Death Of The Speed Camera

[Rare Bear]

The speed cameras are there to promote the safety of pedestrians, not cars. Most speed cameras are located in areas where cars and pedestrians mix (ie not on motorways) and there is a very clear correlation between pedestrian survival rates and the speed of the vehicle that hit them. In many cases the collision is entirely the pedestrian's fault (such as a child running out into the road) and even the most alert and competent driver may not be able to avoid them, irrespective of their speed. The vehicle's speed is incidental to the accident but entirely relevant to whether the accident is fatal or not.

The speed limits on the motorways are there to protect workmen repairing the road (which seems entirely reasonable to me) and to regulate the flow of traffic. It is the constant accelerating and decelerating of vehicles that cause many traffic jams - along with the rubbernecking of mangled wreckage left by over-confident drivers. Sometimes the faster everyone tries to drive the longer it takes for them to get where they're going. I know the UK is never going to be like Switzerland but there everyone drives at the same speed and I've never encountered a motorway traffic jam. The Swiss enforce their motoring regulations with eye-watering fines that make our speed cameras look like a slap on the wrist.

But as far as the safety of pedestrians is concerend, surley they have some responsibility too? You know, like look left, look right and keep your head and eyes moveing. Not to mention this habity of strolling diagaanaly across a road probably on a phone or listening to an MP3 player at the same time.

[Rare Bear]

Speed humps are there encourage the use of off-road vehicles, in areas where you didn't need them before!

Ther are times when I seriously consider building an Evo with tarmac rally supsension just for that reason.

[Scunnered]

The driver will have more of an idea than some PS worker sitting in an office counting his days to his pension.

Something like 80% of drivers think they're better than average. So no, they're probably not the best people to decide what's safe and what isn't

[Rare Bear]

10% of all road users are said to have no insurance so if you do survive a collision as a predestrian you then stand a one in 10 chance of not being able to claim compensation if you have genuine life changing injuries. On the news last night.

If the pedestrian is at fault how does the motorist claim for the damage to his car from the non insured pedestrian?

[MrPin]

Something like 80% of drivers think they're better than average. So no, they're probably not the best people to decide what's safe and what isn't

Virtually everyone thinks their kids are more intelligent than average! Half of them are wrong!

[Concrete Jungle]

Buy a foreign registered run around for a couple of hundred quid max and speed as much as you like for 6 months. Sell it and get another cheap foreign registered run around with 6 months tax and insure it. Rinse and repeat.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/foreign-drivers

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ImportingAndExportingAVehicle/DG_10014623

[AThirdWay]

If the pedestrian is at fault how does the motorist claim for the damage to his car from the non insured pedestrian?

I seem to remember that pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way on roads they are entitled to use. Given this, I find it hard to imagine any circumstances where the driver would not be at fault.

I suggest you re-read the Highway Code. I'm not being patronising, it may have changed several times since you passed your test. For example, today's Highway Code mentions that you should make allowances for elderly drivers. I can't recall reading that phrase in the 80's when I past my test!

[AThirdWay]

Buy a foreign registered run around for a couple of hundred quid max and speed as much as you like for 6 months. Sell it and get another cheap foreign registered run around with 6 months tax and insure it. Rinse and repeat.

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/foreign-drivers

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/BuyingAndSellingAVehicle/ImportingAndExportingAVehicle/DG_10014623

Good luck with that. 6 months is a long time, don't get stopped by the cops in that time!

[Orsino]

Just how obtuse can some people be? Speed limits are there for a reason. In built-up areas they are primarily designed to prevent pedestrian fatalities. It doesn't matter how good a driver you think you are or who was at fault for the accident. Lower speeds mean fewer fatalities. We all sometimes unintentionally stray over the limit but how many deaths is an acceptable price to allow some motorists to openly flout the law?

[Rare Bear]

I seem to remember that pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way on roads they are entitled to use. Given this, I find it hard to imagine any circumstances where the driver would not be at fault.

I suggest you re-read the Highway Code. I'm not being patronising, it may have changed several times since you passed your test. For example, today's Highway Code mentions that you should make allowances for elderly drivers. I can't recall reading that phrase in the 80's when I past my test!

Not being facetious, but does the phrase right of way have any meaning? I thought that give way to or shall give way to were in fact the operative phrases these days, the thinking being that people may take right of way to mean plough on regardless wheras give way to means what it says.

[AThirdWay]

Not being facetious, but does the phrase right of way have any meaning? I thought that give way to or shall give way to were in fact the operative phrases these days, the thinking being that people may take right of way to mean plough on regardless wheras give way to means what it says.

Hmm, it appears we're both out of date. The current phrase appears to be 'give priority to', i.e. give priority to traffic from the left or give priority to pedestrians.

I've been behind a desk for too long!

[Rare Bear]

Hmm, it appears we're both out of date. The current phrase appears to be 'give priority to', i.e. give priority to traffic from the left or give priority to pedestrians.

I've been behind a desk for too long!

Yes, a while since I did my driveing tests, 43 years since I did it in Ireland and 8 years since I did it here in the UK.

In fact, I've always found that if you stick to give way t the right or give priority to the right and don't mow down pedestrians even if they are being stupid prtas, things work ou pretty well. And of course don't speed where anyone can see you.

[GBdamo]

+1

Its effectively a matter of taking responsibility for ones actions. Anyone who has insufficient self-control to observe a speed limit has no business complaining about being fined - irrespective of whether the purpose of the fine is revenue generating or not..

Its on a par with

knowingly having unprotected sex with an HIV positive partner

taking out a liar loan

living off credit card debt

eating food to which you are allergic

You've only yourself to blame if things go wrong for you.

[ And yes I've been caught by a camera. It was my fault, it serves me right, and I paid up without whinging. ]

You've missed the point entirely. They do nothing; they have diddly impact on road accident figures. Swindon ran one of the most comprehensive and complete studies into the efficacy of speed cameras - they had them for a number of years - monitored the numbers - removed them - no change. Debate over.

I ended up asking myself why was this lack of impact so and came to two conclusions,

1, They were placed, cynically, in locations where there was no problem to solve but they turned a tidy profit.

2, Once removed, they focussed their resources on alternative methods of controlling the numbers.

I tend to believe the first but that’s me.

[GBdamo]

Just how obtuse can some people be? Speed limits are there for a reason. In built-up areas they are primarily designed to prevent pedestrian fatalities. It doesn't matter how good a driver you think you are or who was at fault for the accident. Lower speeds mean fewer fatalities. We all sometimes unintentionally stray over the limit but how many deaths is an acceptable price to allow some motorists to openly flout the law?

Again, this is a straw man. We are not debating whether speed kills we are talking about, what appears to be, a policy about turn on speed cameras.

Once more for the cheap seats - Swindon’s trial PROVES speed cameras, as currently positioned, have no impact on road safety figures.

[MrPin]

Buy a foreign registered run around for a couple of hundred quid max and speed as much as you like for 6 months. Sell it and get another cheap foreign registered run around with 6 months tax and insure it. Rinse and repeat.

[Monkey]

i do not have an issue with speed limits or speed cameras, i was caught massivly over the National speed limit for a Motorway, and got caught my a (sneakily hidden mind you) copper, i didnt argue it, as it was my choice to speed, he did say that in my defence the road conditions were as near to perfect as you could get, no traffic on the road, visibility good and i was in a car capable of speeds and handling those speeds comfortably (MX5), but i got 3 points and a £60 fine. i didnt argue it.

but what i do have a problem with is Speed Camera placements, in Southampton, there are a number of speed cameras, and i cant remember seeing one and thinking that it was on a good spot to actually reduce accidents.

