Speeding (mostly excl cameras) XXVIII - Dynamic Dave

****** Thread closed. Please see vol XXIX for further discussions. ******

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=31581


Speeding (mostly excl cameras) XXVII is closed and this thread has been started.

For the continued discussions around the subject of speeds & speeding, usually excluding cameras which are in another thread.

Older versions will not be deleted, so there is no need to repost any old stuff.

A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18848


DD,
BackRoom Moderator
Awesome Vectra - somebody
I thought my old Cav V6 was rapid, but it was nothing to the Vectra being driven by the police officer in this story

"A police constable accused of driving at speeds of up to 159mph, has told a court that at no time did he consider he was putting anybody at risk."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4461977.stm


(NOTE FROM HJ ABOUT LINKS TO THE BBC. This is okay because 'somebody' introduced it properly, it's interesting and a good thread came out of it.)

Awesome Vectra - No Do$h
Nice bit of motorway that. IIRC you can comfortably exceed 3 figures on there..... allegedly.

:o)

Although a Polo-driving buddy of ours was a lot more cautious.
Awesome Vectra - BobbyG
Sure there was another officer on here recently singing the virtues of his unmarked Vectra?????
Awesome Vectra - Bill Payer
Apparently many traffic cars, and especially the unmarked ones, are chipped. Sometimes it's even done by the supplying manufacturer.
Awesome Vectra - blue_haddock
I have seen the route that he drove and a fair chunk of it was very close to where i was born and raised so i can comment with good knowledge about it. Indeed i even put my hands up to having done similar speeds along certain stretches.

Whilst i am not condoning him doing it i think before he gets slauightered i need to explain a few things.

The section where he was doing 60 in a 30 was until a couple of years ago a 60 limit (part of the old A5). I know i'll get flamed for this but the road is ok to do 60 along, it was lowered as people were complaining about having houses on it and that little johny could get run over - sorry but if you buy a house on a main road you expect for there to be a high level of fast traffic.

One section where he was doing 100 in a 60 zone was on the A5 on about a 1 mile long straight stretch with no junctions apart from one into a farm. Whilst not exactly the most sensible thing to get caught on camera doing, at 3am on a wednesday night this stretch of road would be deserted.

Also at similar times the M54 would be pretty much empty, it is never particularly busy and is in a good state of repair and so whilst not a particularly clever thing to do (especially getting caught on camera doing it!) only his life was ever endangered.

I think what is stupid though is the fact he is denying even doing it - if they have it all on tape you've done it mate! You would use the tape as evidence against me so it's got to be OK to use against yourself!
Awesome Vectra - marsexpress
Don't think he's denying doing the speeds, he is denying the charge of dangerous driving because he has a defence for doing those speeds (testing the car's capabilities or something).
Awesome Vectra - blue_haddock
The BBC report says he denies all charges and i would of thought that he would be up for at least one speeding offence along with the dangerous driving charges
Awesome Vectra - cheddar
I had a 2.5 V6 Vectra that was pretty quick though even for a 210 bhp 3.2 V6 159mph is quite rapid!
Awesome Vectra - midlifecrisis
Our 3.2 vectras aren't chipped, they're standard. And regarding this particular case, without saying too much, there's a lot more to it than first appears.
Awesome Vectra - PhilDews
Having had the pleasure of driving a new 3.2 GSI (hire car - only had it for a weekend as the fuel economy was, erm, limited. 25mpg driven carefully)

I found it to be incredibly comfortable at high speeds, barely even doing any work when travelling at 70mph..... So I'm convinced if pushed it would have cruised nicely at 140-150mph.

Cracking car!
Awesome Vectra - VTiredeyes
if he wanted to test his car out, he should do it on a private track.
im sure if i got pulled doing 159mph, and told the officer i was just testing my car out, i know what they would say to that !
if a fire engine is doing 60 in a 30, and got pulled, and they werent on a call, they should get done too.
there are plenty of test tracks with buildings on and "street layouts"
no excuse.
and if a road is made a 30 from a 60, again no excuse.
thats what speed limits are there for. we dont have a right to say what speed we think is ok.
test a cars limits on a track, not the streets.
also on a test track they should have available fire/ambulance.
just think if he had of crashed, they would need a high speed fire/ambulance, thus putting more peoples lives at risk, and spending our "money" on their Overtime.
makes me a bit cross. one rule for them, one for us.
btw, my cavalier gsi (4pot) did 145mph. and that was 10 years ago. so just another 14mph from a new car is pretty poor. imho.
Awesome Vectra - BazzaBear {P}
makes me a bit cross. one rule for them, one for
us.


Where's the other rule for them? He's been taken to court over it.

As it stands I can see the angle of wanting a policeman who will on occasion be forced to drive at very high speeds in critical situations to be familiar with the cars abilities at those speeds.
Awesome Vectra - Altea Ego
I thought that when a significantly different car was introduced that officialy sactioned and observed familiarisation was carried out.

Sounds to me like this plod knicked it for a joyride!
Awesome Vectra - daveyjp
I didn't know how rapid M class Mercs were until one came past me on the M1 yesterday. More frigtening was he was joining from the M62, a dual lane slip road and I was in the inside lane of the M1 - the M62 slip joins the M1 to form 5 lanes of the M1 - I was then in lane three he was in lane 2. If I had wanted lane 2 to go towards York there could have been a nasty accident as I never saw him. He in effect undertook me at a speed that looked well in excess of 100 mph. No blues and twos. He then slowed considerably and I ended up overtaking him. We joined the M621 which has a 50 limit - the woman in the Pug 106 doing nearer 70 didn't see him as he was still on the slip road - he followed her for a couple of miles and she was pulled!
Awesome Vectra - commerdriver
Just looked at the article.
The "offence" was done in December 2003.
The evidence is not from another car or camera but from his own on board video.
As midlifecrisis puts it - more to this one than it appears.
Awesome Vectra - VTiredeyes
Bazza, i know hes gone to court, will wait and see what he gets.
i understand they need to be familiar with their car, but just dont do it on the public roads.
again, thats what "test" tracks/roads/old runways are for.
go kill yourself there if it flips at 159mph.
Awesome Vectra - machika
There was no way that anyone can anticipate every eventuality on any road. The kind of speeds he was travelling at are crazy for a public road.

The police would never accept the argument from a member of the public that a motorway was quiet, etc. The brother of a friend of mine tried this argument on the police when he was caught doing 90 mph on the A50 (stretches of which are very quiet at certain times of the day and week). It didn't work for him!
Awesome Vectra - v8man
>>just think if he had of crashed, they would need a high speed fire/ambulance, thus putting more peoples lives at risk,<<

Never mind an amulance - if he had crashed at that speed a bin liner and shovel would have done!
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
Awesome Vectra - Snakey
Surely if the police are supposed to be fit to judge our driving then this driver should be hammered for a completely unnecessary (and unoffical) bout of very high speed driving!

Public roads are not for testing, and I would like to see the occasion when a police pursuit needs to reach 160mph - surely this is when the helicopters are called in?
Awesome Vectra - ProtonGuy
Maybe he should tell them he is a Tory peer and that it will harm his charity work...............
Awesome Vectra - cheddar
btw, my cavalier gsi (4pot) did 145mph. and that was 10
years ago. so just another 14mph from a new car is
pretty poor. imho.


GSi 150 bhp, 145mph no way, GSI turbo 200 bhp then maybe, afterall the latter is only 10 bhp down on on the Vectra 3.2 GSi.

Awesome Vectra - Altea Ego
GSi 150 bhp, 145mph no way

maybe - downhill, following wind, indicated 145
- 10% speedo error = 130 actual.
Awesome Vectra - chris_w
Wouldn't the police speedo be accurate though?
Awesome Vectra - Glaikit Wee Scunner {P}
carpages.co.uk quotes a top speed of 154mph for the manual.
Amazingly fast for a family hatchback.
Subarus better watch out.
--
I wasna fu but just had plenty.
Awesome Vectra - cheddar
I guess 155 is the mark for ST220's 330i's etc. I know the Ghia X and Zetec S Mondeos that have a 200 bhp 3.0 V6 (where the ST220 is 220 bhp) are quoted as 149 mph.
Awesome Vectra - cheddar
GSi 150 bhp, 145mph no way
maybe - downhill, following wind, indicated 145
- 10% speedo error = 130 actual.


Fair point.
Awesome Vectra - madux
Our 3.2 vectras aren't chipped, they're standard. And regarding this particular
case, without saying too much, there's a lot more to it
than first appears.


Perhaps they wanted to get rid of him for some other reason, this was a way of 'sacking' him on a technicality?
Awesome Vectra - midlifecrisis
No. The guy works in the same force as me. I know the circumstances. Can't say much at the moment for obvious reasons.
Awesome Vectra - VTiredeyes
go on Midlife, you know you want to........
;-)
you will feel better for it. :0)
remember something shared and all that !
can we all have a guess?
then mail some one and the winner gets a .... erm. i dunno.

my guess
he dosent wash often, has some bo problems, so someone thought it would be funny to get him kicked off the force, by telling him to go see what that car can do, really give it some stick.
? then then nick the video tape out of boot, and present to the chief ?
Awesome Vectra - madux
That's what I meant!
Awesome Vectra - Altea Ego
According to radio 5 live news report, there have been so many contradicting reports from police witnesses (class 1 drivers both for the defence and prosecution) that the Judge has got the Hump and called for the head in charge of the West Mercia police driving to be called to the stand. He warned "The whole West Mercia police driving is now on trial"
Speeding under cover police cars - CM
I had to pop down the M4 this afternoon to see a client around Newbury. On the way down from London I was overtaken by a silver Mondeo (#N53HBV) with three police in it doing well over 100mph. Blues & twos not in evidence. On the way back a white Mondeo (#Y51EVD) was going just as fast but at least had its headlights on, although driving in a more agressive manner to get the car in front to move over.

Why should these drivers be allowed to drive so fast? I don't accept the reason that they are better trained because if Jenson Button was caught at that speed then he would have lost his licence.
Speeding under cover police cars - Altea Ego
Its the Thames valley police out on driver training / refresher runs. (usually)
Speeding under cover police cars - Dave N
I had one come up behind me the other day with just alternating flashing headlamps. I thought you only had to get out of the way for flashing blue lights. Needless to say I didn't hurry.
Speeding under cover police cars - midlifecrisis
Lets hope it wasn't your family member in trouble!!
Speeding under cover police cars - Ex-Moderator
>>Needless to say I didn't hurry.

Well aren't you just the man. I hope someone else takes the same attitude if they're ever racing to help you or yours.
Speeding under cover police cars - volvoman
Hi CM - back from the land of Oz then? :)

Without knowing what the police were doing it's hard to know whether their speed was justified or not. However, doing over a ton doesn't mean an automatic ban as we debated last week in respect of a Peer who was caught doing 113mph on an A road yet escaped a ban because doing so would apparently curtail his charitable works! I suppose that despite being one of the priviliged few he couldn't afford a driver or a taxi or be expected to use PT. Anyway, I know who my sympathy is with.
Speeding under cover police cars - meditek
A plod, according to the DT, is on trial at the moment for doing 157 MPH for no particular reason except that, he claims, he was brushing up his skills. Apparently, he was so used to doing 145+ on Motorways during his advanced training that he didn't see anything wrong with it as he 'was driving safely'!

Below this gem, a little article described how a frozen sausage ejected from the car in front injured the driver behind as it smashed through his windscreen!

The thought occurs that if the plod had ejected the sausage it could well have entered a rear screen and delivered a lethal karate blow.
Speeding under cover police cars - VTiredeyes
see here
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=31...9

sausage's, dont you mean walls?
Speeding under cover police cars - Adam {P}
>>Needless to say I didn't hurry.<<

Going to jump on the bandwagon here but I saw your comment when you first posted; I just couldn't reply for some reason.

May I just say I look up to you. Never mind the fact the Police were hurrying to an emergency, you showed them who's boss by obsstructing them when someone needed them in a hurry.

Congratulations Sir - you've earned my undying respect.
--
Adam
Speeding under cover police cars - Dave N
"May I just say I look up to you. Never mind the fact the Police were hurrying to an emergency, you showed them who's boss by obsstructing them when someone needed them in a hurry.

Congratulations Sir - you've earned my undying respect"

One assumes they were hurrying to an emergency, in which case they should be using the blues and twos. From my rear view mirror I couldn't tell they were plod, just saw some headlights flashing, hardly conclusive as you can buy the kit to make your lights flash on ebay. So I suppose you'd jump out of the way and cut in on the traffic you're passing in an instant when there's a car up your backside flashing his headlights? If so, then you'd earn my respect.
Speeding under cover police cars - No Do$h
One assumes they were hurrying to an emergency, in which case
they should be using the blues and twos. From my rear
view mirror I couldn't tell they were plod, just saw some
headlights flashing, hardly conclusive as you can buy the kit to
make your lights flash on ebay. So I suppose you'd jump
out of the way and cut in on the traffic you're
passing in an instant when there's a car up your backside
flashing his headlights? If so, then you'd earn my respect.


