RE: Speed Cameras Watch As Accidents Increase
Discussion
911motorsport said:
wavesport7 said:
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I hate speed cameras, however I also hate people who drive without due care and attention.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Good job you did not hurt the kids in the mpv!!
Quite why you bothered to admit you are a careless driver is beyond me.
k off tosser with your plastic pretend race car and read my follow up comment. Knob!Edited by 911motorsport on Tuesday 26th July 14:36
If the muppet in the MPV had been a little more alert and was aware of there sped before seeing the camera, they would not have had to break at all, thus the entire incident would not have happened
I've always been a sceptic, to be honest. I remember the A420 from Swindon to Oxford. Used to be policed, now there are speed cameras. So everyone knows where they are, and that the road is not patrolled, and the trucks do 40 past the speed cameras and 70 everywhere else.
There's a speed camera at the end of my village, which is a 40 limit. You can hear the juggernauts going pedal-to-the-metal as soon as they're past it; some of them pass my house doing 65+.
There's a speed camera at the end of my village, which is a 40 limit. You can hear the juggernauts going pedal-to-the-metal as soon as they're past it; some of them pass my house doing 65+.
Okay here is my take on this:
The Government remove all speed camera, which would put a lot of people out of work i.e. thes that collect the money, operate the cameras etc. and they wouldn't have any revenue from the cameras either. But, and this is my point.
We the people would then all be £60 or more better off which would mean we would spend the extra £60 of which 20% is VAT which would go straight to the government and if we spent the extra £60 on petrol they would actually get a lot more than 20% because of the fuel duty. If we bought beer, wine spirits or cigarettes then again the Government would get more than the 20% of the £60 back.
The courts would also have a lot more time to prosecute real criminals as they wouldn't have to chase all of the people that refused to pay their fines or challenged their fines. the Police wouldn't now be paying the camera operators and fine collectors out of their budgets and therefore they could employ more police to catch real criminals who might now get tried as the courts would now have more time.
We the people would also be better off as the insurance industry would have to reduce the loading that they put on policies for drivers with speeding convictions and we would have less accidents as we could actually look where we are going rather than looking at the speedo, so again we would have more money to spend which would again mean the Government would see an increase in VAT revenue etc.
So to sum up if we got rid of speed cameras everyone would be better off, the Government would suddenly not be in debt and the only people to suffer would be thes that operate the cameras and we all hate them anyway so who cares?
The Government remove all speed camera, which would put a lot of people out of work i.e. the
s that collect the money, operate the cameras etc. and they wouldn't have any revenue from the cameras either. But, and this is my point. We the people would then all be £60 or more better off which would mean we would spend the extra £60 of which 20% is VAT which would go straight to the government and if we spent the extra £60 on petrol they would actually get a lot more than 20% because of the fuel duty. If we bought beer, wine spirits or cigarettes then again the Government would get more than the 20% of the £60 back.
The courts would also have a lot more time to prosecute real criminals as they wouldn't have to chase all of the people that refused to pay their fines or challenged their fines. the Police wouldn't now be paying the
camera operators and fine collectors out of their budgets and therefore they could employ more police to catch real criminals who might now get tried as the courts would now have more time.We the people would also be better off as the insurance industry would have to reduce the loading that they put on policies for drivers with speeding convictions and we would have less accidents as we could actually look where we are going rather than looking at the speedo, so again we would have more money to spend which would again mean the Government would see an increase in VAT revenue etc.
So to sum up if we got rid of speed cameras everyone would be better off, the Government would suddenly not be in debt and the only people to suffer would be the
s that operate the cameras and we all hate them anyway so who cares?911motorsport said:
wavesport7 said:
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I hate speed cameras, however I also hate people who drive without due care and attention.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Good job you did not hurt the kids in the mpv!!
Quite why you bothered to admit you are a careless driver is beyond me.
k off tosser and read my follow up comment. Knob!It does smell of being too close.
Were you really in an SD1? Perhaps you should have extended your 'safe distance' to compensate for the inadequacies of the vehicle?? In other words you weren't following at a safe distance.
At a 'safe distance' I would suggest that the MPV driver's ridiculous, erratic and unneccessary driving shouldn't have been a problem - especially for an advanced driver. Also, I am slightly curious (but only slightly) as to the speed of the impact and how it resulted in such severe injuries. Clearly not that much braking had been achieved - braking that would have been achieved at a safe distance?
vetteheadracer said:
Okay here is my take on this:
So to sum up if we got rid of speed cameras everyone would be better off, the Government would suddenly not be in debt and the only people to suffer would be thes that operate the cameras and we all hate them anyway so who cares?
I love it! So to sum up if we got rid of speed cameras everyone would be better off, the Government would suddenly not be in debt and the only people to suffer would be the
s that operate the cameras and we all hate them anyway so who cares?I know it is only meant as entertainment and i would never quote Top Gear normally, however JC did once make the comment that it would be very useful if cameras had the speed limit on them because sometimes you (instinctively) slow down and often by too much especially on roads which have varying speed limits throughout (the M4 is a good example).
