from holding licences until they are mature enough to understand that a car is not a toy / video game would really slash the death and injury statistics. But that's just not a politically acceptable option.

So police the road properly, and nick the phone users, tail-gaters, uninsured, unroadworthy etc. etc. drivers.

It costs money - but how much does a life cost?

419
7th Apr 2005, 16:02
"You speed, you get done"

Unless of course, You happen to be one of the thousands of drivers who have no insurance, MOT, and are driving an unregistered car or a car with a cloned number plate.

Or, you are a driver from abroad, who knows the chance of them getting a fixed penalty ticked are next to zero.

Or, if you are in a totally legal vehicle and you name someone else as the driver of the vehicle, when the N.I.P arrives. (a scam carried out by someone I personally know) His wife has a licence, but no longer has the desire or need to drive, but has been named as the driver on 2 occasions now.

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 16:10
As you're so keen to find me gainfully employed elsewhere Eal, let's play a little game.

There is a system in place. Conceeded this current system sucks. You said "I am talking about a system that allows speeding to routinely go unpunished, whilst placing cameras at locations chosen to catch out rather than enforce. I am talking about a system that does not prevent my life and my wife's life being put at risk from those who, unlike me, do not respect speed limits."
You're now King of Transport Safety for a day. Let's hear some of those ideas for your system.


And ATN,

No GATSO on this planet will ever stop this stupidity!

I never said it did. You haven't read what I posted. I said it is an easy way of taking in money. And if people are going to persist in availing themselves to it, the GATSOs aren't going anywhere.

Vankem Spankfaart
7th Apr 2005, 16:19
A30 just south of LHR the mobile speed trap vans now don't have "Police" written down the side of them......it's now "Casualty Reduction Unit". Even driving at or below the 40mph speed limit, reading that on the side of the van is distracting.

They also have to display a sign saying "Mobile Speed Cameras in operation" - what use are they when they are 6 feet before the cameras. If they want to make the traffic go slower they should litter the whole street with them. Surely a successful day for these operations is no speeding motorists caught; but like others here I get the feeling that a successful day is defined by the magnitude of the numbers caught.



Another point, a road in deepest, darkest SE UK has over the past 7 years had the speed limit reduced from 60mph to 50mph and finally down to 40mph. Vankem's neighbour wondered why so he writes to local council who respond saying "Not us Guv, try the County Council". So he writes to County Council who say "Not us Guv, try Met Police". He writes to the Met who say "Not us Gov, try Surrey Police".....Guess the response he got from Surrey Police??? Yup, "Not us Guv, try local council".

If the authorities really wanted to slow traffic down, having highly visible plods walking the pavements (sidewalks for the US cousins) would be a good start. Standing behind hedges, jumping out and pointing speed guns at us, taking us round the corner to process the paperwork hence avoiding other motorists seeing us just stinks of "I'm here to nick you, not slow you down".

I condone safe, legal driving at all times but ones patience can be seriously tried by not what the authorities and the police do, but the manner in which it is done.

V

Onan the Clumsy
7th Apr 2005, 16:27
Absolutely speed kills. There's no doubt about it. Breaking distance is increased and so is impact.

Every speeding motorist that gets slowed down because of a camera is one less moving time bomb waiting to explode.

The problem is that they don't have enough cameras.

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 16:32
Let's hear some of those ideas for your system.
I've done this time and again. My suggestions exist elsewhere. The problem is this:

[list=1]
I criticise speed cameras
People have a go at me and say "well don't speed then"
I try and point out why I am anti-camera
People go "blub, blub, well don't speed" etc.
I make a load of suggestions as to what I would like to see
No response/thread dies.
[/list=1]

This has happened once, possibly twice before!

If you want to see what I think, use the search function.
And if people are going to persist in availing themselves to it, the GATSOs aren't going anywhere.
WHOOSH!!!!! Miss the point again!! Is that a hat trick yet?


Absolutely speed kills
And you can be killed by someone NOT exceeding the speed limit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 16:40
I think there are way too many speed cameras in the world. The way the use them makes me sick. It's not law enforcement, it's revenue collecting. They don't reduce fatailities, they don't educate people as to how speed can increase stopping times or reduce reaction time.

It's just another way to separate us form our hard earned cash.

eal401
7th Apr 2005, 16:51
Well, I apologise for being passionate about something that kills thousands every year. I apologise for getting wound up when people dodge the issue or don't understand.

I'll just shrug my shoulders and not give a sh*t in future.

Onan the Clumsy
7th Apr 2005, 17:32
The problem with speed cameras is that they focus on a very narrow facet of the accident scenario.

Whilst speed can invariably pesent itself as a link in the causal chain, the priority given to it tends to obscure some of the other reasons behind road accident statistics.

In this respect, speed cameras perhaps have the opposite effect to the one intended.

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 17:36
Hang on................. Is it my turn to be for speed cameras or against? :confused: :confused:

Onan the Clumsy
7th Apr 2005, 20:11
It's an odd numbered page so you're supposed to be for them. Still you screwed it up earlier :rolleyes: , so maybe we can both do odd = :*, even = :ok:


:}

acbus1
7th Apr 2005, 20:27
You're both odd.

......all the time.

;)

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 20:56
Can't I just go back to not speeding and being defeatist? Or joining some saftey partnership I seem to be perfect for?

My head hurts.

ShyTorque
7th Apr 2005, 21:24
"On a slight tangent, I would love to see a system that ensures licenced drivers are tested every 3 years or so to enure they can meet a standard sufficient to say "Yup, they can still drive" (like holding a pilots/ATC licence). Ain't gonna happen though in my lifetime."

How would this one be enforced? By roadside camera??

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 21:28
Of course :E :E

tony draper
7th Apr 2005, 22:11
I love speed cameras, I love all cameras,
:E:
the answer is simple now that one is no longer on the road as it were, fit govenors to all motor vehicles that restrict them to fifty MPH.:E

Onan the Clumsy
7th Apr 2005, 22:59
Perhaps if there was a process to go through before a camera was erected and within that process were the means to ensure it was an accident blackspot and not a revenue goldspot.

Jerricho
7th Apr 2005, 23:40
He said erected...........


And there seems to be a process. It's called "let's see how many people we can catch. I think this will be a good spot"

acbus1
8th Apr 2005, 07:04
I would love to see a system that ensures licenced drivers are tested every 3 years or so to enure they can meet a standard sufficient to say "Yup, they can still drive" (like holding a pilots/ATC licence). Ain't
You're assuming that the testing process is'nt seriously flawed, mainly in terms of failing to test essential skills and knowledge.

(and that applies to pilot testing as well) :uhoh:

HowlingWind
8th Apr 2005, 14:59
fit govenors to all motor vehicles that restrict them to fifty MPH.Still seems a bit brisk for yer average school zone. :ooh:

Jerricho
8th Apr 2005, 15:16
You're assuming that the testing process is'nt seriously flawed, mainly in terms of failing to test essential skills and knowledge.

Oh hell yeah Acbus, you are very correct. Hence my "ain't gonna see it in my life time".