Speed camera information for drivers on M6, M56, M60 and M62
Posted by: NeilM on 04 December 2003
Just received this message on e-mail. Cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information.
The new electronic signs on the M6 were switched on this Tuesday. The bad news is that they are rigged with the SPECS speed cameras.
This probably applies to all the new signs being installed on the M62, M60 and M56.
For those of you who are unaware, SPECS is a computer-camera based system.
As you go past the sign a digital camera reads your number plate. When you go past the next sign your number plate is read again. The computer 'knows' how far apart the signs are so it can work out your average speed between the two, or three or four.
The system is fully automatic and will issue a ticket without any form of human intervention. It does this for every single vehicle that passes. You will not know you have been caught, as the cameras don't flash. They work 24/7, 365 days a year, and theoretically, there's absolutely no limit on the number of tickets the system can issue.
The whole section of the M6 between Knutsford and Preston is wired, both ways. The system is set to trigger a ticket at 78MPH. (Don't take this as a guarantee).
Radar detectors will be of no use as SPECS is entirely passive, there is no laser beam to detect.
Take care out there
Neil
The new electronic signs on the M6 were switched on this Tuesday. The bad news is that they are rigged with the SPECS speed cameras.
This probably applies to all the new signs being installed on the M62, M60 and M56.
For those of you who are unaware, SPECS is a computer-camera based system.
As you go past the sign a digital camera reads your number plate. When you go past the next sign your number plate is read again. The computer 'knows' how far apart the signs are so it can work out your average speed between the two, or three or four.
The system is fully automatic and will issue a ticket without any form of human intervention. It does this for every single vehicle that passes. You will not know you have been caught, as the cameras don't flash. They work 24/7, 365 days a year, and theoretically, there's absolutely no limit on the number of tickets the system can issue.
The whole section of the M6 between Knutsford and Preston is wired, both ways. The system is set to trigger a ticket at 78MPH. (Don't take this as a guarantee).
Radar detectors will be of no use as SPECS is entirely passive, there is no laser beam to detect.
Take care out there
Neil
Posted on: 04 December 2003 by Steve Toy
quote:
France has the highest road fatality rates in Europe. I spend a lot of time in France and the view of the authorities and the public is that it is down to 2 factors; speeding and alcohol. There is currently a big crackdown nationally on speeding and speed cameras are being reintroduced.
The French don't just drive too fast, they drive badly.
And they're pissed. Reducing the alcohol limit was not the answer. Enforcing the pre-existing one was.
The French don't as a rule take taxis (they're f*cking expensive.) They drive instead, even after consuming over half a bottle of whisky. This has been my own experience.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by John Sheridan
quote:
Perhaps you could point me to a study in a peer reviewed journal that evidences your dismissal of the relationship between speed and fatalities?
In the meantime, the evidence I've read would encourage me to ask for more cameras and stricter enforcement of speed limits.
Last time I asked, RTAs were the cause of the greatest number of lost years of life in the UK.
Why a peer reviewed journal? First off, I didn't ignore them I believe I qualified what was being said. Anyway, you could start with Roadcraft - "speed in itself is not dangerous" "over 90% of accidents are caused by DRIVER ERROR" but I guess you'll tell me the police don't know what they're talking about so how about some real world experience? Despite issuing increasing numbers of speeding fines since 1993 - nearly one MILLION last year - the road toll has remained more or less the same. Before 1993 and the advent of speed cameras it had been steadily declining at around 5%/year for the previous 20 years.
Do you drive at all Mekon? If so, then how do you ensure that you're not going to get caught by a speed camera? By driving below the speed limit you say. Well, how do you ensure that you are *always* below the speed limit - and if you want stricter enforcement then you absolutely have to always be below that limit? While you are staring at your speedo for the 100th time in the past 5 minutes, what happens when that child runs in front of you? Wouldn't it have been better to have been doing 30.1mph and spotted the child half a second earlier and stopped rather than hitting it because you were checking your speedo yet again?
Now, take a so-called accident blackspot. Our fearless motorist drives through oblivious to any of the dangers at a speed high enough to set off Constable Gatso, and for the sake of argument, lets also say that that speed is also too fast for the prevailing conditions. Our fearless motorist still doesn't have a clue and continues driving dangerously until further up the road he crashes. Wouldn't a better scenario be if Constable Plod saw our fearless motorist and pulled him over. He could then mention to OFM that the road isn't the best, conditions aren't the best and that maybe it would help if he cooled it off a little. Even if OFM thinks the officer is talking a load of shite, at least he'll slow down.
Later you might like to take a drive from Darwin to Brisbane. You start out, and decide that 100mph is a nice crusing speed. At some point you'll drive past a sign saying "welcome to Queensland" and all of a sudden you're going to die - and if you don't the police will pull you over and kill you anyway. Same road, same conditions... but a 60mph speed limit.
Finally, why is a 70mph the maximum safe motorway limit? I believe Cecil & Doris driving their Ford Anglia in 1970 were subject to the same 'safe' limit. Isn't my new car with new disc brakes & new high-performance tyres a little safer and, therefore, capable of slightly higher speeds than just about any car from the 70s?
[This message was edited by John Sheridan on FRIDAY 05 December 2003 at 08:50.]
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by andy c
quote:
Anyone who thinks that lowered and rigidly enforced speed limits has anything to do with safety is a naive fool.
Steve,
Try telling that to the next of kin killed by a speeding motorist....
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by adamk
I hope this SPECS thing is a hoax.
It would be a waste of money on the M6 and most of the M62 : There is no chance of getting to 70mph most of the time.
Motorways are the safest form of road: we are all travelling in the same direction. I think the speed limit should be raised to 80mph. All modern day cars are easily capable of safely reaching this speed. I agree with others on here - I think the british problem is more to do with our terrible congestion and our poor standard of driving.
Regarding congestion on our motorways - I do not agree with those proposing tolls. We already pay 40-50p per litre of fuel in tax and appear to get sweet fa in return. We need more roads to be built - the condition of some of our major motorways such as M1, M6, M3 is a disgrace - little change since the 1970's.
The present Labour govt cancelled most tory road building plans when it came to power in 1997, and then cheekily re-announced some of them in a road building programme last year - in effect we are running 5 years behind schedule.
Having driven to and from the South of France in June - It was noticable that the French are better Motorway drivers - They don't cruise the fast lane overtaking fresh air - they get out of the way when the brits want to get past.
If you just go over to France for the day, it is immediately noticeable on your return how crowded our roads are when you come out of the tunnel.
Furthermore, I think the Police need to have a think their present activities. Speed Cameras are attracting big press coverage at present and this is reflecting negatively on the Police. In these days of limited funding they seem to have prioritised Motoring Offences as high priority.
I live & work in South Buckinghamshire - recently highlighted as an area of increasing violent crime and burglaries. I would rather see some visible police activity tackling these issues rather than continued persecution of motorists. If any of you have experienced the 'enthusiasm and positive response' from the police when you report a burglary, you just might know what I mean.
Regards
Adam
It would be a waste of money on the M6 and most of the M62 : There is no chance of getting to 70mph most of the time.
Motorways are the safest form of road: we are all travelling in the same direction. I think the speed limit should be raised to 80mph. All modern day cars are easily capable of safely reaching this speed. I agree with others on here - I think the british problem is more to do with our terrible congestion and our poor standard of driving.
Regarding congestion on our motorways - I do not agree with those proposing tolls. We already pay 40-50p per litre of fuel in tax and appear to get sweet fa in return. We need more roads to be built - the condition of some of our major motorways such as M1, M6, M3 is a disgrace - little change since the 1970's.
The present Labour govt cancelled most tory road building plans when it came to power in 1997, and then cheekily re-announced some of them in a road building programme last year - in effect we are running 5 years behind schedule.
Having driven to and from the South of France in June - It was noticable that the French are better Motorway drivers - They don't cruise the fast lane overtaking fresh air - they get out of the way when the brits want to get past.
If you just go over to France for the day, it is immediately noticeable on your return how crowded our roads are when you come out of the tunnel.
Furthermore, I think the Police need to have a think their present activities. Speed Cameras are attracting big press coverage at present and this is reflecting negatively on the Police. In these days of limited funding they seem to have prioritised Motoring Offences as high priority.
I live & work in South Buckinghamshire - recently highlighted as an area of increasing violent crime and burglaries. I would rather see some visible police activity tackling these issues rather than continued persecution of motorists. If any of you have experienced the 'enthusiasm and positive response' from the police when you report a burglary, you just might know what I mean.
Regards
Adam
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Mekon
quote:
Originally posted by John Sheridan:
Why a peer reviewed journal?
Because the methodology, data, findings, and conclusions will have already been subject to the scrutiny of experts in the field.
quote:
First off, I didn't ignore them I believe I qualified what was being said.
No, you made a weak attempt to dismiss the findings with the sort of rhetoric usually spouted by habitual speeders with an overinflated sense of their own self-efficacy when it comes to their ability to avoid accidents. You might not have a bloated sense of your own control abilities, but from the research findings of my colleague, the argument you present is one she sees all the time.
quote:
Anyway, you could start with Roadcraft - "speed in itself is not dangerous" "over 90% of accidents are caused by DRIVER ERROR" but I guess you'll tell me the police don't know what they're talking about so how about some real world experience?
If their findings were supported by good quality research, I would have no problem accepting it. I am not a transport researcher, but my office mate is. I will find out if there are any issues with police research.
quote:
Despite issuing increasing numbers of speeding fines since 1993 - nearly one MILLION last year - the road toll has remained more or less the same. Before 1993 and the advent of speed cameras it had been steadily declining at around 5%/year for the previous 20 years.
Where are you getting your figures from, and what factors are be controlled for? Those figures are all but meaningless without that information.
quote:
Do you drive at all Mekon? If so, then how do you ensure that you're not going to get caught by a speed camera? By driving below the speed limit you say. Well, how do you ensure that you are *always* below the speed limit - and if you want stricter enforcement then you absolutely have to always be below that limit? While you are staring at your speedo for the 100th time in the past 5 minutes, what happens when that child runs in front of you? Wouldn't it have been better to have been doing 30.1mph and spotted the child half a second earlier and stopped rather than hitting it because you were checking your speedo yet again?
Agreed. Drive well below the speed limit in residential areas. I am in touch with researchers in Manchester who have developed psychological proven to reduced speeding in residential areas. The key is getting people to recognise that they are not in control of their surroundings; a tough goal, given that much of the advertising for vehicles emphasises control.
quote:
Now, take a so-called accident blackspot. Our fearless motorist drives through oblivious to any of the dangers at a speed high enough to set off Constable Gatso, and for the sake of argument, lets also say that that speed is also too fast for the prevailing conditions. Our fearless motorist still doesn't have a clue and continues driving dangerously until further up the road he crashes. Wouldn't a better scenario be if Constable Plod saw our fearless motorist and pulled him over. He could then mention to OFM that the road isn't the best, conditions aren't the best and that maybe it would help if he cooled it off a little. Even if OFM thinks the officer is talking a load of shite, at least he'll slow down.
Later you might like to take a drive from Darwin to Brisbane. You start out, and decide that 100mph is a nice crusing speed. At some point you'll drive past a sign saying "welcome to Queensland" and all of a sudden you're going to die - and if you don't the police will pull you over and kill you anyway. Same road, same conditions... but a 60mph speed limit.
Finally, why is a 70mph the maximum safe motorway limit? I believe Cecil & Doris driving their Ford Anglia in 1970 were subject to the same 'safe' limit. Isn't my new car with new disc brakes & new high-performance tyres a little safer and, therefore, capable of slightly higher speeds than just about any car from the 70s?
John, I see your point, but a better specified range of limits would be more costly to implement. Moreover the relationship between speed and a variety of negative outcomes exists. Now you can holler all you like about potential mediators of teh relationship, like drug use, poor sight, crappy cars, etc, but the implications for what you are saying will impact policing costs. The onus must be on those who want a more sensitive system of enforcement to do a cost-benefit anaysis, and prove that the benefits of getting somewhere quicker outweight the costs of policing the system, and clearing up the mess when the increased limits are abused.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Brian OReilly
I feel that people working to reduce road casualties should be applauded, but I don't think speed cameras are the solution.
The people who know, know that the majority of serious RTAs occur in urban areas, due to the high concentration of junctions (changes of direction), vulnerable road users(pedestrians-old/young, cyclists,)single carriageway infrastructure, limited visibility (parked vehicles, buildings) etc. These are the roads with the LOWEST speed limits, but the most frequent incidents.
Where are the majority of speed cameras ?
That's right ! Not here ! Well, well, bugger me !
Prosecution is considered difficult in these areas because of the low numerical difference in speed - what I mean is that 6mph over the limit seems too small to prosecute, but in a 30mph context that is a 20% difference. On a motorway, a 20% increase means a whopping 84mph, do y'see ?
The point is that 84mph on a motorway is peanuts compared to exceeding a 30mph limit, but this is not understood by the "speed kills" mafia.
I keep looking at this question in the context of what would make the roads safer for my 3yr old son, and simply setting arbitrary limits is not the optimum solution. The road outside my house has a 30kmh limit ('bout 20mph), the autobahn further away - no limit. This seems logical. This seems appropriate for the situation.
Ultimately however, ALL speed limits are arbitrary, and I have first hand experience of even 30kmh being too fast.The solution is further driver training. Whenever this is proposed, it all goes a bit quiet and everyone starts gazing at their shoes. It's really not that hard to understand is it ?
Brian OReilly
edit: sorry, started to compose this at 8:00AM - didn't get to post 'till 4 or 5 other posts in between.
The people who know, know that the majority of serious RTAs occur in urban areas, due to the high concentration of junctions (changes of direction), vulnerable road users(pedestrians-old/young, cyclists,)single carriageway infrastructure, limited visibility (parked vehicles, buildings) etc. These are the roads with the LOWEST speed limits, but the most frequent incidents.
Where are the majority of speed cameras ?
That's right ! Not here ! Well, well, bugger me !
Prosecution is considered difficult in these areas because of the low numerical difference in speed - what I mean is that 6mph over the limit seems too small to prosecute, but in a 30mph context that is a 20% difference. On a motorway, a 20% increase means a whopping 84mph, do y'see ?
The point is that 84mph on a motorway is peanuts compared to exceeding a 30mph limit, but this is not understood by the "speed kills" mafia.
I keep looking at this question in the context of what would make the roads safer for my 3yr old son, and simply setting arbitrary limits is not the optimum solution. The road outside my house has a 30kmh limit ('bout 20mph), the autobahn further away - no limit. This seems logical. This seems appropriate for the situation.
Ultimately however, ALL speed limits are arbitrary, and I have first hand experience of even 30kmh being too fast.The solution is further driver training. Whenever this is proposed, it all goes a bit quiet and everyone starts gazing at their shoes. It's really not that hard to understand is it ?
Brian OReilly
edit: sorry, started to compose this at 8:00AM - didn't get to post 'till 4 or 5 other posts in between.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Mekon
Brian
Speed cameras are one approach, and a cost effective one at that. However, given the moderators of the speed-casuality relationship, better training is a valid approach. If you are interested in psychological approaches, the Driver Behaviour Research Group at Manchester Uni are doing some really interesting stuff.
Just chatting to my 'transport researcher' officemate, and she says that there are limitations to the training approach (such as advanced training course). Chief among these is the problem of random human error. Accidents do happen, and the best way of reducing the seriousness of the results of these errors is to keep speed down. Speed cameras are a proven way of keeping speed down. Other problems include personality moderators, reliance on cues to prompt good behaviours (a posited pathway of the effect of speed cameras), and cost.
[This message was edited by Mekon on FRIDAY 05 December 2003 at 10:45.]
Speed cameras are one approach, and a cost effective one at that. However, given the moderators of the speed-casuality relationship, better training is a valid approach. If you are interested in psychological approaches, the Driver Behaviour Research Group at Manchester Uni are doing some really interesting stuff.
Just chatting to my 'transport researcher' officemate, and she says that there are limitations to the training approach (such as advanced training course). Chief among these is the problem of random human error. Accidents do happen, and the best way of reducing the seriousness of the results of these errors is to keep speed down. Speed cameras are a proven way of keeping speed down. Other problems include personality moderators, reliance on cues to prompt good behaviours (a posited pathway of the effect of speed cameras), and cost.
[This message was edited by Mekon on FRIDAY 05 December 2003 at 10:45.]
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Phil Sparks
My guess is that despite the vitreol we're all probably agreed on most of the issues here
Firstly there can be no doubt of the basic physics, if I drive my car at 10mph rather than 100mph then I have longer to observe the road ahead and am therefore less likely to hit something in the first place and even if I do hit it, as the energy of a moving object is a function of its velocity squared, I will do it and me less damage.
Secondly if you put a speed camera in a particular place, some or most drivers will see it, will slow down and if you actually track accidents at that particular place it seems obvious to me that there will be less of them and they will be less severe.
The reports cited in favour of speed cameras are basically just stating these two facts which to me is simply stating the bleeding obvious.
However there's a bit more to it than this.
One could extrapolate from the above 'facts' and suggest that the whole country should be covered with speed cameras. However this would send a message out that speed is the only issue whereas as we all know driving is complicated. I recall once driving in the US and after being warned about the vehemance of the cops I set the cruise control to 55mph, and ambled along in a snake with the other traffic, gazing out of the window looking at the scenery - to be honest one of my worst bits of driving. I was much more likely to have an accident then than when doing 80 - 90 mph along a moderately trafficed UK motorway when my concentration is fully on the road ahead.
I haven't heard of any studies looking at the effects of blanket coverage of speed cameras on particular areas but my impression is this would lead to a kind of 'deskilling' at that area where drivers are either spending all their time staring at the speedo or have switched off as they simply follow the car in front - a little like following the tail lights of a car in fog.
At them moment in the UK speed cameras are in a few locations so spotting one causes a step change in drivers behaviour at that point which if they were located in accident black spots would have the desired effect.
However this is where I start to get pretty cynical about speed cameras. We all know that the roads where most people are killed or injured are the 30mph ones in towns. However it seems to me that the majority of speed cameras are located on 40 - 50mph limit dual carriageways where drivers generally feel comfortable going a little faster. The cynic in me would suggest that this is so that (i) there's more chance of catching people (ii) it generates revenue (iii) it generates convictions - good for the police statistics and somewhat easier than identifying the hooded mugger and (iv) the government/police can at least say that they are doing something for road safety.
The big downside of this is that most drivers I talk to are similarly cynical and this can only serve to alienate the police from much of the public. I'm an otherwise law abiding guy, pay my taxes, tell off people for dropping litter etc, but when I get in my car I feel that the coppers are out to get me in the sneakiest way possible and turn me into a criminal for doing 71 in a 70 limit.
Also as has been said many times above, it seems that this concentration on speed only, and not even speed on the most dangerous roads, is at the expense of trying to educate and make people aware of all the other skills that go towards making them good and safe drivers. I read some figures recently stating that the number of police convictions for driving without due care and attention had halved in the last 10 years - it seems that we are heading towards remote road policing.
Phil
Firstly there can be no doubt of the basic physics, if I drive my car at 10mph rather than 100mph then I have longer to observe the road ahead and am therefore less likely to hit something in the first place and even if I do hit it, as the energy of a moving object is a function of its velocity squared, I will do it and me less damage.
Secondly if you put a speed camera in a particular place, some or most drivers will see it, will slow down and if you actually track accidents at that particular place it seems obvious to me that there will be less of them and they will be less severe.
The reports cited in favour of speed cameras are basically just stating these two facts which to me is simply stating the bleeding obvious.
However there's a bit more to it than this.
One could extrapolate from the above 'facts' and suggest that the whole country should be covered with speed cameras. However this would send a message out that speed is the only issue whereas as we all know driving is complicated. I recall once driving in the US and after being warned about the vehemance of the cops I set the cruise control to 55mph, and ambled along in a snake with the other traffic, gazing out of the window looking at the scenery - to be honest one of my worst bits of driving. I was much more likely to have an accident then than when doing 80 - 90 mph along a moderately trafficed UK motorway when my concentration is fully on the road ahead.
I haven't heard of any studies looking at the effects of blanket coverage of speed cameras on particular areas but my impression is this would lead to a kind of 'deskilling' at that area where drivers are either spending all their time staring at the speedo or have switched off as they simply follow the car in front - a little like following the tail lights of a car in fog.
At them moment in the UK speed cameras are in a few locations so spotting one causes a step change in drivers behaviour at that point which if they were located in accident black spots would have the desired effect.
However this is where I start to get pretty cynical about speed cameras. We all know that the roads where most people are killed or injured are the 30mph ones in towns. However it seems to me that the majority of speed cameras are located on 40 - 50mph limit dual carriageways where drivers generally feel comfortable going a little faster. The cynic in me would suggest that this is so that (i) there's more chance of catching people (ii) it generates revenue (iii) it generates convictions - good for the police statistics and somewhat easier than identifying the hooded mugger and (iv) the government/police can at least say that they are doing something for road safety.
The big downside of this is that most drivers I talk to are similarly cynical and this can only serve to alienate the police from much of the public. I'm an otherwise law abiding guy, pay my taxes, tell off people for dropping litter etc, but when I get in my car I feel that the coppers are out to get me in the sneakiest way possible and turn me into a criminal for doing 71 in a 70 limit.
Also as has been said many times above, it seems that this concentration on speed only, and not even speed on the most dangerous roads, is at the expense of trying to educate and make people aware of all the other skills that go towards making them good and safe drivers. I read some figures recently stating that the number of police convictions for driving without due care and attention had halved in the last 10 years - it seems that we are heading towards remote road policing.
Phil
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Bob McC
To lighten this post slightly and following on from my earlier post about France the authorities over there are reintroducing speed cameras because when they first tried them they had to bow to public pressure and stop the programme some years ago after people complained not that they were caught speeding but that the photos showed them in their cars with their mistresses. Also the recent reintroduction of speed cameras has been met by a spate of reports of same cameras being blown to bits with shotguns.
Bob
Bob
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by domfjbrown
As a blind git (well a registered partially sighted one) my viewpoint is simple:
If you drive within the speed limits, you won't be whining about speed cameras.
One hell of an easy way to catch out the selfish people who think speeding is cool. And on top of that, cars generally tend to get less efficient over a certain speed (mid 50s I think) so anyone going even faster than 70 is also doubly selfish by pumping more crap into the air, wearing out tires faster, and making their car's lifespan shorter through added vibration, wear and heat.
If you want to go faster than 70 mph, take a train (not in Britain!) or a plane.
Think yourselfs lucky you CAN drive - some of us have no choice but to get on clapped out public transport. 70 mph is about 45 faster than the maximum I can get out of a pushbike - stop complaining.
Phew - now that's out the way, personally, I think the maximum limit on the motorway takes the pee as well, but if you raise it, people will still break it, so why not remove the limit alltogether, but use an automated SPECS system to "do" people for crap driving - if it can read numberplates, it can read combinations, and thus figure out if some prat in a huge company car is hogging your car's arse "like a two big faggot" - drivers who drive like that are dangerous - speed can kill, but crap driving is worse!
In built up areas, 30 mph probably is still too fast - if a pushbike can kill someone at 25 than a car can do a lot more damage...
Mind you, whenever the road safety thing comes up, I can't help thinking about that public service announcement on Young Ones...
"...and this cricket bat, with a breezeblock nailed to it is your car...
...Think once. Think twice. Think - don't drive your car on the pavement".
Ahem.
__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.
If you drive within the speed limits, you won't be whining about speed cameras.
One hell of an easy way to catch out the selfish people who think speeding is cool. And on top of that, cars generally tend to get less efficient over a certain speed (mid 50s I think) so anyone going even faster than 70 is also doubly selfish by pumping more crap into the air, wearing out tires faster, and making their car's lifespan shorter through added vibration, wear and heat.
If you want to go faster than 70 mph, take a train (not in Britain!) or a plane.
Think yourselfs lucky you CAN drive - some of us have no choice but to get on clapped out public transport. 70 mph is about 45 faster than the maximum I can get out of a pushbike - stop complaining.
Phew - now that's out the way, personally, I think the maximum limit on the motorway takes the pee as well, but if you raise it, people will still break it, so why not remove the limit alltogether, but use an automated SPECS system to "do" people for crap driving - if it can read numberplates, it can read combinations, and thus figure out if some prat in a huge company car is hogging your car's arse "like a two big faggot" - drivers who drive like that are dangerous - speed can kill, but crap driving is worse!
In built up areas, 30 mph probably is still too fast - if a pushbike can kill someone at 25 than a car can do a lot more damage...
Mind you, whenever the road safety thing comes up, I can't help thinking about that public service announcement on Young Ones...
"...and this cricket bat, with a breezeblock nailed to it is your car...
...Think once. Think twice. Think - don't drive your car on the pavement".
Ahem.
__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Steve Toy
quote:
Posted by Andy c:
Steve,
Try telling that to the next of kin killed by a speeding motorist....
What about the next of kin killed by a motorist with his eyes on the speedometer not on the road? (I came close to hitting a woman and child in this way at 28mph.)
What about the next of kin killed by a motorist on a single-grade T junction pulling out into the path of a vehicle driving within the speed limit?
What about the next of kin killed by a vehicle with defective brakes/tyres/steering/suspension travelling below the speed limit because the police are no longer patrolling the highway, relying on the grey boxes instead?
What about the next of kin killed by the drunk/drugged driver who failed to stop at a crossing?
What about the next of kin who died in an ambulance toppling over speed humps on the way to hospital?
The overall accident rate has remained unchanged over the last five years. The conviction rate for speeding has quadrupled and many limits have also been lowered. What does that tell you about the causal relationship between lowered speed limits, strict enforcement thereof and a reduction in road accidents?
7.3% of all accidents are speed related. Why not tackle the causes of the other 92.7%?
This is where I get my information. Click on "speed."
Regards,
Steve.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 05 December 2003 at 16:00.]
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Martin D
Steve
Ditto ditto ditto
Well said
Martin
Ditto ditto ditto
Well said
Martin
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by oldie
for my 2p's worth, I do a reasonable amount of driveing and in my opinion I can not remember seeing the "cameras" in accident black spots, they are generally placed were they will raise the most revenue with half going to the local police authority and the other half being used as another stealth tax. in essance they do nothing to enforce the speed limits as we have all seen drivers slowing down for the twenty yards or so of the calibrated area only to speed up the moment they have passed it
Here in wonderful Brighton we have two roads that run parallel to each other ,Marine Parade
which is a four lane main road that runs along the coast ,and is used mainly by commuters and goods vehicles, Madeira Drive runs slightly below it runs next to the sea for aprox 1.25 miles, on this stetch of road there has been in the last couple of years at least 3 deaths and meny injurys, as on Saturdayand Sunday nights youngersters come from all over the area to race each other in souped up cars
guesswhere the cameras are???? More police on the roads is the only way of ensuring that all of the road traffic laws are obeyed we all have to remember that there is no such thing as a safe speed limit, it always depends on the prevailing conditions.
Moan over!!!!!!!!!!!
oldie.
Here in wonderful Brighton we have two roads that run parallel to each other ,Marine Parade
which is a four lane main road that runs along the coast ,and is used mainly by commuters and goods vehicles, Madeira Drive runs slightly below it runs next to the sea for aprox 1.25 miles, on this stetch of road there has been in the last couple of years at least 3 deaths and meny injurys, as on Saturdayand Sunday nights youngersters come from all over the area to race each other in souped up cars
guesswhere the cameras are???? More police on the roads is the only way of ensuring that all of the road traffic laws are obeyed we all have to remember that there is no such thing as a safe speed limit, it always depends on the prevailing conditions.
Moan over!!!!!!!!!!!
oldie.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Steve Toy
Tom,
I'm all for people encouraging use of taxis,
(just so long as they are licensed.) 
Regards,
Steve.
I'm all for people encouraging use of taxis,
(just so long as they are licensed.) Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by oldie
Thats right they are situated on Marine Parade and the Police do nothing to enforce the speed limits on the lower road where the racing takes place,
oldie.
oldie.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Gatso Bastards
The Kings Road in Reading is usually full of slow moving traffic. There is a Bus pull in at one end, big yellow lines etc. This pull in frequently has parked in it a Police van with speed camera in it.
In 5 1/2 years on working in The Kings Road, I never saw a single accident. This camaera is purely a revenue generator.
Next, can someone tell me what gives the Police an exemption from Parking Restrictions?
I must admit surprise that there is not more of a Civil Disobedience effort going on - for once I admire the French responce - shotguns, indeed.
Mr Parry has three, I understand.....
On the Yellow Brick Road and happy
The Kings Road in Reading is usually full of slow moving traffic. There is a Bus pull in at one end, big yellow lines etc. This pull in frequently has parked in it a Police van with speed camera in it.
In 5 1/2 years on working in The Kings Road, I never saw a single accident. This camaera is purely a revenue generator.
Next, can someone tell me what gives the Police an exemption from Parking Restrictions?
I must admit surprise that there is not more of a Civil Disobedience effort going on - for once I admire the French responce - shotguns, indeed.
Mr Parry has three, I understand.....
On the Yellow Brick Road and happy
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Back to the subject
The email is a hoax.
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and happy
The email is a hoax.
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and happy
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Steve Toy
Mike,
we know!
I admire the French for not tolerating te unacceptable. We just sit back and let the government walk all over us. We are weak and pathetic subjects.
Regards,
Steve.
we know!
I admire the French for not tolerating te unacceptable. We just sit back and let the government walk all over us. We are weak and pathetic subjects.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by John Sheridan
some more stats for those who are still not convinced. Again from Roadcraft:
approximately:
1/3 of all accidents are rear end shunts.
1/4 of all accidents are caused by one vehicle driving across another vehicle's priorty.
1/6 of all acccidents involve loss of directional control.
Think about that. We could instantly cut out 30% of accidents just by ensuring people didn't drive too close to the car in front.
Now when was the last time you heard of someone getting 'done' for this? Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard of anyone getting pulled over for any form of bad driving. I know of only one person - a guy in my office who was was caught using a mobile (while attempting to turn a corner and change gear) a few months ago.
approximately:
1/3 of all accidents are rear end shunts.
1/4 of all accidents are caused by one vehicle driving across another vehicle's priorty.
1/6 of all acccidents involve loss of directional control.
Think about that. We could instantly cut out 30% of accidents just by ensuring people didn't drive too close to the car in front.
Now when was the last time you heard of someone getting 'done' for this? Come to think of it, when was the last time you heard of anyone getting pulled over for any form of bad driving. I know of only one person - a guy in my office who was was caught using a mobile (while attempting to turn a corner and change gear) a few months ago.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by andy c
Steve,
If you drive your car exactly as how you were taught, don't exceed the speed limit, don't drive too close thus allowing enough distance to be able to stop in an emergency, don't drink/drug drive and are curteous to everyone else then this thread would not be here.
Instead 'we' dont'.
I think its prudent to look at what roadcraft says - It makes alot of sence.
And I have a relative who has had to go tell the next of kin their son/daughter etc has been killed by a speeding motorist who came up too fast behind their car thus causing the collison...not a nice job I'll bet!
In his experience there is no such thing as an 'accident'. Most collisions hold a degree of blameworhtiness to one party or another. This is a view I agree with.
If you drive your car exactly as how you were taught, don't exceed the speed limit, don't drive too close thus allowing enough distance to be able to stop in an emergency, don't drink/drug drive and are curteous to everyone else then this thread would not be here.
Instead 'we' dont'.
I think its prudent to look at what roadcraft says - It makes alot of sence.
And I have a relative who has had to go tell the next of kin their son/daughter etc has been killed by a speeding motorist who came up too fast behind their car thus causing the collison...not a nice job I'll bet!
In his experience there is no such thing as an 'accident'. Most collisions hold a degree of blameworhtiness to one party or another. This is a view I agree with.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by John Sheridan
quote:
And I have a relative who has had to go tell the next of kin their son/daughter etc has been killed by a speeding motorist who came up too fast behind their car thus causing the collison...not a nice job I'll bet!
Andy, you keep mentioning this mythical 'speeding motorist'. If your relative is a police officer, ask to see the real figures that they compile. As has been said previously on this thread, less than 10% of accidents are primarily caused by people exceeding the speed limit. Now if you were to say killed by someone 'driving too fast for the prevailing conditions' then that would be a whole different story.
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by andy c
John,
Would you not agree tho that a 10% reduction in deaths/serious injuries/collisions for what is little relative outlay is a good thing?
I do know that in Notts the sites used are collsion hotspots. I can't speak for the other counties of which members of this forum reside...
And I totally agree with you re driving too fast for the conditions...
Would you not agree tho that a 10% reduction in deaths/serious injuries/collisions for what is little relative outlay is a good thing?
I do know that in Notts the sites used are collsion hotspots. I can't speak for the other counties of which members of this forum reside...
And I totally agree with you re driving too fast for the conditions...