Saddened by some of the comments on this thread it is a shame we can't have a debate based on experience and knowledge rather than opinion followed by disrespectful outbursts...
Saddened by some of the comments on this thread it is a shame we can't have a debate based on experience and knowledge rather than opinion followed by disrespectful outbursts...
Goodfella 555 said:
I know it is only meant as entertainment and i would never quote Top Gear normally, however JC did once make the comment that it would be very useful if cameras had the speed limit on them because sometimes you (instinctively) slow down and often by too much especially on roads which have varying speed limits throughout (the M4 is a good example).
Saddened by some of the comments on this thread it is a shame we can't have a debate based on experience and knowledge rather than opinion followed by disrespectful outbursts...
I agree, and did not want to get involved in disrespectful comments, however you can never blame a car in front of you, surely. My simple understanding of following another car is that if it stopped dead, you should still be able to stop in your own space.Saddened by some of the comments on this thread it is a shame we can't have a debate based on experience and knowledge rather than opinion followed by disrespectful outbursts...
Boltee101 said:
vetteheadracer said:
Okay here is my take on this:
So to sum up if we got rid of speed cameras everyone would be better off, the Government would suddenly not be in debt and the only people to suffer would be thes that operate the cameras and we all hate them anyway so who cares?
I love it! So to sum up if we got rid of speed cameras everyone would be better off, the Government would suddenly not be in debt and the only people to suffer would be the
s that operate the cameras and we all hate them anyway so who cares?Loving the "SD1 can't outbrake an MPV" debate - surely no surprise there...? The seasoned racing driver must be used to tailgating similarly performing vehicles to his own around a track, not ones with superior braking ability on the public highway. Does he (she?) blow his horn at people waiting to pull out at a junction too? After all, the driver behind has a much better view of the hazards than the driver actually negotiating them. Advanced driver? I do hope not.
wavesport7 said:
I agree, and did not want to get involved in disrespectful comments, however you can never blame a car in front of you, surely. My simple understanding of following another car is that if it stopped dead, you should still be able to stop in your own space.
Forgetting and ignoring any previous argument (i'm not here to police people's respect levels!) it isn't always as straight forward as that, your car could get steamed up (esp an SD1 i'm guessing) the conditions (again this includes visibility) could be poor, you could be checking your own speed, you could hit some diesel i could go on and on however having cameras does cause people, instinctively or otherwise to brake suddenly and this can be dangerous. In an ideal world we'd never be in a rush, changing a CD, punching a sat nav etc however having something on the road that creates extra problems is not a good thing. And i believe poor driving is a bigger problem than speed.911motorsport said:
AlexKing said:
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Sorry, but if this is the case then you were too damn close to the car in front. Anything could have been round that bend - not just a Gatso.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I hate speed cameras (note - not safety cameras; they're not measuring how many safetys per hour I'm doing) as much as the next man, but there does also seem to be an element of selective quoting of figures in the story and febrile ranting on this thread.
Don't get me wrong - I would much rather every speed camera in the land were binned and we got on with training drivers better instead, but if anti-camera people seize on dubious or incomplete evidence to "prove" that the cameras are bad, then we're just as bad as the pro-camera lobby who have long done the same to "prove" that they're good.
The only 'random' hazard that was NOT in view was the Gatso. This was because it was set a long way away from the verge and only became apparent once you were more or less on top of it. In my opinion it was an accident that had been engineered into the section of road by f
kwits who, if I had died in that accident, I would be suing for manslaughter!Heavy loaded MPV breaking in the front - about 40mph - 2 sec gap (minimum) - clear road - advanced driver in a vehicle that he knows = bad accident
Good choice not to plough into the kids
scenario is simple,
1) blame everything on speed without any further analysis
2) buy new speed cameras
3) increase revenue
4) put the money generated by speed cameras into benefit (or any other nontraffic related) payments instead of reinvesting them into more traffic police officers (pretending that speed cameras and cctv can do a good enough job)
5) pay even more benefits and start reducing the number of traffic police officers (cameras do an amazing job, don't they!)
6) thanks to 1-5 drivers begin realising that they can they the mickey and - unless they brake too late - they won't get done for it
7) as the driving standards go down the gutter number of non speed related accidents goes up
8) no 7 is blamed on speed
9) more speed cameras are introduced
10) less money for traffic police
11) people take even more mickey
12) where does this end?
1) blame everything on speed without any further analysis
2) buy new speed cameras
3) increase revenue
4) put the money generated by speed cameras into benefit (or any other nontraffic related) payments instead of reinvesting them into more traffic police officers (pretending that speed cameras and cctv can do a good enough job)
5) pay even more benefits and start reducing the number of traffic police officers (cameras do an amazing job, don't they!)
6) thanks to 1-5 drivers begin realising that they can they the mickey and - unless they brake too late - they won't get done for it
7) as the driving standards go down the gutter number of non speed related accidents goes up
8) no 7 is blamed on speed
9) more speed cameras are introduced
10) less money for traffic police
11) people take even more mickey
12) where does this end?
nouze said:
scenario is simple,
1) blame everything on speed without any further analysis
2) buy new speed cameras
3) increase revenue
4) put the money generated by speed cameras into benefit (or any other nontraffic related) payments instead of reinvesting them into more traffic police officers (pretending that speed cameras and cctv can do a good enough job)
5) pay even more benefits and start reducing the number of traffic police officers (cameras do an amazing job, don't they!)
6) thanks to 1-5 drivers begin realising that they can they the mickey and - unless they brake too late - they won't get done for it
7) as the driving standards go down the gutter number of non speed related accidents goes up
8) no 7 is blamed on speed
9) more speed cameras are introduced
10) less money for traffic police
11) people take even more mickey
12) where does this end?
may be when no3 doesn't work? no one forces drivers to break the limit and pay penalties 1) blame everything on speed without any further analysis
2) buy new speed cameras
3) increase revenue
4) put the money generated by speed cameras into benefit (or any other nontraffic related) payments instead of reinvesting them into more traffic police officers (pretending that speed cameras and cctv can do a good enough job)
5) pay even more benefits and start reducing the number of traffic police officers (cameras do an amazing job, don't they!)
6) thanks to 1-5 drivers begin realising that they can they the mickey and - unless they brake too late - they won't get done for it
7) as the driving standards go down the gutter number of non speed related accidents goes up
8) no 7 is blamed on speed
9) more speed cameras are introduced
10) less money for traffic police
11) people take even more mickey
12) where does this end?
it is all deliberate in 90-99%DeadMeat_UK said:
Average speed cameras seem to do the trick.
But the main thing that seems to work are the "Slow Down" lights that illuminate if you are over the threshold - they seem to act enough to make people consider the speed they should be doing and adjust more gently downwards.
I did read somewhere that illuminated signs were more effective.But the main thing that seems to work are the "Slow Down" lights that illuminate if you are over the threshold - they seem to act enough to make people consider the speed they should be doing and adjust more gently downwards.
However, the question still remains - by sticking to the speed limit, are we driving at the most appropriate speed to the conditions? Does it improve road safety?
How often do the words 'road safety' crop up in debates on speed cameras. Answer: not often.
TVRWannabee said:
DeadMeat_UK said:
Average speed cameras seem to do the trick.
But the main thing that seems to work are the "Slow Down" lights that illuminate if you are over the threshold - they seem to act enough to make people consider the speed they should be doing and adjust more gently downwards.
I did read somewhere that illuminated signs were more effective.But the main thing that seems to work are the "Slow Down" lights that illuminate if you are over the threshold - they seem to act enough to make people consider the speed they should be doing and adjust more gently downwards.
However, the question still remains - by sticking to the speed limit, are we driving at the most appropriate speed to the conditions? Does it improve road safety?
How often do the words 'road safety' crop up in debates on speed cameras. Answer: not often.
Wihtout wishing to get all "Big Brother" about it - the other repercussion of speed cameras is the huge temptation not to register your car against your name. Rather than play by the rules and have some accountability for your actions (including any accidents or hit and runs) just clone someone else's plate and drive without insurance.
I'm fortunate in that I can afford my motoring without having to make difficult decisions elsewhere, however for many people I assume the temptation to say "sod it" and break the law must be very hard.
I'm fortunate in that I can afford my motoring without having to make difficult decisions elsewhere, however for many people I assume the temptation to say "sod it" and break the law must be very hard.
Speed cameras are killing all the polar bears though. Cant we just use the eco BS against the speed kills BS, using their own toys against them. It would be cool if someone put the effort into working out what these cameras directly cost drivers in terms of fuel, component wear and accidents. Then what all these extras are doing to the environment that could easily be saved. I'd imagine we'd see significant enough figures to make people take notice, the eco reactionaries alone could probably get them all turned off within a month.
I'd gladly see them all converted to distance monitors so people would stop tailgating me.
I'd gladly see them all converted to distance monitors so people would stop tailgating me.
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Sorry to hear that, but what springs to mind is that you was too close, suppose they had rounded a bend and came across a slow moving tractor, a broken down car, or even an animal in the road, they would still have anchored up, and you would still had hit the tree.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I fully support that cameras are dangerous as people do anchore up, but that is no excuse for following too closly on a bend.
911motorsport said:
The only 'random' hazard that was NOT in view was the Gatso.
Much as I hate Gatsos and the racketeering scum who run them there are many reasons why the car ahead might anchor up and you should always maintain sufficient separation to allow you to stop should they do so...Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff