Speed Camera switch off sees fewer accidents

Exocet

StevieJ wrote: »

The point is fixed speed cameras are neither use nor ornament in cutting road casualties, traffic calming should be used near sensitive areas and unidentified mobile cameras should be used for the rest.

Do speed cameras help to enforce road speed limits? They must have some effect gauging by the complaints about them. Speed road limits are presumably there for a reason?

So rather than missing the point, I am making a point in favour of speed cameras. I realise that this thread is populated entirely by expert drivers who have no reason to obey any traffic laws but I can safely assume that you are all exceptional. I would prefer speed cameras everywhere, enforcing the speed limits, so that I can drive in a relaxed and safe environment.

When I see someone shooting past me on the road, I don't think "look at that good driver, he certainly knows how to handle his vehicle". I tend to think, what a prat. Is he showing off? Or does he really think that by depressing the accelerator and hanging onto the wheel he is somehow a good driver?

Driving within limits is more relaxing. It saves fuel. It means an accident is less likely to be fatal or serious. And accidents do happen. Could be a tractor around that bend or perhaps some other excellent driver who happens to on your side of the road heading for you. Maybe something like a puncture or a driver stroke, seizure, heart attack.

Could be a school minibus. Times to react is longer, time to brake is longer, higher speed equals higher impact.

To be honest, the best driving experience for me is a relaxed drive within camera policed areas, where the usual lunatics are kept in some kind of check.

Oh, I expect you think "well he's obviously not much of a driver". Au contraire matey, like 99% of the population I am the best driver out there.

chris_m

Whilst what you say is essentially correct, you are still missing the point - I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating ignoring pratts who choose to ignore the speed limits or wishing to do so themselves.

What we are saying is that speed is not the only cause of accidents but it is the only one which cameras can help to reduce. Hence cameras are not the be-all-and-end-all solution which has previously been advocated. In the right place they are a useful tool in keeping roads safer but they should not be used as the ONLY tool, as has happened over he last decade or so. Proper police patrolling is, IMO, essential to catch the pratts who do not speed but still should not be on the roads because their driving is reckless or dangerous, for whatever reason. Such driving can only be observed properly by a real pair of eyes, not a box that simply says "oh, less than the limit, no photograph required".

Many of the unnecessary cameras should be removed and the funding put towards providing the police with the resources to restore the traffic patrol duties that we used to have.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Thhing is, Exocet old boy, it's not like it's just a few nutters with small willies on the internet that are calling for speed limit increases....

So is the AA-Trust, for heavens sake.

The 70mph speed limit on motorways should be raised to 80mph at certain times on specific stretches of road, according to the AA Motoring Trust.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4528507.stm

It's in the national press as well......

Should the national motorway speed limit be raised to 80mph? The latest national statistics on vehicle speeds together with police speed enforcement guidance make a compelling case - on uncongested motorways, 57 per cent of car drivers exceed the speed limit, and 20 per cent exceed 80mph. It is rare for the police to prosecute drivers travelling at 80mph.

The average modern car cruises very comfortably at 70mph, and equally so at 80mph. In 1964 when the motorway speed limit was introduced, it was set at the "flat-out" speed of most cars on the road. The AA Trust's European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) also shows that motorways are the safest places to drive. And EuroNCAP crash testing has driven consumers to demand four- to five-star cars that make surviving a crash much more likely than when the 70mph limit was set.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/comment/andrew-howard-we-could-be-doing-80-on-the-motorway-492589.html

Which is all very nice......

But we can also see what the people with responsibility for enforcing speed, those with access to the best data, and who are highly trained drivers, really think of speed limits by their actions, not their words.

A senior police officer in charge of road policy for Britain's chief constables is facing prosecution for exceeding a 60mph speed limit.

Meredydd Hughes, chief constable of the South Yorkshire force, was allegedly clocked by cameras driving along the A5 near Chirk in north Wales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7069289.stm

90 in a 60...... Impressive stuff, but surely it was a once off?

SOUTH Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Med Hughes has been accused of speeding - for the third time.
He has received a notice of intended prosecution for an alleged speeding offence committed in North Wales while he was on a Bank Holiday break in May.

Ah.... Still, perhaps it's just the one chief constable (in charge of ACPOS road safety no less) that's a speed demon.....

The head of Tayside police has apologised after being caught speeding on a hazardous stretch of the A9.
Chief Constable Kevin Mathieson was travelling at 72mph in a 60mph zone near Kingussie last September. He accepted responsibility for the offence and was fined £60 and received three penalty points on his licence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/7821816.stm

Ooops..... But there can't be more, surely?

A chief constable has admitted driving at 72mph within a 60mph limit stretch of the A9 road in his own force area.
Northern Constabulary's Chief Constable Ian Latimer said he had made a "mistake". He received a notice of intended prosecution on Monday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6923721.stm

Of course, some of them just get their Chauffeur to do it for them.....

Derbyshire Chief Constable David Coleman, a staunch anti-speeding campaigner, was being driven by a chauffeur when the vehicle was stopped. Traffic officers in Hertfordshire reportedly clocked the car doing 97mph as Mr Coleman returned from London. Derbyshire Police confirmed a car carrying the chief had been stopped for a "road traffic offence".

http://www.derbygripe.co.uk/speed3.htm

Ah yes, a staunch anti-speeding campaigner...... Until he needs Jeeves to do 100mph in a 70mph zone to get him home in time for tea, that is.

When the Police know full well that exceeding the current limit is safe to do, and prove it time after time with their actions, how on earth do you expect the rest of us to have any respect for the current limits which are far too slow in places?

StevieJ

Exocet wrote: »

Do speed cameras help to enforce road speed limits? They must have some effect gauging by the complaints about them. Speed road limits are presumably there for a reason?

So rather than missing the point, I am making a point in favour of speed cameras. I realise that this thread is populated entirely by expert drivers who have no reason to obey any traffic laws but I can safely assume that you are all exceptional. I would prefer speed cameras everywhere, enforcing the speed limits, so that I can drive in a relaxed and safe environment.

Yes totally missing the point, what is the point of having six fixed cameras like in my city, everyone knows where they are, much better that the cameras are hidden and mobile to keep the threat of detection on peoples minds all the time rather than when they drive past one of the known cameras..

StevieJ

That is my part of the world and is one golden rule, 'You do not speed when you cross the North Wales border'

A senior police officer in charge of road policy for Britain's chief constables is facing prosecution for exceeding a 60mph speed limit.

Meredydd Hughes, chief constable of the South Yorkshire force, was allegedly clocked by cameras driving along the A5 near Chirk in north Wales.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

StevieJ wrote: »

That is my part of the world and is one golden rule, 'You do not speed when you cross the North Wales border'

Yes, thanks to Chief Constable Brunstrom, former head of the Speeding Taliban North Wales Police.

Of course, such a speed extremist can't even get his own family to comply with his dictatorial ways.....

The Sun newspaper caught Brunstrom's 18 year-old daughter Kate exceeding a speed limit on the A55 as she headed home from work late one night. We believe that the Sun reporter was standing on a pedestrian footbridge over the A55 eastbound into Colwyn Bay, somewhere the police would not set up a radar trap.

The Chief Constable kept uncharacteristically tight lipped on the incident — at least he did until 2004, when he let slip this comment in an interview with the Times:

“It was extremely unpleasant to send a group of men to follow my daughter at night just because it is impossible to catch me speeding”

Playing clever mind games he tries to imply there was something sinister going on here. In fact they didn't follow her, they just sat on a bridge waiting for her to pass by at a perfectly safe speed.

Doubtless he doesn't consider it 'unpleasant' for North Wales Talivan to sit waiting for someone else's daughter.

Exocet

If the thread was about raising the limit why didn't you say so? I thought it was about cameras? I guess some at least of the speeding coppers were caught on camera - that would seem to be a result.

StevieJ - if you are advocating changing the fixed cameras for hidden, mobile cameras (no need to be mobile if they are hidden) then yes that would be good. Without the camera warning sign many more would be trapped, and the fines could surely cover the costs of implementation. Good idea, but until it starts to happen, and we get more police, etc. then cameras are all we have to stop the madmen.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Exocet wrote: »

If the thread was about raising the limit why didn't you say so? I thought it was about cameras? .

It's about ending persecution of motorists. Raising speed limits would help, as would reducing or elminating cameras.

Exocet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's about ending persecution of motorists. Raising speed limits would help, as would reducing or elminating cameras.

Persecution? Love it. On one hand the cameras don't achieve anything, then they make a fortune, then they make no money, then they don't prevent accidents. I'm surprised you haven't trotted out the argument that they cause accidents by forcing people to concentrate on the camera instead of the road.

"The camera caused the accident because I was doing 90 in a 50 limit perfectly safely, and only noticed the camera at the last minute. I jammed on the anchors but was unable to stop before hitting some doddery old plodder who was doing 50".

Then there's the argument that speed doesn't cause accidents. Technically it's correct. An accident is just that, an unexpected event occurring. Problem is that at 90 its going to be a lot more serious than at 70.

Try this tomorrow morning Hamish. Get up ten minutes early. Drive within normal legal limits. Arrive at work relaxed having had no hassles, no rush to overtake, no duelling with idiots. Save money on fuel.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Exocet wrote: »

Persecution? Love it. .

The Tories don't.....

The war on the motorist which has raged for 13 years under Labour is now over, new Transport Secretary Philip Hammond pledged during his first day in the job today.

He promised to end the persecution of the UK’s 33 million drivers

http://peoplesdaily-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5452:labours-13-year-war-on-the-motorist-is-over-tories-pledge-to-halt-rise-of-speed-cameras-road-pricing-and-cowboy-clampers&catid=105:news-from-abroad&Itemid=176