Better driver training, more traffic police to tackle the reason reason for crashes ... poor driving ability.
Tories to axe speed camera funding
- Thread starter Barks
- Start date
Better driver training, more traffic police to tackle the reason reason for crashes ... poor driving ability.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
But these are just WORDS, just like the repetitive New Labour and Tory use of the word EFFICIENCY.
How, in practical terms are you going to train existing drivers better?
You are going to hire and train lots more traffic police; what are you actually going to have them do? ACTUALLY have them do, not just more meaningless, wishful aspirations about having them tackle "the real reason for crashes".
I've never viewed it in that manner, it's such a good point. I think anybody would fail to argue against this!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,739
- Location
- Delete *.*
Pedestrians need more training in this country, no seriously they do.
More trafpol will notice the poorer driving standard thus the poor drivers will get more points for real poor driving (right now unless you speed you are unlikely to get points - meaning that the taxi drivers who cut you up 24/7 probably have no points).
This means they are more likely to get a ban and a re-test, thus meaning they have to go though the new better test.
Er..
In fact from further reading, the Traffic Management Act 2004 introduces a 'Network Management' duty on every council to 'manage their network to ensure expeditious movement of traffic', which, I don't know about you, sounds an awful lot like (well, exactly) what is being proposed by The Party Of Change
Doesn't that mean that there actually isn't 'camera funding' to be axed, just a general budget which the councils decide what to do with?
In fact from further reading, the Traffic Management Act 2004 introduces a 'Network Management' duty on every council to 'manage their network to ensure expeditious movement of traffic', which, I don't know about you, sounds an awful lot like (well, exactly) what is being proposed by The Party Of Change
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
Christ I hope they don't win the election, bloody cons.
World Rally cars are pretty tough. We've all seen people walk away from 100mph smashes into immovable objects (trees). How much would it cost to make road cars as 'tough' as WRC cars? I suspect, with economies of scale, it could be done for around £10,000 per car.
UK sells something like 1.5 million(?) cars a year (can't be bothered to look it up). So it would cost £15bn per year to prevent most deaths (inside cars). After ~15 years most cars would be replaced and deaths inside cars would fall by some 80% (number I just made up). Is £15bn a year 'worth' it to save ~1000 lives? £7.5 million each?
Of the 2946 road deaths in 2007, 49% were car users, 22% pedestrians, 20% motorcyclists and 5% cyclists.
Just wow at the motorcyclist death rate, insane!
People killed in road accidents, Great Britain
Data here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
UK sells something like 1.5 million(?) cars a year (can't be bothered to look it up). So it would cost £15bn per year to prevent most deaths (inside cars). After ~15 years most cars would be replaced and deaths inside cars would fall by some 80% (number I just made up). Is £15bn a year 'worth' it to save ~1000 lives? £7.5 million each?
Of the 2946 road deaths in 2007, 49% were car users, 22% pedestrians, 20% motorcyclists and 5% cyclists.
Just wow at the motorcyclist death rate, insane!
People killed in road accidents, Great Britain
Data here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
someone who drives perfectly well, without cutting people up, without crashing, without doing anything stupid will currently get caught speeding and get points. This is what speed cameras chase. Not bad drivers, just speeders.
A traffic cop might see a kid going all over the road, and find out hes drunk/blind/stupid and sort the problem out. A speed camera wont catch this person because they generally travel 10mph under the speed limit all the time.
and there's the two problems right away.
Pedestrians. Why are they walking around on a 70mph dual carriageway at midnight? A few people get killed and they lower the speed limit of the whole dual carriageway to 50mph. WHY is the motorist blamed for Pedestrians walking around on dual carriageways? (A127, South Essex.) Hitting them at 50mph will still kill them anyway so whats the point? How about teaching people NOT to walk in the road. Pedestrians belong on the pavement, not the dam road. Pedestrians shouldn't even count towards "road deaths" /Rant.
Motorcyclists. Now sure there's a high percentage that are smart riders and still going strong but, surely <50% of Motorcyclists have a total utter death wish? For example filtering through traffic fast, while people are changing lanes is just asking for trouble, how many of those 20% were killed on motorways while filtering past traffic at 70mph? Police on the roads will catch these guys, when speed cameras wont. Should also make it law that all cyclists have to wear highVis jackets too.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
What annoys me is the knee-jerk lower speed limit reaction to high speed crashes.
The main road into Plymouth is a dual carriageway. It had its speed limit reduced to 50 after somebody took off over a hill at 100+mph and smashed their car to bits.
Then it was reduced, again, to 40 after a chav put his car on its roof and skidded into the forecourt of a petrol station. He was, again, travelling at considerably over the speed limit.
Why is speed limit reduction considered a good reaction to a crash which occured when the driver was travelling in excess of the speed limit anyway?
The main road into Plymouth is a dual carriageway. It had its speed limit reduced to 50 after somebody took off over a hill at 100+mph and smashed their car to bits.
Then it was reduced, again, to 40 after a chav put his car on its roof and skidded into the forecourt of a petrol station. He was, again, travelling at considerably over the speed limit.
Why is speed limit reduction considered a good reaction to a crash which occured when the driver was travelling in excess of the speed limit anyway?
[TW]Fox;15043221 said:
As a prelude to yet more cameras being fitted to that stretch of road I guess...
The authorities seem to think cameras are the answer yet most of us here would, I think, agree that theres little deterrent better than a Traffic Car patrolling up & down....
Bottom line, cameras generate revenue, traffic coppers cost it.
O/T - 83k posts Fox!!!
Get out more FFS! 
Indeed. And given the Tory proposals that councils will have to 'fund cameras' themselves, I can't see that being a particularly large deterrent - I think a Gatso is estimated at about £18k to install - if it catches one driver a day for a year, it will pay itself off and some.
In a way it would be pretty funny to massively increase the number of traffic cops, after a couple of weeks no doubt the mini-Schumachers on here would be moaning about being pulled over and complaining that cops should be focusing on 'real crimes'
Last edited:
You are forgetting the current rules, which Tories will not change ... all GATSO fines go to central government, so councils have to pay for their operation and maintenance but central government gets the profits.
I'd rather have a speed increase on motorway... 90mph ?
Motorway counts as extraurban, right?
?? I was under the impression councils get the money generated, unless the 'client' can prove that the camera was hidden, in which case the money goes to central government.
Labour changed it last year I think, hence why a few places like Swindon have started to remove cameras.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,156
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.