Speed Cameras
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no linear correlation between either liklihood of crashing, or severity as you seem to suggest.
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.
To reduce risk is sensible, but to take one aspect of risk and to try to apply it to all situations is nonsense.
You again correlate "bad driving" with "speed".
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.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<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.
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.
Gentleman Aviator
pretty boring
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!!
Discuss! (and Nobby went to Uni which is more than Teeters did
)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speed cameras
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.
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.
Just to illustrate a point, I don't think anyone would crash if we all traveled around at 5mph.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Potential of Collision
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by vecvechookattack; 13th Apr 2005 at 07:01.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where 20 mph zones have been introduced and enforced, all casualties have fallen by around 60%
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!!!
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?
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?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
Beags i find the "uncontrolled brat" crack somewhat offensive & ill advised. Does'nt really sound like the considered comment your known for.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
"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
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.....
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.....