You can also buy Scotchlite reflective tape, blue lights, white shirts, black ties..... So what if it is some moron trying it on with £10 of printed circuits, relays and an attitude. I'd rather have that kind of driver vanishing into the distance in front of me than glued to my tailgate.

That (unlikley) event aside, just how far do the Police have to go to make you move out of the way? Would it perhaps be more helpful if they rang your secretary and booked some time for you to move over into the next lane at a mutually convenient time and place? Would ten days notice be sufficient?

Give me strength.......

Speeding under cover police cars - cockle {P}
On the sausage front, I happen to know the guy involved, the sausage actually can through his open drivers door window and hit him in the face, breaking his nose. Seems at the moment it's a total mystery as to where it came from.

www.thisisessex.co.uk/essex/eveninggazette/news/NE...l

Cockle
Speeding under cover police cars - ihpj
... On the way down from London I
was overtaken by a silver Mondeo (#N53HBV) with three police
in it doing well over 100mph.


That'll most defnitely be the Metropolitan Police Driving School - silver unmarked Mondeos are almost exclusively to them. TVP tend to use Vectras or Omega's in white. As for being 'three up' I'd assure you there would ahve been four people in the car: three pupils and one instructor.
On the way back a white Mondeo (#Y51EVD) was going just
as fast but at least had its headlights on,


Can't comment as to why no 'Blues & Twos' since if you have headlamp flash then you should have those too.
although driving
in a more agressive manner to get the car in front
to move over.

>>

Driving at those speeds, you have to be agressive and alert and ensure you get given priority. If you, as a Emergency Service Driver were to 'wait on people's generotisty' then you'd be there a while. If it's urgent, you make sure people know that you are coming and move out the way...otherwise, whats the point?

Why should these drivers be allowed to drive so fast?


How else would you have these drivers train? No classroom cna teach you what you will learn in the field. You ahve to experience driving @ those speeds to be able to understand the dynamics when pursuing a vehicle. That can only be done in the 'real world'
I don't accept the reason that they are better trained


Ah that old chesnut. Driving at speed isn't ust about driving at speed alone, it's about understanding the limitations of the vehicle, the road, the environment and developing an appreciation for anticipating what might happen and taking steps to avoid them...kind of like a Chess player who thinks not only of the move now but a couple of moves further down the line. You might not think that 'these people' are better trained - but the fact is, they are. The actual driving smalls a very small aprt of the 'Advanced Course' and much of it is about developing the self rather than simply blatting down a stretch of road.

You'd be surprised what it takes to qualify to even make the course - let alone pass it.


because if
Jenson Button was caught at that speed then he would have
lost his licence.

>>

Quite right so, because like Police Officers, he has no legal exemption to be driving like that in his dialy business. Police Officers have the exemption ONLY when absolutely neccessary - say when answering a 999 call, and even then with due regard for speed.
Speeding under cover police cars - malteser
I used to have a business which was not too far from a ferry port serving Ireland. We regularly saw marked, (blues & twos operating), police cars doing an insane speed down the road, which was quite residencial in places.
We were told that it was an armed response team practising for the possibility of a terrorist incident at the ferry.
Comforting to know if a pedestrian was flattened that it was all in a good cause!
--
Roger. (Costa del Sol, España)
Speeding under cover police cars - skodauser
I have seen similarly speeding police cars marked only by a discreet plate at the rear. The cars were exceeding the speed limit on the M60 at peak traffic times and one exceeded 70 mph in a 50 (motorway repair) limited area. My complaints to the Chief constable about safety, following too closely at high speeds, the need to ensure that police drivers don't drive dangerously and aggressively in pursuit. the suggestion that if they must do high speed training do it on a race track or closed motorway, and especially not on a wet motorway, brought a reply along the training lines. But I never saw them again on the M60 motorway at peak times.

And training? Just look at the way the traffic police park their cars when attending accidents.
Speeding under cover police cars - Wales Forester
Have a drive between Flintshire and Denbighshire on the Mold - Ruthin or Mold - Denbigh roads on a weekday and you're bound to see an unmarked police car or two out and about doing fast speeds, multiple overtakes etc whilst training.
On an almost daily basis I seem to see training cars various local and neighbouring forces.

A while back I was being caught up rather swiftly by a single manned dark blue Volvo S60 which shot past me at the first opportunity, followed seconds later by a white Omega, four up, with a small 'Training' magnetic on the boot lid, obviously some sort of pursuit exercise.

