Speed cameras don't = decrease in fatalities?

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Previous
  • ssuellid 19 Jul 2005 17:25:35 19,141 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    From The Register


    "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."

  • ssuellid 19 Jul 2005 17:26:59 19,141 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Curious to know what the decrease in traffic police on active patrol is in each area.
  • MikeD 19 Jul 2005 18:43:38 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Got a ticket, eh?
  • Spin_Dr_Wolf 19 Jul 2005 19:40:44 6,170 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Everyone knows that speed cameras are stupid and misused. They are not placed in accident black spots, or outside schools.

    Sooner they get rid of them, or use them properly the better.
  • RedboX 19 Jul 2005 20:28:58 2,431 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Its simple, we attach radio tags to every street sign, every lampost, every bit of street furiture in the country, and then mandate all call use the tags to check the current speed limit, and refuse to let the car to exceed that limit with out having to press a manual override (just incase, like David Beckham, you have a good reason to exceed the limit).

  • MikeD 19 Jul 2005 20:35:05 10,063 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    That's not an awful idea. It would work just like the pitstop speed limiter in formula 1.
  • Gretters 19 Jul 2005 20:54:04 2,628 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    rhythm wrote:
    I got rejected by my council for asking for a speed limit to be reduced recently - that sort of proves to me that my council's not just in it for the money, I suppose.

    You see, I'd take that the other way.

    If they were in it to save lives/prevent injuries, then any request for a speed limit to be reduced would be very seriously considered (I guess we've no real evidence yours wasn't, but...) and speed cameras would be, as someone else already pointed out, outside schools, in or near areas of heavy pedestrian traffic and generally in places which would benefit from a deterrent from speeding.

    They would not be on a three-lane, barriered expressway hidden behind a motorway overpass pillar 50 yards after a speed limit drops from 70 to 50 and then another a further 20 yards away, on the blind side of a road sign as the limit drops further to 40. (There are two like this on the road the M56 turns into as you enter Manchester.)

    On my route into Central Manchester (a drive of about 20 minutes or so) I pass 6 cameras, only one of which is serving any 'safety' purpose (it's near a lollipop-man crossing point) while the other five are at the bottom of steep hills/hidden behind street furniture/right near a couple of recent speed limit changes.

    I speed on occasion, just like >95% of other drivers. I would happily introduce custodial/immediate licence withdrawal sentances for speeding within a certain radius of a school, but despise the fact that the vast, vast majority of speed cameras are now nothing more, as Jeremy Clarkson so succinctly put it, then 'Piggy banks'.
  • BlackJedi 19 Jul 2005 23:06:56 387 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Spin Dr Wolf wrote:
    Everyone knows that speed cameras are stupid and misused. They are not placed in accident black spots, or outside schools.

    Sooner they get rid of them, or use them properly the better.
    Depends where you are. I've got nothing but respect for the Northamptonshire speed cameras. On my commute to my old job, there were exactly two speed camera. The first was on a 60mph stretch, after a long straight just before a rather sharp corner that had seen quite a few accidents. The second was in a 30mph zone right outside the school. I couldn't argue with the placement of either.
  • mentat 19 Jul 2005 23:32:02 5,613 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    not going to start on a are they great or terrible rant, but i think everyone agrees that they should be used properly.
    I think that's one of the problems, since they are so rarely used where needed or where accidents occur they have no real use to the average driver.
    It seems there's a significant backlash occurring around my area at the moment. I went for a bit of a drive the other day and i passed through three burnt out cameras...
  • Eighthours 20 Jul 2005 00:49:09 706 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Speed limits should be increased on motorways to 80mph. End of.
  • sephy 20 Jul 2005 06:36:24 4,036 posts
    Registered 11 years ago
    Spin Dr Wolf wrote:
    Everyone knows that speed cameras are stupid and misused. They are not placed in accident black spots, or outside schools.

    rubbish

    Your assuming that the whole country is the same as one tiny corner of an average town.

    /looks at canterbury speed cameras

    Yup, your talking uninformed nonsense.

    There are several problems with speed cameras

    a) They have to be made visable with warning signs. What good is the camera being there if you are encouraged to slow down as you appropach them (and then speed up again after you pass if you desire).

    b) traffic organisations and manafacturers of Set nav devices contribute heavily to encouraging you to change your speed only while passing, by giving you all the relevant infomation

    I really cannot understand the point in having cameras at all if there are ways around it. The whole idea is to punish drivers for BREAKING THE LAW. Yet they tell you how to escape being caught while still allowing you to break the law. It is most illogical captain.

    The thing is that Drivers complained when they didn't have to be made visable, and constanly claim that speed cameras are unfair to drivers. Heres a hint. DONT FUCKING SPEED. If you speed (I'm talking 10+ over the limit on a/b roads) then you do not deserve to have that license you (should) have because you are ignoring the highway code and it IS a crime. There is no excuse unless its an emergency, and 99% of cases won't be. Anyone who says being fined for speeding, or having to reduce their speed is wrong, frankly is talking rubbish.

    /dons flame proof suit and runs away from angry drivers

    Edited by sephy at 06:35:41 20-07-2005
  • fatboy996 20 Jul 2005 08:14:37 237 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    rhythm and sephy wrote crap!!!!!
    morons!
  • MetalDog 20 Jul 2005 08:25:17 23,697 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    fatboy996 wrote:
    rhythm and sephy wrote crap!!!!!
    morons!

    Nice reasoned argument there. Convinced me utterly!

    Feckwad.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Madder-Max 20 Jul 2005 09:11:30 11,656 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    "They have to be made visable with warning signs. What good is the camera being there if you are encouraged to slow down as you appropach them (and then speed up again after you pass if you desire)."

    The good of this is the amount of revenue they generate for the governement. The real reason is that this dodgy government likes money and so a few well placed cameras in high profile areas where maybe influential voters live, such as outside a school in Cantebury, goes some way towards the governement trying to convince us that the cameras have nothing to do with revenue, and are really to do with safety....honest guv....as they try to prevent the huge wads of cash bursting their pockets


    Edited by Madder Max at 09:11:52 20-07-2005

    99 problems and being ginger is one

  • ssuellid 20 Jul 2005 09:14:34 19,141 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    sephy wrote:
    Spin Dr Wolf wrote:
    Everyone knows that speed cameras are stupid and misused. They are not placed in accident black spots, or outside schools.

    rubbish

    Your assuming that the whole country is the same as one tiny corner of an average town.

    Check your facts, use google or something as your opinion is not fact.
  • fireclown 20 Jul 2005 09:17:05 123 posts
    Seen 7 years ago
    Registered 11 years ago

    The thing is that Drivers complained when they didn't have to be made visable, and constanly claim that speed cameras are unfair to drivers. Heres a hint. DONT FUCKING SPEED.

    /joins applause

    The thing that always bewilders me is the tone of outrage you hear from anti-speed camera driver pressure groups. You'd think the police were personally breaking into their house and stealing their credit cards.

    Maybe some are badly placed, maybe they're not, maybe they're effective, maybe they're not, but either way if you're caught *you've committed a crime*. We hear: 'The police should be out catching criminals, not harrassing drivers!' Er, newsflash: criminals are people who commit crimes. It's not a genetic distinction. You don't get to commit a crime and escape being a criminal. I suppose the subtext is '...should be out catching chavs and immigrants, not respectable home-owners who drive an Astra.'
  • doc-yipee 20 Jul 2005 09:22:06 69 posts
    Registered 9 years ago
    Break the law and you get a fine, boo fucking hoo

  • ssuellid 20 Jul 2005 09:23:49 19,141 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    rhythm wrote:
    I don't care how many deaths they're involved in - I simply want them to be used in helping to keep speeding down. .

    So as long as people drive past you slowly you don't give a fuck about people dying on the road?


    I totally agree about speed limits need reviewing. I regulary go through a windy village that has a 50 limit through it - as soon as you get out of the village and onto a straight road the limit drops to 30 - its nuts.

    And traffic speed cameras need to be placed exactly at accident blackspots - not somewhere vaguely near on an adjacent road.

    Edited by ssuellid at 09:32:44 20-07-2005
  • pjmaybe 20 Jul 2005 09:28:13 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I still reckon the things should go back to being hidden.

    The mobile ones aren't always easy to spot (if you're the sort of BMW driving wanker hammering down the M4 at 110mph you've passed one before you know it's there) so I think there should be more of 'em.

    People have been taken in by two pieces of popular mythos - Speed cameras are a cash cow for the government, and Speed Cameras should be highly visible, nay they should show up on maps, in car navigation systems etc.

    This is completely the wrong way to do it. NZ has the right idea - I got booked, and it was my own bloody fault for thinking like a typical brit - that the speed limit is there as a mere guideline for your speed.

    Didn't see the camera, didn't see a flash. First thing I knew about it was when I turned up at the rental agency with the camper van and got the ticket. Served me bloody right and taught me a very valuable lesson for next time I go out there.

    Locals out there all know about the cameras, and know they're hidden and sneaky, and all drive accordingly.

    Peej
  • Khanivor 20 Jul 2005 09:36:22 40,776 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The day they invent a speed camera that can detect terrible driving practices, such as tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, overtaking on sinde line, using a mobile/mascara/three course meal, etc, etc, then I'll be behind them.

    At the moment their primary purpose is to make money. Their secondary purpose is to remove traffic cops from the road, thereby saving money. Somewhere down this line of priorites the safety issue comes in. But speed is not the reason for accidents. It's crap drivers who cannot handle the speed. And nothing is being done to remove crap drivers from the roads.

    Edited by Khanivor at 09:35:41 20-07-2005
  • pjmaybe 20 Jul 2005 09:37:12 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    The day they invent a speed camera that can detect terrible driving practices, such as tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, overtaking on sinde line, using a mobile/mascara/three course meal, etc, etc, then I'll be behind them.

    At the moment their primary purpose is to make money. Their secondary purpose is to remove traffic cops from the road, thereby saving money. Somewhere down this line of priorites the safety issue comes in. But speed is not the reason for accidents. It's crap drivers who cannot handle the speed. And nothing is being done to remove crap drivers from the roads.

    Edited by Khanivor at 09:35:41 20-07-2005

    They used to have these. They were called Traffic Police.

    Peej
  • ssuellid 20 Jul 2005 09:37:25 19,141 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    pjmaybe wrote:
    This is completely the wrong way to do it. NZ has the right idea - I got booked, and it was my own bloody fault for thinking like a typical brit - that the speed limit is there as a mere guideline for your speed.

    Speak to someone who live in NZ. The cameras don't move, the locations are known to the locals, new ones are widely publicised. The cameras are for the non locals and the tourists and that probably why a lot of the old japanese supercars/sports cars end up in NZ. My mate has a rather nice Skyline which he loves as there are fuck all police about.
  • pjmaybe 20 Jul 2005 09:40:10 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I didn't see many locals speeding, and I certainly never saw anyone speeding in any of the towns...

    Mind you, they have a different car culture over there, and the people aren't quite as wankerish and selfish as the average brit either.

    Peej
  • Khanivor 20 Jul 2005 10:10:00 40,776 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    A decent driver can handle speed, especialy with today's modern road car's being fileld ot the brim with fancy gubbins and high tech engineering. But all the tech in the world ain't gonna stop some tit pulling out into the fast lane right in front of a rpidly approaching vehicle.

    One day computers may drive us all around, so the speeds will shoot right up. As they should. There's no reason other then having to look out for bad drivers that a trip on the road takes as long as it does.

    /fondly recalls Mek making the drive from Reading to Aberdeen in under five hours. In a Nissan Bluebird :p
  • pjmaybe 20 Jul 2005 10:11:50 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Agree that wankerish driving isn't all about speed.

    It is mostly due to people being fucking selfish cunts most of the time, and firmly believing that being one car length ahead of you makes them a fantastic huge-penised sex god or something.

    Knobs.

    Peej
  • Lutz 20 Jul 2005 10:16:32 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Speed doesn't kill, bad driving does.

    Sadly the two often go hand in hand.

    Hide the speed cameras
    Put them in the correct places
    Re-evaluate the speed limits
    Compulsary test every 5 years
    Tougher test
    Get wankers off the road faster. (Bans etc)
  • pjmaybe 20 Jul 2005 10:19:02 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Lutz wrote:

    Compulsary test every 5 years
    Tougher test
    Get wankers off the road faster. (Bans etc)

    These are the three I most agree with.

    And ffs, if it's illegal to put shite neons all over your car, and have a numberplate done in stupid bloody script text, and half a ton of bloody soft toys hanging from your rear view mirror and obscuring your back window - BOOK THE FUCKERS!!!!

    Peej
  • ssuellid 20 Jul 2005 10:20:47 19,141 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    More traffic police and FFS park start testing drivers leaving the pubs and clubs again.
  • pjmaybe 20 Jul 2005 10:22:09 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Akeldama wrote:
    I don't agree with retests every five years. But I would say that anyone getting a certain number of points on their license should have to take a retest.


    Actually yeah, that makes more sense.

    Peej
  • Lutz 20 Jul 2005 10:23:28 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Akeldama wrote:
    I don't agree with retests every five years. But I would say that anyone getting a certain number of points on their license should have to take a retest.
    A fair enough alternative, IF you've got someone/thing correctly getting the points on the licence of those that deserve it.
    I do think that in many areas the speed limits are too high, especially in built-up areas. But I'd also say the motorway speed limit is too low.
    Pretty much agreed. On the motorway especially they should also take into account the weather.

    People tearing up the "fast" lane at 90 in the middle of a monsoon are just asking for death.
  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply