Speed Cameras

[BobG]

I too think the issue is both more complex than you portray Billy, and less capable of knee jerk solution than either side (including me!) would have us believe.

A few examples: I used to drive a beat up old Vauxhall Viva. It didn't go fast. It couldn't. It did, always, have an MoT but it's brakes were terrible, it's steering was worse and it's road holding and stability were worse again. Today I drive an Alfa. A sports car. It is capable of going fast. Faster than any speed limit. But it has bloody superb brakes, better steering and even better rodholding and stability. I know it's an opinion, and of only one person with a vested interest, but I suspect the Alfa at 70 mph is safer than the Viva at 40 mph. Now, clearly, if I were to drive the Alfa on somebody's bumper at 70 then no brakes, no road holding and no steering would prevent a much worse accident than me driving on someones bumper at 40 in the Viva. But that's not really the point. Some cars are inherently safer than others, just as, as Ian suggests, some types of folk are inherently safer than others, and as BLIR says, some times and some roads are inherently safer than other times and other roads.

I was banned once for a short period for doing over a 100mph. Under the current laws I deserved it. Maybe I deserved it full stop. But it was at 2 in the morning. It was on the M5. There wasn't another vehicle in sight (at least until the boys in blue whizzed down the slip road anyway!) and I was in a bloody good, well maintained car. I might well deserve the punishment, but I do think doing 100 mph in taht set of circumstances was less dangerous than me doing 40mph through our village at school chucking out time.

It's when, and where and in what vehicle that is fundamentally important. But the law doesn't, or can't allow for that. Maybe if the law could, it should be based upon really extreme penalties for the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong vehicle, and no penalty for what is curently abhorred but is actually a risk to no bugger but oneself. But that, inevitably, is always a set of subjective judgements. So we're back to blanket speed limits in blaanket circumstances. And me being pissed off with laws that take no account of time, place and vehicle. And cameras (some, not all) that seem to be there simply to make money - not save lives.

BobG

[BobG]

Sandy Lane wrote:

Don't most countries drive on the right side?  It's only UK and Bermuda that I can think of offhand that don't.

Does anyone know the origin of this?

Japan drives on the left. Thailand drives on the left. Tanzania drives on the left. Sweden drove on the left until about 30 years ago. Gibralter drives on the left. India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan drive on the left. I knew all those. Wikipedia has just told me that it reckons there are 76 countries and territories that drive on the left with a combined population that accounts for almost 34% of world population.

So no. It's not just Britain and Bermuda.

And if you want a guess, most, though definately not all of those who drive on the left, suffered from significant British imperialist influence. An obvious exception to that is Japan.

I didn't know until just now though that the US itself has a territory that drives on the left. Go on. Name it. Without consulting t'internet! Show off your knowledge of your own country Sandy

 
BobG

[Sandy Lane]

Ooooh Sorry to say I can't name it Bob. Probably one of the Caribbean islands.  But I will take a peek later.  :-)

I was also not aware that the speed limits in the US are not as strictly enforced as BST has stated.  That has not been my experience. Maybe in Montana or  Wyoming though!  If anything around where I live anyway, it is strictly enforced - at times too much so.  Obviously I can't compare it to yours as I'm not familiar with it. But  basically it's 20 mph in school zones, 30 in towns and cities, 55 on major highways and 65 on some open highways.  Even though each state can control and set their own highways speed limit, it is tied to federal monies they receive by keeping the speed limits at certain rates.

Of course, other than in towns and cities, 55 really means 60, and 65 means 70, before you're stopped. Could this be what BST means?  But having said that -- stopped and ticketed you are!  I agree that enforcing speed limits save lives, while helping conserve gas and I'm all for it.  BUT, there is nothing like driving really fast on lonely country roads!

As for speed traps existing solely to make money.  Absolutely, in fact certain towns budgets are dependent on the fines collected, and the old adage of the police having to meet a quota of tickets issued each month, apparently is true here.

Re: Italy -- I remember reading a quote from the mayor of Naples, who said of their traffic lights -- green means go, yellow is the color of flowers, and red is merely a 'suggestion' !!

[BobG]

US Virgin Islands apparently. I never knew that.

Cheers

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

BobG wrote:

I too think the issue is both more complex than you portray Billy, and less capable of knee jerk solution than either side (including me!) would have us believe.

A few examples: I used to drive a beat up old Vauxhall Viva. It didn't go fast. It couldn't. It did, always, have an MoT but it's brakes were terrible, it's steering was worse and it's road holding and stability were worse again. Today I drive an Alfa. A sports car. It is capable of going fast. Faster than any speed limit. But it has bloody superb brakes, better steering and even better rodholding and stability. I know it's an opinion, and of only one person with a vested interest, but I suspect the Alfa at 70 mph is safer than the Viva at 40 mph. Now, clearly, if I were to drive the Alfa on somebody's bumper at 70 then no brakes, no road holding and no steering would prevent a much worse accident than me driving on someones bumper at 40 in the Viva. But that's not really the point. Some cars are inherently safer than others, just as, as Ian suggests, some types of folk are inherently safer than others, and as BLIR says, some times and some roads are inherently safer than other times and other roads.

I was banned once for a short period for doing over a 100mph. Under the current laws I deserved it. Maybe I deserved it full stop. But it was at 2 in the morning. It was on the M5. There wasn't another vehicle in sight (at least until the boys in blue whizzed down the slip road anyway!) and I was in a bloody good, well maintained car. I might well deserve the punishment, but I do think doing 100 mph in taht set of circumstances was less dangerous than me doing 40mph through our village at school chucking out time.

It's when, and where and in what vehicle that is fundamentally important. But the law doesn't, or can't allow for that. Maybe if the law could, it should be based upon really extreme penalties for the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong vehicle, and no penalty for what is curently abhorred but is actually a risk to no bugger but oneself. But that, inevitably, is always a set of subjective judgements. So we're back to blanket speed limits in blaanket circumstances. And me being pissed off with laws that take no account of time, place and vehicle. And cameras (some, not all) that seem to be there simply to make money - not save lives.

BobG

Bob. That argument that deaths have come down primarily due to safer cars WOULD hold water if it were true EVERYWHERE. But it's not. Italy being a prime example (and one that I know a hell of a lot about from unhappy personal experience), where they consider driving like a cnut to be a birthrigh. The death rates (in absolute terms and in terms of deaths per vehicle on the road) were horrifically high until the early 2000s. In 2002, they were killing more than 7000 people per year on the roads - a figure that had been mopre or less static for a generation while car safety had improved immesurably. In 1999, a t**t (who clearly believed that HE knew how to drive safely and how to judge what was a suitable speed limit for the conditions) mounted the pavement at 90kmh in a 50kmh zone and left my wife's handsome, sporty, intelligent 13 year old cousin in a coma and brain damaged.

In 2003, they introduced a penalty system for speeding, along with a large extension in the fixed speed camera network. The annual death toll on the roads has since come down by [strike]more than[/strike] EDIT nearly half.

I simply do not understand this obsession that otherwise rational intelligent people have with their \"right\" to determine for themselves what is a safe speed. We should be proud of the fact that we have one of the best road safety records in the world. We have also often led the world in introducing (and strongly enforcing) regulations to FORCE people to obey the rules of the road.

Coincidence?

Those who complain today about speed cameras are EXACTLY the same ones who thought breathalysers, seatbelts, child-seats were an invasion of their right to choose just what the fcuk they did when they got into a car. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

[Sandy Lane]

BobG wrote:

US Virgin Islands apparently. I never knew that.

Cheers

BobG

Luckily it's the only one I could think of on short notice!  :-)


Personally I have a problem with drunk driving and also with the use of cell phones when driving.  I know that I can barely talk and drive and forget texting.  They made it illegal in New York State, but no one pays any attention to it as far as I can tell.  And you can always tell who is on their cell phones as they're all over the road.  My sister lives In Massachusetts where it's still legal and it's even worse there!

[BobG]

Hmmm Billy....

I quite agree about the inability of pretty well everyone to judge their own driving competance. And about the power of force in doing something about that. Can't argue with any of that. No rational person could. I guess my point was that in an idealised world, vehicle, time & location would all be factors in determining whether or not an individual drive is dangerous or not. I still think that, in any logical sense, all three have to be taken into account in any decision abaout the 'degree of dangerousness'. But it's an impossible dream. It's an entirely subjective decision. It's impossible of implementation. I regret that. So no doubt I shall continue to collect occasional penalty points for driving well fast on open country roads and below the speed limit in built up areas. Selfish? Yes. Rational? No. But human? Indubitably. I happen to get a socking great buzz from taking a bend accurately, fast and smooth. It's in my nature. I can't stop that. All I can do is weigh the risks and the benefits. Back to the force argument then! It'll be needed. The plan for when I retire is to get hold of a DB9.....

Cheers

BobG

[Ian H]

Last night I watched a programme about idiots in cars - it wasn't called that, but that was the theme. It even had 4 t**ts (3 male, one female) that had set themselves up to say look at me I'm a shit driver.

It talked a lot about young irresponsible people on the road, and about speed killing people. No speed camera would have stopped the knobheads that were on camera, as many were in stolen cars or driving whilst under the influence.

It may be that we are absolutely blind to our own driving skills (or lack of them), but I maintain that I fully support these cameras in urban areas however I still believe (like Bob) that I have the potential to pick up points because when I have followed a bunch of wagons and cars along a \"National Speed Limit applies\" single carriageway at 45mph, when the straight bit comes along (and there's nowt coming the other way) I'm going to get past them, and that's when the Hidden cam will get me!

I may get done at 3 am on a motorway too.

Anything that slows drivers down where people walk and live is fine.


On the same theme, on Jossey Lane, Leger Way, Nutwell Lane, Barnby Dun there are \"Speed Advisory\" flashing electronic signs - does anyone know whether they help?

[5minstogo]

Ian H wrote:

Last night I watched a programme about idiots in cars - it wasn't called that, but that was the theme. It even had 4 t**ts (3 male, one female) that had set themselves up to say look at me I'm a shit driver.

It talked a lot about young irresponsible people on the road, and about speed killing people. No speed camera would have stopped the knobheads that were on camera, as many were in stolen cars or driving whilst under the influence.

It may be that we are absolutely blind to our own driving skills (or lack of them), but I maintain that I fully support these cameras in urban areas however I still believe (like Bob) that I have the potential to pick up points because when I have followed a bunch of wagons and cars along a \"National Speed Limit applies\" single carriageway at 45mph, when the straight bit comes along (and there's nowt coming the other way) I'm going to get past them, and that's when the Hidden cam will get me!

I may get done at 3 am on a motorway too.

Anything that slows drivers down where people walk and live is fine.


On the same theme, on Jossey Lane, Leger Way, Nutwell Lane, Barnby Dun there are \"Speed Advisory\" flashing electronic signs - does anyone know whether they help?

Doesn't stop folk belting down at 40mph+. I'd quite like one of those mobile cameras to sit down there for a week, that would rake in a bit of dough for SYP. There have been a couple of nasty accidents recently.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's about the CULTURE of driving. We in this country have pretty much led the world in developing a culture where driving recklessly/under the influence/too fast is (generally) seen as being not acceptable. As a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of this, we have one of the best road safety records in the world. This is NOT due to car safety - if it was, then every country in the world that had a modern road network would have a similarly safe record, whereas in fact most other countries have a far worse record than ours. I'd argue that the problem with most of those other countries is that driving is seen as a macho/liberating pursuit to a greater degree than it is in this country.

I too enjoy driving fast - I understand the thrill and the attraction. I also like shooting guns, but I do that in controlled places, not in open public spaces. If you get a thrill out of taking a corner in an accurate (subjective, fast and smooth manner, then great - go to a raceway. Don't presume to do it as a leisure activity in a public space where others may end up paying the consequence. And even if YOU never kill anyone, it's this tacit acceptance of driving as personal entertainment that often leads directly to less able drivers doing the same thing.

A bloke I used to work with was a superb driver, able to throw his car into sharp bends on the country lanes on the commute to our lab in the Peak District. Brilliant reader of the road. Never had so much as a scratch. One of the younger lads was in awe of him and copied his driving style. Was the Big I Am for a few weeks. Then one day, he slid at a corner, went straight over a dry stone wall and rolled the car 30 yards into a field. He was the luckiest man on earth that he walked out of that car. Personally, I would not have given a shit if he had wiped himself out, because he was a stupid t**t who would have deserved it. Of course, had there been a couple of kids on the path on that bend...

As Ian H points out, we already have bell ends who are determined to drive like Kitsons. Fortunately, we have relatively few of them (compared to other countries I have experienced) and I'd suggest far fewer than we had when I was a teenager. We've done a very good job of making drink-driving increasingly socially unacceptable. It would be nice to think that we could do the same on the theme of driving a 50 in a 30 zone. You'll not do that by easing off on enforcement though. Ease off on enforcement of speed limits, or raise speed limits and you are sending a message out that in fact we're not that concerned about dangerous/reckless driving - you push the driving culture in the wrong direction.

We already have plenty of people who decide for themselves that driving a 50-60 in a 30 zone is perfectly OK. Reduce the number of speed cameras, or stop enforcing speed limits and you'll vastly increase the number who take this decision. Of course no-one on here will, because we're all intelligent, rational drivers who always take full account of the conditions don't we. But plenty of others will do. And the number of road deaths will go back up towards the levels that most other countries see.

[Ian H]

Of course no-one on here will, because we're all intelligent, rational drivers who always take full account of the conditions don't we.

Hmm - tongue firmly in cheek BST - when the world falls apart some things stay in place.

I think that we all truly believe that we won't be the ones creating widows & orphans - well signed Speed Cameras don't even need to be working (as long as no-one knows) - perhaps the Oxfordshire thing won't happen.

It was announced today that South Yorkshire is keeping the Speed Cameras, but will re-think the siting of some etc. - I don't know whether that is tactical speak for \"We're cutting back\".

[Dagenham Rover]

Billy I agree with most of what you say however

\"This is NOT due to car safety - if it was, then every country in the world that had a modern road network would have a similarly safe record,\"

that really is a blanket statement you really can't say catagorically it is not down to car safety.

Look at it slightly differently  how many fatalities/accidents have been avoided purely because of improved braking systems abs etc etc, 20 years ago a kid may have jumped out from behind a parked car and been a statistic, nowadays the exact same conditions  similar driver etc etc but a modern car could well end up as  damn frightened kid but thats all.

Statistics would have to be narrowed down for all countrys over many years taking into account the \"revolutions\" in car advancements increase in traffic volume as  well as casualty figures etc , crikey I used to drive an Austin A40 and when I finally wound it up to 65mph do you really think it would stop as quickly as the car I drive now.

However having said all that I do not advocate speeding in built up areas (Ive said in a previous post my Missus is a Lollypop lady and believe me I've seen what some morons get up to)

 Motorway limits should be increased (80) or a full system of variable limits on motorways as on sections of the M25, this would quite possible and be quite easily and relatively cheaply be done utilising the \"old fog warning\" signs as our friends in Lincolnshire tend to do on the M180 (normally reducing it to 50 for no flippin reason at all)

Okay I'm now prepared to be shot down  

[BillyStubbsTears]

I take your points DR, and of course increases in car safety have helped save many lives. What I said was the fact that we in this country have a better record than almost anywhere else in the world cannot be due to car safety. They have the same cars in Italy, but they still kill nearly twice as many people a year on the roads as we do. And the death rate there only started to come down when they started to get semi-serious about enforcing the road laws.

We kill many fewer people on this country's roads, as a proportion of the total population than Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece. Having driven a fair bit in all those countries, I'm always struck by how much better, safer and more restrained driving is in our country. I don't think the two things are disconnected, and I'm fiercely against anyone trying to slacken off our approach. We should be deeply proud of it, not sit here moaning about it.

[Ian H]

So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?

I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.

[Dagenham Rover]

Ian H wrote:

So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?

I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.

Do you know what I bet the overtime will still be being paid at the speed camera partnerships favoruite place on the M180.

 I bet the 3 or 4 speed cameras on the A13 going from Dagenham towards Canning Town will still be there.

Guess what you could LOSE your licence (starting with nil points)  on about a 3 mile stretch of the A13 oh and the cameras were only put in after the road was made from 2 lanes to 3 and 4  lanes and various flyovers/roundabouts taken out to make a straight road ...oh and then they reduced the speed limit.

On a slightly different issue I once parked in Tower Hamlets in the adjacent parking bay to the pay and display machine, came back and had a ticket, on closer inspection there was one pay and display then one residents only bay  alternatly all the way down the street!!!!!...
Of course its not a moneymaking exercise  

[MrFrost]

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Ian H wrote:

So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?

I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.

Do you know what I bet the overtime will still be being paid at the speed camera partnerships favoruite place on the M180.

 I bet the 3 or 4 speed cameras on the A13 going from Dagenham towards Canning Town will still be there.

Guess what you could LOSE your licence (starting with nil points)  on about a 3 mile stretch of the A13 oh and the cameras were only put in after the road was made from 2 lanes to 3 and 4  lanes and various flyovers/roundabouts taken out to make a straight road ...oh and then they reduced the speed limit.

On a slightly different issue I once parked in Tower Hamlets in the adjacent parking bay to the pay and display machine, came back and had a ticket, on closer inspection there was one pay and display then one residents only bay  alternatly all the way down the street!!!!!...
Of course its not a moneymaking exercise  

You'd only lose your licence if you were speeding.
Seriously, people may not agree with speed limits or speed cameras, but if you get caught, it really is your own fault. The law is there whether you agree with it or not.

[Dagenham Rover]

MrFrost wrote:

Dagenham.Rover wrote:

Ian H wrote:

So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?

I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.

Do you know what I bet the overtime will still be being paid at the speed camera partnerships favoruite place on the M180.

 I bet the 3 or 4 speed cameras on the A13 going from Dagenham towards Canning Town will still be there.

Guess what you could LOSE your licence (starting with nil points)  on about a 3 mile stretch of the A13 oh and the cameras were only put in after the road was made from 2 lanes to 3 and 4  lanes and various flyovers/roundabouts taken out to make a straight road ...oh and then they reduced the speed limit.

On a slightly different issue I once parked in Tower Hamlets in the adjacent parking bay to the pay and display machine, came back and had a ticket, on closer inspection there was one pay and display then one residents only bay  alternatly all the way down the street!!!!!...
Of course its not a moneymaking exercise  

You'd only lose your licence if you were speeding.
Seriously, people may not agree with speed limits or speed cameras, but if you get caught, it really is your own fault. The law is there whether you agree with it or not.

Yes I agree, but look at the other bit I've highlighted the cameras were only put in after the roundabouts/flyovers were taken out and the road widened and the speed limit reduced

[MrFrost]

Yes, i dont agree with it, but personally, myself I would obey the speed limit.

[BobG]

Or the sods round my way who hide themselves at the bottom of an almighty steep and long hill, right out in the country, having recently built a brand spanking new dual carriageway all the way down it. Previously it was a somewhat nasty and overcrowded single carriageway road where the cops were never to be seen since the cars couldn't get above 40mph for all the traffic. Can't think why they sit at the bottom now....

Of course, as I know where they hide, I am forwarned As I warn others almost every single day.

BobG

[Dagenham Rover]

Or buy a decent sat nav thats got free fixed speed camera/map updates shows high risk mobile camera areas  so you can reduce speed from 70 to 40 in 30 yards and upset every bugger behind you  
 
Snooper do some cracking special offers

[Ian H]

Mr Frost, I admire you - you have the ability to always obey speed limits.

We all understand that we shouldn't get points if we always drive to the limit (or below) - some humans are so weak that they sometimes stray above the line - clearly you're not one of them - Congratulations.

It may be time to put this to bed now - we have all acknowledged that Speed Cameras are important if they stop people from causing accidents in built up areas, we have had stats that show that the UK policy appears to be working better than the more relaxed attitudes elsewhere, we have had strong arguments against cameras that are solely deployed to extract cash from the motorist (perhaps they could be labelled Cash Cams and give the motorist an option to pay a \"double fine for No Points\") and we have been told to accept it because it's the law.

If none of us queries items that are the law we will never get amendments or improvements - I'm interested to see the stats that come out of Oxfordshire.

[BobG]

Yes Ian. If you remember it from all those years back, we'd never have had to study the repeal of the Corn Laws without some miserable t**ts argiuing that the law needed changing. Or, heaven forbid, we could still nip dowen the supermarket to buy a couple of nubile black faced female slaves to while away a few hours. These pesky reformers just get my goat.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

BobG wrote:

Yes Ian. If you remember it from all those years back, we'd never have had to study the repeal of the Corn Laws without some miserable t**ts argiuing that the law needed changing. Or, heaven forbid, we could still nip dowen the supermarket to buy a couple of nubile black faced female slaves to while away a few hours. These pesky reformers just get my goat.

BobG

Bob. I'm assuming you've been on the pop cocker if you're really comparing the existence of speed cameras with the slave trade!

[BobG]

I had had a wee drinkie Billy, but my point is valid. It was aimed at drawing out the point made by IanH that if none of us queries items that are the law we will never get amendments or improvements. The end point of that is as I described.

BobG