Laser speed camera - distance could be wrong

System

MEM62 wrote: »

An interesting tactic considering that speed is a factor in only 8% of motorcycle accidents.

So almost double that of cars.

Car_54

DELETED USER wrote:

Unfortunately these LTI 20.20 things are basically random number generators, they are unreliable and often produce incorrect readings. There are so may things that can go wrong - operator error, improper calibration, vibration (especially on a motorway bridge) etc.
.

Any evidence for any of these accusations?

MEM62

Tarambor wrote: »

So almost double that of cars.

So speed is a factor in 8% of motorcycle accidents and 4% of car accidents. Just goes to prove my point that targeting speed is not addressing the biggest cause of KSI's.

a.turner

MEM62 wrote: »

So speed is a factor in 8% of motorcycle accidents and 4% of car accidents. Just goes to prove my point that targeting speed is not addressing the biggest cause of KSI's.

It could be argued inappropriate speed is a factor in most accidents.

AdrianC

a.turner wrote: »

It could be argued inappropriate speed is a factor in most accidents.

...and inappropriate speed can be within the limit, of course.

[Deleted User]

Car_54 wrote: »

Any evidence for any of these accusations?

https://youtu.be/pVdjZE2YhLE

https://youtu.be/N25ybu2y2aA

MEM62

a.turner wrote: »

It could be argued inappropriate speed is a factor in most accidents.

I doubt anyone other than other than the 'all speed is dangerous' brigade would try to argue that.

Physics will tell you that velocity must be involved in all collisions on the basis that stationary objects cannot collide. However, the criterion for establishing the cause of RTAs takes in all factors and, in most cases, there will be one factor that outweighs all others. Of course dozens of factors are involved in every RTA - even down to selecting the journey time and route but here will be one particular event, error or decision that will be the main cause.

Those accidents where speed is the primary factor represent a small percentage overall. If the Government and other campaigners focused their efforts on poor/bad driving instead of speed we would see a much better improvement in road safety. But of course, there is no political will for that as it requires spending money to put roads policing officers out there. It is much easier to rely on the prosecution statistics provided by cameras to give the illusion that the subject is taken seriously and something is being done to address it and, of course, cameras do not require salaries or pensions.

a.turner

MEM62 wrote: »

I doubt anyone other than other than the 'all speed is dangerous' brigade would try to argue that.

Physics will tell you that velocity must be involved in all collisions on the basis that stationary objects cannot collide. However, the criterion for establishing the cause of RTAs takes in all factors and, in most cases, there will be one factor that outweighs all others. Of course dozens of factors are involved in every RTA - even down to selecting the journey time and route but here will be one particular event, error or decision that will be the main cause.

Those accidents where speed is the primary factor represent a small percentage overall. If the Government and other campaigners focused their efforts on poor/bad driving instead of speed we would see a much better improvement in road safety. But of course, there is no political will for that as it requires spending money to put roads policing officers out there. It is much easier to rely on the prosecution statistics provided by cameras to give the illusion that the subject is taken seriously and something is being done to address it and, of course, cameras do not require salaries or pensions.

You're no doubt aware that other than a sometimes untrained police officers opinion only a small percentage of accidents have any investigation work done to establish speed.

TooManyPoints

I haven't read all of this but, in short:

The prosecution will bring evidence to show that the device was an approved one and operated in the correct manner. If you wish to dispute this you have to prove that one or both of those was untrue. If you do (and, as explained, it's a very big "if") you may cause the court to doubt the accuracy of the measurement, but at 98mph it would not cause them to believe you were not speeding. The offence is exceeding the 70mph limit, not travelling at 98mph. To be acquitted you would have to show that the device or its operation was so defective that it could not be relied upon to show you had exceeded 70mph. A technical challenge will mean the prosecution will engage expert support and in the event of conviction the costs for that will fall on the defendant.

The precise speed is needed for sentencing, not conviction. If your version and the prosecution's are so different that it would make a material difference to sentencing you could ask for a "Newton" hearing to establish the facts.

Loanranger

The point is that we can't pick which laws we want to abide by and which ones we decide to break without expecting there to be a massive rap on the knuckles from the beak.
I drive a 3.4 litre gas guzzler and I keep to 70, using my speed limiter, on the motorways especially those new fangled smart ones. There is no fun to be had any more in driving as the roads are too congested. I can easily do 130 but what would be the point? I could die doing it, kill others with me or maim them or just have my licence taken away. Whatever way you look at it, you won't be doing it again.
Drive to arrive. Drive another day.