Safe Speed Forums

I suppose that, in comparison to Tianamen Square, Gatso's are a piece of p!ss...

ReichsChancellor Brown only needs a bit of time when he takes over from President Bliar...

There is a faint smell of bridges and three Billy-Goats Gruff here...

To Ling:

As people have already asked (and you have ignored the question multiple times)

What real evidence do you have that speed cameras have improved safety dramatically?

I think Ling is still missing the point.

Most Safespeeders (that means we support the Safespeed campaign - not that we think it is safe to speed all the time) will intentionally drive for the vast majority of the time under the speed limit and at the safe speed for the road and conditions at the time, as the safe speed is often below the legal limit. We have no problem with proper and sensible enforcement of the speed limits by the police.

A major problem arises with the government's massive over enforcement of exceeding speed limits in recent year at the expense of other road safety issues such as inattention, drink driving, tailgating drugs etc.
The speed cameras themselves are not the problem, it is how they are used that we take issue with. The technology is far more problematical than we are led to believe, the checking of photos is less rigorous than it should be etc. You said yourself that many of the vans and cameras are very well hidden - but they're not supposed to be! According to the guidelines they should highly visible with equally visible warning signs.

If I remember the figures correctly, motorists have paid over £120 million in fines in one year to save (according to the Gov.t's own figures) 100 lives. can you imagine how many lives COULD have been saved if the money had been spent on extra traffic police, or driver education, or catching drunk/drugged drivers, or engineering schemes on poor roads?

I'll hold my hands up and say I like to drive quickly where appropriate, but my own village in the morning isn't it, so I keep my speed well below the stated speed limit as 30mph isn't safe with so many young kids running around.
I've had 3 bumps in the last 18months, but they've all been caused by someone else not paying attention and consequently running into the back of me in conditions of clear visibility. Of these, all were below the limit, 1 was at about 20mph and the other 2 were at about 3mph.
I know of at least 4 other accidents where the cause was lack of attention and concentration rather than speeding (all below the stated limit and all preventable).

edited due to lots of posts between Ling's last one and mine...

But you must realise that you all exist in a kind of microcosm of like-thinkers. It's a bit like going to Iran and saying I think Allah is a fictional belief.

Our beliefs are evidence based. There's a 350,000 word web site, mainly the results of my work looking at road safety and speed cameras on a 'system' level.

The obvious answers to questions about speed cameras and road safety policy are not usually the right answers. That's because road safety is a complex matter of psychology - not a simple matter of physics.

Ling, as your husband is a pilot, he would also know that he would be able to go faster than the 250knot limit under 10,000ft with permission and when considered safe to do so. The 250knt rule is not absolute.

Please feel free to get your facts right before posting.

That's all a bit academic. Besides the fact that most single-engined light aircraft aren't capable of speeds anywhere near the limit, aircraft do not spend most of their time around the limit like cars do. You don't see pilots flying at 249 knots if the limit is 250 knots, neither do you see them flying at 1998 feet if the limit is 2000 feet. Of course it's simple. And pilots don't have cameras waiting to pounce on them for every minor transgression, do they?

But most drivers spend a lot of time at the very edge of legality - like 30mph in a 30 limit. Do 30.1mph and, technically, you're breaking the law. How many bank robbers 'almost' rob a bank?

Anyway, isn't the sub 10,000 feet speed limit in place for noise control, rather than safety?

In highly congested CatA airspace (Heathrow, in the UK) it's to enable ATC to get a consistent separation as well as noise due to traffic. Most pilots, at least I do will fly it using AP/AT which to non aviators is like cruise control on a car - ie the airspeed is maintained automatically by the FADECS/AP systems.

And yes, there are fines for transgressions of the 250 KIAS speed restriction which are slightly more than a £60/3pt.

It seems you do not get too many outsiders with contrary views.

And so are you (pedantic) too.

This forum seems populated by some people who like minutiae(sp?) of detail. No one drives a car like that, and no one (police, courts, government, peers - as in peer pressure) expects them to. Silly argument.

Ling, you make some very good arguments, but I cannot understand how you arrive at an assumption that speed cameras save lives.
I gave a personal example here which you appear to have overlooked.

Your argument that a contraflow places two lanes in potential conflict, separated only by cones, fails to consider that many roads are 60 mph with NO CONES, and drivers manage not to crossover and strike a vehicle coming the other way.

In Leicestershire on the M1, cameras were put in place "to protect road workers in road works".
5,438 drivers failed to slow down, and paid £326,280 in fines, yet not one of the 5,438 drivers killed a road worker, or had an accident.
In fact the people who placed the cameras made no attempt to STOP any of the drivers who were apparently placing road workers lives at risk!!!
I am sure you could have provided a vehicle, and they could have employed two officers to man it for less than £326,280, so it could not be shortage of resources which led to this inaction!!

Like many, you seem to think we are against cameras because we wish to speed over the limit.
I for one want sensible limits, governed by common sense like the rules governing aircraft, and proper road safety measures in place, not a slavish persecution of speed, to the exclusion of all else.
Everyday on my way to and from work, I pass through a 40 limit which was petitioned for by a group of people who met in a pub. The county council gave in to them on the grounds that it showed they listened to the wishes of local people. Since the limit and major re-organisation of the road layout was introduced, they have placed speed cameras - mobile at first, and now fixed cameras. Accidents (KSI's) have gone UP!!

Now does this look like a road requiring a 40 limit? It's one of the busiest tourist routes in Britain. So how have cameras helped? KSI's UP, and a substantial contribution to £1.6 million pounds collected in Cumbria by the "Safety" Camera Partnership. That = 26,666 drivers speeding, and not one of them was stopped from speeding!!

And the accidents used to meet the criteria for placement of the cameras?
A local man, had a heart attack at the wheel of his car UNDER the speed limit, and ended up upside down in a ditch, and a driver had a stroke and struck a tree!

My view of speed cameras is not disimmilar to your view of the company policies which prevent you leasing motorcycles!! You just know it doesnt make sense!

LingsCars wrote:
Oh, rubbish. The faster you go, the faster you need to react. It's called physics.

Smeggy: No, the faster you go, the further ahead you need to plan and create contingencies for, it's called C.O.A.S.T. .

I have never heard of COAST.

Not silly.

That's exactly the way that speed enforcement has gone over the last ten years - into the ludicrous minutae.

Here in Cumbria people routinely get nicked for driving up the M6 at 79mph, even if the road is empty and the weather fine - conditions where a modern car with an alert driver would be safe at three figure speeds.

This makes no sense. We are turning speed enforcement into "velocity tax", to the detriment of real road safety.

There, in a nutshell, is the problem.

It is the principle behind COAST that we need to be instilling on motorists, as that is the very embodiment of safe driving, not stick-to-the-limit-and-you'll-be-fine as we are increasingly having rammed down our throats.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. For what its worth I suspect that you actually see far more of our side of the argument than your pride will allow you to let on. I'm going to try and gracefully back out of this one now as I don't think you are any longer arguing from a position of logic, but more from a position of wishing to defend the premise you first entered the argument with.

I'll leave you to it, with only the final regretful aside that I wish you sold cars as well as rented them. I've just sold my wife's car and am awaiting delivery of her nice shiny new one from the local BMW / MINI dealers, but I feel sure that if you were in the sales business rather than the rental one you'd have been able to do a better deal.

And no doubt with a robust debate along the way...

Ciao!

In China, i saw a moped with 4 people on it crash once. Does that disprove my point also?

Because you are going slower, you are covering the ground at a reduced rate. Therefore the time taken to cover that ground is greater. Therefore you have more time to react.

This forum seems populated by some people who like minutiae(sp?) of detail. No one drives a car like that, and no one (police, courts, government, peers - as in peer pressure) expects them to. Silly argument.

2)Please, PLEASE, ask yourselves if this forum/site is quite healthy in that it seems populated by like minded beings to greater or lesser degree. I'm not trying to insult intelligence, but you must have an inkling that you understand what I mean by this. It would be far better for your cause to invite more outsiders like me into here. I seem to be alone in my views, yet out in the real world I am not.