Radical suggestion to get rid of speed cameras

miniyazz said:
Unfamiliar place = unfamiliar with speed limits, and there's some silly ones in some places these days..
Click to expand...

No, it was stated Unfamiliar place, and if in doubt of the speed limit, caution applies, assume 30 unless otherwise directed.

If you don't know the speed limit of a road, you for certain don't know the layout and what might be coming up!
 
Dr Who said:
No, it was stated Unfamiliar place, and if in doubt of the speed limit, caution applies, assume 30 unless otherwise directed.

If you don't know the speed limit of a road, you for certain don't know the layout and what might be coming up!
Click to expand...

And there's many places where for some reason they insist on having a 20mph limit. And there's a stretch of dual carriageway on the A11, between two roundabouts, where for some totally unknown reason it's a 40 limit.. and it's hardly obvious to someone new to the area. And you certainly wouldn't default to 30mph on a dual carriageway you didn't know :p
 
miniyazz said:
And there's many places where for some reason they insist on having a 20mph limit. And there's a stretch of dual carriageway on the A11, between two roundabouts, where for some totally unknown reason it's a 40 limit.. and it's hardly obvious to someone new to the area. And you certainly wouldn't default to 30mph on a dual carriageway you didn't know :p
Click to expand...

They cant have a 20 limit without it being VERY clearly signposted, usually preceeded by traffic calming measures.

So, let me ask, if this stretch of dual carriageway has clearly posted 40mph speed limit?

Are you saying that because the place is new to you, you don't have to look out for clearly placed signage? Just assume that because it is part of a road that is NSL that it is all NSL?

Sorry, whichever way you try to argue it, what you are saying is the driver is not paying attention.

And as for your statement, If I assumed 30 limit, because I was completely blind and hadnt seen the road signage, I would be on the safe side of the limit, ofc on a dual carriageway, I would be more likely to assume 40 over 30.

My point still holds if unsure of an area default slower and safer, regain bearings, check for signage, proceed when able.
 
Dr Who said:
They cant have a 20 limit without it being VERY clearly signposted, usually preceeded by traffic calming measures.

So, let me ask, if this stretch of dual carriageway has clearly posted 40mph speed limit?

Are you saying that because the place is new to you, you don't have to look out for clearly placed signage? Just assume that because it is part of a road that is NSL that it is all NSL?

Sorry, whichever way you try to argue it, what you are saying is the driver is not paying attention.

And as for your statement, If I assumed 30 limit, because I was completely blind and hadnt seen the road signage, I would be on the safe side of the limit, ofc on a dual carriageway, I would be more likely to assume 40 over 30.

My point still holds if unsure of an area default slower and safer, regain bearings, check for signage, proceed when able.
Click to expand...

There's a 40 sign as you approach the roundabout, but nothing as you accelerate out of the roundabout IIRC. I suspect there are repeater signs further along the road (it's a 400m stretch) but I know the limit is there and I still often don't remember until half way along (only travel along it once every couple of months maybe), and I'd be worried if I was that unobservant while driving. Anyone else know the area and can clarify? (A11 between Thickthorn roundabout and the roundabout to the hospital)

I agree that it's safest to adhere to 30mph if you're not sure of the speed limit; I was just arguing the point that even sticking to 30 may result in you speeding. Note that you do not always need repeater signs in a 30 zone, so if you miss the entry sign, there may be no other absolute indication.
 
There will only be repeaters where there are no lamp posts, if there are lamp posts and the speed limit is other than 30, there will be repeaters.
 
Dr Who said:
There will only be repeaters where there are no lamp posts, if there are lamp posts and the speed limit is other than 30, there will be repeaters.
Click to expand...

Signing

Zone signs must be erected at every entrance to the zone. At exits, a zone sign indicating the speed limit of the adjoining road must be displayed.

Full details of the zone signs are given in Circular Roads 4/90. The sign consists of a speed limit roundel on a white ground with the word "zone" positioned beneath the roundel. Beneath the main part of the sign, a panel has been included so that the name of the District or Area can be added. The background to this lower area may be in any colour other than red, provided it contrasts with the letter colouring: the name may be in any typeface or alphabet. It is desirable to include the name, as this reinforces the message that the zones are places where people live.

The zone sign is only required to be erected on one side of the entry road where the road is less than 5 metres wide. However, it is recommended that even in these situations signs should be placed on both sides of the road. This helps to accentuate the gateway effect and the feeling for the driver of entering an area which is "different". 20mph repeater signs are not required within the zone. The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations permit all warning signs normally required for road humps to be omitted.
Click to expand...
-http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/trafficmanagement/20mphspeedlimitzones?page=1
 
i perssonally think that we should all (every driver in uk) should go past a speed camera speeding tomorrow at like a certain time so their stupid system crashes
 
AcidHell2 said:
You get no warning on mobile speed cameras.
And it's easy to get done by a gatso if you are in an unfamiliar place and trying to navigate or distracted some other way.
Click to expand...

I always find this argument a bit odd, drive within the limits and use commons sence where you wish to push it a bit and theres little problem with getting caught.

Not knowing where you are is imo not the issue, I frequently drive in places I am not familiar with yet don't find myself getting caught speeding.

If I'm going to drive fast then I pick a road that I know and duly get the hammer down if the mood takes me, if I don't know the road I don't speed for the reason that I don't know what or who is ahead......
 
Dr Who said:
20MPH zone are usualy too small to require repeaters, and have additional traffic calming measures to indicate a lower speed is required.

