Diesel

Very well written Mike Rutherford article - confirms all suspicions :

Speed and greed - AOL Motoring

D

In less than a month, the fatuous and misleading, government-inspired ‘Speed Kills’ message has been largely discredited. And over the same period, there has been further damning evidence that many roadside cameras are little more than cynical money-making machines designed to legally steal from the pockets of drivers.
No longer can it be argued that travelling too fast (whatever that means) is to blame for a large proportion of accidents. Instead, it’s now clear that slower vehicles are at the centre of most of the carnage on our roads, cycle paths and pavements. Who says? Only the Government, and its very own Department for Transport.
The latest round of the inanely over-simplistic ‘Speed Kills’ debate started on 29 September when the DfT published its Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Annual Report and was forced to concede the following: “Exceeding the speed limit and going too fast for conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 15 per cent of all accidents.”
Or to put that another way, vehicles travelling at inappropriately rapid speeds were partly - but not entirely - to blame for less than one seventh of collisions. And even when, in one or two crashes in every 10, inappropriate speed did make a contribution to the cause of accidents, it was not necessarily THE cause.
For example, if a drunk driver on a motorway without a seatbelt ploughed his poorly maintained, bald-tyred car at 80mph into a concrete wall or bridge support, which of the following three things would be responsible for his fatal accident? His intoxicated mind? His unfit vehicle? Or his speeding infraction that had him travelling 10mph faster than he should have been? I’d argue that it was a combination of the booze and the dodgy vehicle that killed him. It was irrelevant whether he was above or below the legal speed limit. With a mind and a vehicle in such a state, he was going to die anyway.
If the Department for Transport is to be believed, the act of “going too fast for conditions” is a contributory factor in 793 of the 3,000-odd fatalities we suffer in Britain every year. But the number of deaths wholly attributable to inappropriately fast driving or riding is something of a mystery. It’s probably safe to assume that inappropriate speeding is the sole cause of less than 10 per cent of fatal accidents on the road, cycle path or pavement. Which indicates that in excess of 90 per cent of fatalities are down to factors other than, in DfT speak, “going too fast for the conditions”.

When speed kills one in 10 but has little or nothing to do with the deaths of the remaining nine in 10, I can’t help thinking that the Government, the DfT and its road safety experts and advisers are barking up the wrong tree. When are they going to tackle the dangers created by vehicles travelling at inappropriately slow speeds, for example? Or even the far less obvious but no less serious problem of non-moving vehicles (and other stationary obstacles, come to that) which are going nowhere but play a major role in many a nasty crash?
According to another Department for Transport report published last week and concentrating on the risk of injuries to drivers, “accidents involving parked cars are excluded”. How utterly absurd. When a moving car collides with a motionless vehicle that may be located in an impossibly dangerous position, how can the one that’s parked up be considered so unimportant that it’s subject to a DfT exclusion clause?
Answer? Because the authorities are too busy concentrating on drivers guilty of speeding misdemeanours. Why? Because they’re cheap and easy to catch on camera and extracting money from their wallets in a well-rehearsed act of legalised theft that is an absolute doddle.
Jon Bird, Warwickshire’s former top speed camera cop, can confirm that. He’s now the boss of Tele-Traffic, a company that supplies these money-grabbing roadside devices to virtually every police force in the country. And within the last few days, he’s admitted that his surprisingly cheap roadside cameras rake in bucket loads of money and that just one of them positioned on an averagely busy street can earn a gross profit of £3,000 an hour. The “beauty” of his contraptions, he says, is that they photograph and fine hard-working men going to work in the morning... and caring mums collecting their kids from school in the afternoon. Nice.

It’s bad enough that the Government, its agents and its cop-turned-entrepreneur cronies are making bucket loads of money from their cynical ‘safety camera’ activities and scams.
But an even bigger, more nauseating problem is this: while those in authority have become unhealthily obsessed by speed and collecting highly profitable speeding fines, they’ve largely ignored the real dangers that cause the vast, vast majority of accidents. You know, the ones that kill over 90 per cent of road users and pedestrians.




Mike Rutherford

Abdabz

LOL, what a contemptable load of claptrap that is!!!

Had the drunk driver happened across the bridge support at 30mph he would still be alive Speed, of course, played a key part in his concocted demise... Rutherford is such a silly sausage...

Speed cameras (and the fines produced as a result of their success) are not 'cynical'. They are simply punishing those who get caught deliberately breaking the law, and/or those too incompetent to manager their vehicle within the constrains of said law.

I find this article is empty and offers no solution. I am suprised such bland and vitriolic ramblings even get paid for and published...

Diesel

Abdabz to ponder a solution [let alone charge the victim with it] there needs to have been a problem in the first place. I put it to you that with few exceptions they have created MORE problems both on a legislative, social and safety level with current methods!

Still, defend them if you must

D

PS you dont have 'mates' or shares in Teletraffic do you

rob878

Speed cameras (and the fines produced as a result of their success) are not 'cynical'. They are simply punishing those who get caught deliberately breaking the law, and/or those too incompetent to manager their vehicle within the constrains of said law.

It is not the fact that they (government etc) are targetting motorists it is the manner in which they are targeting them. If they had a campaign that stated "speeding is illegal we will fine you when we catch you" then ok. It is the way that they try to justify the process in the name of safety. As stated in the article if 1 in 10 accidents are attributed to speed, then what measures are being brought in to combat the other 9. Other than drink driving campaigns around xmas, precious little.

From a personal point i would like a reduction in speed cameras and an increase in Traffic police.

Mad as cheese

Abdabz & rob878,

Don't make me laugh with your "holier than thou" twaddle.

When I started driving, only the worst transgressors were convicted of speeding. Normally the kind of person that had many accidents and was generally regarded as a bad driver.

Now, no-one is safe. Even the most conscientious and careful drivers are finding themselves victims of the speed camera.

IIRC, the counties with the most speed cameras have the worst KSI statistics, and the counties with the least cameras have the best KSI stats.

It is a matter of time before the pair of you get to eat some humble pie when caught at 32mph in a 30. I for one will happily help said pie down your gullet with my booted foot.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

If they actually are careful and concientious, then how come they are breaking the law? Doesn't sound particularly careful or concientious to me.


M

warrenm2

Quite happy to agree that speeders are punished -

WHEN THE SPEED LIMIT IS APPROPRIATE TO THE ROAD

and maybe the conditions (such as in France when the limit changes if its raining)

If you really want to improve road safety - make a licence last 10 years before a retest at the drivers expense and enforce compliance with more traffic cops. Simple

ricardo

I think rob878 was quoting Abdabz in order to reply, it just didn't quite work...

Mad as cheese

Give me a break, FFS.

A careful and conscientious driver might actually be looking at the road and the various hazards that abound rather than fixating on their speedo.

I'd rather have an attentive driver doing 35 in a 30 limit than someone doing 29mph who isn't concentrating because they aren't speeding.

r32

What one of the effects is of the camera mentality is to make us all constantly scan the speedometer in your vehicle, trying to make sure that your not exceeding the limit at any time. Youre taking your eyes off the road and not fully concentrated on whats in front ot behind you.
If you get stuck behind some one doing 20 to 25 you need to accelerate past them safely and quickly. This eyes on the speedo thing must cause accidents along with hitting the brakes every time you see a camera, what ever speed you might have been doing ............

There's no one driving in Britain today who does not exceed the speed limits (probably daily), we all do it at some time. Often on purpose often accidently and I dont care how righteous you are about it.

Leslie

I agree that the speedcams are all part of the money grubbing policies of the authorities. I also think that enough evidence has been shown that they are not accurate enough in all cases to justify their use to convict a driver of breaking the law.

I also disagree that high speeds are safer than driving close to the speed limits. it cannot be denied that high speeds reduce safety margins when an incident occurs and will also increase the severity of the damage and injury in a crash. There is no place for three figure speeds on the public roads whatever you say.

I do think that motorway speed limits should be increased to maybe 85 mph with heavy penalties for exceeding them. 30 mph is a fair speed limit inside populated and constricted areas. Most of the 20 mph zones I have seen are unnecessary and ony encourage motorists to brerak the law. There should be heavier penalties for those driving at highly excessive speeds near schools, hospitals and elderly people's homes etc.

The wish to drive at very high speeds on the public roads is born out of selfishness and lack of personal responsibility.

Les

Felix.

You should be able to drive a car and keep checking your speedo from time to time. You can check it in the same way you are supposed to check you mirrors. If you can’t drive without checking you instruments and mirrors from time to time – then you shouldn’t be on the road really.

I am also sure that if you are overtaking something big and have to go over the speed limit slightly, you have a lawful reason and will not be prosecuted.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

If you're stopped by a traffic cop, who can exercise discretion over whether to report you then yes you may well get off. If a Gatso gets you, tough- you're nicked

Ns04

jonc

There's no arguing that accidents happen whether you're speeding or abiding to the limit. But, in this report, speeding is only a contributing factor in 10% of accidents. 90% of accidents occur with in the speed limit with other attributing factors. I would rather see more traffic police on the roads to tackle inappropriate driving rather than indescrimate speed cameras. In my experience seeing a police car on the roads is more traffic calming than a fixed or mobile scamera.

