Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[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.

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.

I agree that fast moving cars are inherently 'dangerous' and that running out in front of one like those swedish girls did is likely to bring about their deaths. The fact that the girl ran out and the fact that the lorry driver was doing 70mph were both physical contributers to the damage done to her. Is the lorry driver responsible? Of course not.
This is different from the example I used. What I said is that in the majority of cases where you are doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and a child runs in front of your car and you hit the child and kill them, it is your speed that causes the childs death. Speed+car's mass=energy. The energy present in car doing 40mph is much greater than a car doing 30mph. Had you been doing 30mph you are unlikely to kill the child. If you are doing 40mph the child is unlikely to survive.
Should the child run out in front of the car? No.
If the child hadn't run out would there be no accident? Yes.
But this doesn't take away from the fact that it was your speed itself that brought about the fatality. It is reasonable to expect areas with 30mph zones not to have cars doing a lethal 40mph on them.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the swedish girl successfully sue the lorry driver that hit her? Obv not.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the parent's of the child sue a motorist for their loss? Most likely. The child initiated the accident, but the motorist's choice to do 40mph caused her death.

[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.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



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

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

[Woodsey]

Boshi, is there any topic you are not an expert on?

[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.

I agree that fast moving cars are inherently 'dangerous' and that running out in front of one like those swedish girls did is likely to bring about their deaths. The fact that the girl ran out and the fact that the lorry driver was doing 70mph were both physical contributers to the damage done to her. Is the lorry driver responsible? Of course not.
This is different from the example I used. What I said is that in the majority of cases where you are doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and a child runs in front of your car and you hit the child and kill them, it is your speed that causes the childs death. Speed+car's mass=energy. The energy present in car doing 40mph is much greater than a car doing 30mph. Had you been doing 30mph you are unlikely to kill the child. If you are doing 40mph the child is unlikely to survive.
Should the child run out in front of the car? No.
If the child hadn't run out would there be no accident? Yes.
But this doesn't take away from the fact that it was your speed itself that brought about the fatality. It is reasonable to expect areas with 30mph zones not to have cars doing a lethal 40mph on them.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the swedish girl successfully sue the lorry driver that hit her? Obv not.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the parent's of the child sue a motorist for their loss? Most likely. The child initiated the accident, but the motorist's choice to do 40mph caused her death.

I totally accept that the MITFL is different I was just trying to get across my point.

The problem I have with what you say, is you seem to be some governmental stooge with stuff to regurgitate.

How is a child being hit a 30 not either an accident? or something that could cause serious harm?

Are only fatal accidents a problem?


edit again, the last line 'caused her death', trying to claim that 10mph is more important a factor than anything else possible to consider is very tilting.

[TightPaulFolds]

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.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

[titaniumbean]

Boshi, is there any topic you are not an expert on?

errrrrrrrrr




(poker)

[kinboshi]

Boshi, is there any topic you are not an expert on?

The focus on 'speeding' as a means of increasing road safety is a pet peeve of mine. 

Another is Gillian McKeith and other pseudoscientists.

There's lots I don't know about, especially if it involves poker

[Woodsey]

Boshi, is there any topic you are not an expert on?

The focus on 'speeding' as a means of increasing road safety is a pet peeve of mine. 

Another is Gillian McKeith and other pseudoscientists.

There's lots I don't know about, especially if it involves poker

I think DR Gillian McKeith is very credible, explain why she is otherwise not please?





























There that should keep you busy for a while

[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.

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.

I agree that fast moving cars are inherently 'dangerous' and that running out in front of one like those swedish girls did is likely to bring about their deaths. The fact that the girl ran out and the fact that the lorry driver was doing 70mph were both physical contributers to the damage done to her. Is the lorry driver responsible? Of course not.
This is different from the example I used. What I said is that in the majority of cases where you are doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and a child runs in front of your car and you hit the child and kill them, it is your speed that causes the childs death. Speed+car's mass=energy. The energy present in car doing 40mph is much greater than a car doing 30mph. Had you been doing 30mph you are unlikely to kill the child. If you are doing 40mph the child is unlikely to survive.
Should the child run out in front of the car? No.
If the child hadn't run out would there be no accident? Yes.
But this doesn't take away from the fact that it was your speed itself that brought about the fatality. It is reasonable to expect areas with 30mph zones not to have cars doing a lethal 40mph on them.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the swedish girl successfully sue the lorry driver that hit her? Obv not.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the parent's of the child sue a motorist for their loss? Most likely. The child initiated the accident, but the motorist's choice to do 40mph caused her death.

I totally accept that the MITFL is different I was just trying to get across my point.

The problem I have with what you say, is you seem to be some governmental stooge with stuff to regurgitate.

How is a child being hit a 30 not either an accident? or something that could cause serious harm?