If you don't notice you are in a 20 mph zone, frankly, you shouldnt be driving in the first place!
Click to expand...

Oh come on the point was that there might only be the one sign indicating a 20, and hell it could've gotten hidden by a tree! Does it really matter? :p
 
The_Abyss said:
Can you please reference where speed isn't a meaningful contributory factor?
Click to expand...

Excessive speed for the conditions can contribute to accidents, however speeding itself doesn't cause accidents. It's about proportionality - speed cameras also do not allow for any discretion, tailgating, quality of driving and dangerous driving.

Driving over the speed limit isn't inherently dangerous. Inappropriate speed is, heck even driving under the speed limit can be inappropriate speed too.
 
The_Abyss said:
Can you please reference where speed isn't a meaningful contributory factor?
Click to expand...

I'll reference some of my previous posts on the matter.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13182516&postcount=63

Take a look at this one, for example.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/0709-commonspeed.asp

2.5 In 2005, for the first time, the Department collected data on contributory factors to road traffic accidents. Several of these factors are attributed to drivers up to the age of 25 in much higher proportions of cases than for older drivers. These factors were reported for the following proportion of drivers in casualty accidents—

Driver 17-19 Driver 17-25 Driver 26+

Loss of control 19% 14% 6%
Careless, reckless or in a hurry 14% 12% 7%
Travelling too fast for the conditions 14% 11% 5%
Slippery road (due to weather) 12% 10% 5%
Exceeded the speed limit 8% 6% 2%
Impaired by alcohol 4% 5% 2%
Aggressive driving 4% 4% 1%
Click to expand...

Once again, we clearly see how the speeding breaks down, remember, this is in the research the government is paying for, and subsequently ignoring, or fudging by grouping strange things together...

Actually, lets add some more data into the mix.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_camera_facts.php

And just in case you think the sources are biased.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/safety/2749419/Speed-cameras-the-twisted-truth.html

From then on, despite a continuing rise in the number of vehicles, the fatal accident figure steadily dropped, at an average rate of more than five per cent a year. By 1980 it had fallen to slightly more than 6,000. By 1993 it was below 4,000. Britain's roads were the safest in Europe. In France and Germany, the annual death toll was more than 9,000. In Portugal it was well over three times as high.

Then the rate of decline suddenly slowed. Over the next decade the total fall was smaller than in any of the years between 1990 and 1993. Four times the yearly figure actually rose. So what had changed?

The most obvious difference in the mid-1990s was a radical shift in road safety policy. Ministers and officials had become persuaded that by far the most important single factor in causing accidents was speed. The main focus of police road safety strategy, designed to cut the accident rate further, now became the rigorous enforcement of speed limits, backed by a growing army of speed cameras.

Yet it was at this very time that the fall in the accident rate markedly slowed. Although millions of motorists were caught by the new "safety cameras", which were soon costing them more than £100 million a year in fines, the number of people dying on Britain's roads was no longer declining at anything like the same rate as before.

Inevitably road-safety experts connected the two. Had this slowing of the decline in deaths been caused by the switch in policy? If the policy had not been changed, they asked, might 7,000 lives have been saved? Had not this new fixation with "speed", to the exclusion of almost everything else and supported by highly dubious statistics, taken on many of the familiar characteristics of a scare?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13908328&postcount=82

As you wish... (although claiming you won't accept figures from one pressure group then asking for them from another is rather strange)

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/speed_policy.htm

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 8% of all injury collisions, 16% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 28% of collisions which result in a death.1 This includes both ‘excessive speed’, when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).

Drivers and riders who are travelling at inappropriate speeds are more likely to crash and their higher speed means that the crash will cause more severe injuries, to themselves or to other road users. Inappropriate speed also magnifies other driver errors, such as driving too close or driving when fatigued or distracted, multiplying the chances of these types of driving causing an accident.

In 2007, 342 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 417 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.1
Click to expand...

I think that's clear enough. An analysis of those figures gives 12% of people killed were due to people exceeding the speed limit. (45% of 28%), which is inline with the figures quoted by other sites, as are the figures for overall accident rates (around 8% due to inappropriate speed).

The figures are pretty clear at the start, but then they go on to ignore the figures they cite and go on about the dangers of speeding..., citing much older (circa 1994) and discredited (see analysis on safespeed, scroll to one mile per hour lie, or by the ABD) research. They have also forgotten about regression to the mean their speed camera articles by using older research.

Edit: Added some links, more to add

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article766659.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6571257.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053865/Speed-cameras-saved-HALF-lives-ministers-claim.html
http://www.safetycamerareport.co.uk/05_rtm.htm
Click to expand...

Is that enough sources and calculation for you? Exceeding the speed limit is a causal factor in only around 5-6% of all accidents. This is the reason why speed cameras (and the obsession with speed generally) is counter productive to road safety, as shown by the comparative stall in the fall in road deaths.
 
Cameras themselves are annoying but nowhere near as annoying as removed ones with left over road markings and sign-age....

Driving Ex-Camera...Driving Ex-Camera...Driving Ex-Camera...Driving Ex-Camera...

:(
 
AcidHell2 said:
You get no warning on mobile speed cameras.
And it's easy to get done by a gatso if you are in an unfamiliar place and trying to navigate or distracted some other way.
Click to expand...

Mobile cameras should stay, but instead of just sending you a ticket in the post they should have a (possibly unmarked) car to follow you to establish if speed = dangerous driving or just speed and punish appropriately
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom