Neil F

Who saw this programme after news at 10.00?

Quentin basically put forward all (most of?) the points regularly discussed on this BBS.

AT LAST!!! some decent representation for the cause.

Loads of shots of hidden cameras, references to stealth tax, examples of how highway code braking distances are hopelessly out of date.

I particularly enjoyed the retired road safety executive officer who broke down their statistics and pointed out that speed was rarely a significant factor in road accidents (the example that officers at accident scenes can deduce that a car was exceeding the limit at the time of the crash, but that doesn't mean that it had anything to do with the cause was given).
Also despite one area (Northampton I think) issuing something like 89000 speeding tickets this year against 8000 last year, there were only 14 less deaths on the roads in the whole country!
Mr Ex Safety officer said that this couldn't even be used as a real statistic as this figure could deviate much more than this under any circumstances.
The most annoying part for me was the interview with their SPEED CAMERA MARKETING DIRECTOR! Doesn't that just say it all?

Final point is that in British Columbia they have abolished the speed camera campaign in favour of officers at roadsides making sensible judgments as the cameras were ineffective and detrimental to public perception of the police force.

Is this the start of some common sense?

DrEvil

Lets hope so!

neveryoumind

Apparently (I didn't see the program) there was some bloke saying speed was a cause in 1/3 of accidents. As we all know there are lies, damned lies and statistics. This link shows how they work out the figures. Pretty bent even for a tv documentary, I think you'll agree.

Neil F

neveryoumind.

A most enlightening site!
So basically they loosely consolidate scenarios into broad categories and then enthusiastically overgeneralise the results into an accurate and damning statistic.

How could I have been so wrong all this time.
I'm born again, I love speed cameras. NOT!

Neil.

WREXY

A couple of months ago they started fitting speed cameras in Athens. A couple of weeks ago they decided to abolish them and have all been removed now. Reasons were the public did not want a bar of them and started protesting (my word do they know how to protest here, alot to different to OZ) and the fact that they could not prove who would have been driving, plus some privacy issue, were the reasons they were removed. Top stuff

WREXY.

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

YAY Northampton!

1 quick question.

Do motorcycles set them off? What good is a forward facing speed camera to detering the hoards of fair weather bikers with their matching leathers at the weekend when there's no license plate on the front of the bike?

Also, have any of the bikers on here been tempted to thrash past a S/C whilst doing something naughty?

Matt

Markus

I've always wondered about forward facing cameras and motorbikes, cos bikes dont have front plates, thus they won't get caught by front facing cameras. Is this not discrimingating against car drivers, ie; we have front plates and get 'seen' but bikes don't?

Would this not also be the case for the cats eye cameras?

Anyway, caugt the last two mins of the show, and comments on the government and police cheifs thinking that painting gatso's in vivd colors is a good idea sounded nice to me! maybe it'll become a reality in a few years

Disco

There's no point in them being orange if they are still hidden behind signposts or bushes!!!

Neil F

I'm also excpecting that when they paint them orange, the various local residents societies and environmental campaigners will protest at their unsightliness! maybe then they'll remove them?
After all, they made that poor old boy take his Union Jack down from the roof of his house.

I actually thought they looked best in the shots with a burning tyre hung over them....

Neil.

Neil Micklethwaite

I saw the program and now QW seems to have turned his attention to this topic ( after Euro Imports / Rip Of Britain ).

He put forward a very objective argument and it seems people in Government are listening.

There is a big piece in the new copy of EVO ( which has just landed ) and it would appear that the Home Office is undertaking a speed camera review. Let's hope they listen instead of their usual approach of listening to logical reasoning then make the most illogical decisions.

IanF

Whilst speed may not be the 'primary cause' of an accident, it inevitably plays a large role in determining whether the accident is fatal.

If young child runs out in front of you doing 30 there will be less chance of a fatality than if you were doing 40. If a speed camera in my local area means that people will be doing 30 rather than 40 then I am for it.

Laws of physics suggest that the harder you hit something, whether it be a pedestrian,the central reservation of a motorway, or another car, the more damage there is likely to be.

Regards
IanF

SCOSaltire

I want speed cameras in towns....
no question.
but when traveling at higher speeds, there is nothing worse than feeling ur about to go over the limit (when our cars are at their most responsive and a small throtle change can cause big speed change) and looking for speed cameras, then looking at speedo.. etc...

all been said b4.

point is... cameras in pedistrian areas if a must for me. cameras in open road is a must NOT for me.

THOMO

When have you seen a camera outside a school? hmm i thought so.
obviously its not important.
i know lets stand on a bridge on the m1 junc 15 and watch the nice controlled flowing traffic and see if we can catch someone doing over78mph it ******** me OFFFFFFF.

wrx.co.uk

I think the use of speed camera's at accident black spots is a good idea, in Plymouth they are also painting them all yellow and red stripes, an article in the local rag quoted the local traffic officer as saying, 'one camera site now painted with stripes has reduced speeding and accidents over since being painted that the camera is virtualy obsolete'. Could be the police are finaly seeing the light.

As for camera's in built up area's ever had a child run out in front of you at 2 in the morning?

Andy Winskill

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wrx.co.uk:
<B>I think the use of speed camera's at accident black spots is a good idea, in Plymouth they are also painting them all yellow and red stripes, an article in the local rag quoted the local traffic officer as saying, 'one camera site now painted with stripes has reduced speeding and accidents over since being painted that the camera is virtualy obsolete'. Could be the police are finaly seeing the light.

[/quote]

A Hypothecation (sp?) Conflict....

Neil F

Ian F.

I think it's obvious that in the sort of places where children are likely to run out in the road, everybody agrees to the use of speed cameras (good point though TOMO; I NEVER have!).
However, there comes a point where you can no longer sensibly protect against the stupidity of a child/pi55ed person stumbling out into the road in front of you (you'd just have to ban cars per-se). You have to, at some point, put the responsibility in the hands of either parental control (which in this day and age should be a higher police concern than speeding; the small gangs of 8 to 10 year olds that hang around our locality at 1.00am smoking and getting up to no good is tribute to that problem) or the adult individual.
The "dip in the middle" is for cars, the raised bit at the edges is for people using their feet. How about exercising some jaywalking laws in an attempt to reduce deaths on the road?
Large dual carraigeways and motorways already have speed limits which by the governments own figures are probably going to cause death if you hit a pedestrian.
This means that the only way to reduce traffic accidents and deaths in these areas is to improve driver ability.
There is a whole host of more useful things that can be done instead of the dogmatic and (proven) ineffective use of speed cameras (although the revenue isn't so good....)
Better ongoing training and assesment, restricted BHP for inexperienced/young drivers, advanced licenses for performance vehicles etc etc.

Neil.

Eric Chadwick

I think some people including most of the powers that be are missing the point here. Obviously it is desirable in busy built up areas and the like to keep speeds down in case the unavoidable accident occurs. The big question is how do you improve people's driving - not just how do you make them drive slower. The problem (if there is one) is not so simple as just reducing average traffic speeds. Hazard perception, observation, and anticipation are the real keys to safe driving. You should strive to prevent the accident occuring rather than try to mitigate its outcome. If only the members of the ACPO and the green/anti-car/ capitalism/etc lobby advocating the blanketing of our once green and pleasant land with speed cameras had actually read the police driving manual 'Roadcraft'. Unfortunately they merely seem to have taken on a ludicrous mantra of 'speed kills!'.

Every time you glance at your speedometer you take your eyes and your concentration off the most important thing - the road. This can hardly be considered a good thing. Tearing around like a lunatic is obviously a bad idea but so is trundling along at 30 paying not a blind bit of attention to anything going on around you or perhaps having a good head turning chat with your rear passenger, or brushing your hair. Personally I'd rather have a speeding driver paying attention heading for me than someone driving at a speed under the limit who wastn't even aware I was there because they were looking at their speedo or thought that as they were doing 30 they were being 'safe' and didn't need to watch out for unpredictable people.

Call me cynical but I think the real reasons behind the gatso blight afflicting us are purely political - it is merely another way of trying to make us like using our cars less. As the government seems unable to come up with a coherent transport policy it seems this is their only option - make driving stressful, expensive and guilt inducing. It might be interesting to compare the number of lives supposedly saved by draconian speed enforcement to the number lost through stress induced heart attacks (perhaps even at the wheel) as the roads fill with so called traffic calming measures, needless bus lanes and a proliferation of speed cameras.

Neil F

Thanks Eric, I enjoyed that

I long for the day when a good orator with the presence to recall all the great points brought up in these discussions, gets a spot on Question Time or the like and rips the transport secretary and/or a Police Chief constable to shreds in front of their best audience to date.

I'd like to say it would be me, but I know that when Richard Dimbleby points and says "Yes, the dashing fellow with the SIDC sticker on his forhead" my throat would go dry and I'd just stand there singing "I'm a Little Goblin See My Pointy Hat" in panic.

Neil.

Mike Owen

Speed Camera's = Revenue collection,

Example. There is a turning on the A9 to Blackford. This has caused numerous accidents, including a number of deaths over the years. So where do they place the speed camera on this section of the A9? By this turning, brightly painted and sign posted to slow people down? This would in my opinion would save several accidents a year! NO THEY BLOODY WELL DON'T. They stick it a bit further North, on the south bound carriageway, at the bottom of a long straight downhill section. B@STARDS! O'yes, hidden behind a big sign post. make your own mind up here. But as far as I'm concerned, the government in this case, does not give a toss about savings lives, or preventing accidents. They just want your money.

Another one... Driving to Lauder this morning to take part in the common riding and I count five cameras in a 30 miles stretch of the A68 and at one point, I get over taken by a policecar (no flashing lights on) and he gets flashed by one set. Now I wonder if he'll get a ticket?

So how much respect do you think I have with the law over this issue. Offers on a post card to....

[This message has been edited by Mike Owen (edited 04 August 2001).]

matt d

That section of the A68 is a joke. I did it in pouring rain at about midnight coming back from the Highlands - at times even driving at 50mph in a scoob was a bit scary. Ironically I was much closer to the limit driving a P1 at 60mph on that road (deliberately i.e. sliding a bit out of clear-sighted bends when no one was around etc) than earlier in the Highlands doing well into triple digits on totally empty roads, yet the law would kill me for the latter and ignore the former. And a guy in an old Ford Anglia with 2mm of tread could legally do 60mph, and if it had been dry at 5am with the sun out, 70 in a 911 turbo would get you a ticket. What a joke. That road also has lots of very dangerous blind crests just before junctions (atrocious road design, must have killed many innocent people), yet there are no gatsos just over the crests. They are all on the straight bits. Sorry, but whoever is responsible for those Gatso placings is a callous, irresponsible, complete and utter sh*t. Sorry if this offends anyone but it is a mockery of road safety - even the most ardent beardy tree-hugger can't justify this one. I must have gone past about a dozen gatsos on this road near the border with Scotland - so watch out if you're on this road. This kind of policy, combined with facile attempts to justify Gatsos as "saving lives", just makes me want to puke - preferably on the cowering supine face of the next sanctimonious git who tries to defend them.

matt d

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Andy Winskill:
<B> A Hypothecation (sp?) Conflict....

[/quote]

(AFAIK hypothecation = govt departments keeping the revenue they raise, to spend for themselves. Or taxes on smokers to pay for lung cancer treatment etc. Sounds good at first but leads to all sorts of problems and distortions.)

Well said - don't they think of this beforehand? What next, bonus pay for judges based on length of sentence handed down?

The most useful, life-saving Gatsos will generate the least revenue since people will recognise the need to slow down. Bad ones on safe bits of road will make loads of money. Allowing plod to keep the money will mean good gatsos don't get put up, only stupid ones! Clever eh? Like sending people on holiday for joyriding - oops they do that already.

Edited to remove poncyness.

[This message has been edited by matt d (edited 04 August 2001).]