Speed Camera switch off sees fewer accidents

olly300

Exocet wrote: »

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.

They don't stop the madmen though.

There are plenty of roads where I drive that some motorists think it's OK to drive at the speed limit in poor driving conditions. Yet there are variable limit speed cameras on them but they are never turned on in those conditions.

If the cameras where really about road safety then in poor driving conditions all cameras would be turned on.

Thrugelmir

On a broader note and more worryingly.....

An online survey which asked 1,000 Swinton customers to identify the meaning of 8 different road signs found that just 41% of people were able to recognise a warning sign for a 'level crossing'. Last year, Network Rail reported 3,200 cases of level crossing misuse in 2008, 140 near misses between vehicles and trains, 14 crashes and 13 deaths.



Only 49% of those surveyed correctly identified the correct symbol for 'Other Danger' and merely 8% recognised the sign for 'Risk of Grounding'.


Women were the worst offenders with an average score of just 71% correct answers compared to men's 85%.


Steve Chelton, Insurer Development Manager for Swinton car insurance, said: "This survey has uncovered some rather startling results. All drivers should have comprehensive knowledge of the Highway Code and be able to recognise every single road sign, especially warning signs such as 'Level Crossing'.


"Swinton would advise everyone to brush up on their Highway Code, especially if it's a long time since taking a theory test or in the case of some older drivers, never taken one at all. The Highway Code is updated every year, so everyone should read it regularly to make sure of they are aware of any changes."

olly300

Steve Chelton, Insurer Development Manager for Swinton car insurance, said: "This survey has uncovered some rather startling results. All drivers should have comprehensive knowledge of the Highway Code and be able to recognise every single road sign, especially warning signs such as 'Level Crossing'.

There are too many road signs.

And our roads have too many signs on them. If you bothered to try and look at all the signs you would crash particularly as lots of them are covered by trees.

There was an experiment done where they took away road signs and people drove more carefully.

Graham_Devon

Exocet wrote: »

So OK guys. What speeds are OK?

And that is the biggest, singular reason as to why doing people for speeding doesn't always make sense....more so when you just take a picture of them and let them continue.

In answer to your question.....depends on the road, the surroundings and the weather conditions.

This is the problem with current speed limits.

For instance, a lane I often use if the roads are busy as a short cut, has a national speed limit sign on it's entrance. That means that I can drive at 60mph, and not be "speeding".

Which, is, of course, complete nonsense. 20mph would be speeding on that road, as it has endless twists, turns and crests, plus it's single lane with passing places. Be a great rally track if it wasn't for it's shortish length.

Add to that the fact that tractors with equiptment attached to the front that could recreate a scene from Final Destination, and 20mph is plenty.

BUT I can do 60. Anything up to that point officially I'm not speeding. I leave that lane, join an A road, pretty decent one, it's also 60mph. I hit the dual carriageway, and suddenly, 60mph would be speeding. It's now 50mph, even though the lanes are wider, all the traffic is going in the same direction etc.

So 60 I'm not speeding, going down a single twisty lane. Fine, no probs. 60 on the A road, fine no probs. 60 on the dual carriageway, suddenly I am a speeding moron putting peoples lives at risk, and therefore, they feel a mobile van van should have it's own pedestal on the side of the road for it to sit on.

Of course, the road USED to be 70. It's now 50, for what reason no one actually knows. Most people still do 70, crazed morons that they are (who were always safe before, but now are a danger to civilisation as we know it as the limit has been changed). But it's very profitable for the mobile speeding unit.

I'd ask them to go sit down on the lane, but as people are driving to the road conditions, they'd not get to make use of their printer that day.

All depends on the road, is the answer. That's why police would be better on the roads, so they can use the same common sense that the morons use when driving down the lane.

Speeding should come under dangerous driving, rather than a simple "you are over the designated limit, snap snap, ka-ching". You can be dangerously driving through speed, even when you are travelling under the designated limit.

As for the self funding bit....they self fund in terms of running the actual camera partnership. Paying the wages, the costs, the campiagns and so on. I believe the camera partnerships run via the fines. So actually catching people is of utmost importance, hence they are on the fastest safest roads racking up the fines.

A._Badger

olly300 wrote: »

There are too many road signs.

And our roads have too many signs on them. If you bothered to try and look at all the signs you would crash particularly as lots of them are covered by trees.

There was an experiment done where they took away road signs and people drove more carefully.

This is certainly the case in London and other big cities where I would defy even the clearly demented Brunstrom not to infringe at least one regulation in the course of a day's driving.

Part of the issue with both speed cameras and excessive signage is that the driver concentrates so hard on obeying them that he doesn't pay proper attention to hazards like pedestrians and other vehicles.

andykn

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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....

One of the few things I din't have against the Tories is when they promised to look at raising the speed limit before they last won an election in 1992, I believe, they backed out afterwards. The Roads Minister at the time said it was because he'd been persuaded it would cost lives.

Yes, the roads and cars are much safer than in the 60s when over 5,000 people a year were killed, but rainsing the limit to 80, unless rigorously policed to stop the de facto limit going up to 90, would surely lead to more deaths.

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?

But they all have Advanced driver training. If you want to raise the limit for those with a regularly repeated Advanced licence test, go right ahead.

wymondham

I've often wondered how a static speed camera that looks at about 10 yards of road can stop accidents. You slow down for the camera, then speed up after the lines stop - everyone does it - what is really achieved by this? The average speed cameras are far more effective at stopping speeding over any distance, but the best prevention is a copper with a speed gun and one on a motorbike to grill you!

andykn

StevieJ wrote: »

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..

I prefer the system of highly visible mobile checks. Every time I've been done for speeding it was by a trap I should have seen and reacted to first.

Graham_Devon

On a seperate note, we also need something like the green cross code back.

I don't like to think of myself as an old fuddy duddy, but SOME kids really seem to believe the road is their right of way, especially at pedestrian crossings. We appear to be getting more and more of these crossings, which are fine, if everyone knows how to use them. I.e. it's not a right for the pedestrian to just step right out and walk....especially when they are not even walking, but instead being chased by their mate or are on one of those little scooter things and just shoot out.

Do they still do these kind of things in school? I know I never did, but did to the cycle thing.

And does anyone else get kids with power going to their heads hanging round these crossings? Normally young teens, who pretend to want to cross, get you to stop, then slink back laughing?

andykn

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

Not sure how killing more motorists by raising speed limits ends their supposed "persecution" (c) Daily Mail