speed cameras at night?

KrazyFool

a tired discussion which will never be sorted. its always a quick fix solution which the government (and law) will alway take. we all should know by now law & common-sence dont go together...

dougk_2

KrazyFool wrote:

technology available to electronically restrict speed of an engine therefore technology to remove it....

And anyone by-passing it could be punished - 5 year prison sentance perhaps?

So what is your suggestion/solution then?

Queenie

Just to show I am not biased (nor "holier than thou") I've found an article in a newspaper today which shows a wicked way to save money on speed tickets etc

The Sun:

THOUSANDS of drivers are dodging speed fines in cars with foreign plates because councils never bother to chase them up.

They also get away with parking illegally because traffic wardens also want to avoid hassle.

The scandal emerged yesterday after a car magazine deliberately racked up fines of £880 in a Renault 5 it bought in France — and heard nothing.

Offences included defying bus lane cameras, illegal parking in Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester and not paying the London congestion charge.

Amazingly, traffic wardens were seen ignoring the car while ticketing motors parked either side.

Five tickets which WERE issued went unpaid — and months later the driver had heard nothing.

The probe comes as speed cameras are set to go up on the M4 to milk more ordinary motorists.

Kent police admits 1,148 foreign cars were caught on speed cameras last year but none was fined.

The Birmingham Safety Camera Partnership confessed it regularly deletes images of foreign speeders.

Auto Express editor David Johns said: “Foreign nationals living here know the authorities have a lax attitude towards their cars.”

KrazyFool

I think car importers & grey-importers will have something to say about that. European cars that are restricted there can be de-restricted here. another source of lost revenue

BFG_2

There is talk of fines (and points??) being put on your licence for speeding abroad (and vice versa for the foreign cars speeding in this country.)

BFG_2

A word of caution - if you're tempted to buy the ebook on ebay on how to avoid getting/paying for a speeding/parking ticket, don't bother, it's a load of tosh.

I have several ways (that actually work) of avoiding paying them/taking the points (most of which are perfectly legal, and a few are 'dubious'), but I can't post them here.

tonys_3

Further proof, if any were needed,that the use of speed cameras is targeting the wrong drivers,was provided by The Sunday Mirror

NO MORE SPEED CAMERAS SAYS TOP COP

Mar 13 2005

Exclusive By Andrew Baxter


BRITAIN's top traffic cop is calling for a halt on any more speed cameras insisting: "Enough's enough."

Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom has made the amazing U-turn after admitting that the policy is failing to end the carnage on the roads.

"We have 6,000 cameras in the UK covering every identifiable hotspot, yet road deaths have gone up," said Mr Brunstrom, head of road policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers.

"We can't keep on going until there is a camera on each lamppost. We've got to stop somewhere."

The ACPO wants to double the number of cameras to 12,000, but Mr Brunstrom called for a rethink after latest figures showed 3,508 died on our roads in 2003 - the highest figure since 1997. And last year deaths and serious injuries actually increased at one camera site in seven, even though 2.2millon drivers were fined and had three points put on their licence.

.........................................................................................................

What is more dangerous

a}silverfoxdude doing 65mph in a 70 mph zone which has a temporary 50mph limit because of roadworks.He was travelling after the workmen had gone home and his was the only car on the road.

or

b] a motorcyclist on the same stretch of road,same speed limits,with the workmen now present.He is weaving through thick,slow moving traffic[10-15 mph]doing 40 mph?

What if the motor cyclist was over the drink drive limit as well?

He would still sail past the camera and it wouldn't even flicker.

It is very difficult to get accurate data from the Dept of Transport on the number of accidents caused by excessive speed only.To strengthen their case that speed is dangerous,they build up their figures by saying that 30% of the accidents caused,are as a result of excessive speed or inappropriate speed,so neither can be separated in order to make reasoned attempts at reducing road deaths.It is pointless making ludicrous statements like "speeding is a major cause of road accidents and/or deaths" if it is palpably untrue.

Expensive campaigns,speed cameras,et al have been introduced,ostensibly to reduce deaths on the road.THe attempt would be laudable
if speed was a major cause,but even lumping "inappropriate speed" only raises the percentage to 30.

A visit to https://www.safespeed.org.uk/main.html then a click on Avon and Somerset reveals
a more exact scenario.

In 2001 the contributory factors in accidents recorded by the police in their area were
careless driving/without due care/inattention 48%
road or weather conditions !9%
other 11%
excess speed 10%
drink 2%
etc

They then further analysed the excess speed factor

Of the 10% involved,68% were travelling within the speed limit but their speed was inappropriate
only 30% [ie 3 people in 100]were exceeding the speed limit while the remaining 2% were as a result of stolen vehicles crashing.

I accept that these figures may not be representative of every police force throughout the country,but the 10% is pretty much in line with the estimates of many
on the web [7% is more often quoted].

And for this we are subjected to 6000 speed cameras and million in fines.The money spent on the cameras should be directed to cutting down on careless driving.However this is done,whether by changing the driving test,or retesting drivers
every 5/10 years or something else[ suggestions welcome]the answer patently does NOT lie with speed cameras.

PS Before Queenie jumps in[lol],I do agree that the use of speed cameras to protect workmen for example,is totally appropriate.

KrazyFool

Weyres wrote:

Not a good idea.

i know its not, it wasnt my idea. well ok restrictors on european/asian cars to 155 is fair enough, i mean where can you really get the change to do 155. There must have been german reasoning as to why this figure. if you can do 70 youll do 80 if you can do 155 youll do .....

the germans have got it right. everyone can go really fast but they know which lane theyre supposed to be in and there isnt that huge variation on speed as they dont join a motorway doing 30 :rolleyes:

michaels

Tonys - excellent post

Excessive speed above the speed limit contributes to approx 7% of accidents in a real set of data. I am sure it would be possible to go on and cost these accidents.

Then we could look at the speed cameras and see how much they reduced the amount of speeding and work out how much this woudl reduce accidents by - for example if there was a 10% reduction in overall speeding this could be expected to reduce accidents by 0.7% (10%*7% of accidents) - and again value this saving

Against this we should work out the 'cost' of driving slower - more complicated here as as well as the costs (mostly in terms of driver and passenger time) there will obviously be savings in fuel consumption. However I suspect due to the number of miles beeing driven being so much higher than the number of accidents it would be found that the benefits of speeding far outweigh the costs associated with the accidents.

Anyone who disagrees and would rather reduce accidents at any cost, I suggest you start campaining for a blanket 10mph speed limit on all roads, and why stop at the roads - rail fatalities could be avoided by the same method.

dougk_2

The best way to reduce accidents is to cut the miles travelled. Do we really need Reps travelling up and down the country to sell us things when they can post ofr send us samples. Todays technology (i.e. this - the internet and telecommunications) means that thousands of people could work from home. Do we need large call centres when people can answer the phone and tap into a PC from home?

Parental choice as to which school their children go to has increased traffic substantially...children use to go to the nearest school and if it was too far away to walk a bus would take you. Are the children being taught any better - really?

But as a revenue earner speed cameras are good - I suppose if they were not there our council taxes would be even higher!