Helicopter on A40 for collision within average speed cameras

[GPSHead]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe we should all drive at 100mph thru 30 limits. The thrill of living on the edge, driving at high trying to spot possible hazards will surely lead to a reduction in accidents.

I think you're probably aware that there's a happy medium here. We don't want people going too fast for the conditions (not that speed limits/cameras are really able to prevent that of course), but nor do we want to force them to go so much slower than an appropriate speed for the conditions that the effect is soporific. (Oh, and making people go much slower than is necessary adds unnecessarily to their journey time, but I know we're only talking about scumbag drivers here, so obviously that doesn't matter.)

I think you and others on this thread are actually entirely able to tell the difference between "100mph thru 30 limits" and, say, 60-70mph on an empty dual carriageway which used to be NSL and is now 40. Let's not stupidly exaggerate opponents' arguments in an attempt to score silly points, eh? Have you or have you not ever found your attention wandering at all when forced to travel at a much slower speed than the conditions would suggest?

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Some of the stupid arguments against speed cameras do nothing but harm to the anti speed camera debate. Drivers get bored sticking to the limit so are more dangerous, and you have to drive with your eyes glued to the speedo are 2 of the most stupid.

Since you're so anxious to do good to the "anti-speed camera debate", which arguments against cameras do you consider to be the best?

Edited by GPSHead on Thursday 26th November 18:44

[GPSHead]

tuffer said:

A speed camera of any type has never caused an accident. a driver reacting badly to seeing a speed camera on the other hand.....

You could make a similar argument about people who drive at 10mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're not going to cause many collisions themselves at that sort of speed, but why introduce something that is going to create a risk of drivers "reacting badly", unless it can be shown to have benefits that outweigh that risk?

(And, as has been pointed out in this thread, TfL etc don't seem too keen to attempt to ascertain the actual benefits of cameras, almost as though they're afraid that any such study would produce the "wrong" results...I'm really glad that people with that sort of attitude are in charge of our road safety!)

[tuffer]

GPSHead said:

tuffer said:

A speed camera of any type has never caused an accident. a driver reacting badly to seeing a speed camera on the other hand.....

You could make a similar argument about people who drive at 10mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're not going to cause many collisions themselves at that sort of speed, but why introduce something that is going to create a risk of drivers "reacting badly", unless it can be shown to have benefits that outweigh that risk?

(And, as has been pointed out in this thread, TfL etc don't seem too keen to attempt to ascertain the actual benefits of cameras, almost as though they're afraid that any such study would produce the "wrong" results...I'm really glad that people with that sort of attitude are in charge of our road safety!)

Maybe we should remove Cattle grids, blind crests, bends in the road and slippery stuff.

[vonhosen]

GPSHead said:

tuffer said:

A speed camera of any type has never caused an accident. a driver reacting badly to seeing a speed camera on the other hand.....

You could make a similar argument about people who drive at 10mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're not going to cause many collisions themselves at that sort of speed, but why introduce something that is going to create a risk of drivers "reacting badly", unless it can be shown to have benefits that outweigh that risk?

(And, as has been pointed out in this thread, TfL etc don't seem too keen to attempt to ascertain the actual benefits of cameras, almost as though they're afraid that any such study would produce the "wrong" results...I'm really glad that people with that sort of attitude are in charge of our road safety!)

Enforcement is a consequence of speed limits. So the question is whether speed limits are a benefit? If we need or benefit from speed limits then we have to accept enforcement just comes part/parcel with it & that means whenever/wherever too.

[XCP]

If I see average speed cameras I tend to think to myself that they must be here for a reason and consequently tend be more alert not less.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

GPSHead said:

Since you're so anxious to do good to the "anti-speed camera debate", which arguments against cameras do you consider to be the best?

Edited by GPSHead on Thursday 26th November 18:44

The fact that they have largely replaced traffic police. The Yorkshire Ripper was caught after being pulled over for a dodgy rear light. Today, that would be much less likely to happen. If you aren't speeding and have tax and insurance thus satisfy ANPR, and don't drive like a complete tit, you can pretty much get away with anything.

[Dave Finney]

tuffer said:

GPSHead said:

tuffer said:

A speed camera of any type has never caused an accident. a driver reacting badly to seeing a speed camera on the other hand.....

You could make a similar argument about people who drive at 10mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're not going to cause many collisions themselves at that sort of speed, but why introduce something that is going to create a risk of drivers "reacting badly", unless it can be shown to have benefits that outweigh that risk?

(And, as has been pointed out in this thread, TfL etc don't seem too keen to attempt to ascertain the actual benefits of cameras, almost as though they're afraid that any such study would produce the "wrong" results...I'm really glad that people with that sort of attitude are in charge of our road safety!)

Maybe we should remove Cattle grids, blind crests, bends in the road and slippery stuff.

We've done that and we call them motorways. Motorways are our safest (and fastest) roads.

[vonhosen]

Dave Finney said:

tuffer said:

GPSHead said:

tuffer said:

A speed camera of any type has never caused an accident. a driver reacting badly to seeing a speed camera on the other hand.....

You could make a similar argument about people who drive at 10mph on motorways and dual carriageways. They're not going to cause many collisions themselves at that sort of speed, but why introduce something that is going to create a risk of drivers "reacting badly", unless it can be shown to have benefits that outweigh that risk?

(And, as has been pointed out in this thread, TfL etc don't seem too keen to attempt to ascertain the actual benefits of cameras, almost as though they're afraid that any such study would produce the "wrong" results...I'm really glad that people with that sort of attitude are in charge of our road safety!)

Maybe we should remove Cattle grids, blind crests, bends in the road and slippery stuff.

We've done that and we call them motorways. Motorways are our safest (and fastest) roads.

Yep, they are our fastest because they are our safest, not our safest because they are our fastest.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Yep, they are our fastest because they are our safest, not our safest because they are our fastest.

Exactly.

Just like our slowest roads are slow because they're the most dangerous. Making them slow doesn't make them safe.

People, even those on foot, have always slowed down when and where there's danger - when things can happen very quickly and/or unexpectedly, and there might not be sufficient time to react.

So we can say that danger = slow

But, somehow, this entirely logical association has been transmogrified into fast = danger, and, by extension, slow = safe.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Yep, they are our fastest because they are our safest, not our safest because they are our fastest.

Exactly.

Just like our slowest roads are slow because they're the most dangerous. Making them slow doesn't make them safe.

People, even those on foot, have always slowed down when and where there's danger - when things can happen very quickly and/or unexpectedly, and there might not be sufficient time to react.

So we can say that danger = slow

But, somehow, this entirely logical association has been transmogrified into fast = danger, and, by extension, slow = safe.

Where there is danger you should be slow, not that that means slow is dangerous. Slow is, just, slow.

So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger

[Sportidge]

GPSHead said:

If a driver is forced to trundle along a free-flowing dual carriageway, at a speed significantly below its design speed, for miles on end, then do you think this is going to make them:

1. More alert;
2. Less alert;
3. No change?

Why are some people so averse to even considering that speed cameras may have any side effects? Sadly, it seems that for every person who instinctively hates the idea of a motorist being forced to travel at an unreasonably slow speed, there's another person who gets a hard-on from it, and will only be happy once government micromanages every aspect of our lives.

I am not saying speed cameras do not have any side effects. I agree they can cause bunching, sudden braking and other strange behaviours in the inattentive or unwary. However, I do not believe they cause tiredness, as suggested by the poster

Whilst I agree a driver may become less attentive on such a road, the cause of this is not a speed camera - it is the potentially inappropriate speed limit assigned to the road causing this.

The presence or otherwise of a speed camera on that stretch of road is immaterial to causing any 'tiredness'.

In fact, you could argue that if there were speed camera on the road, then the driver could possibly be more alert looking out for them....

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Where there is danger you should be slow, not that that means slow is dangerous. Slow is, just, slow.

So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger

I didn't say that.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Where there is danger you should be slow, not that that means slow is dangerous. Slow is, just, slow.

So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger

I didn't say that.

I know.

