Speeding On The M4 In Wiltshire !!!!

I think the vast majority of motorists do not object to speed cameras per se, just their deliberate use to raise revenue rather than the stated aim to reduce road accidents.

An example, the press reported that the cameras in Wiltshire were the first to be used to police the speed limit on motorways. Not so, here in South Wales the speed camera capital of the UK (I am not joking, check out the figures)our friendly neighbourhood safety camera partnership has been infesting the M4 just east of Junction 35 for months now. The MO is brilliant. They sit on a bridge which is hidden from view on a bend. This means that when the traffic suddenly sees them everybody brakes whatever speed they are doing. It is an accident waiting to happen.

Now the question is that given that Motorways are the safest roads statistically in the UK is that the best place to site the camera for safety reasons or are they purely looking to make money. What do you think?

A final point. What is safer, travelling at 85mph on an empty dry motorway or doing 70mph 30 yards from the rear bumper of the car in front?

quote:

This means that when the traffic suddenly sees them everybody brakes whatever speed they are doing. It is an accident waiting to happen.

[Glib Mick mode]

The law is the law. If they were all driving below the speed limit they would have nothing to worry about. If as a result of slamming on the brakes (in a futile attempt to evade detection) they cause a multiple pile up, then they deserve everything they get. Summary execution is summary justice for speeding. [/Glib Mick mode]

Toy

If you do not like the law, either act to get it changed or shut up. You are the epitome of an under achieving barrack room lawyer who spends all his time waffling aboutrules that he does not like but does sod all about it.

Do not bother writing here, write to your MP, RAC, AA etc.

Regards

Mick

Mick

It is not the law that needs changing but the way it is enforced. These safety camera partnerships are supplied with a limited amount of resource which, in my view, should be utilised to improve Road Safety by targetting clear areas of danger such as outside or around schools or known accident black spots not by sitting atop the safest roads in the country in a blatant attempt to make money.

Could you identify areas around Swindon which would be better served by Speed Cameras than the M4. I would be surprised if you couldn't

I wonder what parameters are put in place by government to assess the effectiveness of these schemes, lifes saved/reduced accidents or money earned?

My contribution to the debate is here

A smidgen of science.

Speed cameras save lives, however awkward we find them.

Bruce

On the earlier theme of travelling at very high speed (legally) on some motorways. This makes it incredibly difficult for slower drivers to judge whether it is safe to pull out into the overtaking lane to overtake lorries or towed trailers. The delay between checking your mirror and the arrival of a high speed vehicle is simply too small for safety. Particularly on a motorway bend.

On the Danish 2-lane motorways there is a distinct tendency for those speeding illegally down the outside (overtaking) lane to completely ignore the traffic joining from access ramps.

This means that the poor sods keeping to the legal speed limit in the inside lane have no freedom of movement.

They are balked into braking hard and then forced to wait for the slow driver joining the motorway to accelerate up to normal motorway speed. Slow joining seems more common here than those who match their speed to the motorway traffic. I have seen drivers actually stop at the end of the acceleration lane. Unbelievable!

The legal drivers in the inside lane cannot overtake the slow driver because of those in the outside lane already travelling too fast and too close to allow them to make it a safe manoever.

These same slow joiners will then pull out into the overtaking lane at the earliest opportunity *absolutely without exception*! Then bugger-off down the road at the same *illegal* speed as all the others in that lane! Grr!

The Danish motorways now have sections where 130kph (81mph) is allowed. Which greatly adds to the existing problems of slow joiners.

It's odd how lorry drivers were once considered the professionals of the road. But their driving skills these days is just as apalling as many car drivers. Usually the damn mobile phone is to blame.

I watched a huge tanker joining the motorway today as he raced along the acceleration lane inside a lorry convoy with absolutely nowhere for him to go! The articulated lorry in front of me had to veer into the outside lane to avoid a certain collision. The tightly packed vehicles in the overtaking lane were 20mph over the legal limit as usual and completely ignoring the impending peril into which they were they blindly heading. Sometimes it is hard to believe your own eyes. We were all incredibly lucky not to be a statistic on the news.

Nime

The law itself has been unchanged for years.

The way it is enforced has changed greatly along with arbitrary lowered limits along certain roads.

The result?

The annual death toll has stopped falling.

From a peak in 1965 of 6000 per year (when there were less than half the number of vehicles on the roads) we have been stuck at the 3500 mark since the early nineties.

The government declared back in 2000 that through selected lowered speed limits enforced by cameras they could cut the 3500 figure by 40%.

They have cut that figure by precisely 0%.

Have they subsequently admitted that they have been wrong and conceded that another approach may be necessary?

Of course not. This government is like Mick - Never Wrong.

Meanwhile they will manipulate statistics beyond belief in a feeble attempt to justify cameras on the grounds of safety, and a few silly fools will continue to believe the bullshit (Mick and others.)

Meanwhile the cash rolls in.

Total speed limit enforcement through cameras serves two objectives:

1) Revenue.

2) Taking the glamour out of motoring so that it is as boring and as slow as more collective forms of transport - thus the Socialist objective is achieved.

Glamour in motoring equals fast and expensive status symbols. Take it away by making everyone drive at a snail's pace and those status symbols become meaningless as do the aspirations to own them.

Thus individual freedom and responsibility is transfered to the state. As we become disempowered to take responsbility for our own actions on the roads the accident rate increases.

Boredom and resulting inattention are the biggest causes of death on our roads and not driving above a(n arbitrary) posted speed limit.

The alternative to cameras would be about 3p added to a litre of fuel. This would be a more bitter pill to swallow because at least with the cameras you have the option of paying nothing by not exceeding poosted limits.

quote:

Thus individual freedom and responsibility is transfered to the state. As we become disempowered to take responsbility for our own actions on the roads the accident rate increases.

If you were allowed a maximum speed of just 1 mph, I would guess that we would slash accidents by 99%.

Slower speeds = safer roads.

70 mph is fair. If you do not like it, then tough.

70 mph isn't fair. It's a fudge - i.e: a botched compromise between those who advocate driving at 1mph so that injury through collision is virtually impossible, and those who want to drive as fast as their vehicles are capable.

A fairer compromise would be 80 to 85 mph bringing us in line with the rest of Europe - including states like Denmark that used to have limits lower than ours.

70 mph is still a lethal collision speed.

Bruce,

A few quotes from your link:

Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties.

I now await the overwhelming weight of evidence to support this argument.

The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders.

Hmmm...

Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.

I'm still waiting but I'm not holding my breath.


In terms of methodological quality, we classified no studies as being good quality, seven as average, two as average-poor, and five as poor.

So the studies weren't exactly statistically or methodologically reliable then were they?

Introduction of speed cameras may have been accompanied by other road safety initiatives such as traffic calming and education campaigns against speed and drink driving. Temporal changes such as improvements in car safety, changes in traffic volume, trends in drink driving, and changes in risk taking behaviour can also influence the frequency of road traffic collisions.

Indeed.

Speed cameras are generally introduced at sites identified on the basis of high rates of speed related collisions. However, as a rise in traffic collisions could be due to chance, any subsequent reduction could merely be indicative of normal variation ("regression to the mean"). All these factors could result in an underestimate or overestimate of the effectiveness of cameras, and most studies only controlled for a few of these factors, if any.

The Association of British Drivers could just as easily have written the above!

Conclusion
Published research consistently shows the effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and injuries [really?] However, the level of evidence is relatively poor, and better data need to be collected to improve the evidence base.

Hardly a sound and convincing pro-camera argument, is it Bruce?

quote:

70 mph is still a lethal collision speed.

as is any speed in the right conditions.

Why do we seem to blame everyone else for the speed issue? Speed limits create controversy by their very nature. Some agree with certain speeds on certain roads, some don't. I don't advocate the use of camera's on areas that don't need them, but they are a deterrant in areas that do. The revenue does self fund, allowing other funds to be released to deploy officers in potentially more needy areas e.g. crime investigation.

Speed is a factor in some accidents. It is one of the factors. It is not the only factor.

I agree that driver behaviour and driver education needs addressing but who is going to do this, who pays, and when are individuals going to accept responsibility for their own actions, rather than blaming others?

In some respects some of the responses here are very valid, some very purist, but some are very self centred. It's this which makes such a debate so controversial.

andy c!

quote:

The revenue does self fund, allowing other funds to be released to deploy officers in potentially more needy areas e.g. crime investigation.

It wouldn't be so bad if some of the profits from camera partnerships were actually diverted directly into safety initiatives that were non-penalising and didn't in turn generate more revenue.

quote:

Speed is a factor in some accidents. It is one of the factors. It is not the only factor.

I agree, but a distinction needs to be made between excessive speed for the road/conditions and speed above a posted limit.

I saw a speed-kills propaganda poster on the back of a bus the other day (surprising location!) that stated that one in five motorcycle accidents involved no other vehicle. The obviousl conclusion was that if motorcylclists ride below all speed limits they will never fall off their bikes.

My guess is that of those 20% of accidents not involving another vehicle 80% of them were caused by excessive speed but within a posted speed limit - i.e: an inexperienced motorcyclist went round a sharp bend at 55mph in a 60 zone and came off. He probably had no problem doing 120 along the straight.

quote:

It wouldn't be so bad if some of the profits from camera partnerships were actually diverted directly into safety initiatives that were non-penalising and didn't in turn generate more revenue.

Steve,
you mean driver behaviour, or road calming?

andy c!

I mean driver behaviour.

No more killer chicanes please!

Steve,
LOL.

andy c!

I went down the M3 instead of the M4 at the weekend.

I wonder what percentage of car drivers break the speed limit every time they get in their car?

I mean, outside rush hour, if you travel at 69mph on most motorways (obv. not M25) you will be overtaken by at least 75% of other cars, probably more.

What we have here is a law that the majority of the population don't beleive in or adhere to. A bit like hanging and flogging, our politicans don't do what we the electorate think we want.


A few years ago I did an experiment for a few weeks where I religiously stuck below every speed limit posted. I have never had so many lorries up my backside and people honking in impatience. It was very frustrating, and actually quite difficult to do in the hot hatch I had then. However, it was quite pleasing to swing round a village corner and see a Trafpol pointing a laser gun at me and not getting a pull over.

I think the big problem with speed cameras is the lack of any discretion or interpretation which a sensible Trafpol can provide. That and the rank hypocracy about the revenue generation they create, and the rebranding them """Safety""" cameras?

DS

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Fritz

Why do you continuously moan about what is happening in the UK, when you are sitting on your ass, doing nothing in Germany.

Why don't you work in Germany, contribute to their society and then you would have less time to moan about us lot over here. We would all be happy.

Regards

Mick

Sen'or !
It can be hardly be described as moaning, more of bringing to your attention what is obviously invisible to you. This thread like the Jonathon King one has been avidly used by all and sundrie in a short time span (or so it seems to me)? perhaps you should get on to Our Adam and rename this Forum The Little England Padded Cell with Law abiding folk only eligible , innit ?

Fritz Von You crack up I fear Sir

Steve

I presented the link so people could read a large database of information which is not funded by an interest group. I hope people will read some and make up their own minds, too many in the deabte so far have just made bland statements that cameras 'work or 'do not work'. I've avoided selective quotation, I'm sure we can all find bits that fit our personal views!

It is a scientific journal, it applies scientific principle to assessing the quality of evidence. The rating of a study as methodologically poor is not the same as saying it should be ignored.

I see an accumulation of data (from varying sources, sites and methods) which suggests a positive effect, I see nothing consistent with a negative effect. Hence the conclusion I personally reached.


Bruce

Never justify yourself Fritz.

Avoiding justification (politely) is very empowering.

Try it.

Nime

David,
Your comments are very valid, and back up my point about people taking responsibility for their own actions.

And still we don't seem to acknowledge the fact that traffic cops cost money, lots of it, and this government are policing speeding and driver behaviour using camera's, not cops. FWIW the news clip re the M4 caera's said they could also be used in prosecutions for offences of not being in proper control e.g. using a mobile phone whilst driving!

Again I say ya pays yer money and ya makes a choice, in more ways than one. Sensible driving is about self regulation and patience, isn't it?

andy c!

Direct Action on M4 safety cameras.

I note that a 'go slow' protest in the same vein as the fuel price protests is being mobilised.

A group of concerned motorists is planning to drive at exactly 70mph across all three lanes for a while. Watch out for it as it grows!

DS

quote:

I see an accumulation of data (from varying sources, sites and methods) which suggests a positive effect, I see nothing consistent with a negative effect. Hence the conclusion I personally reached.

The only figure that counts is the annual death rate figure - it's stuck at 3500 when the government were so certain they could bring it down by 40%.

Manipulate the meaningless rest at your leisure.

I give up.

I refuse to accept any loss to our individual mobility and freedom with no gains in safety or preservation of life whatsoever.

I see this government thinking that this perfectly acceptable.

Steve,

There is no compromise in speed camera's. End of.

This issue is wider than that, tho. We are talking about potential injury and worse, and yet is it only the revenue that's important?

The speed limit is just that, the limit one should travel for that road. Lack of policing and enforcement has seen this ignored. Once ignored is virtually impossible to get it back.

Who is to blame for this?

A driver does not need educating as to the speed limit of the road they are on. If in doubt slow down until you are sure.

andy c!