Diesel

We need to protest NOW! They may be only doing people over 85mph at the moment but you know they so WILL be doing you for 74mph in a few years' time - you know it and their accountants know it!!!

Soon (if not already) you will not be able to adjust your speed to be courteous to other road users changing lane. Soon so much of your attention will be on legal process and prosecution possibilities rather than anticipation and SAFE DRIVING on the safest motorways in the world. No difference between driving at 09:00 on a bank holiday Friday and 02:00 on a Sunday...

The sooner the faceless, deceptive, 'spinning' salaried bureaucrats with false validation gained from covert cameras realise that you can not count safety in £££ or MPH the better.

PLEASE COME AND JOIN US ON SATURDAY

Forget moaning in Scoobynet and DO SOMETHING!!!!

Print the sticker from the website www.m4protest.org and come along for a chat with like minded responsible safe drivers if you too are FED UP WITH PERSECUTION.

SiDHEaD

Already signed up

pslewis

So? this is a protest to say that you should be allowed to break the law without fear of any penalty whatsoever?

I don't think so!

Make it a protest that the 70 MPH is too low a speed limit and I will be with you all the way!

But asking people to protest against catching people doing 100MPH, 90MPH, 85MPH or 120MPH?? Thats simply NOT right IMO!

We have all seen the idiot speeding along the 3rd lane at about 130MPH .... they SHOULD be executed not just fined!! and the more cameras the better.

You may not like the above - but its entirely in keeping with the thoughts of non-petrolheads!

Pete

Adrian F

More like a protest to say that the Police should focus on the crimes we who pay their wages want e.g. Murder, burglary, gun crime, mugging, car jacking and drugs. Not on the one crime that makes the Police a profit and yet hurts nobody.

Sprint Chief

I'm hoping to make it, if work commitments allow.

An unenforced 70mph limit is pointless and should be revised.

A strictly enforced 70mph increases the danger.

The RAC have found evidence of increased bunching along the stretch of motorway that the mobile cameras are being used on, as more and more drivers adopt a single speed. On this basis, it is likely that the cameras will increase the number of accidents along this stretch; therefore, a protest against the cameras is a protest for increased safety for this piece of road. I would fully endorse an increase to the speed limit.

On a clear, dry day with low traffic levels, 130mph would be quite safe on a motorway (IMO). I don't do it in this country, due to the speed limit and the fact other drivers would not be expecting it, but would be quite happy to do so in places where it is legal (e.g. Germany)

pslewis

Surely cameras release Police to do 'other' work??

Pete

SiDHEaD

Sprint Chief

That is exactly part of the problem. The number of traffic police has been cut, which means "other" forms of dangerous driving (e.g. tailgating, using mobile phones, carelessness) are allowed to increase. The mobile speed camera in Basingstoke had a police officer manning it (don't know about the M4 ones, which I don't think are police operated) with the result that we had both a traffic police reduction, cameras, and one officer unnecessarily tied up.

Not good!

Leslie

PSL just has not grasped that this is not the way that British people are prepared tp accept.

We are getting fed up of spy cameras of all sorts being placed on our roads to either squeeze even more money out of us or to identify where we are driving to and from and to make a record of it for the Authorities' own convenience.

This is not the way things used to be done in this country and the average Brit is going to rail against this Big Brother mentality.

If you show your lack of trust in people by such overbearing methods of surveillance in all respects including in the workplace by insisting on all these checks and tests which have to be administered by an ever growing army of bureaucrats at our own expense of course, the people are just not going to bother any more and job efficency just goes to the wall.

The M4 speedcams fit into this egregiously authoritarian way of complete control of our lives and it is necessary to show how we feel in no uncertain manner.

Les

pslewis

On the contrary, I am the only 'vocal' representative on this BBS of the British People.

You criminals who wish to commit a crime and NOT get caught are in a minority.

You have no need to fear the cameras or identity cards or police checks if you have nothing to hide.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that you object to any device that fines you for speeding!

If its a protest that 70MPH is too slow then, as I said, I agree fully.

Pete

Diesel

Well said Leslie.

The size of the stick they are beating the motorist over the head with has grown to huge proportions and, as these cameras prove, it just keep getting bigger. Doing 70 on a dry motorway is no 'safer' than doing 80 - you just cant simplistically measure safety in mph. We have to put a stop to it before they start causing anger, discourteousness and pile-ups on motorways as you will be unable to adjust speed upwards and will resent slowing down for some crazy quango.

The press conference is arranged and the battle lines drawn.

I HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE TO UNDERLINE THE SCALE OF THIS PROTEST

pslewis

Please enlighten me ....... is this a protest that 70MPH isn't reasonable?

Or is it that the cameras shouldn't be there to catch criminals?

The message is confusing

Pete

Iain Young

Blimey, I actually agree with pslewis on this one !!!!

It could be argued that 70mph is too slow for motorways (it should probably be 80mph IMO), but the law is the law, and I don't understand why people are protesting the fact that if they break the law they might get caught and prosecuted.

I drive that stretch of road every single day (both going to and from work), and since the cameras have been in place, I've seen fewer accidents (usually see at least one per day), a lot less road rage related incidents, and the whole journey has generally been a lot more pleasant. So as far as I'm concerned, they can stay.

Twigster Home

You forget Ian, that this protest is actually organised by local people such as yourself. I can guarantee you that so far there have been at least two significant accidents, as well as a number of close calls due to idiots who panic brake even when they are doing seventy miles per hour as soon as they see a camera.

The point of the protest is not to complain about being caught speeding, nor is it to try and justify a new speed limit on the motorways. It is simply designed to encourage the government (regardless of who is in charge) to review it's reliance on speed cameras and encourage them to return to the days when there were plenty of traffic police who could accurately judge what was dangerous and what was not. The problem with the cameras is that they will catch the person doing 80mph on a motorway, whilst allowing the idiot cutting people up and doing 50mph in the inside lane to escape scott-free.

I don't think you will find many people protesting against cameras near schools or in residential areas or accident blackspots, but to prosecute people on a perfectly safe road for no other purpose than to make money is simply rediculous and cannot be allowed. There is a very narrow minded view to speed becoming apparent in this country, and it is time to bring back some common sense to it all and allow the police to do their jobs properly.

(All IMHO, of course!!)

Iain Young

Well, I've not seen any evidence of it since they put the cameras in. All I know is that before they went live, the average speed down that bit opf the M4 was easily over 90mph. If you drove down it even at 80mph, then you were being passed as though you were standing still by most of the traffic. When you add to this the fact that the drivers were also travelling an inch apart, suddenly pulling out in front of other cars etc, it was all getting a bit mad and to be frank, quite scary.

Since the cameras have live, the traffic has calmed down significantly, and I now longer feel as though I am taking my life into my hands when driving to work. I agree that driving at 80mph won't be much different to 70mph, but people were driving far in excess of that...

Well, if that is the case, then it hasn't been marketed very well. It's being portrayed simply as a M4 speed camer protest around here (at least from everything I've seen about it so far).

Very true, and that's why there should be a more visible police presence. However, the cameras do mean that they are now only cutting in at 70mph now instead of 90+mph.

As I said. That stretch of M4 used to basically be a race track. Now everyone seems to be driving much more carefully...

OllyK

Care to provide the road survey results that show that or is that just SWAG?

Please show me the independant studies that show; since speed cameras were introduced 9 years ago, we have seen an increased reduction in road deaths over what we were seeing before. In fact try and show that road deaths continued to decrease at the same rate.

In short, despite, vehicle safety improvement and the millions spent by car makers in R&D to meet new safety standards, the reliance on speed cameras has manged to almost completely negate their effect.

Rather than focusing on 3% of the problem and ignoring the other 97%, why don't we start trying to save lives by better driver training and more police on the roads looking for the dangerous drivers that cameras are useless against. While people continue to accept speed cameras and the lies that they are working, nothing will be done to address the real causes of road deaths. Disband the camera partnerships and get some focus back on to road safety.

Iain Young

<Sigh> Olly I'm not talking about speed cameras generally, just on this section of the M4.

As I said, I do know a bit about this because I drive the road every single day of the week, twice a day, (once in each direction), 48 weeks a year. Before the cameras were introduced the average speed was very high, and driving standards were very low. Now, the speeds are much lower and everyone is driving generally much calmer and safely. Surely this is a good thing?

I have also seen far fewer road rage incidents, cars cutting each other up etc since the cameras have gone live. I can't provide statictics (partly because there aren't any), but it is definitely a more pleasant place to drive now.

All in my opinion of course, (and several other people I know from work who drive then same stretch of road). But what do we know. We only use it every day...

When you show me the independant studies that categorically prove the opposite.

None of the studies conducted so far show the true picture of what is happening. You cannot prove that cameras have increased or decreased accidents, simply because you don't know what would have happened if they hadn't been introduced. For an accurate scientific set of results you need controls etc in place to compare the data with, and this just has not been done by people on either side of the arguement.


Cars are only as safe as the people driving them. It could be argued that by making cars safer, manufacturers have actually promoted bad driving because the consequences of an accident are so much less serious and you can get away with more.

If you actually read my post above you would have seen that I thought that more police on the roads is the ideal solution. Driver training is good, but most people will ignore it once they leave the test center. Anyone can drive well during a test...

Another statement not backed up with fact. Until a truly independent survey, conducted to scientific standards is comissioned, then we cannot form a valid opinion either way. I suspect that it would find that in some casees they reduce accidents, and in others, they increase them. But that's just a guess...

Iain Young

p.s. why do you insist on snipping my "subjective waffle" only to replace it with a load of completely subjective waffle of your own

Abdabz

I'm waiting for a march to Whitehall by convicted / potential shoplifters complaining that cctv in stores should be banned ...

OllyK

Ok - a bit of background...

Subjective

Subjective

Subjective

Subjective. It's all in your opinion. If you can show me that the average speed figures have dropped and so have the incidents of road rage, accidents and Police procecutions for poor driving, you may almost have a point. But as you later say, where is the control group?

So it's all subjective. In YOUR opionion it is, but what does every other driver think? Have you asked them?

So sample size of what 3? 4? out of how many that use it?

I was being sarcastic, even the governments own figures fail to show speed cameras working.

Unless somebody has been and put cameras on every square inch of every road, I'd say we have some pretty good comparitive control groups. Whether anybody has actually decided to do the study, I can't say.

Sure, so why focus on what the government's own stats show as a largely irrelevant factor? Deal with the factors that are causing the problem.

It could be, as can the "As long as I don't speed I'm safe" attitude.


But we both know that cameras are not addressing the problem, so rather than saying they are OK, it's time to start getting some focus on the things that may make a difference, more Police on the roads and better driver training (on-going).

Yes it would be nice to get the independant study, I'm happy, at the moment, to accept the government's own figures which shows the damn things aren't working.

While people keep thinking speeding IS the issue and all efforts are focused on speeding, the general public seem to think that the government is doing a good job on road safety - you seem to be in agreement that they are not and even agree on some of the things that would help, so why not try and hi-light the shortfalls, that cameras are not a road safety nirvana that solves the whole problem?

Iain Young

Ok, well I always drive down the M4 at 70mph (I keep my speeding for track days, and besides it save petrol ).

Before the cameras were introduced, I was a moving roadblock with practically evry other car whizzing past me as though I was standing still. Now we're all doing about the same speed. Note that this is only during the rush-hour times (i.e. 8-9am and 5-6pm). No idea what it's like during that day...

You might call that subjective (and I suppose it is in a way), but you could say the same thing about any of the government figures, or anti-speed camera group figures...

Well, I've asked every other driver that I know that drives the same road (about a dozen of us from where I work), and they all think the same thing as me. Not a vast sample I know, but it shows I'm not the only one thinking it.

I disagree. The only way to effectively judge the affect of a particular camera would be to have it in place for 2 months (for example), then remove it for 2 months. Repeat the process a couple of times to help average out the results, and then compare.

Any studies really need to be done on a camera by camera basis, not generally, as they will be beneficial in some cases and not in others...

Who ever said that. I know I didn't. It's just a fact that the faster you go, the less chance there is of rectifying mistakes, and so the more dangerous it becomes. The trick is to find the highest sensible speed which most drivers will be able to handle competently, and set the limit there.

Unfortunately, it's often not speed itself that causes the accidents but bad driving. But if you are hurtling along at 90mph and someone pulls out in front of you (bad driving), you stand a lot less chance of reacting and slowing down that if you were travelling at 70mph.

They may or may not be addressing some of the problem (we need that survey to find out). Can't say either way for sure until it has happened.

I still say driver training won't make a blind bit of difference. You've only got to look at how many people are still using handheld mobile phones behind the wheel, (I see several every day on the M4), or people who still smoke despite the obvious health warnings.

More police is a very good idea though

I never said they were. But they do seem to have improved this section of the M4 immensely (purley from a drivers point of view and in my opinion before you say anything).

ChrisB

Have traffic levels dropped since the vans were deployed?

Iain Young

Difficult one to answer that Chris.

One or two days driving to work recently I've been half expecting to see tumbleweed rolling across the road (it was that quiet). But others it has been a 3 lane traffic jam.

I think initially, people were avoiding the road (and using the A4 instead) because of the cameras, but they seem to be drifting back now and the traffic levels are slowly getting back to normal (albeit slower).

ChrisB

Interesting. I was wondering if "pushing" drivers off the relative safety of a motorway back onto A roads was counter-productive in the overall idea of road safety (for all users, not just drivers).

Iain Young

Mind you, I drove down the back roads the other day, and that road was practically deserted as well. It might be that the lower speed on the motorways has had an effect of thinning / averaging out the traffic.

I suspect the actual answer is probably quite complex...

OllyK

So other cars are passing you, why should that necessarily be a problem?

Not really, AFAIK the "anti-camera groups" as you call them, use the government's own figures, or when they can get them, the raw figures from the police which in turn are number crunched by the government crews.

Sure and others will be thinking about other things such as people driving using a mobile - or more often than not thinking nothing much at all.

Well seing as the accident record to justify a camera is supposed to be based on the previous 3 years figures, I'm not sure that is practical. You would also have to take in to account seasonal vehicle volumes, time of year, road conditions and regression to the mean. Better to try and have as many of the variables the same when conducting tests.

In general (with or without a camera) that location should have fewer accidents over the following couple of years. It's called regression to the mean. In Blackpool they found that in 1/5 of camera locations, the number of accidents actually increased.

You do like the accidents to happen don't you? If you are driving safely, the accident won't happen in the first place so the ability to recover becomes moot.

Oh good grief - and that works so well doesn't it. The 85th percentile is considered the accepted norm. Look at the A610, because accidents have been happening they have dropped the speed from 70mph to 40mph as they believe speed is the issue. In fact it's poor driver attention when rounding a bend and coming upon stationary traffic. The signs warning of queuing traffic occur AFTER the usual end of the queue and so are of no use what so ever. Has reducing the speed limit stopped crashes? No, of course not as speed wasn't a factor in the first place. What would have helped would have been large flashing signs (switched on at peak times only) well before the start of the queue, and before the bend. By all means put a lower speed limit to cover the 3 or 4 hours we are talking about, but to have 40 mph on what is normally a deserted dual carriageway is ridiculous. On the flip side, at the bottom of the hill as the road joins a roundabout, the speed limit is increased to NSL - just for the round about? Now that is crackers.

Only if you also are driving badly yourself! If you are driving safely, then the speed is not a factor.

I think you have to be very blinkered to hold that view, even the governments own figures are not suggesting cameras are having a positive effect.

I beg to differ, if it was harder to pass your test in the first place, there was a separate motorway test and incentives to take further training combined with good intelligent policing and harsh penalties for dangerous / poor driving then I think it would have far more effect. At the moment, most poor drivers are aware the only driving offence they are likey to get caught for is speeding, so they don't give a damn about anything other than their speed.

Well your average plod has a damn sight more intelligence than a camera.

GrollySTI

eh?

If you come round a bend and find stationary traffic then ultimately the speed you are travelling will determine your stopping distance - whether or not you were paying attention?

Iain Young

Of course it's not a problem. I was just using it to demonstrate the fact that speeds have slowed on the M4, (seeing as you asked for proof).


So you are guessing where the data comes from then. If the anti-camera groups are getting their data from the (possibly) flawed government data, then surely their data is just as invalid. Simple logic there.


No it's not practical. But sadly little attempt (as far as I have seen so far) has been made to even try and have the variables even remotely the same.

Ok, but how do they know they same thing wouldn't have happened, or been even worse without the cameras? The answer is, they don't. There may have been a sudden influx of chavs to Blackpool, and if the cameras hadn't been there the accident rate might have been double what it is now for all I know. Statistics like this prove nothing.

What a stupid thing to say. There is always the possibility of something unexpected happening, regardles of how "safely" you are driving. The faster you are going, the less chance you have of controlling the situation.

Just because you are driving safely does not mean that everyone around you is doing the same.

I think you are blinkered to believe government figures. Especially, when you have admitted that the way the surveys etc have been conducted are flawed.

Well, it's a lot harder to pass a driving test now than it was when I took mine, and driving standards are steadily getting worse, so I'm sorry, but I still don't believe it will make any difference to the majority.

The only way to get driving standards up is to have a deterrent. That means police on the roads, booking people for bad driving (something that the cameras will not pick up).

Cameras do have their place, but they should be viewed only as a small part of the solution, not the only solution.

OllyK

Providing you follow that rule, your speed is irrelevant. Also you seem to have ignored thinking time, which can be a major factor.

OllyK

Which is what I was getting at, while cameras keep being presented as the ideal and often "only" solution the situation isn't going to get any better.

Some serious attention needs to be placed on all the other things that affect road safetly and that cameras have no impact on. If this goes to the next level of ISA's speed again remains the primary focus, but ignores all the other factors.