Are only fatal accidents a problem?


edit again, the last line 'caused her death', trying to claim that 10mph is more important a factor than anything else possible to consider is very tilting.

If you found that someone was doing 40mph in a 30mph zone (we were talking here about speed cameras, no?) what other element of the whole accident would you seek to address first? Kids will always run out in front of cars, drunks too, people will pull out from junctions, there will be dafties all over the road, education/training will only ever make a small dent in all of this. So what would you change first, that is more important? NB: continuing to live normally welcomed over the death option.

[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.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



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

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

[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.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

All of those except the last one are driver error.


Improve driving standards ?!!?!

YOU LEARN TO DRIVE AND NEVER EVEN GO ON A MOTORWAY I SAY WTF

I REPEAT WTF

I SAY WUT THE FKING FK



The general public are inept, stupid and incapable. That is fact.

Maybe dont allow so many incompetent buffoons into a car. Would you give a gun to anyone who is 17? (obv not a good point but you see what i'm implying).


Do I have to rehash my red light awareness day story, of a room of 25 people and myself and only the other two youngsters knowing THE ORDER OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS. That's pretty basic no?

I was also the only person in the room to admit to knowingly going through a red light,  everyone else said no even though they were caught on camera doing it.

As I explained at the time, I chose to go through a red light at the last second because i'd rather have done that than get hit by the stupid foreign woman with a car that looked like a bumper car of 30 years as she veered across 2 lanes and tried to come into mine. "The camera' cant see that and there is no basis for explanations or reasoning it's just boolean, camera saw something u get in trouble.

What's more dangerous a woman on the roads driving like a madthing hitting other people all the time and not checking before she moves across lanes even though she may drive less than the speed limit, or someone who knows that they are going through a changing light and who because of that changes his speed such that he isn't on the traffic light area by the time the other lights are green?  I wasn't in my own car and I was delighted with the result of my decision

driving awareness course with arguments with the stupid petty instructor > having an accident on the A1/A406 hendon junction mid evening thanks very much.




TPF, what i'm asking is what's the diff between an accident at 30/40?! other than a governmental campaign on some 'research' they have done. When lets remember they are also the ones telling us to remember the stopping distances in the high way code (those aren't wrong nowadays, surely not?!)


Also education training wont stop anything? The test should stop the morans from being allowed on the road the education should be towards increasing the overall level of driving.




A friend of mine at school passed his test and I was shocked to say the least, he is airy fairy mentally and pretty incapable of hand eye coordination with not great eyesight as is. He even said after his test he had no idea how he passed.

But that's ok because he paid for his test/license stuff and is ready to pay fines if needed.

The fact that the one time I got in his car he managed to drive up his own road (20mph residential, 50 yrds infront of a bend etc), and try and overtake  a car, said car was sitting in the middle of the road signalling right to turn into their driveway, so ermmmm we overtake the car on the right hand side without signalling and just at the point as the car starts turning into their drive. I cant believe my eyes, two seconds later we smash into the right hand side of the car and shunt it parallel with the pavement outside his house and we slide to a halt inbetween the two massive brick pillars on either side of the drive.


Epic fail to say the least. yet he still drives today, never had any more lessons never told he's a idiot except by me. Stupid thing is he isn't probably that bad compared to alot of the people I see going round constantly.

[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.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I find the speed limit is like a test.

You go away to out of town places, get on a ridiculously narrow hedge lined windy road and it's a 60 mph limit because no one can be arsed to look. All roads that are kinda small are 60. how does that even work. You can barely do 60 on the roads in good conditions let alone in bad.

[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.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



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

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I find the speed limit is like a test.

You go away to out of town places, get on a ridiculously narrow hedge lined windy road and it's a 60 mph limit because no one can be arsed to look. All roads that are kinda small are 60. how does that even work. You can barely do 60 on the roads in good conditions let alone in bad.

60mph country roads are the ones with the highest number of serious and fatal injuries for car drivers and passengers, because of exactly what you said.  Dangerous roads, with a speed limit that if adhered to can often mean you're driving at excessive speeds.  Far more dangerous than being on a clear motorway in dry conditions, travelling at 85mph.

More pedestrians are seriously injured or killed on 30mph roads.  That's going to be pretty obvious, even without looking at the statistics.  So, what's the answer there?  If it's in a residential area, it might be to lower the speed limit to 20mph.  Speed bumps are net to useless (they often move the danger to another road which results in a net increase in serious incidents - and they're also a pain for the emergency services), but other calming measures can work - such as narrowing of roads and one really interesting one is the removal of road markings in these areas.  It sounds counter-intuitive, but without road markings guiding people along the road without much thought, they have to think about what they're doing, think about what others are going to do, and actually make eye contact with other drivers and pedestrians.  Novel idea!

[TightPaulFolds]

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.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

[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.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



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

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.