Speeding fine- im shocked.

[perplexed]

Maybe it would. But I think we've established that speed cameras don't increase road safety, so maybe we should just replace them with some road traffic officers...

 

Have we?

 

I'm all for covert cameras which move location frequently to catch idiots travelling well in excess of the speed limits.

 

I give you the example of only today, of the post office van, who saw fit to go past me at a considerable rate of knots (45mph+) on a 30mph zone.

 

About 18 inches from the end of my handle bars.

 

Yes, my estimate of his speed is just that, an estimate. But put it this way, loads of other cars passed at roughly the correct speed, no worries. This guy was going so fast, he drew the attention of pedestrians on the pavement who turned round to watch him vanish round a corner. So it wasn't just me who thought "what the hell was that?"

 

If he'd known there was a high posibility of a covert camera, would he have driven in this fashion?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But if he routinely did, then I'd like to think he'd be caught and dealt with.

 

The subsequent bans would take the muppets of the roads, and the fines could pay for traffic officers.

 

Win-win really surely.

[DT Ralge]

 

 

DT, thanks for the response, again. You seem like an intelligent and articulate person but, seriously, have you actually read and understood my posts?

 

If so, could you clarify, for me, why you are directing me towards statistics?

 

You seemed to be asking for proof/evidence that speed cameras have achieved something. Reductions in Derbyshire's PIC's and KSI's at fixed and mobile sites seem to suggest a sort of efficacy.

[DT Ralge]

Because of an increase in accidents?

 

No, because an immediate increase in speeding was detected and the partnership has re-worked the economics of running the cameras.

[DT Ralge]

Spindrift - Speeding in itself is not dangerous and does not necessarily result in "bullying or aggressive behaviour".

 

Inappropiate speeding is dangerous and can lead to an increase in RTAs.

 

Cameras on their own are not the answer proven by the removal and deactivation of a lot of GATSOs and similar cameras in this country in the last 1-2 years. Average speed cameras sited on known accident blackspots and in roadworks are justified IMO.

 

What really needs to change is driver attitude and education especially young newly qualified drivers. Learning to drive shouldn't end after you have passed your test.

 

I agree but are you volunteering for some refresher training? (few do) pm ne if you are.

[Cyclone]

No, because an immediate increase in speeding was detected and the partnership has re-worked the economics of running the cameras.

 

Speed control is not an end in itself though, so unless there's an increase in casualties or accidents then they should leave it alone.

[Cyclone]

I've already shown you the report that says it is far too early to tell whether turning off cameras in Oxfordshire has caused accidents to rise. you commented on that post so you must have read it. Why ignore points that erode your argument?

 

Because there are stats available for equivalent lengths of time and the accident rate hasn't gone up has it.

Why ignore stats that don't support your argument?

[Cyclone]

Have we?

 

I'm all for covert cameras which move location frequently to catch idiots travelling well in excess of the speed limits.

 

I give you the example of only today, of the post office van, who saw fit to go past me at a considerable rate of knots (45mph+) on a 30mph zone.

 

About 18 inches from the end of my handle bars.

 

Yes, my estimate of his speed is just that, an estimate. But put it this way, loads of other cars passed at roughly the correct speed, no worries. This guy was going so fast, he drew the attention of pedestrians on the pavement who turned round to watch him vanish round a corner. So it wasn't just me who thought "what the hell was that?"

 

If he'd known there was a high posibility of a covert camera, would he have driven in this fashion?

 

Maybe, maybe not. But if he routinely did, then I'd like to think he'd be caught and dealt with.

 

The subsequent bans would take the muppets of the roads, and the fines could pay for traffic officers.

 

Win-win really surely.

 

Maybe you're right, I dislike the idea of hidden camera's though, it's difficult to argue that you're placing it at an accident black spot and that it will alter driver behaviour if they won't even know it's there.

So sticking to discussing the existing speed camera policy, I can only think of one camera in a 30 zone, I can think of quite a few more in faster zones though... Which would suggest that controlling speed isn't the primary point of them, and that would be born out by their lack of efficacy.

 

Re: DTR points out that accident stats do drop at some black spots, this could be two things, either they really work when they are actually in accident black spots, or regression to the mean, maybe a combination of both!

[alchresearch]

Maybe you're right, I dislike the idea of hidden camera's though, it's difficult to argue that you're placing it at an accident black spot and that it will alter driver behaviour if they won't even know it's there.

 

Not always. There's a hidden camera on the A56 coming into Warrington. When the road was reduced from 50mph to 40mph it caught loads of people.

 

Its appearance is very random and in the beginning nobody stuck to the 40 limit, now almost everyone does. It helps that the local paper made a big deal out of it, listing how many people got prosecuted.

 

I've also seen the same effect on another road coming into my suburb. It goes from a 60mph country lane to a 30mph built up area. Over the past three months the speed camera van has been making an appearance and the number of people who brake to reduce their speed to 30 rather than just easing off and letting the car slow naturally to 40-45 is a dramatic increase.

[Cyclone]

I can't see how being hidden helped in the case you mention. Surely if it had been very visible then it would have had the same effect, but without the requirement for the paper to publicise it?

 

You have to wonder what the justification is when a road has it's limit reduced and immediately has a camera put up. It's unlikely that it qualifies under the guidelines for the number of accidents at that spot, and seems like a rather cynical attempt to generate some revenue.

[alchresearch]

I can't see how being hidden helped in the case you mention. Surely if it had been very visible then it would have had the same effect, but without the requirement for the paper to publicise it?

 

Of course it did because people don't know where or when the van will be on that stretch of road so people take it easy and don't take the risk.

 

But go a quarter of a mile away to a similar parallel road and people do 40 right up to the yellow fixed speed camera, drop to 30 and then speed up again afterwards.