These drivers have to be trained somewhere and I'm of the opinion that the best place to do this is in the real world with all of it's unpredictabilities, rather than at some clinical and unrealistic test track.

PP
Speeding under cover police cars - skodauser
These drivers have to be trained somewhere and I'm of the opinion that the best place to do this is in the real world with all of it's unpredictabilities, rather than at some clinical and unrealistic test track.

I am part of those unpredictabilities! Let them warn me properly or drive like everyone else, obeying speed limits, considering road surfaces, and not driving aggressively. How many times do we need high speed pursuit cars on our crowded roads?
Speeding under cover police cars - Rishab C
I see people are really starting to hate representatives of the establishment, which is not surprising the way things are going, particularly for the motorist (but by no means limited to), but it's not these individual noble officer's fault, it is the fault of the politicians and their master's hidden hands.
Speeding under cover police cars - Pugugly {P}
I live in an area where fast jets go fast and low. They are noisy and obstrusive in a rural idyll....but having family and a number of friends who owe their lives to their skills as fast jet pilots to the training they get around here and elsewhere, I am more than happy to put up with it. Same goes for the Police, Ambulance and Fire Service training that goes on local roads.
Speeding under cover police cars - Adam {P}
Absolutely. I couldn't have put it better myself.
--
Adam
Speeding under cover police cars - CM
BTW the white Mondeo with headlights on driving up people's back sides did not have flashing headlights, just both on at the same time.

Fair enough that driver training is needed. However how often do the police go to an emergency without blues and twos or at least alternate flashing headlights? Surely the training would be better if they had lights and sirens going (or is that against regulations in non-emergency situations)?
Speeding under cover police cars - Duchess
It's a bit of a catch 22.

Only fully trained and certificated police drivers can use the blues and twos (in any circumstances) so whilst they are training, they can't use them. A friend's partner is currently in training and this is what he tells me.

Speeder gets off with fine - BobbyG
This week's Auto Express has a small article in the news section which states that a car owner has got off with a scamera fine because he honestly did not know who was driving the car.

Apparently he is the first person ever to get off with it using this excuse. Now there is obviously much more to it than that, anyone have the fuller version?
Speeder gets off with fine - Aprilia
Did a quite famous football manager get away with this - his BMW 700-series was clocked in Derby, but he didn't know who was driving it?
Speeder gets off with fine - Snakey
Attitudes have changed recently I think.

With so many more motorists being persecuted for trivial offences (such as eating an apple whilst in a traffic jam!) the police have got to be whiter than white in their driving.

Otherwise why should someone be fined for doing small amounts over the limit (i.e 5mph) when a police driver can merrily drive as fast as they like for no official reason!

I'm not sure how good police driver training is anyway, having blue lights and sirens to clear your path certainly helps your 'skills'!
Speeder gets off with fine - Dwight Van Driver
Bobby G

tinyurl.com/8pdms

DVD
Speeder gets off with fine - smokie
Interesting. I thought this had been successful before. I also thought there was a duty on a company owning a shared use vehicle to ensure that they kept a log of vehicle usage, or the company would be liable for the offence.
Safer Roads Day - David Horn
Just handed this leaflet in Headingley, Leeds. It claims that:

* Driving at excess or inappropriate speed is the single biggest cause of fatal and serious crashes.

* Where speed cameras have been installed casualties have fallen by 35%. Number of vehicles speeding has fallen by 67%.

This goes against everything told to us by a lot of car journalists. Which version is true? (see www.saferroadsday.com )
Safer Roads Day - Sofa Spud
I go with the Safer Roads Day stats - the police generally say the same.

It's a simple matter of physics. Kinetic energy increases as the square of speed, so if you double your speed you quadruple the scale of the impact. Kinetic energy = half x mass x velocity squared. (Gosh, I'm beginning to sound like L.J.K.Setright!)

So in an emergency, higher speed means your stopping/slowing distance is longer, and you travel further during your reaction time. This could mean the difference between hitting something or pulling up short. If you were going to hit it anyway, then if you were going faster you'd have hit it harder. All very basic - everyone learns that for their driving tests

People who would normally be speeding tend to slow down for speed cameras. If these cameras are placed at known accident black spots, then they should reduce the accident rate there for the above reason.

Cheers, SS
Safer Roads Day - Rishab C
Yes, it may be true, this is statistics, if you reduce the size of the sample (throughput), you will reduce the instances of the event you are looking for.
Rather like of they just closed the road, there would be no deaths or serious injuries.
Safer Roads Day - David Horn
It did sound rather like they were talking about thirds - 35%, 67% etc.
Safer Roads Day - Obsolete
Just handed this leaflet in Headingley, Leeds. It claims that:
* Driving at excess or inappropriate speed is the single
biggest cause of fatal and serious crashes.
* Where speed cameras have been installed casualties have fallen
by 35%. Number of vehicles speeding has fallen by 67%.
This goes against everything told to us by a lot of
car journalists. Which version is true? (see www.saferroadsday.com )


Not so long ago an article written by an anti-speeding campaigner/employee appeared in the Sunday Times Driving section. She said that 1/3 of accidents are due to speeding.

A year or two ago I checked official government data, and there was no way that it supported any such claim, or the claim that excess or inappropriate speed was the biggest cause of accidents. Common causes of accidents included pulling out of a junction into oncoming traffic, and tail-gating. Hopefully someone can provide a link to the gov. data.

One police authority speeding group (Notts?) publishes stats for their speed cameras. Most show significant reduction in the number of serious accidents, though a significant minority showed significant increases! The naive conclusion is that speed cameras often reduce accidents, but can also increase them. However, if cars are getting safer, and camera numbers are increasing massively, why are the national accident stats roughly level, after a long period of steady decline?

A local case is interesting. One straight wide road with wide pavements that passes a school has a 20mph limit and speed humps. Most people thus take the backroads. These are narrow residential roads, with parked cars either side, and a 30mph limit. My guess is that accidents on the backroads have gone up.

Leif
Safer Roads Day - NowWheels
However, if cars are getting safer, and camera numbers are increasing
massively, why are the national accident stats roughly level, after a
long period of steady decline?


Because the rate at which accident rates per mile are falling is slightly lower than the rate at which vehicle numbers and mileage are increasing. Each mile travelled is safer, just there are more miles travelled.
A local case is interesting. One straight wide road with wide
pavements that passes a school has a 20mph limit and speed
humps. Most people thus take the backroads. These are narrow residential
roads, with parked cars either side, and a 30mph limit. My
guess is that accidents on the backroads have gone up.


Which is why policies of speed reductions only outside schools are misguided.
Safer Roads Day - Obsolete
>> However, if cars are getting safer, and camera numbers are
increasing
>> massively, why are the national accident stats roughly level, after
a
>> long period of steady decline?
Because the rate at which accident rates per mile are falling
is slightly lower than the rate at which vehicle numbers and
mileage are increasing. Each mile travelled is safer, just there are
more miles travelled.


So speed cameras have reduced the rate at which accidents are falling. You might be right but I wonder why?
>> A local case is interesting. One straight wide road with
wide
>> pavements that passes a school has a 20mph limit and
speed
>> humps. Most people thus take the backroads. These are narrow
residential
>> roads, with parked cars either side, and a 30mph limit.
My
>> guess is that accidents on the backroads have gone up.
Which is why policies of speed reductions only outside schools are
misguided.


But that is what we have, a narrow focus on one 'solution', without thinking.

Our local council have a poor approach to road safety. They recently introduced 20 mph limits on a local road, but only at the junctions. The road was very wide, straight, with good visibilily and wide pavements. I was too worried about the possibility of causing an accident and of abuse from other drivers to slow from 30 to 20 only at the junction. I never saw any other cars obey the limits either. Oddly enough they were removed after a year. And then there's the local speed humps that make my car (unmodified production Ford Ka) make loud banking noises when taken at walking speed or faster. Passengers always comment on the noise.

Leif
Safer Roads Day - NowWheels
>> Because the rate at which accident rates per mile are falling
>> is slightly lower than the rate at which vehicle numbers and
>> mileage are increasing. Each mile travelled is safer, just there are
>> more miles travelled.
So speed cameras have reduced the rate at which accidents are
falling. You might be right but I wonder why?


Umm, I don't know the rates of accident per mile. They may be falling more slowly than before, or faster.

If they are falling more slowly, blaming spd cameras is only a guess: all we actually know for certain is that they have been repeatedly demonstrated to reduce accidents where installed. There are plenty of other factors at play, such as the deplorable reductions in numbers of traffic cops.
Safer Roads Day - Marc4Six
>>...all we actually know for certain is that they have been repeatedly demonstrated to
reduce accidents where installed...


No we don't. Ever heard of Regression to the mean?
Safer Roads Day - NowWheels
No we don't. Ever heard of Regression to the mean?


You've been reading too much Paul Smith. When the Today programme put a statistician on the case, he didn't buy PS's claim that it can all be explained away. Today's summary was that Smith "couldn't see the wood for the trees"
Safer Roads Day - Marc4Six
Why then with 5000 "safety" cameras saving lives did fatalities rise last year?
Safer Roads Day - NowWheels
Why then with 5000 "safety" cameras saving lives did fatalities rise last year?


As above. Total fatalities rose, but fatalities per mile continued to fall.

Why wasn't the fall in fatalities per mile bigger? I'm sure that the cost-cutting removal of trafic cops was one important factor -- and it's not related to cameras, cos fixed cameras are self-financing and mobile cameras don't take more police time than old-fashioned radar-gun speedtraps.

Saying that cameras must be bad because fatalities aren't falling fast enough is about as silly as saying that in-car airbags must be bad because fatailities are not falling fast enough. There are many other factors at play.
Safer Roads Day - Marc4Six
Total fatalities rose, but fatalities per mile continued to fall.


In contrast to just about every year since the late sixties, the fact remains that fatalities per mile AND total fatalities fell year on year until recently.
Why wasn't the fall in fatalities per mile bigger? I'm sure
that the cost-cutting removal of trafic cops was one important factor
-- and it's not related to cameras, cos fixed cameras are
self-financing and mobile cameras don't take more police time than old-fashioned
radar-gun speedtraps.


Cameras being self-financing is one of the problems, any other safety device costing tens of thousands of pounds but making no money, would soon be dropped if they were as effective as cameras!
Saying that cameras must be bad because fatalities aren't falling fast
enough is about as silly as saying that in-car airbags must
be bad because fatailities are not falling fast enough. There are
many other factors at play.


Maybe so, but cameras were supposedly to reduce accidents, they are failing to do that. What they are doing is making money.

So what we have are quangos charged with reducing casualties, but failing to do so, but making money to finance more cameras which are failing to reduce casualties, but making even more money etc...

If cameras did what they were supposed to do there wouldn't be a problem.
Safer Roads Day - Obsolete
>> No we don't. Ever heard of Regression to the mean?
You've been reading too much Paul Smith. When the Today programme
put a statistician on the case, he didn't buy PS's claim
that it can all be explained away. Today's summary was that
Smith "couldn't see the wood for the trees"


Paul Smith is an overrated designer IMO. But then again, I just buy whatever M&S have in store. Oh you mean the other Paul Smith. Yes, some of the Safe Speed (sic) arguments are specious IMO. Some of it is good though.

BTW the Sunday Times article I referred to in an earlier post said that speed cameras had reduced accidents dramatically and a large % figure was quoted. Close reading of the text showed that the claimed reduction was relative to a baseline from many years before speed cameras became prevalent, and that if you used the start of the speed camera era as the baseline, no statistically significant change could be seen. The article was basically complete lies. It makes me angry to see government employees publishing downright lies. (After all, that's the function of government ministers.)

Leif
Safer Roads Day - mountainkat
Living in North Wales I'm more than familiar with speed cameras & camera vans appearing all over the place. Have to agree that the figures relating to the reduction (or not actually!!) of deaths/accidents simply don't correspond to the massive increase in camera use & the subsequent massive increase in people receiving speeding fines & therefore the police forces/governments very nice rise in revenues.

If cameras are suppose to act as "safety" devices why are most of the mobile "arrive alive" vans used in North wales situated within 10yds of blind corners/ blind junctions - surely they should be placed in the most easily noticed positions to have the most effect. They are simply been used to generate money, just can't believe that some people think this isn't the case - come to North Wales & see for yourself - it's so blatantly obvious to anyone.

Speed is often blamed for fatalaties/accidents but it's surely not that simple. IMHO the police should spend more of their time monitoring the increasing number of dangerous manoeuvres we see every day on the roads, sure speed can be dangerous but the complete disregard for other people on the road that's shown by many drivers now & the polices' failure to address it must surely be one of the main reasons why the statistics relating to deaths/accidents on our roads have failed to fall significantly.

A re-assessment of the effectiveness & increased reliance upon speed cameras is definitely overdue, as is some honesty from the powers that be regarding their real impact in making the roads a safer place !!
Safer Roads Day - teabelly
If they're on dangerous blind corners or blind junctions where they have been accidents where excessive speed was actually involved in a lot of cases then it isn't such a stupid place for them to be. I'd be surprised if that was the actual reason they were there though....

