|
Two quick questions which I don't think have been asked before:
1. Would the "pro speed limit" brigade have any objection to speed cameras being fitted at 50 metre intervals on every single road in the country and catching every single driver for speeding with absolutely no discretion being applied in the matter (i.e. 1 mph over = points + fine) by the authorities? (This would, obviously render speed camera detectors redundant overnight and consign all future debate on speed cameras to the recycling box.)
2. Would the same worthy and utterly blameless collective of individuals agree with the assertion that speed is ONE factor in crashes, injuries and deaths but is rarely the ONLY factor at work? For me, speeding by itself (a simple 35 mph in a 30 zone) is a victimless crime, but combine it with lack of car control,influence of drink, influence of drugs, lack of observation, inexperienced driver, poor supervision of a learner, distraction, tiredness, any number of mechanical faults... and it is a lethal cocktail
I'm only saying...
|
|
I believe you have to have set speed limits and most people would not argue otherwise for reasons I made clear earlier.
However I don't have a problem with people buying camera detection devices. Come to that neither do the government or they would have made them illegal, In fact the authorities want you to know where the cameras are located (which happen to be areas where accidents have frequently happened in the past) or why would they put signs up and paint them bright yellow?
As far as point two is concerned the stats I posted earlier show that speed is a factor in a massive number of accidents leading to death and injury. Were those numbers of deaths to occur in a single incident it would be a tragedy on such a scale so as to invoke a lengthy period of national mourning.
That excess speed results in many road deaths and injuries is undeniable and the free-for-all that would seem to be implied by drivers deciding what is a "safe" speed and imposing their "own" limits based on the road conditions prevailing at the time is not only naive - it is laughable.
Edited by LucyBC on 31/05/2010 at 22:33
|
which happen to be areas where accidents have frequently happened in the past
Who says?
How many do you see on the only straight bit for ages where you can safely overtake the lorry...not the weary bit before with the bad bend and lack of vision, under the trees.
Then there's the problem with the stats used to site cameras e.g. 5 deaths = a camera. ... and the reason why known suicide sites now have speed cameras, because sadly it's a known spot for people to leap to their deaths, then get run over by some unsuspecting motorist.
..or a camera appears for no apparent reason, until you realise that one clown drove excessively badly for quite some time and just happened to 'wipe out' at one particular spot, killing five people in one hit. That accident site was purely random, yet now has a camera.
I drove past one at the weekend on the A303 in Wiltshire (westbound), half way up a short straight hill and the only bit of very short dual carriageway...designed to stop you briefly touching 70mph in a 60mph limit, when you'd like to get past the lorry. b***** irritating and sod all to do with road safety, i'd rather concentrate on the road than my speedo inthose circs i.e. an overtake.
Edited by Westpig on 01/06/2010 at 17:29
|
|
Statistics show that people very rarely commit suicide by jumping in front of cars on roads - fewer still by choosing accident blackspots. You get the odd suicidal motorway bridge jumper but mostly they leap in front of trains or off cliffs like Beachey Head - both of which are far more reliable.
On the statistical point you need five accidents at a site not five casualties.
With regard to the A303 is "my" road - I drive it from Honiton to London and back at least three times a week.
I know every camera on it.
It is also a particularly dangerous road as from Stonehenge westbound as it frequently varies from dual carriageway to two-way traffic.
And there are always a couple of chancers playing Russian roulette to make unsafe manoeuvres in order to gain a couple of positions or 25-30 yards ground where the road narrows westwards of Countess or similar passing a slow truck through the bends at Winterbourne Stoke - which will always be a highly dangerous decision.
Which is why both sites are fitted with cameras.
|
Statistics show that people very rarely commit suicide by jumping in front of cars on roads - fewer still by choosing accident blackspots. You get the odd suicidal motorway bridge jumper but mostly they leap in front of trains or off cliffs like Beachey Head - both of which are far more reliable.
You are missing the point. I agree that people don't usually commit suicide by leaping in front of vehicles. People that jump off m/way or fast road bridges, but then get run over as a secondary element to the intial jump get classified as an RTA victim. e.g. 'suicide bridge' on the A1 at Highgate, North London...(the camera is right next to it). So their choice of suicide location makes it become an accident blackspot for incorrect reasons.
On the statistical point you need five accidents at a site not five casualties.
That is incorrect. 5 deaths = camera. e.g. Bounds Green Road, Palmers Green near the North Circular Road in North London. Some years back a drunk and drugged man with 4 passengers in a 5 series BMW drove down there one night (30mph limit) at a truly horrendous speed, wiped out and killed himself as well as his 4 passengers. Camera followed within 12 months on a wide striaght road, with a slight kink in it before you have to stop for a major junction. Complete waste of time, there are many, many other more suitable places that camera could be.
With regard to the A303 is "my" road - I drive it from Honiton to London and back at least three times a week.
I know every camera on it.
It is also a particularly dangerous road as from Stonehenge westbound as it frequently varies from dual carriageway to two-way traffic.
I also regularly use that road, twice in the last 10 days...and have done so for over 30 years. Westbound through Chicklade, past the petrol station and 'little thief' cafe, there is a very brief uphill section that is dual carriageway. Halfway up the hill is the camera, just at a point you could make progress and get past a couple of lorries etc. There's no need to have it there, you are allowed to overtake, it is two lanes, the lanes don't run out to well and truly over the brow of the hill..if anything it is more dangerous, because it slows you down just at the point you ought to be getting a move on.
I don't mind cameras at true accident spots...many of them are sited for false reasons or appear at the safer part of the road, ignoring the more dangerous bit, which has many folk believe they are there for revenue raising reasons.
|
|
|
|
Two quick questions which I don't think have been asked before:
1. Would the "pro speed limit" brigade have any objection to speed cameras being fitted at 50 metre intervals on every single road in the country and catching every single driver for speeding with absolutely no discretion being applied in the matter
Not really, and you would probably find that traffic, as a whole, moved quicker.
For me, speeding by itself (a simple 35 mph in a 30 zone) is a victimless crime, but combine it with lack of car control....
Two points come to mind :
So you have set the speed limt at 35 mph, say the next driver setsit at 36 mph, is that OK and the next at 37 mph and so on and so on.... Where do you, the police and the community draw the line? If youthink the speed limit is too low, complain to your MP
2 The fact that you are speeding, demonstrates you are not in control of the car
And your comment about a victimless crime, are you mad. If the number of people killed/seriosly injured in speed related incidents was the number of fatalities/serious injured due to railways/airplanes, there would be a national out cry. Why we accept it on the roads in beyond my understanding.
|
|
|
|
Try Micro - Fuzion .
Reading the reviews of many of these speed camera detectors including Microfuzion you find that they all have a mixture of the same problems,ie: poor support, inaccurate updates or updates too infrequent, problems downloading, complicated instructions, missing fixed cameras, alerting on old camera sights where no camera exists and so on.
But can these reviews be any help at all - possibly posted by numbskulls or agents of rival companies. Frankly I'm left scratching my head I don't know which one to buy.
|
|
I personaly wouldn't bother with them, I had a snooper a few years ago and found the bleeping annoying. You should spot the fixed sites if you're paying attention. You should spot most mobile sites if you're that worried about it by scanning bridges and the road ahead at range although they take a very short time to ping you so not alot you can do and if you've been done before and are paranoid about it you should check every car you drive past to see if it's unmarked by looking for the mini nearside mirror, aerials on the roof, led lights inset in to the rear windscreen at the top and stab vests on the driver, car is usually 2 up. Get to know the unmarked cars in your area along with the registration numbers.
|
|
I try to stick to speed limits and most of the time I do but to these people who say things like it is easy to stay in the speed limits, your out of control if you go above the speed limit and so on, I say to them teach me how!
It is easy if you know the roads, but if your in a strange location with traffic all around you, trying to find your direction and which lane you should be in then it all to easy to find yourself over the limit even if briefly
Today on the M6 in road works, - naturally no work going on - 50 mph limit and variable speed cameras, lots of traffic I found my speed had crept up to 60mph. I guess I should have been watching my speed not what other vehicles were doing around me
The 20mph speed limits are a pain, I need to watch my speedo all the time to stay in the limit
Edited by julie page on 02/06/2010 at 00:36
|
|
I think most people attempt to drive within the limits and most also exceed them at some time.
But there are some people who do not believe there should be any limits and speed has no/minimal effect on casualty levels and statistically that argument cannot be sustained.
On the practical issue of driving within lower limits you might find the best practical option is to change down to a lower gear.
|
But there are some people who do not believe there should be any limits and speed has no/minimal effect on casualty levels and statistically that argument cannot be sustained.
There are also some people who think that there ought to be limits, but those limits need to be rational...and that there are times when a higher speed can be acceptable (even if it is above a posted limit), depending on the circumstances e.g. proper risk assessement having regard to present or likely hazards.
Those people often get lumped in to the catch all category stated above, because it suits those with a counter arguement to marginalise and ridicule their viewpoint, which is disingenuous, because that simple statement would be agreed by any rational person.
|
|
I am 100% in agreement with Westpig above.
speed per se DOES NOT KILL, only inappropriatre speed , which could indeed be 25mph in a 30 mph limit
Depending on the circumstances.etc etc etc,. so 90 or 100 on a dry empty motorway of a summer sunday morning.......at about 05.30...............safe as houses
Plus cars are now vastly safer than when these limits were set
Plus plus , we will ALL be driving like mindless dorks, that accident was not my fault i was driving at x mph under the limit( with my head up my rear end mind)
scheesh indeed.
From a 30 year driver with no points accidents or convictions
( who usually tootles along at 50mph odd, & might..... just might get up to 65 on the Motorway)
PS>
our 17 year old daughter just passed her test first time with three minors, with minimial tution
I'ts ALL in the breeding you know
Edited by dieseldogg on 02/06/2010 at 16:45
|
Plus cars are now vastly safer than when these limits were set
Probably not to the poor sod who gets hit by the 'safe' car.
In the past I think I certain amount of natural selection took place - the nutters ended up dead and therefore could cause no further problem. Nowadays, in a modern car, it's like crashing a bouncy castle, the nutter inside the cars survive, but the poor sod they hit don't
|
|
|
|
There are also some people who think that there ought to be limits, but those limits need to be rational...and that there are times when a higher speed can be acceptable (even if it is above a posted limit), depending on the circumstances e.g. proper risk assessement having regard to present or likely hazards.
The problem with this is that everyone sets their own speed limit.
And of course I, like many many motorists will stray above the speed limt, But if I got caught I wouldn't bleet how unfair the world was. I would accept I made a mistake and would take the fine and the three points.(BTW, I have got caught speeding twice in my youth - they were both expensive lessons, which I have learnt from)
My real beef is with those motorist who deliberately and knowingly break the law. The ones who dip their brakes as they pass a speed camera and then accelerate once past it. This is not accidently straying above the speed limit. This is putting two fingers up to the law.
As I mentioned before, if you think the speed limit is wrong, complain to your Councillors and MP, don't just ignore the law.
|
|
>>>My real beef is with those motorist who deliberately and knowingly break the law. The ones who dip their brakes as they pass a speed camera and then accelerate once past it. This is not accidently straying above the speed limit. This is putting two fingers up to the law.
Very much agree with that, and a lot of those that buy sat navs only get them to help them break the speed limit,one reason why I think speed cameras should be hidden, not exposed as those that repeatedly break limit wanted and got
Hide them I say
|
|
|
My real beef is with those motorist who deliberately and knowingly break the law. The ones who dip their brakes as they pass a speed camera and then accelerate once past it. This is not accidently straying above the speed limit. This is putting two fingers up to the law.
Ah. So it's not the speed that necessarily causes you the problem, it's the willingness for someone to break the law.
I have spent virtually the whole of my adult life ensuring people comply with the law..yet, i'm willing to say that some laws are plain stupid and that for credibility sake, we should strive to get them right.
Do you accept that the suffragettes were correct to break the law. I do.
Don't be a sheep. Open your mind.
|
My real beef is with those motorist who deliberately and knowingly break the law. The ones who dip their brakes as they pass a speed camera and then accelerate once past it. This is not accidently straying above the speed limit. This is putting two fingers up to the law.
Ah. So it's not the speed that necessarily causes you the problem, it's the willingness for someone to break the law.
I have spent virtually the whole of my adult life ensuring people comply with the law
Breaking the speed limit is breaking the law is it not, regardless of what the limit is,so yes speed does cause a problem, where it is IMO doesnt come into it...
>>I have spent virtually the whole of my adult life ensuring people comply with the law
I really wish there was more of you where are they as I dont see them.,
|
|
It's a pity so many contributors to what could be a rational, lively and even interesting debate have a high horse as preferred mode of transport... (Haven't the roses come on lovely this year ?.....)
|
|
But why would anyone get hit? by a car
Only by self selecting for deselection.....Darwin at work. Mindless teenagers & drunks
Regarding children running out..................Hmmmmm
Again this should NOT happen, parental control & supervision & training on one hand
On the other the observant thinking car driver will be driving at an appropriate speed for the prevailing conditions, AND be ready to react/brake IF there are pedestrians in the vicinity who need watching. i.e. the classic Kid with a ball senario.
BUT BUT BUT
Accidents WILL happen....No need to ALWAYS blame the poor sod of a car driver ( nutters excepted, and yes I accept that they are out there, but they generally operate outside the law in all/most respects, they are not your average driver)
cheers again
|
|
|
|
|
|
