Speed Camera switch off sees fewer accidents

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Exocet wrote: »

It makes little difference to destination time, .

That rather depends on how long the journey is..... And of course how many miles you do a year.

It adds up surprisingly quickly. Even a 10mph difference can mean a working week or two per year extra in the car for anyone who has to drive a lot for work.

Exocet

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That rather depends on how long the journey is..... And of course how many miles you do a year.

It adds up surprisingly quickly. Even a 10mph difference can mean a working week or two per year extra in the car for anyone who has to drive a lot for work.

Lets take a 30 mile commute, not far off your LaurenceKirk place and easy to work out. At 60 miles per hour it takes 30 minutes, if of course you could do that speed from A to B. At 90 miles per hour it takes 20 minutes. OK, it saves ten minutes, but it costs approx 25% in petrol, risks points on your licence or worse, and you arrive feeling frazzled. I did suggest getting up ten minutes earlier.

But these mileages are misleading anyway - because realistic average speeds are going to be lower - other traffic and dare I say speed cameras. The person driving at 60 has a better chance of averaging close to their 60 miles per hour, than the guy at 90 who will be slowing more frequently as they encounter differing road conditions.

Seriously mate, try it. On a normal journey check your average speed and fuel consumption and general well being when driving fast. and compare the same journey driving like an old man. It works for me.

Graham_Devon

Car tells me my average speed is currently 19mph. Think it was over 800 or so miles

I'm such a rebel.

FATBALLZ

Exocet wrote: »

Lets take a 30 mile commute, not far off your LaurenceKirk place and easy to work out. At 60 miles per hour it takes 30 minutes, if of course you could do that speed from A to B. At 90 miles per hour it takes 20 minutes. OK, it saves ten minutes, but it costs approx 25% in petrol, risks points on your licence or worse, and you arrive feeling frazzled. I did suggest getting up ten minutes earlier.

But these mileages are misleading anyway - because realistic average speeds are going to be lower - other traffic and dare I say speed cameras. The person driving at 60 has a better chance of averaging close to their 60 miles per hour, than the guy at 90 who will be slowing more frequently as they encounter differing road conditions.

Seriously mate, try it. On a normal journey check your average speed and fuel consumption and general well being when driving fast. and compare the same journey driving like an old man. It works for me.

Fuel consumption is probably the only anti-speeding argument that has any credibility, been looking into it recently as part of estimating the costs of taking a job with 120 miles of daily commuting. Basically the slower you go in the highest gear the better, and as you get to 80mph+ fuel efficiency really falls off a cliff.

But this is really only applicable to motorways, and at the moment I don't spend a great deal of my income on fuel, so I consider the time gained to be worth more than the extra spent on lower fuel efficiency.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Fuel consumption is probably the only anti-speeding argument that has any credibility,

True.

been looking into it recently as part of estimating the costs of taking a job with 120 miles of daily commuting. Basically the slower you go in the highest gear the better, and as you get to 80mph+ fuel efficiency really falls off a cliff.

But this is really only applicable to motorways, and at the moment I don't spend a great deal of my income on fuel, so I consider the time gained to be worth more than the extra spent on lower fuel efficiency.

I have a company fuelcard, so time is obviously far more important to me than fuel consumption.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Exocet wrote: »

Lets take a 30 mile commute,.

A big day in the car for me is more like 400 miles, but I take your point for short distances.

FATBALLZ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Car tells me my average speed is currently 19mph. Think it was over 800 or so miles

I'm such a rebel.

Does that include when you've been slowing down to stop, actually being stopped, and building up speed again at traffic lights etc? As if it does it probably doesn't tell you much about your propensity to speed.

zappahey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Errr, they don't have right of way to simply run on to it.

They do you know.

Pedestrians have absolute right of way on zebra crossings, from the moment they put a foot on the crossing.

Rule 195 "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339

ollyshaw

I've actually been on advanced driver training. The instructor shared my view on speed cameras. That is that the only road offence they prevent is speeding past the camera; almost 100% of road policing was concentrated on this.

Ask the guy about people driving while on a mobile or drink driving and it was, quite rightly a different story.

Olly

Graham_Devon

zappahey wrote: »

They do you know.

Pedestrians have absolute right of way on zebra crossings, from the moment they put a foot on the crossing.

Rule 195 "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070339

They have right of way when on it yes. That is, afterall, why we stop to let them cross.

But to say they have right of way whenever they set foot towards or onto a crossing would be dangerous, and stupid. As it's basically saying they can just walk into the road whenever they like and its the drivers fault.

Right of way does NOT mean blindly walking in to the road.