Speed cameras: Are we interested in evidence?
Discussion
Dave Finney said:
Interestingly, there are examples of speed cameras leading to deaths.
Can hazard at one scenario, this happened to me, in cc spot on 70 decent distance between myself and car in front also doing 70, they rounded a slight bend on a dual carriageway, and anchored up.I slowed and as I got further along spotted a camera van in a layby, guessing driver had absolutely no idea what speed they were doing and anchored up just in case, a car driving closer may have had a collision.
Vipers said:
Dave Finney said:
Interestingly, there are examples of speed cameras leading to deaths.
Can hazard at one scenario, this happened to me, in cc spot on 70 decent distance between myself and car in front also doing 70, they rounded a slight bend on a dual carriageway, and anchored up.I slowed and as I got further along spotted a camera van in a layby, guessing driver had absolutely no idea what speed they were doing and anchored up just in case, a car driving closer may have had a collision.
and that occurred in 2 of the 3 examples on my "Effects of speed cameras" page.
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/effects-of-speed-c...
Sudden braking can have 3 effects:
1. "loss of control" (the top contributory factor in fatal collisions)
2. the vehicle behind running into the back (because the driver behind looked down at the speedometer at the same time)
3. It can lead to another road user, seeing the slowing vehicle, to think they are allowing them out/across.
But there are other negative effects we might not have realised.
One collision at one of the fixed speed cameras in Thames Valley
involved a motorcyclist who, after slowing for a fixed camera, pulled a wheelie.
This was at night, so his headlight now pointed up at the sky.
A couple in a car were crossing the main road and did not see the bike.
All 3 were killed.
Dave Finney said:
there are other negative effects we might not have realised.
One collision at one of the fixed speed cameras in Thames Valley involved a motorcyclist who, after slowing for a fixed camera, pulled a wheelie.
This was at night, so his headlight now pointed up at the sky.
A couple in a car were crossing the main road and did not see the bike.
All 3 were killed.
So, I'm clear........you're blaming the presence of a speed camera for an accident where a motorcyclist pulled a wheelie on a public road, thereby making his lights invisible, leading to a collision and death?One collision at one of the fixed speed cameras in Thames Valley involved a motorcyclist who, after slowing for a fixed camera, pulled a wheelie.
This was at night, so his headlight now pointed up at the sky.
A couple in a car were crossing the main road and did not see the bike.
All 3 were killed.
Muzzer79 said:
So, I'm clear........you're blaming the presence of a speed camera for an accident where a motorcyclist pulled a wheelie on a public road, thereby making his lights invisible, leading to a collision and death?
Of course not,simply stating what was reported.
A stated aim of the speed cameras is to cause behavioural change.
They are successful in doing this, but some of the changes may not be beneficial.
Dave Finney said:
Muzzer79 said:
So, I'm clear........you're blaming the presence of a speed camera for an accident where a motorcyclist pulled a wheelie on a public road, thereby making his lights invisible, leading to a collision and death?
Of course not,simply stating what was reported.
A stated aim of the speed cameras is to cause behavioural change.
They are successful in doing this, but some of the changes may not be beneficial.
I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
Muzzer79 said:
So you think the presence of a speed camera caused a motorcyclist to do a wheelie on a public road?
I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
Speed cameras cause "behavioural change", it's even a stated objective.I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
If that "behavioural change" leads to lives saved, great.
But they can lead to deaths that might not otherwise have occurred.
We cannot know how many of each of those,
but good quality research can tell us the nett effect (ie, one minus the other).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Dave Finney said:
Muzzer79 said:
So you think the presence of a speed camera caused a motorcyclist to do a wheelie on a public road?
I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
Speed cameras cause "behavioural change", it's even a stated objective.I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
If that "behavioural change" leads to lives saved, great.
But they can lead to deaths that might not otherwise have occurred.
We cannot know how many of each of those,
but good quality research can tell us the nett effect (ie, one minus the other).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
vonhosen said:
The speed limit (or camera) didn't cause him to do a wheelie & cause three deaths. That happened because he was a
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
May I ask, do you drive? It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
vonhosen said:
The speed limit (or camera) didn't cause him to do a wheelie & cause three deaths. That happened because he was a
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
Are you old enough to remember when speed limits existing in urban areas but the open road was derestricted? Seemed to work rather well.It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
That's what this sign used to mean (with or without the foliage):
Dave Finney said:
vonhosen said:
The speed limit (or camera) didn't cause him to do a wheelie & cause three deaths. That happened because he was a
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
May I ask, do you drive? It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
Socially, for fun & for a living.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 25th March 15:51
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
The speed limit (or camera) didn't cause him to do a wheelie & cause three deaths. That happened because he was a
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
Are you old enough to remember when speed limits existing in urban areas but the open road was derestricted? Seemed to work rather well.It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
That's what this sign used to mean (with or without the foliage):
That would depend on what your definition is of working well.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 25th March 15:56
vonhosen said:
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
The speed limit (or camera) didn't cause him to do a wheelie & cause three deaths. That happened because he was a
It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
Are you old enough to remember when speed limits existing in urban areas but the open road was derestricted? Seemed to work rather well.It's speed limits that are to promote the behavioural change.
Enforcement (by whatever means) is simply a consequence of the speed limit existence.
The question is, are we better off with speed limits or without them?
On balance, I think with them.
If we have them, then we have to have enforcement.
That's what this sign used to mean (with or without the foliage):
That would depend on what your definition is of working well.
Did derestricted open roads promote carnage?
heebeegeetee said:
bigothunter said:
Neither was I - too young.
Did derestricted open roads promote carnage?
Dunno, but was that in or about 1966 when the peace time death rate was at its highest? Did derestricted open roads promote carnage?
Caused by multiple factors. Derestricted roads had a minor or insignificant effect.
bigothunter said:
Are you old enough to remember when speed limits existing in urban areas but the open road was derestricted Seemed to work rather well.
That's what this sign used to mean (with or without the foliage):
Some may have a long memory, open roads were restricted 59 years ago. In those days, less traffic on the roads, not so poweful vehicles, and possibly, (guessing) not so many idiots on or roads who think they are Fangio, and probably (guessing) drivers paid more attention to driving than fiddling on their phones, sat nav's etc.That's what this sign used to mean (with or without the foliage):
BTY the NSL sign only came out in December 65 when unrestricted roads became restricted, don’t think it existed before that.
Edited by Vipers on Monday 25th March 17:44
Dave Finney said:
Muzzer79 said:
So you think the presence of a speed camera caused a motorcyclist to do a wheelie on a public road?
I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
Speed cameras cause "behavioural change", it's even a stated objective.I'm confused by your example and it's relevance to your point about speed camera "behavioural change"
If that "behavioural change" leads to lives saved, great.
But they can lead to deaths that might not otherwise have occurred.
We cannot know how many of each of those,
but good quality research can tell us the nett effect (ie, one minus the other).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Muzzer79 said:
Right, but I'm going to ask you to correlate the 'behavioural change' that has occurred, relevant to your example of a person pulling a wheelie on a motorbike.....?
When considering examples, we are discussing possibilities and people have differing opinions.So that's only really worthwhile, from a safety engineering perspective, once we have established what is happening.
Eg, if speed cameras saved lives, that's a very different discussion to if speed cameras are actually resulting in more deaths.
The first step in solving a problem, is to recognise that the problem exists.
The best evidence available suggests there are more people dead as a result of the use of speed cameras.
But we need to verify that.
We need to run scientific trials.
The problem is that the authorities refuse point blank to run them.
Vipers said:
BTY the NSL sign only came out in December 65 when unrestricted roads became restricted, don’t think it existed before that.
Road signs from the 1930s depicted below. The End of Speed Limit Sign (ie Derestriction) can be seen clearly.It wasn't always a Speed Limit sign. Took Tom Fraser and the Labour Party to remove that freedom.
Edited by bigothunter on Monday 25th March 19:14
bigothunter said:
Vipers said:
BTY the NSL sign only came out in December 65 when unrestricted roads became restricted, don’t think it existed before that.
Road signs from the 1930s depicted below. The End of Speed Limit Sign (ie Derestriction) can be seen clearly.It wasn't always a Speed Limit sign. Took Tom Fraser and the Labour Party to remove that freedom.
Edited by bigothunter on Monday 25th March 19:14
Wasn’t there some story about someone using the M1 for a test track, or just an urban myth?, which started the NSL coming in.
Vipers said:
Wasn’t there some story about someone using the M1 for a test track, or just an urban myth?, which started the NSL coming in.
Jack Sears in the AC Coupe. 185 mph on a deserted M1 at 4:30 in the morning 
https://www.chronomaddox.com/motorin/185mph_on_the...
But Hansard confirms 70 limit was a reaction to multiple pile-ups in thick fog when more than 30 mph was lethal. Pure political gesturing
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff