Whats the problem with speed cameras

[Penistone999]

No, what needs enforcing is prosecutions for dangerous driving. This, however, is expensive as it requires an active Police presence on the roads, cameras are cheap in comparison. What they do not do though is catch the driver doing 40mph (in a 40 zone) where the conditions dictate they should be doing 10mph.

 

jb

 

Neither do they catch people pulling out of junctions and causing accidents OR

 

people driving at the speed limit but changing lanes and cutting up other drivers or many ,many other dangerous activities that are far worse ,and cause many more accidents than people than people drifting over the speed limit.

 

As you say , scameras are the cheap and easy option , and a simple way of raising revenue.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 18:38 ----------

 

Try driving in the Netherlands for a month without getting a fine. Over there it is an extra-tax machine, nothing less, nothing more.

 

Exactly the same as over here then .

[DT Ralge]

Yet there are no repeaters required in a 30 limit.. just a comment..

 

Yes there is a requirement for repeaters in a 30 limit - street lights.

Just a comment.

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2015 at 08:06 ----------

 

There are roads though with disproportionate enforcement of a recently lowered limit.

 

For example, the A57 towards Manchester. There is often a speed camera van on the long straight downhill section just after the Ladybower.

 

There is no justification for the 50 mph limit in the first place (the road didn't meet the criteria for having the speed limit reduced).

And in particular on that section the "conditions" including weather, traffic, pedestrians, lighting and so on, would often safely allow someone to do 60 or even 70 mph.

So they site the speed camera van there, knowing that it's not improving safety, but WILL generate the most fines by being located in that spot.

 

---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 10:01 ----------

 

 

If you've driven at 1/3rd over the speed limit for 500 yards then it's not just a minor lapse of attention.

There should have been multiple 40 repeaters in that space, and you should have realised they were missing.

 

30 limits, in towns and villages, are probably the most important speed limits in the country.

80 on a motorway, doesn't really matter (in good conditions). 40 through a village will still kill a pedestrian many more times than 30 if they step out in front of the car.

 

With regard to the location of the camera van, where else could they put it (space-wise and off the road, around a corner) ?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2015 at 08:10 ----------

 

Because they mask a problem and in many ways make it worse.

 

Which is less safe?

a) driving at 33 in a 30mph zone

b) driving 5m behind the car in front at 70mph

 

I'd say b without a doubt, yet we concentrate almost solely on speeding on our roads as if this is the only risk factor. The only reason we have speed cameras is because they require minimal resource and are black and white. Were you above the speed limit is a simple yes/no. Were you driving dangerously is much more grey.

 

So we have speed cameras because they are easy not because they actually make the roads safer.

 

I honestly believe we should get rid of all speed limits and have a universal 'dangerous/careless driving law'. If the speed you are doing in regarded as unsafe for the road and conditions you are on then you get penalised. Too many people take speed limits to be a target and drive in a ridiculous manner when the conditions don't suit that simply because of the 'limit'. Remove the limit and people will hopefully start to think about appropriate speed. Maybe I'm too naïve.

 

We should have far greater numbers of traffic police who enforce all the rules of the road.

 

As for driving at any speed without sufficient space ahead, why don't we have the technology that German police use that measures space relative to your speed (drive at 160 kph and you must have 80 metres in front, 140kph - 70metres and so on)?

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2015 at 08:20 ----------

 

Lots of comments on here as always on "driving to the conditions".

 

I always (boringly) comment that very few are abLe to drive "to the conditions" (optimally) since very few pay regular attention to the four points of contact they have with the road.

I bang on about it since, daily, I find drivers don't check tyre pressures at all, do nothing until "it looks flat" (by which time it has already lost a third of its pressure), have no knowledge or understanding of what the function of tyre tread is and of when its performance falls off.

Yet the same drivers expect to be allowed to drive over the Snake (windy, twisty, standing water, sheep ..) at 60 because they can "drive to the conditions".

[Cyclone]

With regard to the location of the camera van, where else could they put it (space-wise and off the road, around a corner) ?

Is that supposed to somehow justify clocking people on a portion of the road that is entirely safe at above 50 in normal conditions?

Nothing to do with safety at all.

 

As for driving at any speed without sufficient space ahead, why don't we have the technology that German police use that measures space relative to your speed (drive at 160 kph and you must have 80 metres in front, 140kph - 70metres and so on)?

Before that could be enforced you'd need every car in the country to be able to tell you when you were too close...

 

---------- Post added 07-03-2015 at 08:20 ----------

 

[/color]Lots of comments on here as always on "driving to the conditions".

 

I always (boringly) comment that very few are abLe to drive "to the conditions" (optimally) since very few pay regular attention to the four points of contact they have with the road.

I bang on about it since, daily, I find drivers don't check tyre pressures at all, do nothing until "it looks flat" (by which time it has already lost a third of its pressure), have no knowledge or understanding of what the function of tyre tread is and of when its performance falls off.

Yet the same drivers expect to be allowed to drive over the Snake (windy, twisty, standing water, sheep ..) at 60 because they can "drive to the conditions".

 

And yet many of those drivers regularly do drive over the snake at 60, have done for years and it's entirely safe.

A 10 mph speed limit change has done and will do nothing to make the snake more or less dangerous. The accidents that happen have rarely happened in good conditions with a car doing 60mph have they.

They happen on corners, where 50 is still too high, they happen in poor conditions where 50 is still too high, they happen with motorbikes doing well over the limit on the wrong side of the road, and cars the same....

Changing the speed limit achieves absolutely nothing.

[DT Ralge]

"Before that could be enforced you'd need every car in the country to be able to tell you when you were too close..."

 

The Germans don't have this anymore than we do - and there are tales of adaptive cruise control slamming on unnecessarily.

Do we really want the car to take over the responsibility? Don't we want drivers to make good speed/space choices?

[Lucy75]

No, what needs enforcing is prosecutions for dangerous driving. This, however, is expensive as it requires an active Police presence on the roads, cameras are cheap in comparison. What they do not do though is catch the driver doing 40mph (in a 40 zone) where the conditions dictate they should be doing 10mph.

 

jb

 

There is a very high probability that the driver doing 40mph (in a 40 zone) where the conditions dictate they should be doing 10mph, will be the same driver that regularly exceeds the speed limit when in fact the maximum safe speed for each road in good conditions is the speed limit. And a very high probability that the driver that does not exceed the speed limit will be the driver that is driving at 10mph when the conditions dictate a slower speed.

[tzijlstra]

I think at the core of this debate is the following: There are many bad drivers out there, do we want the police to crack down on them or do we want to teach them to be better drivers?

 

A difficult debate, especially as you could argue that the police cracking down is doing so to teach people to be better drivers, which goes to show there is a balance in there somewhere. Having lived in a country where the balance is most definitely skewed towards the police and now living in a country where the balance is pretty much spot on, I'd say we don't need to change too much. The only thing I really want to see improve is the way cyclists are treated in this country.

[truman]

Yes there is a requirement for repeaters in a 30 limit - street lights.

Just a comment.

 

 

It's a fair comment but there also street lights on 40,50 and some 60 mph roads (along with speed repeaters)...

[Cyclone]

There is a very high probability that the driver doing 40mph (in a 40 zone) where the conditions dictate they should be doing 10mph, will be the same driver that regularly exceeds the speed limit when in fact the maximum safe speed for each road in good conditions is the speed limit. And a very high probability that the driver that does not exceed the speed limit will be the driver that is driving at 10mph when the conditions dictate a slower speed.

 

It's highly likely that the driver that never exceeds the speed limit is a poor one IMO.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2015 at 16:06 ----------

 

"Before that could be enforced you'd need every car in the country to be able to tell you when you were too close..."

 

The Germans don't have this anymore than we do - and there are tales of adaptive cruise control slamming on unnecessarily.

Do we really want the car to take over the responsibility? Don't we want drivers to make good speed/space choices?

 

I don't see how you can set a strict minimum distance and enforce it without people actually knowing somehow whether they are at or within that distance.

[tzijlstra]

Exactly the same as over here then .

 

No, there is no comparison at all. In the Netherlands they are set to go off with hardly any tolerance (Dutch law dictates that the allowed error margin is 10% wrong upwards, ie, if you are doing 33 km/h in a 30 km/h zone you WILL be ticketed, same for 55 in a 50 zone and so on.

 

That might seem like a big margin to British people used to miles, but that translates to 22 in a 20 mp/h zone (of which there are hundreds and hundreds of miles in the Netherlands) and 33 on a 30 mp/h road. The margin is incredibly small, add to that the fact that they have equipment that is completely hidden AND placed so that it covers areas where they are likely to catch people out, rather than areas where it aids safety and you have a healthy profit-making machine.

 

Recently they trialled a set of practically invisible digital cameras that cover the motorway from the back of an overpass, you literally do not know it is coming, no warning or anything and they move them from overpass to overpass, the maximum speed you are allowed to go too fast is 7 km/h in any circumstance, so at 127 km/h on the motorway (where 120 is allowed) you get done. Again, that equates to doing 74-75 mp/h on the motorway, it would catch loads of people out here.

[DT Ralge]

It's highly likely that the driver that never exceeds the speed limit is a poor one IMO.

 

---------- Post added 08-03-2015 at 16:06 ----------

 

 

I don't see how you can set a strict minimum distance and enforce it without people actually knowing somehow whether they are at or within that distance.

 

Well, the Germans do. They do lots of stuff that we don't even consider.

 

130 kph -> 65 metres space - roughly equivalent to our two-second gap (you cover 62 metres at 70mph).

Space is most easily measured by time rather than by metres, car lengths.

Hence the phrase "only a fool ..." - although, optimally, we recommend a three-second gap at higher speeds.

Fully two-chevrons painted on mw surface between you and the vehicle ahead = a two-second gap at 70 mph.

Space is not necessarily for stopping within - the single worst consequence of too little space is no vision ahead and beyond the vehicle(s) in front (ouch).

Hence the m/w locale (when busy, full m/w, lots of rear-ends) where you see painted chevrons that involves a long straight stretch.

Edited March 9, 2015 by DT Ralge