OT: How come no one has mentioned...

[tony sayer]

Compulsory testing for the over --what--- age then?...

[dennis]

21 and every five years after!!!

Get some of the idiots off the road.

You can see the poor drivers every time they pass a speed camera and jump on the brakes.. they have no idea how fast they are going or what the speed limit is.

They think they are speeding but only care when there is a camera there. This is proof they work, there just aren't enough of them.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, I don't hold with that. MOSTLY these people are more a danger to themselves than to many others..they tend to creep along fairly deserted roads..and do so little mileage, and then seemingly only on Thursdays, that you can avoid them.

Generally they give up at about the time they can't look after themselves in other ways anyway.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Yup. Statistics tell a very young new driver is a far bigger risk per mile travelled. And is likely to have a major crash rather than just a bump as that statistic.

[John]

One problem is that many old people are deeply suspicious of taxi drivers and so won't give up their car even though it is possible to prove the economy of using a taxi for the few trips they really need to make.

[John Rumm]

Had someone jump on the brakes in front of me the other day when they spotted a speed camera at the last minute.

Thing was, they weren't speeding in the first place - just seems to be an impulse reaction.

Or it proves they are pointless at anything other than revenue raising.

Perhaps if they actually placed them on the roads with the worst accident records and took them off the safest ones (i.e. those that had low or no accidents before they were fitted - but just happen to be good places to catch people speeding) they might be seen to being doing something useful.

[PCPaul]

Definitely. It used to be that whenever some nutter flew past you at 100+ on a foggy Motorway, it was a BMW. Now it's an Audi.

[dennis]

If people get points and fines then they are not pointless. If they don't get points and fines they are working better.

Are we going to have an argument? Safety cameras where the operator gets to keep the revenue can only be installed on roads where there is a proven accident problem. IIRC its three injury or a death in the last five years within 500m of the site. So there goes your they put them on the safest roads argument.

Of course not all cameras are of the safety type and the operators get *no* revenue from them. Cameras can be hidden too and frequently are if they are not part of the safety camera scheme. These are the best cameras as they get the stupid drivers off the road quicker. Hidden average speed cameras would be better.

[John Rumm]

Don't think I can be bothered. You are probably convinced that the world would be so much better if only everyone obeyed the speed limit, while I would much rather they drove safely.

It used to be the case for all cameras. Then it was "extended" to be within a certain radius of a black spot - and not necessarily even on the same road.

Whether the operator gets to keep a share of the profits is a bit of a red herring anyway. Its not like they wave the fines for the non profit share cameras.

You will note the subtle law change a year or two ago to allow fewer points to be awarded for less serious speeding offences. In other words the exchequer can milk a few more fixed penalties out of a motorist before they get banned (killing the goose in the process).

As far as Gorden an cronies are concerned its just another source of revenue to piss up the wall.

Who mentioned operators?

A speed camera is not capable of catching the vast majority of stupid things that drivers do. It would take an actual policeman to do that, not a speedometer on a stick.

We have the technology to enforce speed limits 100% if we wished. However to do so would be counter productive. It seems even the government is getting that message slowly. They themselves abandoned a political hot potato research project into camera side effects, once it became apparent that there was no doubt that camera side effects were costing at least 25 lives per year. The true figure likely to be significantly higher.

[dennis]

Obeying the speed limits doesn't require you to drive dangerously. Exceeding the speed limits does! There are *no* circumstances where driving above the speed limit doesn't increase the danger!

I said within 500m.

The argument the speeders always put forward is that the cameras are there to generate revenue which is a lie as the ones that are not part of the safety camera schemes cost the operator money.

That was just because too many drivers were moaning. They still issue more points for going faster.

That is irrelevant as they will get their cash to waste whatever happens and you can stop that revenue by obeying the law.

Someone operates the cameras why are you being stupid?

So stick in more cameras and let the police look for the idiots rather than the idiots and the speeders. Your point is worthless.

The ones caused by not hiding the cameras like they should? A few hidden cameras would get you off the road by the sounds of it.

[Bob Mannix]

There are no circumstances where driving does not increase the danger.

[Reentrant]

Me too. Except it was a surveyor in a hi-vis operating a theodolite.

[Mark]

.. or a white van, or a vauxhall, or a ford, or .....

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Yes it does. There are loads of occasions when the stated speed limit is too high - so requires judgement from the driver, not blind acceptance.

