Who Else Thinks That Speed Cameras Are Actually Dengerous?

[AThirdWay]

Its why I don't ride my sports bike in the UK anymore (except in Transit to the continent) , it seriously doesn't like being ridden at less than 5500rpm (jerky poppy engine) but 5500 rpm in 3rd gear is enough to take you to 110mph.

Jaysus, it doesn't like running below 5500! Is it a two-stroke?

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Bad driving is dangerous. Don't try and blame anything else!

[NorthamptonBear]

from the telegraph article...

In particular, we learn to adjust our speed in order to remain safe in the prevailing road, weather and traffic conditions. The speed at which you choose to drive is an output from your own internal risk management system. Yet the DfT regards speed as an "input".

Road safety policy should have one overarching purpose - to make our roads safer. And the critical measure of success is the way road deaths are changing. If the number of road deaths isn't falling as expected in Britain, but it is falling as expected in other countries with similar economic conditions, then we know that something is wrong with our policies.

And there is something wrong with our policies. Not only do they neglect driver quality, but they are actively making us worse. We are prioritising and concentrating on the wrong things. At the heart of our policies are speed cameras, which have largely replaced comprehensive traffic policing. The dream is that cameras reduce risk, but the reality is that they are reducing the quality of our risk management.

Cameras give us legal compliance targets, not safety targets. And the divergence between the two is now very marked. We now have a nation of drivers concentrating on compliance rather than safety. The whole concept of speed cameras denies that we are capable of managing risk, yet road safety absolutely depends on individual risk management in real time.

I'm convinced speed cameras make the roads less safe and police on the roads (especially having a word rather than being officious) helps. But I remember the day well when on a large roundabout with traffic lights, light went green, I moved off, Police car in the lane to my left (3 lanes) moved off and then all 3 lanes luckily stamped on brakes as some idiot drove through a red light to our left, without a care. Police did nothing, nothing at all....

[Goat]

It only takes a fraction of a second to see what speed you're going at and if you can't maintain your speed for 10 seconds between glances you really shouldn't be driving at all.

Most modern cars will do 0-60 in about 10 seconds; powerful ones will do 0-100 in that time.

I'd say it's quite easy to drfit up from 30 to 34 mph in 10 seconds, given that most modern cars have such good sound insulation that the difference is imperceptable.

[Guest Fedup]

I think we need many more speed cameras until we are also number 1 for Speed camera proliferation in the world (if we aren't already), to go along with our most CCTV and largest DNA database records. We never win at anything else, so we may as well win on erosion of civil liberties.

Being serious, I drive a fairly powerful car, and I'm doing 3 figure speeds in a very short amount of time. Despite this, i've never had a speeding ticket or had an accident in the 12 years i've been driving. I think the "no accident" part has been down to being aware of the situation and being considerate. The no speeding ticket part has probably been down to luck. I do not speed in residential areas, town centers etc, despite having idiots up my backside because of the car I drive. However, i'll be damned if I wont speed on an empty motorway or a country lane.

They are msot definately a revenue generating device, and my girlfriend who drives a little 1.2 renault clio, who never speeds intentionally, was caught doing 60 in a 50 limit. How? The police positioned themselves behind a bend just on a downhill 70mph limit that goes into a 50, so you can't see them until it's too late. You might say this is useful as it simulates a child running out on a road that you can't see before it's too late. However, this was on a dual carriageway, where there are no pavements, houses, or people. She was slowing down to 50mph once she saw the 50mph sign, but unless she was already doing 50 in the 70 limit, there was no way to avoid being caught. I'm sure they got loads of OAPs, young drivers, parents on the school run etc. Serves them right, damn criminals.

[King Stromba]

Come the revolution then first thing to go will be the speed carmers

Stealth tax by machines is not what i signed up for.

Ill be with you brother, with a can of petrol and an old tyre.

[Rare Bear]

Bad driving is dangerous. Don't try and blame anything else!

Yes, there is only one motoring offence, dangerous driveing.

