We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Speeding Ticket
Comments
-
Jamie, I'll try not to rise again to your tawdry ad hominems which you seem so fond of. Could you please do us all a favour and try to rise to the challenge of debate without resorting to them.
Hmm, I seem to remember you starting several posts by insulting me. Not good when it's coming from an armchair expert, who doesn't have a professional interest to know about speed, and the effects on vehcle handling and RTC's. You have shown your lack of knowledge in various posts over a few threads.Even assuming your above point to be true, which it very likely isn't, it's still not the relevant point. The point relevant to the thread is whether speed cameras could have prevented these collisions, and indeed, whether they might be directly or indirectly responsible for an increase in KSIs
If you knew anything about RTC's, and how speed and reactions relate to them, and about the MOI's then you would know that what I said was completely true.
People drive slower in areas where there may be speed cameras...FACT. There is more time to react at slower speeds...FACT. The number of KSIs at lower speeds is massively reduced. But then you would know all this if you were a professional RTC investigator.17 to 25 year olds, or perhaps more accurately, 17 to 20 year olds have KSIs because they occasionally drive at speeds that their limited experience can't cope with. They are one of the most significant groups in terms of fatal collision causers, yet their dangerous behaviours are hardly ever caught by speed cams; why? Because they speed in areas and at times of day where there is no likelihood of a speed camera. They know where local cameras are and manipulate and avoid them.
Weekend sports bikers are the same. The purpose of their drive is different to most other journeys. They often use rural roads as a track. They know where speed cameras are, and avoid them like the plague.
Elderly drivers are more KSI involved because their (often night) eyesight is poor, their reactions slower, their hazard perception may be off the pace. They're often involved in slow speed manoeuvring collisions, some of which can have serious consequences to other vulnerable road users. Also their bodily frailty often means that they suffer more serious injuries from a collision that a younger person may walk out of.
This has nothing to do with them being caught in speed cameras. But apart from that, you have more or less repeated what I have said (yet again), but as usual in a far more boring and drawn out way.Again, assuming this is correct, and it may be, the speed cams have no way of targeting drink drivers
You have actually split my paragraph in half to try and make it appear like I said something completely different.
Read what I said: "estimated". These estimated findings are taken from years of research, but can't be 100% accurate, because nobody admits to drining and driving when they don't get caught. But yet again brat the armchair expert thinks he knows better.Not at all. The attitude and impairment caused by excess alcohol is a significant causal factor in over 25% of our county's fatal collisions. Cameras have no impact whatsoever in the recognition and targeting of these dangerous drivers. Indeed, their introduction has been partly responsible for the reduction in traffic police numbers over the last 15-20 years, so there is a decent case to argue that, in respect of drink drivers, (and disqual drivers, dangerous drivers, drug drivers, criminal drivers, uninsured drivers etc etc) the speed cameras have indirectly caused our roads to be more dangerous than they would be if they were never invented.
You really need to read what people say before you answer, and make a fool of yourself.
Now try reading the whole paragraph again, without spitting it into two.You're right, about 90% of all collisions are damage only. Young and old drivers are over-represented all the way through the collision severities.
Are you not capable of putting two and two together?? This is exactly the reason why very young and very old drivers have far more accidents than the 45 to 55 age bracket. And it is nothing to do with the 45 to 55 age group driving faster, and in your theory, driving safer.There is a significant correlation between driving at one's appropriate speed for a road and optimum concentration. That additional level of concentration can give you a vital extra bit of time to react. Research conducted by Solomon and Cirillo back in the sixties and seventies concluded that the safest driving speed was the 85th to 90th percentile speed in open driving conditions. One of the primary reasons is that such a driver is more actively involved in his drive, concentrating, anticipating, using links etc.. He is generally more aware of the vehicles ahead, because they will feature in his plan. A slower driver is likely to be a more passive driver, not necessarily gleaning as much information from the road ahead, hence will be taken more by surprise by unexpected hazards.
I really can't believe that you are using data from a survey carried out in the 60's and 70's. However, what you fail to understand is that the reason more concentration is required at higher speeds is that there is a greter speed differential. And that hazards will approach far quicker. But most peoples skill levels aren't enough to allow for this adequately, so their driving becomes far more dangerous due to having less time to react, as well as collisions being far more serious at higher speeds due to the MOIs.Yes.
I don't believe you for a second. Otherwise you would have a far better understanding of the consequences.your second paragraph indicates to me that you've tried this again, and recognised that you can't get a speed reading from your speedo without physically looking down. When you do this, your eyes will automatically refocus. It's what they do, and it takes a finite time. Looking down, focussing on the speedo, assimilating the info, looking up and refocussing can take a good amount of time, perhaps two seconds, more if elderly.
You don't need to refocus when you look through a mirror because the distances you're looking at through the mirror are roughly the same your view ahead.
I'd be keen to hear from anyone who can read their analogue speedo sufficiently accurately from their peripheral view.
Well you can't be more wrong. I haven't tried it again, because I don't need to. I have known for a long time that it is very easy to see your rough speed using your peripheral vision.
When you look in your mirror, your focal vision is to the mirror, and not to what you see in the mirror in the distance.
If there is any delay in refocusing after glancing at your speedo, then you shouldn't be driving, as you would be a danger to yourself and other road users.If you're saying I'm making up the fact that motorists instinctively look at their speedo when approaching a speed camera close to the limit, I'm pretty sure most drivers will agree that they do this.
As I say, it's important to deal with how drivers actually react to a hazard, rather than how they should behave in a perfect world.
I'm saying that if you are aware of your speed (which any good driver should be), then you don't need to check your speedo just because there is a speed camera. Because you would already know that you aren't speeding.
What you are saying is just an excuse that anti speed camera campaigners use.0 -
I want the speed limit to be respected rather than feared.
I don't believe that this happens with speed cameras. In towns loaded with cams locals speed up between them and slow for them. In other words they manipulate them. They also sometimes get frustrated by them, either because people in front slow down too much, or because they become the major focus of the motorist's concentration.
Our town doesn't have a speed cam in it, and we hardly get a complaint about speed. The police respond to particular concerns by active enforcement from time to time. It works well enough.
Speed cameras are mostly fixed, or, if actively operated, are operated from regular sites. This predictability means that those who really don't care to abide by limits can break them with even greater impunity than before, when police had plenty of time for targeted enforcement.
Speed cameras sit like a religious shrine, a monument to speed enforcement. That is about the limit of their effectiveness, conning those who want lower speeds that something is being done to make their streets safer. It couldn't be further from the truth.
So maybe more average speed cameras should be introduced rather than fixed cameras???
Or even better GPS trackers on all vehcles??0 -
Mean while its the average and good drivers that are penalised.
I assume you know the stats for driving within the speed limit, drivers losing awareness the attributing factor.
Dont get me wrong i am not condoning, its taken them exactly 34 years to catch up with me on a technicality. Middle of no where 7.20am in the morning, two lane equal to 4 car width road, 15ft grass verges either side, nothing around, grabbed from 400 yards away up an incline.
There are times and places suited to road and conditions, not based on 60's poorer braking. Most cars will stop at least 50% sooner, but all we see is reduced speed limits and humps in built up areas based upon irrelevant facts to please the tax payer.
Nobody is penalised, all are treated equally. All you have to do is stick to the speed limits.
If the camera was on a straight stretch, with no hazards at all, then how did you get caught?
Speed limits should be obeyed at all times. And putting a camera in what some people may think is a safe stretch of road, is just enforcing this.
If you don't speed, then you won't get caught for speeding, it's as simple as that.0 -
It would appear that most of us are agreed that there is a complicated relationship between speed and safety.
The speed limit is a proxy to the maximum safe speed. There should be a speed limit, but for maximum safety it needs intelligent enforcement from those who can take other factors into account.
I have issued over 2000 speed tickets to date in my career, and IMO each one was worthwhile. Advice was given at the time, and was generally well received. Numerous other defects and offences revealed, and vehicle occupants dealt with for numerous other unrelated offences.
I've also operated camera vans, back in the day when I swallowed the '42% KSI reduction due to cameras' yada yada bull. The comparison in effectiveness between remote and active enforcement is like chalk and cheese.
For me, a speed camera should be covert, and moveable, but only designed to catch speeders at a speed well above the applicable limit. That way, it would target inappropriate excess speed, and reconnect to its lost safety credentials.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
It would appear that most of us are agreed that there is a complicated relationship between speed and safety.
The speed limit is a proxy to the maximum safe speed. There should be a speed limit, but for maximum safety it needs intelligent enforcement from those who can take other factors into account.
I have issued over 2000 speed tickets to date in my career, and IMO each one was worthwhile. Advice was given at the time, and was generally well received. Numerous other defects and offences revealed, and vehicle occupants dealt with for numerous other unrelated offences.
I've also operated camera vans, back in the day when I swallowed the '42% KSI reduction due to cameras' yada yada bull. The comparison in effectiveness between remote and active enforcement is like chalk and cheese.
For me, a speed camera should be covert, and moveable, but only designed to catch speeders at a speed well above the applicable limit. That way, it would target inappropriate excess speed, and reconnect to its lost safety credentials.
What a load of bull
There is no way you have been anything to do with issuing speeding tickets (except as maybe an admin clerk), otherwise you wouldn't be trying to push the speeders excuses, and you would have a better idea of the highway code than you have displayed in a number of threads.
If you were a traffic officer, then you would be a disgrace to your profession.
I am now 100% certain that you are either a Walter Mitty, or just plain trolling.0 -
Jamie_Carter wrote: »What a load of bull
There is no way you have been anything to do with issuing speeding tickets (except as maybe an admin clerk), otherwise you wouldn't be trying to push the speeders excuses, and you would have a better idea of the highway code than you have displayed in a number of threads.
If you were a traffic officer, then you would be a disgrace to your profession.
I am now 100% certain that you are either a Walter Mitty, or just plain trolling.
I have no interest in your opinion Jamie. You have shown yourself to be one of the poorest internet thugs I have ever put on my ignore list.
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
I have no interest in your opinion Jamie. You have shown yourself to be one of the poorest internet thugs I have ever put on my ignore list.
Really??
Is that because I have exposed you as a fraud??
You have pretended to be a traffic police officer, and a collision investigator. But you don't have a clue about either subject. As I said, a traffic police officer who doesn't even know the highway code is a disgrace.0 -
You will be offered a speed awareness course, pay the £85 and zombie out for 4 painfull hours in a room, end of story.0
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards