'Avin a larf! Lies from Cambs.
Discussion
Idiots or what? From the same site...
The patronising tone of the partnership is staggering...
[url] https://www.cambs-police.co.uk/camops/safetycameras/information/heardit.asp[/url]
This one got me. You can almost picture the jobsworth writing it:
"As someone who has broken the speed limit on previous occasions, you should know very well the implications of doing it again. It's not hard to stick to the speed limit - just keep control over your right foot and make use of your speedometer. "
The patronising tone of the partnership is staggering...
[url] https://www.cambs-police.co.uk/camops/safetycameras/information/heardit.asp[/url]
This one got me. You can almost picture the jobsworth writing it:
"As someone who has broken the speed limit on previous occasions, you should know very well the implications of doing it again. It's not hard to stick to the speed limit - just keep control over your right foot and make use of your speedometer. "
wolves_wanderer said:
How about this little game. Apparently, the best way to reduce accidents on a motorway is to put speed bumps down. Every day's a school day
That game is terrible. Where are the other methods of speed control - perhaps an advertising campaign, or even dare I say it, Traffic police.
And surely if you had sections of roads with 15+ accidents every two weeks, I would look at the road surface, or junction design to make it safer.
Andy.
Talking of speed bumps, I thought I had read somewhere a few months ago, that the Americans had figured out (not exactly rocket science-but), that speed bumps cause pollution, cars slow, go over the bump, and then speed up, which is when engines put out a lot of pollution, so they have started to remove them.
This being the case, assuming its true, when are we going to follow suit, bumps dont stop you going faster between them, so why put them up in the first place?
This being the case, assuming its true, when are we going to follow suit, bumps dont stop you going faster between them, so why put them up in the first place?
Vipers said:
This being the case, assuming its true, when are we going to follow suit, bumps dont stop you going faster between them, so why put them up in the first place?
Could it also be that bumps don't raise money but scameras do????
I can see a rush to remove bumps and replace them with more 'environmentally friendly' revenue raisers.
Cambridgeshire Marketing Spin Partnership said:
In fact, the accident rate doubles at night. There may well be fewer vehicles on the road, but there is a higher proportion of drivers who are tired or under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. In addition visibility can be reduced in hours of darkness and the very fact that there are fewer vehicles on the road can mean drivers do not expect another vehicle to pull out in front of them. Current UK law regarding speed limits indicates that they apply 24 hours a day.
So at night, not only are we, the criminally minded speeders out there, but the large proportion of drivers are drunk
, high 
or sleeping 
at the wheel. All of which probably cause more accidents than speeding but cant be picked up on a Gatso. Also, all accidents are caused by someone else pulling out in front of you. Would like to see where they got their stats from on this answer.
Hey, the game on that site is pretty fun.
Put in Gatso's and all sorts to reduce accidents, lol.
Unfortunately it doesn't run for 10 years, so you can't do a 5 years before and after analysis to dis-prove it
Also, I loved the way it said I could do better to reduce accidents.
From the results I'd be seriously tempted to just alter the quality of the drivers initially!
Also, half the "newsflash" items, were speed related. Ie, a speeding driver on THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, caused an accident.
So, if they were not speeding they'd have still bloody crashed.
Dumbass partnership tosspots!
Dave
Put in Gatso's and all sorts to reduce accidents, lol.
Unfortunately it doesn't run for 10 years, so you can't do a 5 years before and after analysis to dis-prove it
Also, I loved the way it said I could do better to reduce accidents.
From the results I'd be seriously tempted to just alter the quality of the drivers initially!
Also, half the "newsflash" items, were speed related. Ie, a speeding driver on THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, caused an accident.
So, if they were not speeding they'd have still bloody crashed.
Dumbass partnership tosspots!
Dave
Cambs Muppets said:
Every single camera has an effect on driver behaviour and vehicle speeds, even if casualty rates have increased marginally. All camera sites are reviewed regularly to assess their impact on casualties, and where collisions are still occurring we will work with our partners at the relevant highway authority to look at other ways of addressing the problem.
I can think of nothing to say other than
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff