Personally, I think that they are a crude but effective way of limiting the speed of those drivers who ignore the speed limits, and that it would be lunatic to get rid of them
Fairy Nuff NowWheels, but isn;t it a shame that governments repeatedly shun PROVEN non money-making methods in preference for the less effective but profitable ones? Still, you seem pretty immovable on this so I'll shut up :)
|
Fairy Nuff NowWheels but isn;t it a shame that governments repeatedly shun PROVEN non money-making methods in preference for the less effective but profitable ones? Still you seem pretty immovable on this so I'll shut up :)
Proven non money-making? The only one I can think of is traffic-calming measures such as chicanes and speed-bumps, which are equally heavily denounced in the backroom. Of course, they are usually only suitable for low-speed roads, but they usually work very well there.
One technology that sounded promising was the speed-warning signs, but recent reports suggest that their effectiveness wears off once drivers get used to them.
Besides, I don't see any problem in having the speedsters cough up to boost public funds.
|
Come now Mister Wheels. Chicanes and road humps are the solution for the cerebrally impoverished council pen-pusher. They LOVE them because there's something solid and tangible for tax payers. But they don't work either.
A good proven method is a Dutch one. You travel too fast in a built up area, then the traffic lights (built for the purpose) turn to red, stopping you and anyone behind. This has been phenominally successful such is the power of peer pressure. No money for the government though.
Another is the complete removal of all street furniture. It causes motorists to think "oh, I actually need to concentrate and make decisions here".
Agree about the speed warning signs. They are generally ignored but serve to remind people (without the threat of an undiscriminating ticket) of speed limits.
It'd be great if the money that "speedsters" coughed up was put into the road kitty I quite agree. But I'm less enthusiastic if it's earmarked for what New Labour would designate "the arts" I'm afraid. I might be younger than you but I'm probably more old fashioned ;)
Oh, dinner's ready.
|
Come now Mister Wheels.
Ms, actually.
Chicanes and road humps are the solution for the cerebrally impoverished council pen-pusher. They LOVE them because there's something solid and tangible for tax payers. But they don't work either.
Actually, so far as I can see they seem to work quite well. They are liked by local authorities because they are self-enforcing, and have low maintenance costs.
Unlike no-road-furniture schemes which rely on changing drivers' attitudes, the humps work even with drivers who don't care about anyone else. All the residential streets near me which I have seen fitted with humps have seen a significant calming effect. One about a mile way used to a 60mph rat run, and is now transformed into a quiet space which people can walk across in safety, all at much lower cost than any alterantive (one chicane, 10 or 12 sets of humps, no maintenance needed after 7 years).
It'd be great if the money that "speedsters" coughed up was put into the road kitty I quite agree.
Whatever it's spent on, any profit from the cameras means less tax for those who don't break speed limits.
|
Unlike no-road-furniture schemes which rely on changing drivers' attitudes the humps work even with drivers who don't care about anyone else.
I think they're awful things. In reality it means the ignorant bully drives straight at everyone else who inevitably has to give way. The very person who ought to be changing their ways, in all elements of driving not just speed, is not
All the residential streets near me which I have seen fitted with humps have seen a significant calming effect. ...is now transformed into a quiet space which people can walk across in safety all at much lower cost than any alterantive.
no doubt because everyone is now driving down a different road, which is fine for the residents in the first road, but not so good for the others. Then there's the effect it has on the emergency services who prefer to avoid them like the plague. Wait until Middle England realises the roads with speed humps get less police coverage..that'll bring the pains on.
|
|
|
|
It'd be great if the money that "speedsters" coughed up was put into the road kitty ...........
I'd be happier if it was put into the state pension kitty.
|
|
|
|
|
>>Personally I think that they are a crude but effective way of limiting the speed of those drivers who ignore the speed limits and that it would be lunatic to get rid of them.
there are times when it is dangerous to speed and there are times when it is not, so there are times when enforcement action is appropriate..and times when it is less relevant.
equally so, there are offences other than speeding that really ought to be concentrated on far more, yet they are virtually ignored
then when you factor in the strange system for siting cameras and how statistics can be easily skewed e.g. siting a camera after one unfortunate and random accident where multiple fatalities are involved
then the whole system is very strange indeed, certainly without a great degree of common sense, unless of course revenue was an overriding angle
the statement that all speedsters deserve it and should cough up is somewhat naive, as it ignores the multitude of other things that are far more dangerous than some elements of speeding...albeit i'm quite happy to state that some speeding is lethal
|
equally so there are offences other than speeding that really ought to be concentrated on far more yet they are virtually ignored
Red herring. Once again, you present it as if it was an either-or choice. You ignore the fact that cameras are self-financing (or maybe even profit-making), so scrapping every last camera would not help one bit in pursuing all the other forms of bad driving.
then when you factor in the strange system for siting cameras and how statistics can be easily skewed e.g. siting a camera after one unfortunate and random accident where multiple fatalities are involved
Yup, it's a strange system, and I'd like to see it abolished, with the criteria simply being a need to control speed. But the siting of cameras should be of no concern to anyone driving within the limits.
the statement that all speedsters deserve it and should cough up is somewhat naive as it ignores the multitude of other things that are far more dangerous than some elements of speeding...albeit i'm quite happy to state that some speeding is lethal
Not at all, I'm not ignoring the other issues. I have no idea why you are trying to pin on me the idea that speed is the only thing that matters, because that's not my view -- I'm just arguing against the bizarre notion that some people have of it being wrong to enforce the speed limits. By all means, please go out and enforce lots of other aspects of the Highway Code, especially those things which you identify as dangerous, but don't blame cameras for any failures of policing.
|
Red herring. Once again you present it as if it was an either-or choice. You ignore the fact that cameras are self-financing (or maybe even profit-making) so scrapping every last camera would not help one bit in pursuing all the other forms of bad driving.
it has become an either or choice, because our Govt has badly neglected traffic policing in favour of Safety Camera Partnerships, believing them to be the 'be all and end all', even to the extent that some say they're manipulating the figures to try to prove it. Furthermore public opinion seems to be swayed by the Speed Kills propoganda, which only covers part of the story, when there are lots of other avenues that ought to be covered. Govt shouting from the roof tops about one bit, stifles any debate about the rest...that's my point.
siting of cameras should be of no concern to anyone driving within the limits.
Overly simplistic statement. If a long straight bit of road had a safe bit to overtake, where a brief increase of speed over a limit could achieve a safe overtake, why not let it happen. If someone cynically sites a camera in the middle of that straight, then it can easily be the case that the overtaker will complete the manouever somewhere else, perhaps less safe. There's no logic in that, other than revenue. If conversely, that bit of road has numerous high speed accidents on it, because people drive like clowns far in excess of the limit, then fair enough.
|
it has become an either or choice because our Govt has badly neglected traffic policing in favour of Safety Camera Partnerships believing them to be the 'be all and end all' even to the extent that some say they're manipulating the figures to try to prove it.
That's a problem of a bit of screwed-up govt policy (quelle surprise!) rather than a problem with cameras. The fact that ministers are using the existence of cameras to reduce traffic police levels doesn't make cameras a bad idea.
Furthermore public opinion seems to be swayed by the Speed Kills propoganda which only covers part of the story
Speed does kill. It's just not the only thing that kills.
when there are lots of other avenues that ought to be covered. Govt shouting from the roof tops about one bit stifles any debate about the rest...that's my point.
So your problem is with govt's approach to other issues of road safety, not with the existence of cameras. Glad we cleared that up.
If a long straight bit of road had a safe bit to overtake where a brief increase of speed over a limit could achieve a safe overtake why not let it happen. If someone cynically sites a camera in the middle of that straight then it can easily be the case that the overtaker will complete the manouever somewhere else perhaps less safe.
That's a variant on the "slow-drivers cause accidents" argument. In both cases, the issue is the impatience of drivers who prioritise overtaking over safety, and who are prepared to exceed the limit,
There's no logic in that other than revenue. If conversely that bit of road has numerous high speed accidents on it because people drive like clowns far in excess of the limit then fair enough.
There are plenty of reasons other than number of accidents to enforce speed limits. And in any case, you were arguing earlier on against using accidents as the basis for siting cameras.
Edited by NowWheels on 26/01/2009 at 23:43
|
Speed does kill.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -
"speed itself doesn't kill. Moronic lack of thought kills. Inattention kills. Impact kills. Bad driving kills. Careless pedestrians get killed. But speed itself doesn't kill."
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again - "speed itself doesn't kill. Moronic lack of thought kills. Inattention kills. Impact kills. Bad driving kills. Careless pedestrians get killed. But speed itself doesn't kill."
Moronic lack of thought doesn't kill. But moronic lack of thought at speed kills.
Inattention doesn't kill. But inattention at speed kills.
Unlike car drivers, careless pedestrians don't kill anyone. And careless pedestrians do not themselves get killed unless vehicles are going fast enough to kill them.
"Speed kills" is a simplified shorthand. It doesn't tell the whole of a complex story, but it conveys an important point in a clear and simple form.
|
|
The fact that ministers are using the existence of cameras to reduce traffic police levels doesn't make cameras a bad idea.
If speed cameras were used sparingly, in true accident black spots as a genuine road safety measure, using a tried and tested sensible location criteria, I'd support them. They usually aren't, so I usually don't.
So your problem is with govt's approach to other issues of road safety not with the existence of cameras. Glad we cleared that up.
see above
That's a variant on the "slow-drivers cause accidents" argument. In both cases the issue is the impatience of drivers who prioritise overtaking over safety and who are prepared to exceed the limit.
That's putting incorrect words into my mouth. My post had nothing to do with slower drivers, nothing whatsoever. It was about placing a camera in a sensible place for road safety reasons not placing it in the 'let's catch the easiest victim place'. Interesting that you automatically see an overtake as 'impatience'... i sometimes overtake because i want a better view of the road ahead, don't want to sit behind something large and smelly or 'yes' want to travel at a quicker pace than the person i'm following... or a combination of all three. I see nothing wrong with that at all.
There are plenty of reasons other than number of accidents to enforce speed limits. And in any case you were arguing earlier on against using accidents as the basis for siting cameras.
I have never said that accidents should not be the criteria for siting cameras, but that any criteria should not be set in stone, should not be rigidly adhered to by unthinking bureacrats and that some common sense be applied... so that if there were to be one awful accident that took place at random and a number of people were killed..some fool wouldn't automatically site a camera there, despite the fact a repeat is most unlikely.
In a nutshell NW i'm suggesting a variable, common sense approach to cameras/speeding that take into account all sorts of criteria... so that if you wished to fire your Almera up and overtake a lorry on an 'A' road, you might achieve it more safely by briefly touching say 66mph or even 68mph and wouldn't expect to have to scan the road for a camera rather than pay attention to what is happening up front, whereas the truly dangerous bit of road had signs up saying so, together with a camera to prevent the 'speedsters', which would be a fair and reasonable point . I'm sure you're perfectly aware of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
