Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[TightPaulFolds]

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 ?

Loathed as I am to waste my time replying to someone who chooses to address people in that kind of way, I would say it's pretty much common sense. What's your counterargument (presuming you have one, and that your level of debating skills extends beyond personal insult)?
Someone is driving along at 30mph, another driver emerges 200ft in front of them, from a junction, into their path. They stop in time and avoid a collision.
Someone is driving along at 70mph in the same setup, GOING FASTER YOU HAVE LESS TIME TO REACT AND TO BRING YOUR CAR TO A HALT so you are likely to hit them.
In another instance you do hit them at 30mph. Compare this to hitting them at 70mph. WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK MIGHT MORE LIKELY KILL YOU? The 70mph one or the 30mph one? Do you want me to go get you some nice internet links to back up my bollocks? Or can you think this one out for yourself?

[KarmaDope]

If I see a car doing 70mph only 200ft away from me as I'm about to pull out of a junction, I tend to wait for them to go past.

[titaniumbean]

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.

There are so many cameras near my house that shouldn't be there.


Go through the Wanstead underpass on the A12 eastbound towards the redbridge junction with the A406.


As you crest the hill out of the underpass you are joined by traffic from the left lane, there is a small side turning dead end on the left which needs a slow speed to enter.
Most of the left lane traffic is usually coming across to use the middle to right lanes, half of the traffic coming down the A12 needs to go left to get in lane for the M11 A406southbound.


As the 3 lanes have the line start becoming dashed so you can cross it, there is a speed camera.

So everybody what do we do, CHECK OUR DASHBOARDS FUCK THE 3 LANES OF TRAFFIC TRYING TO SWING INBETWEEN EACH OTHER DONT GET STUNG FOR 60 QUID.


oh that's a good idea isn't it, what a great idea.


same with the speed camera they put at the bottom of the M11, (A MOTORWAY) where the lanes reduce from 3 to 2 to allow for flyover through the marshes, that's a great idea 3 lanes of people doing 70 to suddenly 2 lanes doing 50 and desperately watching their SPEEDOS.


arrrrrrrrgh the one speedo outside a school locally got torched a month or two ago but no sign of that being fixed.....

[TightPaulFolds]

If I see a car doing 70mph only 200ft away from me as I'm about to pull out of a junction, I tend to wait for them to go past.

You didn't see it, it came round a tight bend, that's why they put up a 30mph limit, so you could see cars coming at you at normal speed.

[KarmaDope]

If I see a car doing 70mph only 200ft away from me as I'm about to pull out of a junction, I tend to wait for them to go past.

You didn't see it, it came round a tight bend, that's why they put up a 30mph limit, so you could see cars coming at you at normal speed.

Pretty sure everybody on here (bar Offless maybe lol) would slow down for the bend and wouldn't be doing 70mph then. If they were, that's unsafe driving, which is what everyone's going on about. 70mph on a dual carriageway during the day is probably not unsafe. 70mph round a tight bend probably is.

[Bongo]

Your argument seems to be that driving fast with no regard for the conditions is dangerous. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that.

[titaniumbean]

It's all relative and that's the point.

What speed do you reckon is speed X in my posts above, the copper said i'd have been pulled over for that (even if I hadn't got to to 3 figures - fwiw if I had got pulled at X speed I would have been a very bad citizen in terms of section 5.

[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 ?

Loathed as I am to waste my time replying to someone who chooses to address people in that kind of way, I would say it's pretty much common sense. What's your counterargument (presuming you have one, and that your level of debating skills extends beyond personal insult)?
Someone is driving along at 30mph, another driver emerges 200ft in front of them, from a junction, into their path. They stop in time and avoid a collision.
Someone is driving along at 70mph in the same setup, GOING FASTER YOU HAVE LESS TIME TO REACT AND TO BRING YOUR CAR TO A HALT so you are likely to hit them.
In another instance you do hit them at 30mph. Compare this to hitting them at 70mph. WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK MIGHT MORE LIKELY KILL YOU? The 70mph one or the 30mph one? Do you want me to go get you some nice internet links to back up my bollocks? Or can you think this one out for yourself?

a simple 'no' would have sufficed.

[TightPaulFolds]

Your argument seems to be that driving fast with no regard for the conditions is dangerous. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that.

No, it's not that argument, it's that significantly exceeding the speed limit is itself dangerous. The 'bend' thing was just a counter to the slightly flimsy objection about 'noticing people coming at you at 70mph and therefore holding back'. If it's on a regular straight stretch and you're further off the fact that you're doing 70mph in a 30mph isn't likely to be gauged properly by someone who makes one glance at you before pulling out.

A substantial number of accidents are initiated by actions other than those of the speeder (Distracted Driver, Tired Driver, Alcohol (more commonly drunk pedestrian walking into path of car), child running out in front of car etc). Because you mistakenly thought it was 'safe' to do 40mph in a 30mph zone (fk the law, the imposed limit, and the government that decided what might be safe) it is your *speed* itself that caused the fatality, even though the actions of the other person initiated the accident.

[TightPaulFolds]

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 ?

Loathed as I am to waste my time replying to someone who chooses to address people in that kind of way, I would say it's pretty much common sense. What's your counterargument (presuming you have one, and that your level of debating skills extends beyond personal insult)?
Someone is driving along at 30mph, another driver emerges 200ft in front of them, from a junction, into their path. They stop in time and avoid a collision.
Someone is driving along at 70mph in the same setup, GOING FASTER YOU HAVE LESS TIME TO REACT AND TO BRING YOUR CAR TO A HALT so you are likely to hit them.
In another instance you do hit them at 30mph. Compare this to hitting them at 70mph. WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK MIGHT MORE LIKELY KILL YOU? The 70mph one or the 30mph one? Do you want me to go get you some nice internet links to back up my bollocks? Or can you think this one out for yourself?

a simple 'no' would have sufficed.

Did you click the video link? Do you dispute those figures? They back up what I was saying about fatalities caused by excessive speed.

[titaniumbean]

Your argument seems to be that driving fast with no regard for the conditions is dangerous. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that.

No, it's not that argument, it's that significantly exceeding the speed limit is itself dangerous. The 'bend' thing was just a counter to the slightly flimsy objection about 'noticing people coming at you at 70mph and therefore holding back'. If it's on a regular straight stretch and you're further off the fact that you're doing 70mph in a 30mph isn't likely to be gauged properly by someone who makes one glance at you before pulling out.

A substantial number of accidents are initiated by actions other than those of the speeder (Distracted Driver, Tired Driver, Alcohol (more commonly drunk pedestrian walking into path of car), child running out in front of car etc). Because you mistakenly thought it was 'safe' to do 40mph in a 30mph zone (fk the law, the imposed limit, and the government that decided what might be safe) it is your *speed* itself that caused the fatality, even though the actions of the other person initiated the accident.

I agree with your sentiment, I don't agree with the use of the word 'cause' in the last line.


Hitting someone at 70mph is dangerous, 70mph is a legally allowed speed on a motorway, as per the mandess in the fast lane documentary did the lorry driver 'cause' the accident through physically doing some speed?

Roads have cars on them, they have an inherent danger by the fact they are heavy and move fast and aren't made of water like us.

Is there no responsibility with the pedestrian?


Did anyone see the recent article where a drunken bafoon messing about in the road, takes a lie down in the middle behind a reversing van. He tried to sue the van driver 'for not realising how drunk I was and that I couldn't be safe anywhere so he shouldn't have moved his van or used the roads'. (like wtf natural selection he should reversed over you again [1 for being a drunken idiot, 2 for thinking it's ok to sue people and try and get money for nothing]).

The 'cause' of an accident where a child runs out in the road is the child running out. Factors influencing his injuries are the car speed/amount of braking/weight/bull bars etc

The idea that a vehicle on a road 'causes' all accidents seems wrong.


IMO the world is ridic but we know that, it's taken how many years for a sudden surge of 'corporate responsibility' to come about, when is just general pedestrian/human responsibility going to be considered rather than putting the blame on everyone else.

[titaniumbean]

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

I've just read the opening page, had a look at some of the stuff.


That really tilts me, here is a small study where we then say 40% here 80% there.  Sample size sample size, if there is a 40% reduction it's because the numbers weren't huge in the first place, I hate this generalised shite, Id like to know the exact numbers for stuff not the statistics that sound best to prove their point.


What happens to ten yards down the road from the camera as everyone gunns it away?

[kinboshi]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

[titaniumbean]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read.

[kinboshi]

As an aside, here's an interesting anecdote. I recently got done for speeding on the way back from Cornwall on the M5 (just before Bristol I think).  I was doing over 85mph on a clear stretch of motorway.  A police car pulled me over, and I got my 3 points and £60 fine because I broke the law. That's fair enough, I did wrong, I know what the law is, and I know the penalty.  Was I driving dangerously, no, I don't think so.  But that's irrelevant.

Anyway, a few weeks later and I'm on the M1 and I see another BMW police car (similar to the one that pulled me over).  That explained why everyone was driving at 69mph, a few feet from the car in front of them - as they didn't want to speed but completely forgot about the idea of driving safely.  I was in the 2nd lane and a flat-bed lorry was in lane 1.  As I got close to him, he decided to pull out on me.  I had to break and then move into the 3rd lane (once I'd seen it was safe to do so) to avoid him.  I swore a little, and the girlfriend pointed out his mirrors were broken, so he simply couldn't see me.  I was still swearing and said something like "I hope that copper pulls him over and does him for that, but as he wasn't speeding I don't think anything will happen."   However, the police had obviously seen what had happened and on came his lights and he pulled the flat-bed over.  I hope they threw the book at him.

My point to that lovely story?  A speed camera wouldn't have been able to do anything about his dangerous driving.  The increase in the number of speed cameras is inversely proportional to the number of police patrols on the road.  This fascination with speed means that other, more dangerous offences are missed where cameras are prevalent.

Tailgating is an example of excessive speed.  You're driving too close to the car in front to stop in time if they had to stop or slow down suddenly.  Your speed in relation to the arbitrary speed limit for that stretch of road is irrelevant.  But again, it's an offence that speed cameras can't pick up on.