Crap.

You've obviously never driven on a deserted motorway in the early morning. It follows that if 70 mph is 'safe' on a busy one a higher speed will be equally as safe on an empty one. Of course to be totally safe zero mph is the only option.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Dunno if you know Trinity Road, Wandsworth, which runs from Wandsworth Bridge to Tooting Bec in near enough a straight line. The bridge end is 3 lane dual carriageway - part of the proposed motorway box system - while the rest single carriageway. The dual carriageway is 40 mph with a speed camera in each direction. And you can guarantee the traffic brakes to under 30mph at them.

[Adrian]

"Dave Plowman (News)" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

I've had the dopy buggers do that from c.35mph to c.20mph... IN NSLs...

[Dave Plowman (News)]

They probably think they gain brownie points to be offset against real ones when they speed past one they haven't seen.

[Tony Bryer]

Given that we set speed limits in 10mph increments and (theoretically anyway) the speed limit will never be set higher than the deemed safe speed, statistically the safe speed will on average be at least 5mph higher than the speed limit.

[John Rumm]

Nonsense. There are occasions where the appropriate and safe speed for a road may be above the limit, and occasions where it will be below the limit. The limit is simply an arbitrary compromise.

29.9 mph safe, 30.1 mph dangerous? If only life were as simple.

Yeah right... shame there is no requirement for the accident that "justifies" the placement of the camera to actually be speed related in the first place. (one justification that was questioned and investigated turned out to be a fatality caused by someone by jumping off a bridge onto the road)

So there are no fines then if the operator of the camera is not part of a partnership?

And now have the opportunity to rake more money in general...

Can I?

Must be the people I talk to.

I am sure the government quite likes the idea of getting someone else to do all the donkey work and just scraping off the lions share of the fine revenue.

It seems more likely you have not understood it, or it simply disagrees with your simplistic but religiously held beliefs and preconceptions.

Do away with most cameras (save them for circumstances where they can do some good), remove the national speed limit altogether from the better motorways and dual carriageways, and focus your attention to improving road quality and driver education with regard to the use of appropriate speed (and many other danger factors) rather than bleating the nonsensical black and white "speed kills" mantra.

Inappropriate speed can be a contributory factor to accidents* - and that is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as speeding.

• Up to one third, the studies would suggest, however it is but only one factor, and you typically need several others to result in an accident - why do the others get so little attention?

More importantly why do the two thirds where excessive speed is not a factor at all, receive even less attention?

Increase crime due to reduced co-operation with the police. Increased accidents caused by people reacting to cameras and loosing concentration on driving. Increased injury rates due to higher impact speeds, caused by distraction. Increased traffic through side streets to avoid heavily camera populated routes. Increased fuel consumption, pollution, noise and wear and tear on cars as people brake (needlessly in many cases) and accelerate around cameras (or worse, things they think are cameras). Increased unnecessary lane changes to avoid the second set of SPECS cameras etc.

Over simplistic solutions seem to appeal to simple people and politicians, but are almost always counter productive in the real world.

Amazing the conclusions you jump to.

I think part P is stupid. Does that immediately mean my electrical skills and knowledge are inadequate, and someone should confiscate my wire cutters?

[Rod]

You mention 'the danger' without specifying what danger. I take 'danger' as being the overall danger apparent.

A fire engine coming to put out a fire could very well increase the danger to people in the building by NOT exceeding the posted speed limit.

An ambulance carrying a emergency patient might be putting that person's life in danger by not exceeding the posted limit.

A police car stopping a dangerous driver could well be putting other live in greater danger by not exceeding the posted limit.

And *anyone* in a suitably urgent situation has the option to exceed the posted limit in order to save lives. Situations of which I have heard include taking accident victims or pregnant women to hospital and even a taxi transporting an organ for transplant. To emphasise this, it has even been known for police to escort such drivers.

A person driving along an unrestricted motorway who sees the 40 limit sign light up immediately in front of them *should not* slam their brakes on to comply.

All the above might have to answer in court as to what they decided to do. All potentially can be justified but the argument would have to involve the balance of dangers.

You statement is just simplistic.

I try always to obey speed limits. But the last time I had to get to hospital in a hurry I would happily have exceeded the 20 and 30 limits on the way - but I was in an ambulance so had no need to worry for myself or the sick person.