but it seems the thread has been gatecrashed by the "You're a child killer for doing 31 in a 30" brigade and has been derailed in under a page
You're clearly missing pretty much every point raised by both sides of the argument
Bournemouth traffic light cameras now do speeding!
- Thread starter Totality
- Start date
You're clearly missing pretty much every point raised by both sides of the argument
That is both direct causal and minority causal figures. As for the others, the argument that the accident wouldn't have been so serious if speeds were lower is, and always has been, dumb. It's the equivilent of saying to give someone a slightly blunted knife so when they cut themselves because they don't know what they are doing its not quite so bad. Tackle the causes of accidents, and the speed becomes irrelevant.
But they don't, that's the point. They at best cause people to keep below the limit in the close proximity of a camera, and they can only do that if they are visible (which can be a very useful thing if the camera is sited appropriately).
I regularly see people going at completely inappropriate speeds, but quite frequently, they aren't speeding, and that's yet another problem that cameras can't address.
Last edited:
Soldato
In my opinion, to generalise, roads which have parked cars along them, are lined with houses/drives, or are along a school route which children walk along, should be limited to 20mph. With the use of cameras over the use of speed bumps, I hate speed bumps, they cause wear and tear damage to the car at any speed and hamper emergency services.
Town roads that do not fit the above criteria but with little space for two cars to pass each other or no white lines down the middle of the road should be limited to 30mph.
Town roads that have sufficient space for two cars to pass comfortably and with white lines down the middle of the road, that do not fit into the above criteria, should be limited to 40mph.
Out of town roads should be NSL and the NSL for single-carriageway roads should be raised to 70mph - many NSL roads are safe at that speed, and it's a limit not a target, people can go slower than that if they do not feel safe*. The essential point is that NSL roads are roads without pedestrians - any road with pedestrians should be limited to a maximum of 40mph.
Dual carriageways should be limited to 80mph and motorways to 90mph, with possible speed restrictions around pedestrian crossings/road crossings on dual carriageways. Motorways are quite safe enough to have a max speed limit of 90, although perhaps all dual carriageway/motorway limits should be reduced via electronic signs (they already have the capability in place on motorways) in bad weather. NSL speed limits would be harder to change in relation to weather because they are less-well maintained, it's less easy to do, but since even in dry weather there are plenty of places where it's unsafe to do the speed limit on NSL roads, one would hope drivers are capable of using their common sense. At least, if they aren't, they will crash with current speed limits regardless of whether they are increased or not.
NSL roads that pass through small towns/villages are slightly more complicated. You can't reduce the speed of a NSL road to 20mph just like that. I would suggest a speed limit of 30-40mph for these roads, but lower past schools, and possibly with more extensive use of railings at the side of pavements.. it would take some working out.
I may have missed out some other areas for particular speed limits.
*Yes then you may get tailgaters who want to go the speed limit but are held up by the car in front doing 55, but that happens anyway to probably a similar extent with the current speed limit.
What does anyone think to those proposals?
Town roads that do not fit the above criteria but with little space for two cars to pass each other or no white lines down the middle of the road should be limited to 30mph.
Town roads that have sufficient space for two cars to pass comfortably and with white lines down the middle of the road, that do not fit into the above criteria, should be limited to 40mph.
Out of town roads should be NSL and the NSL for single-carriageway roads should be raised to 70mph - many NSL roads are safe at that speed, and it's a limit not a target, people can go slower than that if they do not feel safe*. The essential point is that NSL roads are roads without pedestrians - any road with pedestrians should be limited to a maximum of 40mph.
Dual carriageways should be limited to 80mph and motorways to 90mph, with possible speed restrictions around pedestrian crossings/road crossings on dual carriageways. Motorways are quite safe enough to have a max speed limit of 90, although perhaps all dual carriageway/motorway limits should be reduced via electronic signs (they already have the capability in place on motorways) in bad weather. NSL speed limits would be harder to change in relation to weather because they are less-well maintained, it's less easy to do, but since even in dry weather there are plenty of places where it's unsafe to do the speed limit on NSL roads, one would hope drivers are capable of using their common sense. At least, if they aren't, they will crash with current speed limits regardless of whether they are increased or not.
NSL roads that pass through small towns/villages are slightly more complicated. You can't reduce the speed of a NSL road to 20mph just like that. I would suggest a speed limit of 30-40mph for these roads, but lower past schools, and possibly with more extensive use of railings at the side of pavements.. it would take some working out.
I may have missed out some other areas for particular speed limits.
*Yes then you may get tailgaters who want to go the speed limit but are held up by the car in front doing 55, but that happens anyway to probably a similar extent with the current speed limit.
What does anyone think to those proposals?
Last edited:
My point was meant to be that the statistics dont tell the whole story, namely the "only 5% of accidents are due to excess speed" one.
Imagine a crash on a dual carriageway. The driver was drunk, on his phone and doing 100mph. Chances are that accident will be attributed to the drunk factor (quite rightly), but if it occured at 70mph rather than 100mph then the accident wouldnt have been so serious.
Soldato
While what you say is true, it's also irrelevant. Because having speed cameras wouldn't have made the drunk driver slow down from 100 to 70. So the speed in this case is unpreventable with cameras. Meaning the only thing you could have done to drop the speed and therefore reduced the severity of the accident would be to have traffic cops who would have noticed the speed and pulled the driver over before the accident ever happened. However, since those same traffic cops would have pulled him over at 70mph for being on the phone and (presumably) driving erratically, once again the speed is irrelevant.
The difference between an impact speed of 70mph and 100mph isn't that great, you're pretty much buggered either way.
If you're talking free travelling speed, then driver reaction and car capability will play as significant an impact as speed. The difference between our two cars (my Audi S3 and my wife's Micra) in a high speed emergency situation is night and day, and they are both cars from the same year, comparing a modern performance car with a 15 year old fiesta or similar and well, the differences are absolutely massive, to the point where I'd much rather deal with the hazard at 100mph in my car than at 70-75mph in my wifes.
You expect someone willing to drink drive (with much stiffer penalities) to be overly concerned with a speed camera? You also expect the speed camera to be in just the right place to ensure he slowed down just before the accident?
You're clearly missing pretty much every point raised by both sides of the argument
Which is my point entirely! I didn't create the thread to start arguments so don't want to get involved. It seems people here are always arguing and derailing threads nowadays and it's becoming less fun to post stuff. Why can't we all just get along and post in "Speakers corner" if we're looking for a fight?
To answer the OP, I too have had the same email, txt and conversation with lots of people in the Poole area since Thursday and no one seems to know for definite if it's true or a hoax
I know a few weeks back they were doing some road works by the lights for a day or so but I've no idea what they were doing because as usual when you see road works you never see the highway maintenance people either there or working
They did have those census type bods, sat at the side of the road in cars a month or so ago counting the cars, so whether or not that is a sign of the cameras remains to be seen.
Personally as I go that way daily, I will just go via Sterte as I usually do and avoid the cameras exiting the dual carriageway as its bad enough at the best of times down there with the mobile camera vans.
I know a few weeks back they were doing some road works by the lights for a day or so but I've no idea what they were doing because as usual when you see road works you never see the highway maintenance people either there or working
They did have those census type bods, sat at the side of the road in cars a month or so ago counting the cars, so whether or not that is a sign of the cameras remains to be seen.Personally as I go that way daily, I will just go via Sterte as I usually do and avoid the cameras exiting the dual carriageway as its bad enough at the best of times down there with the mobile camera vans.
Who knows - the point was just that the statistics wont tell the whole story
Its hardly a fight - you started a thread about speed cameras and people are discussing speed cameras...
They tell a much better story than anecdotes, suppositions and appeals to emotion though, which are usually the arguments used to support speed cameras.
Indeed, unfortunately I'm not willing to pay for the DoT report to find out exactly the methodolgy used to calculate the figures (the figures are free, the full report costs £40).
There are earlier figures from police forces that show that even if you factor in potential causality, exceeding the speed limit only goes up to about 8%.
Whichever way you look at it, you can't reduce road accidents in a meaningful way by just targetting speed, whether that's with cameras or traffic police. You need to focus on tackling the other factors, which is something cameras can't do, and traffic cops can.
I am not after a right to speed, I'm after safer roads, but for that, we need to give the correct road safety message, and speed kills and heavy speed limit enforcement is counterproductive to that process.
If all drivers adapted to road conditions and drove sensibly there would be no need for them, or even speed limits for that matter.
Problem is people always assume that the speed limit is the minimum speed. Even on country roads there are some sections of road which are unsafe to exceed 30mph let alone 60mph! I've only been driving 3 years and I've seen a fair few write-offs by country lanes and on bends where inexperienced drivers take the road far too quickly.
Personally I think they have a purpose in dangerous areas such as towns and villages, but they have no place whatsoever on motorways, dual carriageways and other high-speed areas. I also think it's a damn cheek when they put them on down hill slopes where it is extremely easy to exceed the speed limit without constant breaking or rolling in a low gear.
Problem is people always assume that the speed limit is the minimum speed. Even on country roads there are some sections of road which are unsafe to exceed 30mph let alone 60mph! I've only been driving 3 years and I've seen a fair few write-offs by country lanes and on bends where inexperienced drivers take the road far too quickly.
Personally I think they have a purpose in dangerous areas such as towns and villages, but they have no place whatsoever on motorways, dual carriageways and other high-speed areas. I also think it's a damn cheek when they put them on down hill slopes where it is extremely easy to exceed the speed limit without constant breaking or rolling in a low gear.
Last edited:
Soldato
This. If you're driving a car, first off you are protected to a certain extent from injury. Second off you are expected to be a lot more aware of what's going on around you than as a pedestrian.
So the place for speed limits is where there may be pedestrians.. I suggested the higher speed limits (above) to prevent those drivers who may wish to do silly speeds from doing so legally, where the speed they are travelling could be so much in excess of other road users that they present a danger to others.
Man of Honour
so how am I meant to wheelie through all these light now ? JOKING
I hope they have painted them bright yellow and put up signs warning of the carmeras...
I hope they have painted them bright yellow and put up signs warning of the carmeras...
Soldato
Problem is there's no difference in the speed limits between an urban dual carriageways and old neighborhood's shopping streets, there are a few places in my mind I am allowed go 30 mph here but it's realistically not possible due to the sheer amount of traffic/peds/even intersections there.
At the same time there's a road I have in mind that is like 50 yards away from the nearest house (separated by a big field of grass) and on the other side there's a river. It's a DC with 2 lanes in each direction yet the ****s still placed a speed camera there and you're only allowed to go 30 there.
This is the reason I find speed limits retarded generally.
Camera's which also check your speed at the lights have been here since the start unfortunately
. Ever since those Gatso's appeared at the lights not only do they check if someone passes a red light but they also check if you're not driving to fast .
Last edited:
Basing on what im seeing, ie no difference. Since the tax year started I have noticed no difference in policing, they have removed one Gatso camera (and changed its location I presume).
Then several roads have been "reprofiled" to make them more pedestrian friendly and more awkward for car drivers. 2 Lanes reduced into one, corners made more difficult to take in larger vehicles, more pedestrian crossings/red lights implemented, lanes narrowed with left turn filter sections having a reduced area in which cars can go into the lane causing more congestion.
From my house to Tesco is 0.8 of a mile, and to get there I have to travel through 8 sets of traffic lights, each of which is set so that at 30mph when you come to the next one it is always on red. If that is not there to increase congestion and road wear then I dont know what is!
And the 7.5% was taken from my council tax bill.
Wigan Met Borough, an increase of 2% over last year.
Greater Manchester Police an increase of 7.5% over last year.
Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue an increase of 3.4% over last year.
So its not going to moat cleaners or anything, it does actually go to the police, just where.
Last edited:
Caporegime
the way i read the article was that if the camera is triggered for jumping the red light it will ALSO check your speed and possible do you on both counts, not that they will become speed cameras even when the lights are green.