The thing I want to know is how much money do the companies that make all this equipment give to the Labour party and are there government members /family/friends of same that are company directors?

If fatalities per mile are increasing, more than in the eighties when traffic also increased radically then it points at government policy being wrong.
teabelly
Safer Roads Day - smokie
"If fatalities per mile are increasing, more than in the eighties when traffic also increased radically then it points at government policy being wrong."

I know this Govt is blameworthy for lots of things, but surely the drivers must shoulder some of the blame? I would say there is way more aggression, powerful cars and general disregard for other road users than in the 80s.
Safer Roads Day - teabelly
Powerful cars have little to do with it. The late eighties was the era of the supercar and most of those were just as fast, if not faster than today's cars. Today's cars are also safer physically and are stock full of traction control etc. The everyday cars are also much safer with their abs and airbags. The same cars are available in the rest of Europe and yet their road deaths are still falling at a decent rate. The increased aggression is due to the increased congestion which is a direct result of the government's (i'm talking tory too) policy of trying to force people out of their cars by limiting road space. The huge house price inflation and uncertain (flexible) job market has meant people have to commute longer distances to make a living. Working longer hours and doing longer commutes is going to make drivers more prone to making mistakes which in congested routes are less likely to go unnoticed.

I would be interested to know the accident rate on the M6 toll road vs the ordinary M6 as I know the toll road speeds are much higher on the latter but the congestion is a lot less.


teabelly
Safer Roads Day - machika
Reference to the earlier post mentioning what would happen to Jenson Button if he was ever caught speeding. Are you absolutely certain he would lose his licence? He was caught speeding in France in May 2000 (at 144 mph) and he got away with a rather derisory fine (£500). No ban, no points on his licence.
Safer Roads Day - NowWheels
If they're on dangerous blind corners or blind junctions where they
have been accidents where excessive speed was actually involved in a
lot of cases then it isn't such a stupid place for them to be.
I'd be surprised if that was the actual reason they were there though....


Plenty of folks do the right thing for the wrong reasons!
The thing I want to know is how much money do
the companies that make all this equipment give to the Labour
party and are there government members /family/friends of same that are
company directors?


You can check on the Electoral Commission website: tinyurl.com/b9wdf
If fatalities per mile are increasing, more than in the eighties when
traffic also increased radically then it points at government policy being wrong.


Except that fatalities per mile are clearly falling
Safer Roads Day - Obsolete
"Except that fatalities per mile are clearly falling"

That's thanks to congestion. Instead of a car being proceeded by a man with a red flag, each car is proceeded by another car going at walking pace. And no that is not a flippant comment. If traffic speeds are reduced massively, then accident rates must plummet (or at least the rate of serious accidents).

What worries me somewhat is that in principle no-one (not even the law abiding) can avoid being caught by the law. We know that if we don't steal an item, then we are not thieves. But someone who travels regularly cannot be sure that their speedo is functioning correctly. If it isn't then they might receive 4 NIPs before they realise the problem. I wonder how often a speedo malfunctions in this manner? And NoWheels before you cut in and say "That is so unlikely as to be ignorable" or "It is a driver's duty to ensure that their vehicle functions correctly" my last car had a speedo failure. Fortunately it overestimated, and told me that I was doing 70mph in a 30 zone, even when following an old dear in her Micra. I twice booked the car in to the local garage and twice they returned it with 'no fault', and yet it carried on intermittently giving false readings.

Maybe some techie can rule out this issue as a problem, but I remain concerned. Is it an issue?

The recent M4 camera business, where they suggest that there is no leeway i.e. 71 mph is illegal is extremely worrying.

Leif
Safer Roads Day - tyre tread
Its not at all possible that the accident and injury/fatality rate is falling as a result of cars with safety aids like air bags, ABS and traction control now being available, by virtue of second hand cost, to the vast majority of motorists is it?

Call me a cynic but I douvt that speed cameras are having much of an effect on the epople who use the roads where they are situated on a reegular basis. The vast majority brake before the camera and accelerate after it. Benefit? Virtually none!
Safer Roads Day - Obsolete
"Call me a cynic but I douvt that speed cameras are having much of an effect on the epople who use the roads where they are situated on a reegular basis. The vast majority brake before the camera and accelerate after it."

I doubt anyone would disagree with that observation.

Leif
Electoral commission - teabelly
That's very useful, thanks. I shall be having a good old browse :-)
teabelly
 

Value my car