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

I live near the A3 where you can drive to the supermarket and back and get disqualified. Recently I've started thinking that speed cameras might actually be dangerous because I've noticed that when I'm going through them I pay more attention to the speedo than the road. The especially dangerous thing today was that I went through a speed camera that was situated just before a downgrade of the speed limit from 40 to 30 miles per hour. This was a new speed camera and because I know that they normally put a camera just after they change the speed limit downwards, I was paranoid that I'd missed a 30 sign and had done 35 though a 30 zone. The idea that I might have just got 3 points on my license distracted me for quite a while afterwards and I'm sure that everyone who get's done by one of these things and sees the flash will be fuming for a good while afterwards. This will put off anyone that is normally a good driver enough to make them potentially dangerous so that same effect on someone who is already dangerous and needs to be cautioned would make them all the more likely to kill someone with their car.

Speed cameras were never designed to save lives

They were designed to raise revenue for the bankrupt corporation known as the United Kingdom

We are living in a state of perpetual bankruptcy and the state will use whatever means necessary to service that debt to the IMF and the banking cartel.

They are getting very good at rasing cash. I read in the paper this morning that the state fined that 71 year old grandmother because she prodded a teenager with her finger.

There are no limits to what the state will do to rob the people. It will always been sold to the plebs as a necessary evil, to save lives, to keep you safe etc etc.

The answer to people speeding is actually very simple. If you kill someone as a result of reckless driving and it is proved that excessive speed was a factor, you should be face a manslaugher charge under Common law and go to prison for A LONG TIME.

Under the statute system, millions of motorists who haven't actually caused injury or loss to a third party are fined and have their license endorsed where NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

[Tiger Woods?]

I live near the A3 where you can drive to the supermarket and back and get disqualified. Recently I've started thinking that speed cameras might actually be dangerous because I've noticed that when I'm going through them I pay more attention to the speedo than the road. The especially dangerous thing today was that I went through a speed camera that was situated just before a downgrade of the speed limit from 40 to 30 miles per hour. This was a new speed camera and because I know that they normally put a camera just after they change the speed limit downwards, I was paranoid that I'd missed a 30 sign and had done 35 though a 30 zone. The idea that I might have just got 3 points on my license distracted me for quite a while afterwards and I'm sure that everyone who get's done by one of these things and sees the flash will be fuming for a good while afterwards. This will put off anyone that is normally a good driver enough to make them potentially dangerous so that same effect on someone who is already dangerous and needs to be cautioned would make them all the more likely to kill someone with their car.

I've made the same point to Miss D'oh many times. The large number of speed cameras means I spend more time watching my speedo and the side fo the road than the cars in front and behind me as well as other possible road hazards. Speed may kill. but inattention must be even worse.

[RichB]

Most modern cars will do 0-60 in about 10 seconds; powerful ones will do 0-100 in that time.

I'd say it's quite easy to drfit up from 30 to 34 mph in 10 seconds, given that most modern cars have such good sound insulation that the difference is imperceptable.

Aye - and in a 20 limit its far worse.

[redwine]

Speed cameras were never designed to save lives

Well if you live in France like i do after a certain time i am sure that you would be glad to see a few Speed Cameras

The average French driver is a mix-up of an alcoholic Mad Max and the Wacky -Racers

There are 7500 cameras in the UK compared to 1500 in France but figures mean nothing when it comes to the death count

[Carabansity]

I thought I had read somewhere that only 7% of accidents were caused by speeding. I was almost right

Daily Heil - but don't let that put you off

The Safe Speed campaign group said it was now clear the Government's 'entire road safety policy has been based on dodgy data'. It has seen the number of cameras rocket to 3,300 fixed sites and 3,400 mobile devices.

Founder Paul Smith said: 'Safe Speed has been pointing out for years that the concentration on speeding was a deadly mistake. 'Speed cameras must be scrapped.

'They have focused everyone on the wrong safety factor and have proved to be a dangerous distraction. Countless opportunities for live-saving policies have been missed - because of speed cameras.'

The 'contributory factors to road accidents report', the first of its kind, showed a total of 147,509 accidents last year.

Of these five per cent, or 7,314, had breaking the speed limit as a factor. This rose to 12 per cent, or 325, for accidents which ended in a fatality.

The police deciding the driver was going too fast for the conditions was a factor in a further 10 per cent of all accidents, or 15,436, and in 14 per cent of those ending in a death, or 357.

More significant were people failing to look properly (32 per cent), drivers of pedestrians failing to judge the other person's speed properly and road conditions or layout (15 per cent).

Separate figures showed the number of people killed in accidents involving drink-driving fell by three per cent last year to 560.

A total of 3,201 people were killed overall on the roads, down one per cent. And the number of people seriously injured fell 7 per cent to 28,954.

Total casualties - deaths, serious injuries and slight injuries - fell three per cent to 271,017.

Cyclists killed or seriously injured rose by 2 per cent overall to 2,360, and the number of fatalities increased 10 per cent - from 134 to 148.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407521/Only-20-road-accidents-caused-breaking-speed-limit.html#ixzz0So1LkFQM

[Frank Hovis]

Single point speed cameras are decidedly unsafe, people just stamp on the brake.

Average speed cameras work far better, especially on motorways - west end of the M4.

I don't like them, but they work and are safe.

[Goat]

I don't like them, but they work and are safe.

They work, but whether they actually make the roads any safer is a different question.

As 2112 says, breaking the limit is a factor in 12% of fatalities. There are of course going to be other (possibly more significant) factors in those accidents as well.

[Frank Hovis]

They work, but whether they actually make the roads any safer is a different question.

As 2112 says, breaking the limit is a factor in 12% of fatalities. There are of course going to be other (possibly more significant) factors in those accidents as well.

I agree, but I said they are safe. Drive through roadworks on the motorway with average speed cameras and everybody scrupulously follows them.

Single point speed cameras are unsafe because people just hit the brake hard.

[OnionTerror]

They work, but whether they actually make the roads any safer is a different question.

As 2112 says, breaking the limit is a factor in 12% of fatalities. There are of course going to be other (possibly more significant) factors in those accidents as well.

Its 5.4% (figures from 2007 data)

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-pdfs/luxford-damage-road-safety.pdf

[Guest happy?]

I live near the A3 where you can drive to the supermarket and back and get disqualified. Recently I've started thinking that speed cameras might actually be dangerous because I've noticed that when I'm going through them I pay more attention to the speedo than the road. The especially dangerous thing today was that I went through a speed camera that was situated just before a downgrade of the speed limit from 40 to 30 miles per hour. This was a new speed camera and because I know that they normally put a camera just after they change the speed limit downwards, I was paranoid that I'd missed a 30 sign and had done 35 though a 30 zone. The idea that I might have just got 3 points on my license distracted me for quite a while afterwards and I'm sure that everyone who get's done by one of these things and sees the flash will be fuming for a good while afterwards. This will put off anyone that is normally a good driver enough to make them potentially dangerous so that same effect on someone who is already dangerous and needs to be cautioned would make them all the more likely to kill someone with their car.

Generally I can judge the speed of my car without recourse to monitoring the speedometer. If you are unable to do this you can improve your driving skills through the Institute of Advanced Motoring. They're very good and you can find them here:

http://www.iam.org.uk/

[RichB]

Generally I can judge the speed of my car without recourse to monitoring the speedometer. If you are unable to do this you can improve your driving skills through the Institute of Advanced Motoring. They're very good and you can find them here:

http://www.iam.org.uk/

Really? You can drive at 20 +- 2mph?

[djm1972]

I hate driving through those new SPECS controlled (average speed checking) sections that are cropping up. I'm not talking about 50mph through roadworks; but where SPECS is now in-use on full-speed 70mph sections of road.

It completely changes the dynamics of interaction between vehicles and lanes. Not only are you now spending much longer checking your speedo rather than actually looking where you are going; but vehicles are spending much longer immediately adjacent to one another, just like a pair of lorries overtaking each other sat on their limiters.

[The Realist]

that is unfortunate but only goes to highlight the fact that our cameras our primarily for collecting revenue.

30mph is too fast in some areas, particularly around schools and heavily built up areas. Some 20mph zones now exist but what is the point in them being enforced 24/7. We should adopt a system like germany where cameras and speedlimits reflect risk - from 0800 to 1700 (times kids are about from school) limits reduce to 20kph outside of those hours they return to 50kph.

what is the need for a 20mph or 30mph zone to be enforsed at 0200hrs when no one else is around, oh yes £.

In Australia they have 40 kilometre per hour zones outside schools on school days from for example 08.00 to 10.00 and 14.00 to 16.00. And they are enforced. You have to be careful though as times vary depending on type of schools. Seem to work though as traffic does slow down

[Cinzano Bianco]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218377/Tories-promise-brake-number-speed-cameras.html

The Conservatives will today promise to halt the relentless rise in speed cameras which milk millions of pounds a year from motorists.

Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers will warn that a Tory government will axe any funding for new cameras and halt the rolling out of hated average-speed checks.

'Labour's army of speed cameras is not the best way to make our roads safer,' she will say. 'We will switch to alternative, better ways to improve road safety.

'Labour's dependence on fixed speed cameras has blinded them to the effectiveness of alternatives. It is time to say enough is enough on fixed speed cameras - we have reached the high-water mark.'

Whitehall currently spends around £97million a year on funding road safety.

But, under the Tory proposals, this money will be directed away from cameras towards other forms of road safety - such as improved road design and vehicle activated speed warning signs.

If town halls decide a new fixed speed camera is the most effective safety measure, they will be forced to fund the installation themselves.

As all revenue from fixed speed cameras goes directly to the Treasury, as opposed to mobile cameras which raise money for the police, this will not be financially attractive.

Average-speed cameras, which ticket drivers if they break the speed limit at any stage between two defined points, will be limited to major roads and motorways and only when there is a specific need for them such as during road works.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218377/Tories-promise-brake-number-speed-cameras.html#ixzz0T8vwQ0Wo

[OnionTerror]

But, under the Tory proposals, this money will be directed away from cameras towards other forms of road safety - such as improved road design and vehicle activated speed warning signs.

Trouble is, is that improving road design on roads will cost billions of pounds...and the road fund license money is obviously diverted elsewhere, so how is going to be paid for?

[RichB]

Trouble is, is that improving road design on roads will cost billions of pounds...and the road fund license money is obviously diverted elsewhere, so how is going to be paid for?

I reckon there are some good improvements to be had for very little outlay.

[Guest happy?]

Well bully for you - you've obviously been driving for a long time and got through your first years of driving without the constant threat of speed cameras. I've had my license for less that three weeks and I can tell you that it is absolutely petrifying to think that every time I drive the 5 minutes to the supermarket I could get disqualified. I know you're going to say "well don't break the speed limit then" and the thing is I don't but I still get anxious going through the bloody things.

I'm serious about the IAM - you should be able to judge your speed with reasonable accuracy without constant recourse to a speedometer: the engine noise, the gear your using, the feedback from the road, the sound of the tyres should be telling you this - if you're driving your car sympathetically it will last longer, need fewer repairs and have lower maintainance costs.

Good driving is a skill which anyone can acquire and the IAM encourage young/new drivers to take their courses - it's not an ego-trip it's about learning a skill. Improving your driving is a constant activity and you can acquire good habits that will ensure you drive safely throughout your life.

Speed is harder to judge on motorways because there are fewer objects around you to give a good indication - e.g. wide banks not much street furniture but even here you should have a sense of how close you're to any limit.

I simply have never understood people moaning about speed cameras - people who are regularly 'caught' by them have poor driving skills - they have failed to recognise that they're in a built-up area and failed to recognise that they're driving too fast for the circumstances. The endless parade of moans and excuses about revenue-raising scams is embarassing - if you drive appropriately the cameras can't catch you.

[6538]

In Australia they have 40 kilometre per hour zones outside schools on school days from for example 08.00 to 10.00 and 14.00 to 16.00. And they are enforced. You have to be careful though as times vary depending on type of schools. Seem to work though as traffic does slow down

This makes a good point about speed limits. The point that people do adhere to them, and do respect them when they are put in place for a good reason and are set at a level that reflects their purpose.

The thing which p1sses people off so much is that speed limits are inflexible and are very often not reflective of the danger they are there to tackle. A road which may be adequately served by a 50mph limit at busy times may well be just as safe with a 70 limit at others. Similarly, many motorways are perfectly capable of handing much faster moving traffic at quiet times, rather than being permanently restricted to 70.