Anti-Speed Camera Petition

[kinboshi]

But the government wants to introduce tougher punishments for so-called "excessive speeders" - for example, those who drive at more than 90mph on a motorway.

If adopted, the proposal - first mooted four years ago - would see these "anti-social drivers" automatically given six points.

Being caught twice at such speeds would mean 12 points and an automatic disqualification from driving

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7738919.stm

ffs

Utterly bonkers.

The government wanted to address the 2,946 deaths and the 30,000 serious injuries on British roads last year, he said.

Did any journalists ask him how many of these deaths and serious injuries were caused by someone going over 90mph on a motorway? 

[Grier78]

But the government wants to introduce tougher punishments for so-called "excessive speeders" - for example, those who drive at more than 90mph on a motorway.

If adopted, the proposal - first mooted four years ago - would see these "anti-social drivers" automatically given six points.

Being caught twice at such speeds would mean 12 points and an automatic disqualification from driving

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7738919.stm

ffs

Utterly bonkers.

The government wanted to address the 2,946 deaths and the 30,000 serious injuries on British roads last year, he said.

Did any journalists ask him how many of these deaths and serious injuries were caused by someone going over 90mph on a motorway? 

For Motorways:
Exceeding the speed limit is not recorded as a contributing factor.

Careless, reckless or in a hurry 704 accidents, 18 deaths in 2007
Following too close 1101 accidents, 29 deaths in 2007
Travelling too fast for conditions 781 accidents, 20 deaths in 2007


Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf

[kinboshi]

But the government wants to introduce tougher punishments for so-called "excessive speeders" - for example, those who drive at more than 90mph on a motorway.

If adopted, the proposal - first mooted four years ago - would see these "anti-social drivers" automatically given six points.

Being caught twice at such speeds would mean 12 points and an automatic disqualification from driving

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7738919.stm

ffs

Utterly bonkers.

The government wanted to address the 2,946 deaths and the 30,000 serious injuries on British roads last year, he said.

Did any journalists ask him how many of these deaths and serious injuries were caused by someone going over 90mph on a motorway? 

For Motorways:
Exceeding the speed limit is not recorded as a contributing factor.

Careless, reckless or in a hurry 704 accidents, 18 deaths in 2007
Following too close 1101 accidents, 29 deaths in 2007
Travelling too fast for conditions 781 accidents, 20 deaths in 2007


Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf

I know that, you know that - but the average person on the street believes what they read and hear on the BBC. 

Also, only 5% of the deaths and serious injuries on UK's roads happened on motorways.  Why the constant media and government focus on speeding on the motorway?

[Maxriddles]

You have a choice what speed you do on the motorway, you know what the possible penalties are if you are caught driving at excessive speeds, but you still have the choice. It seems clear that a lot of people on here think they know better.

A lot of people could drive safely on a motorway in excess of 90mph. FACT
A lot of cars are capable of handling safely and easily achieving these speeds.FACT

Now the but, the laws are in place to protect all road users and just like everything else in life not all drivers are are of the same standard. The current speed restrictions on the motorways take this into consideration and the theory behind them is that if everyone adheres to them our motorways and roads should be a lot safer for everyone. The 70mph limit on the motorway is also retained in the knowledge that half of motorway users will be doing 80mph anyway.

There is something in many posts in this thread that bothers me greatly, a selfish and arrogant attitude that says the law is an ass and I know better. Some of you should spend less time trying to find stats to try to justify your argument and just stick to the laws and live with the penalties if you choose not to, they are there for the greater good.

If you want to look up something why not look up some of the stories behind these statistics, the 57 motorway deaths in 2007 for example. How many of these were avoidable, how many caused by stupid or irresponsible driving?  57 doesn't seem a big number but one needless death is one too many, and each one of these was a personal tragedy to the family and friends they leave behind. Left struggling to cope with the needless and avoidable loss of a loved one. Regardless of motorway, A road, B road, most of the deaths on roads (nearly 3000 last year) are needless and avoidable, many caused by people who think they know better than the law.

Finally, there are probably people who use blonde who have needlessly lost a loved one or friend on our roads, please spare them a thought before posting.

[kinboshi]

You have a choice what speed you do on the motorway, you know what the possible penalties are if you are caught driving at excessive speeds, but you still have the choice. It seems clear that a lot of people on here think they know better.

A lot of people could drive safely on a motorway in excess of 90mph. FACT
A lot of cars are capable of handling safely and easily achieving these speeds.FACT

Now the but, the laws are in place to protect all road users and just like everything else in life not all drivers are are of the same standard. The current speed restrictions on the motorways take this into consideration and the theory behind them is that if everyone adheres to them our motorways and roads should be a lot safer for everyone. The 70mph limit on the motorway is also retained in the knowledge that half of motorway users will be doing 80mph anyway.

There is something in many posts in this thread that bothers me greatly, a selfish and arrogant attitude that says the law is an ass and I know better. Some of you should spend less time trying to find stats to try to justify your argument and just stick to the laws and live with the penalties if you choose not to, they are there for the greater good.

If you want to look up something why not look up some of the stories behind these statistics, the 57 motorway deaths in 2007 for example. How many of these were avoidable, how many caused by stupid or irresponsible driving?  57 doesn't seem a big number but one needless death is one too many, and each one of these was a personal tragedy to the family and friends they leave behind. Left struggling to cope with the needless and avoidable loss of a loved one. Regardless of motorway, A road, B road, most of the deaths on roads (nearly 3000 last year) are needless and avoidable, many caused by people who think they know better than the law.

Finally, there are probably people who use blonde who have needlessly lost a loved one or friend on our roads, please spare them a thought before posting.

I understand what you're saying, but did you read the FACTS?  There were ZERO serious accidents on motorways last year that were caused by the speed limit being exceeded.  Excessive speed is wrong, it's bad, it's dangerous.  No one is disputing that (well I'm not).  However, exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is not inherently dangerous.  That's the whole point. 

I have friends who have died because of car accidents.  Two close friends were killed by a drunk driver, and another was seriously injured when a car knocked him over when he was on a zebra crossing. 

Could you tell me how many of the 57 people who died on the motorway lost their lives because of dangerous drivers, drivers falling asleep at the wheel, drivers who were drunk?  I bet it's more than zero.  Why isn't the focus on reducing these factors? 

[Grier78]

There were ZERO serious accidents on motorways last year that were caused by the speed limit being exceeded.   

That's not necessarily true, for some of the reasons in my figures drivers may have been exceeding the speed limit, its just the police do not use this as a reason for the accident.

The new rules don't bother me too much as I don't exceed 90 on a motorway or go faster than 50 in a 40 or 40 in a 30.
90mph allows you to make good progress in reasonably clear motorways but any faster in any kind of reasonable traffic will mean that you are constantly accelerating and breaking. If everyone drives sensibly on a motorway you should almost never need to break.

I am much more concerned with tailgaters and those driving recklessly.

[kinboshi]

There were ZERO serious accidents on motorways last year that were caused by the speed limit being exceeded.   

That's not necessarily true, for some of the reasons in my figures drivers may have been exceeding the speed limit, its just the police do not use this as a reason for the accident.

The new rules don't bother me too much as I don't exceed 90 on a motorway or go faster than 50 in a 40 or 40 in a 30.
90mph allows you to make good progress in reasonably clear motorways but any faster in any kind of reasonable traffic will mean that you are constantly accelerating and breaking. If everyone drives sensibly on a motorway you should almost never need to break.

I am much more concerned with tailgaters and those driving recklessly.

No, the fact still stands - none of the accidents were 'caused' by exceeding the speed limit.  There might have been dangerous driving involved, excessive speed, and other factors - but exceeding the speed limit was not and is not a factor.

[Maxriddles]

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

[Bongo]

No one driving at all would make the roads safer.

[Swordpoker]

The law is an ass and I know better.

[kinboshi]

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

Again, I understand where you're coming from on this.

I just don't think that cameras are the best way to improve road safety.  More police patrols, more random checks on cars, stronger punishment for those without the necessary certificates (insurance, tax, MOT, license, etc.), clamping down on drunk/drug-drivers, would all help to reduce deaths and accidents on the road.

Near where I live there's a 30mph zone through a residential area (not far from a school) and there are two speed cameras.  I have absolutely no problem with these, and I actually think the road should be made into a 20mph zone - so that it's safer for pedestrians.  Although the cameras do reduce the speed of the drivers at those two points on the road, some drivers drive at excessive speeds elsewhere on the road - and so the road in general isn't necessarily safer for pedestrians and other road users.  Also the cameras certainly don't protect road users from those drivers who are breaking the law in other ways (drunk driving, etc.).

[Jon MW]

...
More police patrols, more random checks on cars, ... clamping down on drunk/drug-drivers, would all help to reduce deaths and accidents on the road.

...

Would work but people don't like paying for it - cameras might not be as effective, but they are cost effective (I know a few places disagree with this but the consensus seems to be that they're value for money).

...
stronger punishment for those without the necessary certificates (insurance, tax, MOT, license, etc.), ...
...

Would work, would be great, don't know why they don't do it.

...
Near where I live there's a 30mph zone through a residential area (not far from a school) and there are two speed cameras.  I have absolutely no problem with these, and I actually think the road should be made into a 20mph zone - so that it's safer for pedestrians.  Although the cameras do reduce the speed of the drivers at those two points on the road, some drivers drive at excessive speeds elsewhere on the road - and so the road in general isn't necessarily safer for pedestrians and other road users. 
...

The road in general is safer, because if the speed cameras weren't there at all then those drivers would be excessively speeding every where in that area. Nothing could stop those people altogether, but a couple of speed cameras, 2 or 3 speed bumps and a couple of other traffic calming measures would certainly lower the 'average' danger in that area.

Basically I think speed cameras by themselves are of use - but limited use. I think they should be used in addition to other measures, where I think it's going wrong at the moment is that they're just used as an end in themselves.

[tikay]

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

That one sentence says more & makes more sense, than all the Posts & puff on this Thread.

[kinboshi]

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

That one sentence says more & makes more sense, than all the Posts & puff on this Thread.

It does.  So why the focus all the time on speeding (and especially speeding on the motorway)?  Why not on the crimes that actually cause the deaths and serious injuries? 

[kinboshi]

http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/news_item/driving-tired.asp

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=601

Not "puff" - FACT