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by John Sheridan
quote:
Originally posted by andy c:
John,
Would you not agree tho that a 10% reduction in deaths/serious injuries/collisions for what is little relative outlay is a good thing?
Well in theory, yes. Unfortunately, once you take out things like emergency vehicles, criminals, joy riders etc from that 10% you really aren't left with a lot. There are other far bigger targets to hit but I guess there's not enough money to be made out of them. For instance, why people don't get upset that we still have 30% of fatalities caused by drunk drivers? In fact, there seem to be absolutely no policing of that here. What about all the other appalling driving you see every day? Surely better policing of bad driving behaviour would be a help. Then there's training. I wonder if I should I ask how many people here have done any training other than just enough to pass the 'drive around the block and do a reverse park' test? From what I see on the roads most people can't even hold a steering wheel properly, let alone turn a corner. Why does anyone think that turn their hand 180 degrees in order to hold the back of the steering wheel is a good idea? In short, if people can't even manage the basics, what hope do we have?
Posted on: 05 December 2003 by Steve Toy
Andy,
Regarding our "mythical speeding motorist," I imagine the scenario to be thus: The speed limit is 60mph and an inexperienced driver is doing no more than, say 58mph. He steers too quickly through a sharp left-hand bend (at say 50 mph,) loses control of his vehicle and either rear ends a vehicle in front of him the other side of the bend that he could not see that may have just pulled out of a side road, or he loses control of the vehicle and collides with another head-on travelling in the opposite direction.
Equally, it could be the brow of a hill with someone at the top in front of him that he can't see until it's too late, waiting to turn right.
I hope you begin to realise that in all of the above instances the issue is not one of exceeding the blanket speed limit but of driving too quickly for the road conditions.
The camera - or Mr Plod with his speed gun on the downhill straight is going to catch a few people speeding, i.e: exceeding the legal limit, but no accident is going to be prevented.
The car that went round the corner too fast two years ago, slid and collided with the front end of my taxi, writing off both vehicles was probably not exceeding the speed limit. (I was already stationary by the time of impact, btw.)
The other car didn't look as though it would have passed an MOT even before the impact.
Regards,
Steve.
Regarding our "mythical speeding motorist," I imagine the scenario to be thus: The speed limit is 60mph and an inexperienced driver is doing no more than, say 58mph. He steers too quickly through a sharp left-hand bend (at say 50 mph,) loses control of his vehicle and either rear ends a vehicle in front of him the other side of the bend that he could not see that may have just pulled out of a side road, or he loses control of the vehicle and collides with another head-on travelling in the opposite direction.
Equally, it could be the brow of a hill with someone at the top in front of him that he can't see until it's too late, waiting to turn right.
I hope you begin to realise that in all of the above instances the issue is not one of exceeding the blanket speed limit but of driving too quickly for the road conditions.
The camera - or Mr Plod with his speed gun on the downhill straight is going to catch a few people speeding, i.e: exceeding the legal limit, but no accident is going to be prevented.
The car that went round the corner too fast two years ago, slid and collided with the front end of my taxi, writing off both vehicles was probably not exceeding the speed limit. (I was already stationary by the time of impact, btw.)
The other car didn't look as though it would have passed an MOT even before the impact.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 06 December 2003 by Milan
My thoughts,
Most of the reports do not consider the significantly safer cars out there now. For most the design also considers pedestrian impacts, (a major programme in the 80's)! Drivers and passengers are a lot better off in more modern cars.
Statistics can and are manipulated. Choose the numbers you wish to compare to favour the result you prefer.
Most Police Officers would far prefer to be catching muggers, burglars etc.
If you drive under the influence of Drink, Drugs etc you should pay the price. Very difficult to catch using cameras.
Bad driving causes the most accidents, speed is generally a factor not the ultimate cause.
Using displays to indicate you are speeding is proving to be as effective in villages. Enforced occaisionally be mobile cameras. This is more cost effective, has the desired effect, but creates less revenue.
The ultimate argument from authorities is if it saves lives then it is justified. Very hard to prove either way.
Milan
Most of the reports do not consider the significantly safer cars out there now. For most the design also considers pedestrian impacts, (a major programme in the 80's)! Drivers and passengers are a lot better off in more modern cars.
Statistics can and are manipulated. Choose the numbers you wish to compare to favour the result you prefer.
Most Police Officers would far prefer to be catching muggers, burglars etc.
If you drive under the influence of Drink, Drugs etc you should pay the price. Very difficult to catch using cameras.
Bad driving causes the most accidents, speed is generally a factor not the ultimate cause.
Using displays to indicate you are speeding is proving to be as effective in villages. Enforced occaisionally be mobile cameras. This is more cost effective, has the desired effect, but creates less revenue.
The ultimate argument from authorities is if it saves lives then it is justified. Very hard to prove either way.
Milan