there are 3 on the main road through Southampton (each way) all on a 50mph 3 lane dual carrige way, as the local loons would use this as a race track, ok they dont now, but the number of accidents on this road that was 100% due to speed was as close to 0 as you can get, the majoriety of accidents on this road are due to idiots not looking when changing lanes, braking too late for the traffic lights, or running the lights.

now these said loons now race through the estates (long straight roads) all trough the night, there have been an accident or 2, but the police wont do anything, and the main route the council wont put speed bumps along (even though its now one of the only roads not to have them) as the bus drivers complain.

if they put these cameras in estates, out side schools etc i'd be all for that, but on a straight bit of road thats 3 lanes wide, wit ha speed that IMO should be higher than 50mph is blatent cash generating

[Scunnered]

You've missed the point entirely. They do nothing; they have diddly impact on road accident figures. Swindon ran one of the most comprehensive and complete studies into the efficacy of speed cameras - they had them for a number of years - monitored the numbers - removed them - no change. Debate over.

Might they have an impact on anything else?

[@contradevian]

Generally the fact that it takes a fair amount of concentration to remain at an exact speed for an extended length of time, and since everyone is doing the same speed you can get very unpleasantly boxed in. If someone could point me to the numbers showing significantly reduced accidents as a result, of course, I'd stop whinging..

Oh pull the other one purlease. My humble Citroen C5 has an audible alarm you can set, when you exceed a certain speed. Saved me a fortune in London. At higher speeds I can set the cruise control.

Its not about accident reduction statistics. The idea of the speed being lower is that if you hit a pedestrian or a cyclist, or even another car they have a much better chance of survival if the speed is below 30mph.

[GBdamo]

Snip..

but what i do have a problem with is Speed Camera placements, in Southampton, there are a number of speed cameras, and i cant remember seeing one and thinking that it was on a good spot to actually reduce accidents.

Actually, I have to admit to seeing one on the A303 that is very well placed. It's at the top of a hill that has a crawler and overtaking lane type layout, only problem is it reverts back to one lane just after the crest of the hill, the camera is about 100m before the crest and visible for nearly half a mile. Of the 20-30 I know of this is the only one I'd leave.

[GBdamo]

Might they have an impact on anything else?

Such as? Fuel emissions? tyre wear?

[GBdamo]

Its not about accident reduction statistics. The idea of the speed being lower is that if you hit a pedestrian or a cyclist, or even another car they have a much better chance of survival if the speed is below 30mph.

Nobody is daft enough, I think, to question the link between speed and the severity of accidents. So why do people keep throwing up this straw man?

The point is that speed cameras only moderate the speed for the 30-40 yards it takes to slow down for one then accelerate away. They do not reduce accident rates.

[Badger]

Generally the fact that it takes a fair amount of concentration to remain at an exact speed for an extended length of time, and since everyone is doing the same speed you can get very unpleasantly boxed in. If someone could point me to the numbers showing significantly reduced accidents as a result, of course, I'd stop whinging..

Still amazes me that they don't know how to get them to work when you drive towards them, only away, but the number of people who slam the brakes on when approaching one head on is surprising.

[fluffy666]

Oh pull the other one purlease. My humble Citroen C5 has an audible alarm you can set, when you exceed a certain speed. Saved me a fortune in London. At higher speeds I can set the cruise control.

Its not about accident reduction statistics. The idea of the speed being lower is that if you hit a pedestrian or a cyclist, or even another car they have a much better chance of survival if the speed is below 30mph.

And my humble Mondeo has neither, like most cars.

Accident statistics include things like minor accidents, major accidents, hospitalizations and deaths and so would reflect reduced accident speed. With the amount of camera usage done so far it would be simple to detect even a relatively small shift in category of accident, were that shift happening. To paraphrase: Show Me The Numbers!

[Scunnered]

Such as? Fuel emissions? tyre wear?

Might there be anything unrelated to the motorist?

[Rare Bear]

Might there be anything unrelated to the motorist?

Your not suggesting that someone makes money out of them?