You said that fast doesn't equal dangerous & slow doesn't equal safe.
I'm saying it's also true that fast doesn't equal safe & slow doesn't equal dangerous.
The circumstances matter for that.

Speed limits or their enforcement aren't tied to that, because speed limits aren't about defining when safe becomes dangerous or prosecuting on that basis.
They are a blunt control measure within which people are expected to choose a safe speed for the circumstances. They merely limit the parameters of socially acceptable norms by defining the operating boundaries for a regulated activity.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Where there is danger you should be slow, not that that means slow is dangerous. Slow is, just, slow.

So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger

I didn't say that.

I know.

You said that fast doesn't equal dangerous & slow doesn't equal safe.
I'm saying it's also true that fast doesn't equal safe & slow doesn't equal dangerous.
The circumstances matter for that.

Speed limits or their enforcement aren't tied to that, because speed limits aren't about defining when safe becomes dangerous or prosecuting on that basis.
They are a blunt control measure within which people are expected to choose a safe speed for the circumstances. They merely limit the parameters of socially acceptable norms by defining the operating boundaries for a regulated activity.

Of course fast doesn't equal safe & slow doesn't equal dangerous - I didn't say that either, or even imply it.

What I am saying is that it's right and natural to slow down for danger.
But when and where there is no danger then speed is largely immaterial.

Leaving aside speeds which could lead directly to loss of control etc, there's no inherent danger in speed - neither is there inherent safety in slowness.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Where there is danger you should be slow, not that that means slow is dangerous. Slow is, just, slow.

So yes we can say that
danger = slow
not that
slow = danger

I didn't say that.

I know.

You said that fast doesn't equal dangerous & slow doesn't equal safe.
I'm saying it's also true that fast doesn't equal safe & slow doesn't equal dangerous.
The circumstances matter for that.

Speed limits or their enforcement aren't tied to that, because speed limits aren't about defining when safe becomes dangerous or prosecuting on that basis.
They are a blunt control measure within which people are expected to choose a safe speed for the circumstances. They merely limit the parameters of socially acceptable norms by defining the operating boundaries for a regulated activity.

Of course fast doesn't equal safe & slow doesn't equal dangerous - I didn't say that either, or even imply it.

What I am saying is that it's right and natural to slow down for danger.
But when and where there is no danger then speed is largely immaterial.

Leaving aside speeds which could lead directly to loss of control etc, there's no inherent danger in speed - neither is there inherent safety in slowness.

What you did was state an obvious whilst ignoring the opposite obvious. As you felt it necessary to point out one whilst excluding the other, I merely restored the equilibrium.

All of which has nothing much to do with defined socially acceptable boundaries for a regulated activity.

[Devil2575]

Another thread where brain donors spout bks...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Pete317 said:

- neither is there inherent safety in slowness.

But there is. If we had a max speed of 5mph and everyone stuck to it, we could probably reduce the death toll on our roads from about 1800/year down to single figures. But the country would grind to a halt, the economy would collapse etc. So we have to find a balance, between allowing greater speeds that are inherently more dangerous and keeping everyone moving and the wheels of industry turning.

When you're driving along the 3 lane stretch of the A40 at 3am and you're stuck at 40 mph due to average speed cameras, it's going to be frustrating. But even at that time, something can always go wrong, a puncture, a deer running out or whatever ( I've seen a deer on the A40 by Hanger Lane). If that happens, you're better off doing 40 than 70.

And let's not forget, for 95% of the time, you'll never get close to 40mph on the stretch of road in question, because it's rammed with traffic.

[GuitarPlayer63]

Oxford Road in Uxbridge has had the air ambulance on it, and there isn't a camera for about a mile from it.. the A40 has been closed loads of times inside the area where the average speed cameras are.

[CGJJ]

"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".

Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

CGJJ said:

"I've seen a deer on the road at Hanger Lane".

Best post ever in support of average speed cameras.

Daftest post considering I don't support average speed cameras. I just don't support stupid, brain dead and downright lazy arguments against them. It's the idiots with their rubbish arguments against that make the job so easy for the pro speed camera lobby.