Discussion
puggit said:
if...the camera is needed there
No camera is needed anywhere.
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
And how many have continous road safety improvements year on year?
gopher said:Depends how the statistics are collated
if...the camera is needed there
No camera is needed anywhere.
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
And how many have continous road safety improvements year on year?
gopher said:
if...the camera is needed there
No camera is needed anywhere.
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
And how many have continous road safety improvements year on year?
There are regions outperforming the North East when it comes to reductions.
And Durham do of course rotate the use of their camera van at 15 different sites.
Can't always agree about poor observation VH, although sadly there are plenty of "blind" drivers on the roads.
The camera van that was the subject of my original post was parked (intentionally of course to maximise revenue) so that oncoming traffic was unable to see it until passing the apex of the bend, when it was immediately in sight. This would account for the dangerous scenario I originally described.
It was causing danger to a smooth running stretch of the M4 & IMO the operator/s should be ashamed of themselves for putting lives at risk.
No point me saying anymore on this topic, these are my own views, I've driven at least 20,000 miles p.a on motorways for the last 13 years & I'm not going to be persuaded that putting camera vans on bridges that can't clearly be seen is good for safety.
The camera van that was the subject of my original post was parked (intentionally of course to maximise revenue) so that oncoming traffic was unable to see it until passing the apex of the bend, when it was immediately in sight. This would account for the dangerous scenario I originally described.
It was causing danger to a smooth running stretch of the M4 & IMO the operator/s should be ashamed of themselves for putting lives at risk.
No point me saying anymore on this topic, these are my own views, I've driven at least 20,000 miles p.a on motorways for the last 13 years & I'm not going to be persuaded that putting camera vans on bridges that can't clearly be seen is good for safety.
vonhosen said:Virtually all of their forces have worse road safety records than Durham. Which just goes to show that the brown nose variety of sheep are dumb as well as easily led within nu labia's politicised police policies.
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
Between 1998 and 2004 Durham's road fatality total dropped from 44 to 32, Lancs - a scamhappy force - increased from 84 to 88 in spite of expanding numbers of speed cameras and a shameful website headline 'speed cameras effective in spite of increase in road deaths'. Unlike most kinds of statistic where the possibility of cherry picking could arise, it's very difficult to be accused in this instance as virtually every comparison works out the same, Durham has done much better than most police forces.
Della Cannings of Yorkshire shared the Garvin view, as do (did, some move on) senior officers in the Met, Manchester, Midlands etc. who recognise that speed cameras represent a failing policy that's causing a lot of harm.
vonhosen said:
I'm not going to be persuaded that putting camera vans on bridges that can't clearly be seen is good for safety.
But you are saying that them being seen is causing the problem, surely if they can't be it is safer than what you are describing.
True, but the "invisible" camera van is not being used. Visible camera vans, albeit in this particular case at the last moment, are being used & I believe creating potential danger on the countries safest roads.
turbobloke said:
And how many Chief Constables have an opposing view for their areas of responsibility ?
Between 1998 and 2004 Durham's road fatality total dropped from 44 to 32, Lancs - a scamhappy force - increased from 84 to 88 in spite of expanding numbers of speed cameras and a shameful website headline 'speed cameras effective in spite of increase in road deaths'. Unlike most kinds of statistic where the possibility of cherry picking could arise, it's very difficult to be accused in this instance as virtually every comparison works out the same, Durham has done much better than most police forces.
Della Cannings of Yorkshire shared the Garvin view, as do (did, some move on) senior officers in the Met, Manchester, Midlands etc. who recognise that speed cameras represent a failing policy that's causing a lot of harm.
Thankyou TB, saved me some typing (and lot's of looking up
)vonhosen said:
I'm not going to be persuaded that putting camera vans on bridges that can't clearly be seen is good for safety.
But you are saying that them being seen is causing the problem, surely if they can't be it is safer than what you are describing.
need for that! Self evidently, if they can't be seen, there's at least a medium probability that nobody's changing their behaviour on account of them. On the other hand, if they can be seen, there's the possibility of unsafe reaction. F****** hell. Sometimes conversing with you is like talking to a 3 year old!!
>> Edited by Big Al. on Tuesday 25th April 23:15
gopher said:No worries. If we had a lot more CC's prepared to see the data from scammers for what it is and think for themselves like Garvin did, the nation's roads would be a safer and more pleasant place for every road user.
Thankyou TB, saved me some typing (and lot's of looking up
CC Paul Garvin said:
Exceeding the speed limit related to just 60 collisions per year out of a total of 1,900 collisions in the Durham area — that’s about 3%
And
Garvin also said:
The pro-camera lobby, and a lot of the safety partnerships, deliberately misquote the statistics to try and mislead people to try and justify their position
No writs were issued.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 25th April 22:50
Observer2 said:
I'm not going to be persuaded that putting camera vans on bridges that can't clearly be seen is good for safety.
But you are saying that them being seen is causing the problem, surely if they can't be it is safer than what you are describing.
Self evidently, if they can't be seen, there's at least a medium probability that nobody's changing their behaviour on account of them. On the other hand, if they can be seen, there's the possibility of unsafe reaction. F****** hell. Sometimes conversing with you is like talking to a 3 year old!!
The signage will warn them, the hidden camera means it'll be pointless trying to look for it & braking for it, hence best observe the limit throughout the identified problem area & not try & look out for the camera instead, which is what is wanted in the first place.
Actually, I'd say what is wanted is good safe driving practise on the roads. Driving to take into account the volume of traffic, light & weather conditions, type of vehicle, pedestrians etc. etc. Unlikey to happen if everyone is watching their speedo or playing spot the "invisible" camera (which everyone would inevitable do , as truly invisible cameras don't exist. Unless of course you count the invisible man's one)!
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Tuesday 25th April 23:41
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Tuesday 25th April 23:41
A57 HSV said:
Actually, I'd say what is wanted is good safe driving practise on the roads. Driving to take into account the volume of traffic, light & weather conditions, type of vehicle, pedestrians etc. etc.
Why's that not posssible within & only upto speed limits then ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th April 23:41
vonhosen said:Because driving at a speed not well matched to a safe speed for the road i.e. below it can and often does lead to boredom, inattention, and increased risk - which would happen even more if people stuck to archaic silly slow speed limits that have already contributed to road deaths. And only about 3 to 4% of crashes are related to speed
Actually, I'd say what is wanted is good safe driving practise on the roads. Driving to take into account the volume of traffic, light & weather conditions, type of vehicle, pedestrians etc. etc.
Why's that not posssible within & only upto speed limits then ?
Much better to focus on the remaining 96% which has a significantly higher set of figures relating for example to inattention (surprise surprise), following too close, limited observation and inadequate use of mirrors / shoulder checks, poor hazard recognition and anticipation, driving while tired or under the influence, not leaving a suitable distance to the vehicle ahead.
GATSOs are just so jolly soooooooooooooooooper at detecting and especially preventing all those.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 26th April 00:00
vonhosen said:
Actually, I'd say what is wanted is good safe driving practise on the roads. Driving to take into account the volume of traffic, light & weather conditions, type of vehicle, pedestrians etc. etc.
Why's that not posssible within & only upto speed limits then ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 25th April 23:41
It is & it's also possible above posted speed limits. My original post describes IMO a safe motorway scenario, despite some vehicles travelling at approx. 80-85 mph. What made it unsafe was the camera van. As I have already said, I believe the same thing would have happened even if all vehicles had been travelling at 70 mph or less. Suddenly seeing a camera van can cause drivers to brake too hard.
To avoid this natural reaction & the potentially lethal consequences, ban camera vans on motorways.
Good night all.
turbobloke said:
Much better to focus on the remaining 96% which has a significantly higher set of figures relating for example to inattention (surprise surprise), following too close, limited observation and inadequate use of mirrors / shoulder checks, poor hazard recognition and anticipation, driving while tired or under the influence, not leaving a suitable distance to the vehicle ahead.
Higher speed exaggerates those problems, it deosn't help them.
vonhosen said:Only 3% to 4% of crashes are speed related, whatever other relations are present - that's close to irrelevant.
Much better to focus on the remaining 96% which has a significantly higher set of figures relating for example to inattention (surprise surprise), following too close, limited observation and inadequate use of mirrors / shoulder checks, poor hazard recognition and anticipation, driving while tired or under the influence, not leaving a suitable distance to the vehicle ahead.
Higher speed exaggerates those problems, it deosn't help them.
Your point only has any basis or real world relevance under the presupposition that speed is a major factor in crashes. The presupposition isn't valid so your point crashes.
Then prevent the crashes and you won't need to concern anyone with the irrelevance that is speed. As only 3% of crashes have causes related to speed it represents atrocious prioritising in safety terms to focus on it. Easy to measure but not important in the key issue of prevention. Better and safer not to have crashes than to think you're doing something useful by trying to engineer them at slower speeds, fatal mistake (pun intended). So road safety would be better managed with a focus away from speed and onto the main causes of crashes which don't include speeding. See Durham vs everywhere else as posted previously.
Vonhosen, the simple problem is this.
Speed is simply not the issue. Why are you making it out to be so? I'm not saying that flooring it along at 130 is safe, but you simply cannot say that just because someone is doing 79 they are automatically in the wrong (or going too fast).
The whole point with speed is selecting a speed which you are comfortable with and can stop within a safe distance, as well as taking into account other factors (such as weather (etc.), so that in itself removes the "increase in speed increases severity of accidents" argument. Do you honestly think that suddenly forcing people to check that their neeedles isn't pointing above 70 is going to make a difference to safety?
I can, with a fair amount of confidence say, it won't.
If people are forced to travel slower than they can safely be 'comfortable' with, then other issues come in, such as lack of concetration, distraction etc, which dosen't help with safety.
I'm pretty sure you've come across a speed limit which you think, "for god's sake why?" or something like that. How do you feel, or drive when you come across these sort of limits?
Speed is simply not the issue. Why are you making it out to be so? I'm not saying that flooring it along at 130 is safe, but you simply cannot say that just because someone is doing 79 they are automatically in the wrong (or going too fast).
The whole point with speed is selecting a speed which you are comfortable with and can stop within a safe distance, as well as taking into account other factors (such as weather (etc.), so that in itself removes the "increase in speed increases severity of accidents" argument. Do you honestly think that suddenly forcing people to check that their neeedles isn't pointing above 70 is going to make a difference to safety?
I can, with a fair amount of confidence say, it won't.
If people are forced to travel slower than they can safely be 'comfortable' with, then other issues come in, such as lack of concetration, distraction etc, which dosen't help with safety.
I'm pretty sure you've come across a speed limit which you think, "for god's sake why?" or something like that. How do you feel, or drive when you come across these sort of limits?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff