Not quite on subject, but i've driven vans till i was 21 then trucks till now, so i reckon 35 and a bit years at 75000 per year plus my own cars at say 15000 per year gives me approx 3 million. (working 50 weeks a year at 1500 miles min per week For work time).
Would that be about right?
Do i need to find my old log books and some old tacho's?
Some of my old log books may be in Latin anyone?
|
Westpig makes the point about the concentration levels required at speed ensuring alertness better that I could.
However the concerning thing about the current enforcement regime is that it deters people from taking individual responsibility for their actions:
"well I am under the speed limit so it must be OK"
When in reality there are times when 20 in a 30 is positively dangerous, times when 50 in a 70 is appropriate and times when 90 in a 70 is quite safe.
The driver that is able to recognise the latter is also more likely to be able to recognise the former, where as the driver who trolls along a 69 in the middle lane of the M4 on a sunny Sunday afternoon is, IMO, also likely to troll along at 29 past a row of parked cars at schools-out time.
As I say excessive speed enforcement deters from individual responsibility.
|
Here in N.Z., the propoganda is to maintain a 2-second gap between yourself and the rear of the vehicle in front. It would work, too, if those with inflated ideas of their reaction times didn't keep stealing my gap.
In theory, maintaining a time gap keeps traffic flowing at essentially the same rate in terms of cars per hour. [ Assuming the average car is 15 ft long, 40 mph = 1 car per 2.25 seconds, 70 mph = 1 car per 2.15 seconds.] The theory falls apart when road design prohibits any approximation to traffic flow. In Auckland, we have 5 motorway on-ramps in the space of about a mile and a half, draining the city in rush hour.
|
|
|
|
No doubt that some people will think that driving at the speed limit at all times is safe, but it is not the fault of speed limit enforcement that they believe this. There is no connection: witness the Forty All the Ruddy Time brigade, another subset of the oblivious.
|
but it is not the fault of speed limit enforcement that they believe this. There is no connection:>>
Yes there is!
Too rigourous enforcement moves society away from individual responsibility towards collective responsibility.
|
|
We heard your slogan before Cheddar. Beg to differ, in the absence of reasoned argument.
|
|
TRL 637 is a study of forms of enforcement. Speed cameras are particularly effective. www.trl.co.uk/store/report_detail.asp?srid=2786&pi...8
|
Speed cameras: the twisted truth:
tinyurl.com/2vj9v7
EDIT: Tinyurl did not work.
Too late almost for the Panto season - "oh yes it does !" :-)
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 14/01/2008 at 10:27
|
"oh yes it does !" :-)
Oh no it didnt !
Thanks PU !
|
|
I thought the panto season was over........
|
And me too. Guess it definitely is for the below.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7186931.stm
A celeb driving a Fiesta eh ?
|
|
Read the report. Cheesed off that traffic management teams across the country do not manage the traffic providing solutions, but inhibit at every turn to drain money out of us. Obviously speed cameras were brought in to cut road deaths, but have been proven to be a crackers idea, Cheddar.
It would be good if government could hold its hands up and admit the mistake. The experiment has not worked.
But the figures for deaths before speed limits were introduced were far higher per number of vehicles than statistics nowadays with the huge numbers on the road.
The gorge between safe drivers and the morons who cause collisions through bad habits needs to be thought through. Maybe its down to us, the majority, not to tolerate bad driving. Other threads have highlighted cameras for cars. I know its big brother, but maybe its the only way to bring freedom back to the roads by getting the rogues off it. Increasing traffic police numbers might be a better substitute all round.
|
|
|
|
|
We heard your slogan before Cheddar. >>
Who are "We" ? Not too keen on the patronising tone Nortones.
>>Beg to differ>>
Your prerogative.
>>in the absence of reasoned argument.>>
My post Mon 14 Jan 08 07:02
Also the same applies in most walks of life, i.e. healthcare - much better to encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own actions rather than legislate.
|
|
Don't accept the extension into healthcare has any more basis than your previous dogmatic utterance. Prior to the NHS, many people were unable or unwilling to provide health care. Legislation has greatly improved health from many points of view. Contrast the awful situation in the USA with the UK. As for enforcement of speed limits: the facts are given in TRL637.
|
Read the Telegraph article in full Nortones, it might enlighten.
The analogy with healthcare has nothing more to do with state v private than the vast majority of speed cameras have to do with safety (there are a few exceptions, outside schools etc).
I am all for state funded healthcare though the individual needs to be encouraged to lead a reasonable heathly lifestyle and thus be less of a burden on the state, likewise drivers need to be allowed to decide for themselves what course of action to take within certain rules and guided by training and not shackled by legislation and big brother surveilance.
|
"dogmatic"
I once saw a dog run over by a metro (not sure if it was auto) in Cleckheaton, it had run across the road chasing a cat and was on its side being pushed along by the sump of the `low slung` metro. (suspension cones diminished)
Only walking speed, but there was howling and yelping and a trail of deposit as it was pushed slowly along by the sump.
Eventually the driver was forced to a halt by pedestrians and a very fast moving dog shot up the road covered in oil and excrement.
Bet he would have some explaining to do on arrival back home.
regards
|
|
I agree that having people take individual responsibility for their actions is the ideal, however, we all know that this does not work and there must be monitoring of standards and penalties for those who do not adhere to those standards. I like to think that I will never be stopped for speeding again because I have learnt and reformed, but the "17" sub, neon lit chopper with the latest stereo and satnav but slick tyres and well past useful brake pads" in their barely legal Punto/Saxo/Corsa et al or the sad, pitbull owning, wannabe gangsta (yes, I'm down with the kids) screaming around in their Subaru Impricier or Mitsubushy Heave Ho will always believe that the rules are meant for someone else, and that they can handle it. I believe that enforcement should be sturdier, with more robust penalties more frequently applied for all examples of poor roadcraft.
No offence is intended towards responsible owners of the cars referred to, but, if the cap fits.......
|
I agree that having people take individual responsibility for their actions is the ideal however we all know that this does not work >>
It does for the vast majority.
>>and there must be monitoring of standards and penalties for those who do not adhere to those standards. >>
As there are and have been for many years.
>>slick tyres and well past useful brake pads" in their barely legal Punto/Saxo/Corsa et al or the sad pitbull owning wannabe gangsta >>
Reckon driving test should include psychometric attitude and aptitude testing so some scroats will never get a licence and others only when they mature.
|
>>Reckon driving test should include psychometric attitude and aptitude testing so some scroats will never get a licence and others only when they mature.<<
Or just raise the minimum driving age to forty five? :-)
|
|
DT report is based largely on misinterpretation of TRL 323, and the role of speed as a factor. Here is a rebuttal of the distortions: tinyurl.com/2r5mnk As for the crocodile tears that speed cameras cause an increase in deaths: mischievous nonsense. Confounding issues since the major drop in KSI since 1983 include, traffic growth, decline in seat belt wearing, and increase in mobile usage.
|
The reason deaths and serious injuries have dropped since cameras were introduced has nothing to doe with the cameras. It is down to the increased protection that modersn cars offer with greater survivability.
Back in the 80's when the first cameras started to appear very few cars had airbags or crumple zones.
|
The reason deaths and serious injuries have dropped since cameras were introduced has nothing to doe with the cameras. It is down to the increased protection that modersn cars offer with greater survivability.
plus gains in the medical world
|
Gains in the medical world may reduce deaths but it'll have no effect on serious injuries - in fact, save a few deaths and the serious injuries will go up.
Accidents at speed camera sites go down. Fact.
The accident rate overall since the introduction of cameras hasn't reduced as much as people would have liked. This isn't because the cameras haven't worked - it's because there are lots of other factors involved. Eg:
Increases in road traffic
increases in congestion
Driving tired
Driving whilst under the influence of drugs (of which alcohol is only one)
Speeding in areas where there are no speed cameras - and having devices to tell you there are no cameras
Mobile phone use
not concentrating
aggressive driving
impatience
low personal standards of care to self and others
etc
etc.
|
Accidents at speed camera sites go down. Fact.
No it is not fact, accident rates at many sites have increased.
it's because there are lots of other factors involved. Eg:>> increases in congestion >>
Reducing averge speed increases congestion which is a causal factor in accidents.
>>Driving whilst under the influence of drugs (of which alcohol is only one)
>>
Yes drink and drug driving requires more enforcement though has become more socially unacceptable in the 15 years or so that we have has scameras.
Speeding in areas where there are no speed cameras - and having devices to tell you there are no cameras >>
That is a no change then!
The point is that scameras are a 1/500th sec snapshot in time, a driver could be doing 100 in a 40 before the camera and 100 after it and not get caught where as another driver could be doing a steady 45 and get points and fined.
Mobile phone use>>
Again this is more socially unaccepatble as well as now illegal.
low personal standards of care to self and others
This is my previous point, excessive legisaltion takes away personal responsibility.
Edited by cheddar on 15/01/2008 at 13:04
|
Accidents at speed camera sites go down. Fact.
Do they? In 2005 it was shown that accidents at 70 camera sites in London actually increased after the camera was placed.
I don't have a problem with cameras - they're a dumb piece of technology after all. I have a big problem with they way they are abused, and the way in which their effectiveness is exaggerated.
It wasn't so long ago that the old "1 in 3 accidents was caused by speeding" chestnut was used to justify camera placements. What happened to that one?
I agree with your list of other accident factors, yet we still don't see anything meaningful being done about them.
Cheers
DP
|
There's plenty of research demonstrating the effectiveness of speed cameras, but since cameras are unpopular anything that knocks them is grasped by the likes of ABD.
Eg. DfT. paper 2003. "A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras: two year pilot evaluation" 2003. A major two-year DfT study of speed cameras across six areas that found a 35% reduction in people killed and seriously injured at camera sites, compared to long-term trend.
The overwhelming evidence is that "spot location" speed cameras reduce accidents locally. Average speed camera systems avoid some of the pitfalls such as braking in advance of the camera and traffic concentrating on the camera, not the local hazard and will thus be more effective. They're on their way.
I'm all for improving driving standards and accept that speed is only one of many factors that affect road safety. Speed cameras are a cheap and effective way of enforcing the speed limit.
|
I suppose if there is strong evidence that excess speed has been a major contributory factor to the accident rate on a particular stretch of road and there is a resultant decision to infest it with cameras, in this case I would rather see the use of the average speed style device. I'm sure we can all think of instances when it is prudent to put a spurt on such as when overtaking a vehicle which suddenly speeds up in silent protest ( why do people do that ? )or when an oncoming vehicle is itself speeding towards your overtaking procedure. If this happens in the proximity of an instant recording camera you have had it. Whereas if your temporary speed increase is then curtailed once the danger has passed and only your average speed is monitored, low and behold, common sense prevails !
Frankly, though, I would welcome a return to human beings in uniform being the arbiters of our roadcraft, a well trained traffic officer could always tell the difference between good and bad driving and it wasn't always to do with speed.
|
Speed cameras are a cheap and effective way of enforcing the speed limit.
They are better than cheap, they fund themselves and provide a surplus, I bet they would not be so widespread if they were expensive, why not? Because they are very in effective and are only justified in very small percentage of the locations that currently feature them (i.e. outside schools), worse they are not used in some locations where the could enhance safety perhaps because surveys show not enough speeding so not much opportunity for revenue, all in all a cynical policy.
And they are not efficient, as I say they are a 1/500th sec snapshot in time, fine by a school where you want to avoid any speeding within, say, a stretch of a few hundred yards, pointless on miles of open road where they only catch the driver who speeds past the camera and can take no account for how fast other drivers were along the other 99.9999999999% of the road.
|
......which is why average speed cameras are on their way. Either automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) as the SPECS system in use on motorway roadworks, or the full on big brother option - satellite tracking.
Just think, 24/7/365 speed enforcement across the whole country for every road and the entire length of every journey. The technology is there to do it.
|
|
How utterly foul you mean nick. The rule of the screaming carphound is with us. Glory be.
|
|
Yes, 'if you don't break the law, you've nothing to fear'. As we sleepwalk to 1984.
|
A static single speed camera reduces speed for 30 yards in front of it, and 30 yards beyond it. If you need speed reduced for 60 yards its a fabulous tool.
Specs will keep average speed down over a defined length of road you want, but is defeated and unsuitable for urban roads with lots of side turnings.
I know of one place, on the A43. It has a 30mph section, then a 40 mph section through co-joined villages. The spped limit is obeyed rigidly on this stretch by 99% of users.
How?
Northants Police Mobile camera van. Its in one of about 12 places on this section, AT LEAST once a week, EVERY week without fail, sometimes all day, sometimes for an hour, frequently moving from one spot to the other.
Its a sensible speed limit (note the move up from 30mph at the school to 40 mph where its not) effectively policed.
|
|
The tracking will be done by satellite CCTV and ground cameras will just be used for ID/corroboration. Once an object (person, car, property etc...) is IDed it can then be followed by the Euro CCTV's compter as a small blob and as long as it stays in open view, it will be tracked and logged and it'f ID known.
|
the problem for me with cameras is it only really targets the 'easy option'.
There are many differing factors that can cause an accident, speed being one of them... and the truly lawless can get away with that by not registering a vehicle or driving a stolen one....so the only person caught is Mr or Mrs Average
that would be the same as Traffic Cops only targetting the mainly law abiding for an 'easy cop' and ignoring the lowlife and truly lawless (thankfully most traffic cops nowadays don't).
Another thing is their placement.
If a road has a few serious accidents or deaths I have no problem whatsoever if a camera is put there in an effort to save lives..BUT.. I don't want it in the nice safe bit where the road is straight and it is a natural place for an overtake, i'd like it in the dangerous bit where people continue to drive too fast and have accidents...(i appreciate straight bits with junctions can be dangerous, the point i'm making is i'd like more integrity with their placement).
The other thing is skewed statistics. It would seem the stats can be twisted any way you like. I've mentioned it before, but cameras have appeared after one accident where the main contributory factor was drink/drugs and reckless driving and five youngsters met their maker in one go (the accident i'm thinking of could have happened at virtually any point of the journey, so the eventual camera site was in reality a bit like pinning a tail on the donkey)... or known suicide spots, where drivers are secondary to the main problem of depressed people ending their lives on a road.
Lastly, someone above mentioned sensible limits. Again no problem with a sensible limit, if well thought out and put in the right place....BUT.. how many nowadays are increasingly lower and lower and not at all sensible or well thought out...e.g. 20mph limits past schools, when the little darlings aren't even in there or near there... or nice open bit on old 'A' road between villages...used to be 60 but now constant 40.
If the laws of this land are dished out with contempt...then unsurprisingly some people will treat them with..er.. contempt. More effort is needed to look at the bigger picture and not just have a local knee-jerk reaction from someone who thinks they know what they're talking about, but obviously doesn't.
|
If the laws of this land are dished out with contempt...then unsurprisingly some people will treat them with..er.. contempt. >>
I agree Westpig, respect is reflected, if the legislators treat the people, in this case motorists, with respect then the people will have respect for the legislation.
Over zealous enforcment of at best controversial legislation is contray to this approach.
People, motorists, should be required to be highly trained, perhaps psychometric attitude tests applied before a license is issued, be given clear and fair rules to abide by and then be empowered thus bringing their individual responsibility to the fore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
