Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[henrik777]

Switzerland must make a fair bit from speeding fines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10960230

Lovely car though.

""nothing can justify a speed of 290km/h".

yes, and nothign can justify a fine of a million dollars.

imho of course.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm


Based on the previous Swiss record i'd say $1m won't bother this guy too much as he is probably worth $100m minimum.

Sandy

[TightPaulFolds]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10929488

Oh noes!!  It's the end of the world: "Oxfordshire speeding increase after cameras turned off".

No mention of an increase in accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries though from the 'safety campaigners'.  In fact, no mention of accidents at all.  Maybe that would be an interesting metric to consider, considering safety is what they're interested in?

Excess speed is the major/one of the major factors in Road Traffic Accidents. If you're a safety planner it would be reasonable to predict a correlation between increasing vehicle speed in the area and increased number of accidents. Must be a quirk or too low a sample period.

[Bongo]

Speed Cameras don't measure excess speed though.

[TightPaulFolds]

Speed Cameras don't measure excess speed though.

They don't?

[Bongo]

No.

[TightPaulFolds]

No.

Ok then ty

[Bongo]

Sigh, I'll guess I'll expand then.

Let's define excess speed. I would say it is travelling faster than is safe. The safe speed to travel is completely separate from the speed limit and varies depending on traffic, conditions, weather etc.

I can think of times when it is safe to travel above the speed limit and times when it's not safe to travel at the speed limit.

Speed cameras detect people who travel faster than the speed limit, which includes people safely travelling above the speed limit but not those travelling dangerously below it.

[TightPaulFolds]

Sigh, I'll guess I'll expand then.

Let's define excess speed. I would say it is travelling faster than is safe. The safe speed to travel is completely separate from the speed limit and varies depending on traffic, conditions, weather etc.

I can think of times when it is safe to travel above the speed limit and times when it's not safe to travel at the speed limit.

Speed cameras detect people who travel faster than the speed limit, which includes people safely travelling above the speed limit but not those travelling dangerously below it.

Ok, gotcha now. I guess you mean 'Speed cameras don't measure excessive speed'.

I do agree with many of the sentiments you express.

[ ] Driving at 30mph in a 30mph zone is safe when it is snowing, there is a lot of traffic, and you are driving past a school at the final bell.

[ ] Driving at 80mph on a stretch of clear motorway in dry weather is much more dangerous than driving there at 70mph.

However, in many instances where an accident occurs, had a driver who was shown to be speeding *not* been speeding, the accident would not have occurred or there would not have been a fatality when there was one.



Getting people to slow down decreases the numbers of serious RTAs and fatalities. Speed cameras slow people down.

[Bongo]

I notice you haven't said speed cameras reduce the number of serious RTAs and fatalities

[TightPaulFolds]

I notice you haven't said speed cameras reduce the number of serious RTAs and fatalities

lol, nice spot

Maybe they do

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1338/

Abstract

In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced. In February 2003, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report 1 that analysed the effectiveness of the system in the eight pilot areas over the first two years (April 2000 to March 2002). This report updates this analysis to the 24 areas that were operating within the programme over the first three years (April 2000 to March 2003). Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows: Vehicle speeds were down – surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 7% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 71% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 21% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (ie 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 80% at fixed camera sites, and 28% at mobile camera sites. Both casualties and deaths were down – after allowing for the long-term trend there was a 33% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites where cameras were introduced. Overall, this meant that 40% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer). There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,030 fewer personal injury collisions per annum. There was a clear correlation between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs. There was a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221million compared to enforcement costs of around £54million. The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level. Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have reduced collisions, casualties and deaths.

And yet they propose this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10762590

[titaniumbean]

I'm going to say this again (i'm sure i'll have come in before and ranted)

Why don't we actually teach people to drive better instead of just increasing the number of cars on the roads and letting so many epic fails out and about. You call a car a 'deadly weapon' yet let a bunch of imbeciles drive around in them with barely any training?

There are so many bad drivers.

Speed is a factor in accidents, it's a factor to how serious/how quick to be able to react/how quick to stop etc.

However other factors are people pulling out incorrectly, not signalling, driving in the wrong lanes on motorways, pulling out to overtake on motorways too slow, braking for no reason on the motorway because they want to cause a traffic jam (that or they're ignorant bumders) god I could go on.


Speed really isn't the most important factor causing crashes, the human imbecile making tonnes of -carEV decisions let alone optimalCarEV decisions is!



oh god I hate other drivers. that is all.


/rant (for now)




edit and the SLS is a sweeeeeeeet car.

[TightPaulFolds]

I'm going to say this again (i'm sure i'll have come in before and ranted)

Why don't we actually teach people to drive better instead of just increasing the number of cars on the roads and letting so many epic fails out and about. You call a car a 'deadly weapon' yet let a bunch of imbeciles drive around in them with barely any training?

There are so many bad drivers.

Speed is a factor in accidents, it's a factor to how serious/how quick to be able to react/how quick to stop etc.

However other factors are people pulling out incorrectly, not signalling, driving in the wrong lanes on motorways, pulling out to overtake on motorways too slow, braking for no reason on the motorway because they want to cause a traffic jam (that or they're ignorant bumders) god I could go on.


Speed really isn't the most important factor causing crashes, the human imbecile making tonnes of -carEV decisions let alone optimalCarEV decisions is!



oh god I hate other drivers. that is all.


/rant (for now)




edit and the SLS is a sweeeeeeeet car.

Good post, I really agree with most of this. I think that really people emerge from a passed driving test ill-prepared for life on the roads. I had to do a 'Defensive Driving Course' at the Transport Research Lab and it was mostly designed to help you cope with the presence on the road of the nutters you mention. Why people choose to go around in motorbikes in these conditions is beyond me. 'But I'm a safe and skilled rider!' -'And you control the nutcase who emerges from the junction into your path without looking how?'
You drive fastest on motorways but most of the bad accidents don't happen there, so it's not absolute speed *as such* that kills you, but this is not inconsistent with the finding that where other factors are principal in the cause of the accident happening eg 'failure to judge other motorist's speed', 'not looking properly at junction', the *speed* of the cars was the predominant factor determining the extent of personal injuries or fatalities.
So...you probably *could* reduce the occurrence of accidents by spending mmmeggabux on increased driver education/training, but I'm guessing it would be better spent on just getting everyone's speed down by using blanket measures like speed cameras.

[lazaroonie]

However, in many instances where an accident occurs, had a driver who was shown to be speeding *not* been speeding, the accident would not have occurred or there would not have been a fatality when there was one.

do you have any verifyable facts to back that up, or is it just your opinon,ie a lot of bollocks ?

[Bongo]

I notice you haven't said speed cameras reduce the number of serious RTAs and fatalities

lol, nice spot

Maybe they do

*snip*

There is also this:

Accident data shows that in the first nine months after the devices were scrapped in Swindon, there were 315 road casualties in the area as a whole, compared with 327 in the same period the previous year.

In total there were two fatalities – compared with four in the same period previously – and 44 serious injuries, down from 48.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html

I think it's a bit odd that speed cameras get branded safety cameras and we're told they make us all safer etc and yet it seems that the evidence for this isn't exactly concrete. (even if they do make things safer it doesn't mean there isn't a safer option too etc)

I think Mr Bean has a point too.

[titaniumbean]

I'm going to say this again (i'm sure i'll have come in before and ranted)

Why don't we actually teach people to drive better instead of just increasing the number of cars on the roads and letting so many epic fails out and about. You call a car a 'deadly weapon' yet let a bunch of imbeciles drive around in them with barely any training?

There are so many bad drivers.

Speed is a factor in accidents, it's a factor to how serious/how quick to be able to react/how quick to stop etc.

However other factors are people pulling out incorrectly, not signalling, driving in the wrong lanes on motorways, pulling out to overtake on motorways too slow, braking for no reason on the motorway because they want to cause a traffic jam (that or they're ignorant bumders) god I could go on.


Speed really isn't the most important factor causing crashes, the human imbecile making tonnes of -carEV decisions let alone optimalCarEV decisions is!



oh god I hate other drivers. that is all.


/rant (for now)




edit and the SLS is a sweeeeeeeet car.

Good post, I really agree with most of this. I think that really people emerge from a passed driving test ill-prepared for life on the roads. I had to do a 'Defensive Driving Course' at the Transport Research Lab and it was mostly designed to help you cope with the presence on the road of the nutters you mention. Why people choose to go around in motorbikes in these conditions is beyond me. 'But I'm a safe and skilled rider!' -'And you control the nutcase who emerges from the junction into your path without looking how?'
You drive fastest on motorways but most of the bad accidents don't happen there, so it's not absolute speed *as such* that kills you, but this is not inconsistent with the finding that where other factors are principal in the cause of the accident happening eg 'failure to judge other motorist's speed', 'not looking properly at junction', the *speed* of the cars was the predominant factor determining the extent of personal injuries or fatalities.
So...you probably *could* reduce the occurrence of accidents by spending mmmeggabux on increased driver education/training, but I'm guessing it would be better spent on just getting everyone's speed down by using blanket measures like speed cameras.

If you reduce the speed though, doesn't stop me not paying attention and driving into the side of you, the accident may be less severe but it's still a completely stoppable accident.


It is all just so New labour, we have a specific number target and we like fiddling it so we beat our targets, and hey lets make as much money from speed cameras as possible cos we need money.

The ridic thing, referencing how 'excess' speed is different, is that so many people drive so dangerously by being slow/stupidly cautious that they cause accidents/incidents (and probably drive off without noticing because they are so gormless and bad).


I got banned from driving a few months ago and had such a ridic conversation with the seemingly sensible coppa.

it's 2:30 am on a thursday night, on a dry road, with barely any other traffic (yes yes except the coppa that pulls me over that I passed 4 junctions earlier but that's not the point) though it kind of is. He pulls me for doing 101 and asks if I saw him before pulling over for him?

And i'm like well ofc im good driver who pays atttention, you were in the 2nd lane of 4 coming past leicester forest east I was doing X speed and I didn't slow or change my course because that's how I drive and I believe it to be fine especially in these conditions. He turns round all dead pan and is like X speed is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.  I picarded for how ridiculous the thought of that is.

Have a guess at 'X' speed.


I was really glad to see when I went to court that there was seemingly no sensible reasoning that decided my fate, just an arbitrary figure that I was 1 over. Which is obviously the same offence as doing the same speed on a wet busy day?


morans. winds me up.