Felix.

Not so - you can still contest it and probably win.

speedking

e.g. not being aware of the speed limit because of poor signage, many are obscured by bushes or knocked down and never replaced, then braking hard to 30 in a 50 limit because that must be safe Even if you know a road has a 40 limit, then you'd better be prepared to brake to 30 at all speed camera locations

^Qwerty^

Your either taking the pi55, have no idea, or are just plain stupid.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

On some grounds I'm sure you could. However, with respect, I doubt using overtaking as an excuse would attract much sympathy, even if you cited that the highway code states you should overtake vehicles as quickly as possible

IIRC they also have you over a barrel to some extent, as if you wish to contest (or even just see the evidence against you) you must plead not guilty and therefore attend court. The implication being that if subsequently found guilty there, you may end up far worse off! Hence most people just bend over and think of England.......and how this is just one instance of the b*tt f**king that the decent citizens of the country will have to endure every day just to subsidse more ill-conceived schemes from idiots like Transport 2000 and a government with a transport policy that is in tatters!

Ns04

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

I tried that line on a cop in london at 2:30 in the morning when I was not even speeding as I was lost, he only stopped me as I was in an XR3i.

He turned round and said "are you telling me my job?" and got all arsey.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

Quite right too; you barsteward!!!

vindaloo

You may be sure but I'm not anymore. I think the onus has changed to one of "if you have to exceed the speed limit to complete the maneouvre, then you shouldn't have initiated it".

J.

mightyyid

If this were to be the case, there would be two scenarios. One, if on a single lane road in either direction, the Gatso would be facing the left lane and you, overtaking, would be in the right lane and thus not in view of the Gatso so would not be caught or flashed (it would be focused on the large vehicle if it was located on the grass verge on the left, and there would be no speed markings in the road in the opposite direction, and if it was in the middle of the road, you'd be in serious ****). If it was on a dual carriageway, then you would get flashed and would probably not get away with it, as if the lorry and you were irrelevant to each other - you were speeding because you wanted to, not because you were 'overtaking' as such as you had your own lane. Thus it's almost a mute point - unless I have missed something?

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by Felix.
Not so - you can still contest it and probably win.

Couldn't of put it better. Speeding is an absolute offence. Just shows the quality of candidates that get let in the force these days.

Andy

Abdabz

A lot of that makes sense Rob. I have been saying for ages that the government should drop the "safety camera" logo and just call them "speed cameras". They should make it clear to all they are only there to punish speeding motorists, no-one could ever gripe then...

From a personal point of view, I would like to see an increase in speed cameras and an increase in traffic police.

I am not holier than thou Mr 'Mad As Cheese' person, nor in my opinion is my rhetoric twaddle. I am brill. My mum says so.

I myself speed from time to time .
I am also just about able to glance at my speedo whilst observing the goings on around me and at the same time notice big chuffin yellow cameras at the side of the road and suspicious looking vans on bridges or in laybys with whacking great big cameras on tripods etc. I am able to correlate the speed on my speedo with the speed on the sign without driving up the pavement or backflipping into a bramble How good am I? Quality? Yes, I think so

I know people who get points on SN are all the great drivers who were unlucky, each with their own reason to hate the camera or policeman or circumstance around their capture and far be it from me to challenge that.
But it's the bollox I read like, 'it was 2.30am on a quiet road', 'there were hidden signs', (hmm is it 30 or 50 down here, I know, I'll go at 50 just in case, oh bugger I've been caught speeding) , brakeing hard from 50 into 30 zones (rather than seeing the signs ahead and slowing before the sign)... Its just simple driving techniques and these kind of excuses get on my marmadukes...

Speaking of marmadukes it's time for my tea

Felix.

Just for the record - I'm not traffic or have any desire to be in traffic

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Over here speed cameras are just that Speed cameras and are set up to catch speeding drivers to raise money, they are not safety cameras.

Over here they hide olive green cameras in bushes covered in cam nets, or between parked cars, behind the transit van that sets em up, in the front/back of a car parked on the side of the road etc.

All our cameras are olive green even the fixed ones, the mobile ones are small and are place where you are lucky to see them even if you are looking for them.

There are also no signs saying that cameras are in use or even in the area and all our cameras are front facing, in some places with a rear facing one aswell to catch bikes.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

And was only 2 days after I passed my driving test, it was a company car

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

NIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!

Essex based company per chance?

Felix.

Besides, the term 'absolute offence' is for charging purposes only and bares no significance at court.