Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,312
z0mbi3 said:
or hiding behind convinient signs/tree's/hedges.
Or supposed to be keeping an unsafe road safe which happens to be a dead straight dual carridgeway, which see's very few crashes!
SPEED CAMERA STATS ARE WRONG: OFFICIAL
- Thread starter cymatty
- Start date
or hiding behind convinient signs/tree's/hedges.
Or supposed to be keeping an unsafe road safe which happens to be a dead straight dual carridgeway, which see's very few crashes!
Oakesy2001uk said:
You wanna go ahead and re-read my post there mate? I'm not the one saying that speed is the cause of accidents - in fact, I strongly disagree with anyone who would say that.
If speed was the cause of road accidents, then we'd have a blanket 12mph speed limit on every single road in the country. We don't. Inappropriate speed is different - 85mph on a straight, flat, wide motorway with a good surface in dry clear weather might not be inappropriate. 40mph on a narrow village road just as the schools are letting kids out probably would be inappropriate though. Both would carry a similar penalty right now I would think. Which one is more reckless?
The whole setup needs seriously looking at. I have no problem with speed cameras put up in places where it really would be truly dangerous to go much faster than the posted limit. I have a serious problem with some of them as they stand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,312
sorry mate, quoted the wrong post!JRS said:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 3,312
JRS said:Noob
My point stands though - the system needs a good once-over. That is, if TPTB really want to reduce road deaths rather than make money.....
yep noob with 2000 post. Ive got no excuse really, me rushing because I dont want my boss to see my screen.
Totally agree with you though mate, there is a was of enforcing speed sensibly and appropriately and this is not it!
Of couse I'd rather they didn't at all. Fair enough in towns/schools, dangerous places, but not on nice roads or dual carrigeways/motorways etc...
Police presence is what is needed, catch the ***** instead of the ones who drive well but dont see the bright yellow box.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,169
- Location
- london
theres a simple answer. a tin of spray underseal over the lens of the camera, it fubars em.
Nice to see that they are 'wrong', but it won't change a thing. There is always an excuse and they will probably use this to add more. Good to know that all the 'they save lives' comments are bull. These should be near schools and busy centers, not on busy A roads and back country lanes if they were being used for a good purpose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I agree, it wont change a thing. Taxes and fines on cars are more to do with economics then anything else. They are hardly going to make all those camera people unemployed now.
These things are just a modern day corn tax, dont expect any of it to make sense particularly. Governments need money, end of
These things are just a modern day corn tax, dont expect any of it to make sense particularly. Governments need money, end of
stoofa said:
I didn't know we were supposed to be looking out for bright yellow boxes on our daily drive.
Anyway, regardless of that, doesn't change that they are wrong. I personally dont break the limits, but thats my choice. I don't dissaprove of others that do, they take the risk, but depending where those people speed, some are a lot worse than others who were only marginally above the limit on a fairly safe road.Isn't it funny how nobody questions any of the data in this "so called" report because the general point it is trying to make is "Speed cameras are a waste of time".
If however this report (like so many do) say that they do make a difference then this thread would be full of people questioning all of the data.
As I'm yet to meet any driver who is subjective enough to look at both sides of the argument we'll just continue to go around in circles.
A report says they help (Boo, Hiss, it's lies I tell you, all of it) then another says they don't (All truth those reports are).
So long as each camera saves just one life it was worthwhile installing.
If however this report (like so many do) say that they do make a difference then this thread would be full of people questioning all of the data.
As I'm yet to meet any driver who is subjective enough to look at both sides of the argument we'll just continue to go around in circles.
A report says they help (Boo, Hiss, it's lies I tell you, all of it) then another says they don't (All truth those reports are).
So long as each camera saves just one life it was worthwhile installing.
stoofa said:
Truth. Didn't see it coming either.
robmiller said:Top trivia: the Green Cross Code man is the same guy who played Darth Vader (just the guy in the suit, not the voice)
I thought there was something sinister about him!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,786
- Location
- Falling...
I'm always dubious about facts quoted by statistics. You can forge statistics into any shape you want to make your argument look better/worse dependind on what you are trying to achieve. I think most things like this need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
However I doubt they'll remove speed cameras. The only cameras I do agree with are the SPECS in road works areas and traffic light cameras.
The day I see speed cameras and speed traps outside schools/hospitals/etc.. is when the hypocricy will end and the day I can walk across the lakes of hell.
However I doubt they'll remove speed cameras. The only cameras I do agree with are the SPECS in road works areas and traffic light cameras.
The day I see speed cameras and speed traps outside schools/hospitals/etc.. is when the hypocricy will end and the day I can walk across the lakes of hell.
stoofa said:
Well, the flaws in the statistics used to try and justify speed cameras have been well known and well publicised for a long time (ie lack of regression to the mean analysis, stationary injury/death figures, increased injury/death figures in roadworks with cameras etc). The big news here is that it's finally a government report recognising the problems everyone else has seen for a long time.
I'd disagree with that, because cameras have to offer a net life saving value over alternative techniques as well as cost efficency. Due to the fines, they are cost efficient, but there is very little evidence that the do actually save lives, and there is also evidence that since the focus on speed as the answer to RTA's, the KPI figures have stopped falling year on year, or stopped falling as steeply.
I'm not adverse to correctly placed cameras (outside schools, or in areas where speed is a clear problem, normally because the road is deceptive), but there are much better ways of saving lives in most other areas.
Look at the accidents used to justify camera placement on the M4, out of them, one man jumped off a bridge, another involved HGVs hitting each other due to high winds, there were tyre blowouts and a car driving the wrong way. How the bloody hell any of these are supposed to justify a speed camera I have no idea, and how a speed camera is expected to save lives in that area is totally beyond me.
http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=11392 is the link btw
Speed cameras are a very bad tool for trying to save lives, because it's not speeding that causes people to lose them. Spend the money treating the cause of crashes, and you'll save many more lives. You say a camera saving one life is enough to justify it, but what if the alternative was to save 15, but the camera is easier?
Endless debate, just seems wasted text to me. Its not as if it will change anytime soon (or later), they make too much from it.
I think the funniest cameras are the ones where no one notices them on say a motorway for example, they're doing about 80-90 and them slam on so hard the drivers behind slam on, etc ~ LIFE SAVERS!!!
In some areas though they are useful, in most..they are not ~ I pass 5 speed cameras in the distance of 15 miles...not because its a dangerous road or anything, because its a busy one and when the police wait in the bays in their cars they always made a fair few quid. There used to be 4 cameras but they cut off 1/2 mile of lane (causing huge traffic jams for up to 45 minutes) just to add another lol
I think the funniest cameras are the ones where no one notices them on say a motorway for example, they're doing about 80-90 and them slam on so hard the drivers behind slam on, etc ~ LIFE SAVERS!!!
In some areas though they are useful, in most..they are not ~ I pass 5 speed cameras in the distance of 15 miles...not because its a dangerous road or anything, because its a busy one and when the police wait in the bays in their cars they always made a fair few quid. There used to be 4 cameras but they cut off 1/2 mile of lane (causing huge traffic jams for up to 45 minutes) just to add another lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,705
- Location
- Cambs
dirtydog said:
Concentrating on driving means being aware of things on the road and at the side of the road. If you can't see the big yellow box because you are concentrating so hard you won't see the big yellow combine harvester about to pull out of a farm lane in front of you or the little girl wearing a yellow dress about to run out to fetch her ball.
You know what I meanpinkaardvark said:
A speed camera is not a natural phenomenon that you should have to look out for.When I drive on unfamiliar roads, in an unfamiliar town etc. I am always looking out for speed cameras and looking for speed signs and watching my speedo - this is time and energy that would be better spent driving to the conditions rather than worrying about lining the local constabulary's coffers.