Speed cameras installed in the name of safety

[funkyrobot]

Nobody wants to see death, destruction and carnage on our roads. However, it will be interesting to see if these cameras actually reduce the number of accidents along this stretch.

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/sp...

[Corpulent Tosser]

Only through time will the effectiveness be known, but at least they have been sited where there is a history of crashes.

[speedking31]

That comment by victormeldrew1971 is an absolutely epic fail.

victormeldrew1971 said:

"Someone please enlighten me as to how this will stop suits in high powered german cars overtaking lines of slow moving traffic at 90 to 100 mph? Average speed on this road for the most part is 45mph tops. Fleecing in the name of policing."

It does explain how badly some people misunderstand average speed cameras though.

[funkyrobot]

speedking31 said:

That comment by victormeldrew1971 is an absolutely epic fail.

victormeldrew1971 said:

"Someone please enlighten me as to how this will stop suits in high powered german cars overtaking lines of slow moving traffic at 90 to 100 mph? Average speed on this road for the most part is 45mph tops. Fleecing in the name of policing."

It does explain how badly some people misunderstand average speed cameras though.

It also shows how they misunderstand the real world and how idiots come in all shapes and sizes, not just 'suit's in high powered German cars.

[Davidonly]

fatality due to collision with lorry...... was exceeding the speed limit implicated? If so how?????

[Who me ?]

[quote=Corpulent Tosser]Only through time will the effectiveness be known, but at least they have been sited where there is ahistory of crashes, facility to generate cash.
There- fixed it for you.

[Corpulent Tosser]

[quote=Who me ?]orpulent Tosser]Only through time will the effectiveness be known, but at least they have been sited where there is ahistory of crashes, facility to generate cash.
There- fixed it for you.
[/quote]

Please do not 'fix' things for me, I know what I meant to post and posted it, there was nothing to fix !!

[singlecoil]

Davidonly said:

fatality due to collision with lorry...... was exceeding the speed limit implicated? If so how?????

Whether it was or not, I can guarantee that the collision would have been less serious at a lower speed.

[daytona355]

singlecoil said:

Whether it was or not, I can guarantee that the collision would have been less serious at a lower speed.

No you can't actually guarantee that, you don't know the circumstances. I was once in a traffic queue, at the front, waiting for a Lorry which had blocked the road by carrying out a reversing manoeuvre which was questionable anyhow, and once he finished it, rather than waiting for the road to clear, decided to try to drive off before, presumably, plod turned up and saw what he had done. He turned immediately left, and drove up into the bonnet of my car, writing it off, and I doubt he achieved more than 5 mph before suddenly realising his cab was a couple of feet higher in the air than it should be, and parked it still on top of the car. I narrowly avoided being crushed in the car, missed me by inches as everything sort of exploded around me, glass everywhere. Could easily have been a fatality if he had been a couple of foot further back alongside me as I could never have got out quickly enough, and I don't think anyone would have expected him to try to drive away from where he was before the road had cleared around him due to the stupidity of his reversing and his final position

By the way, for all you cop lovers out there, they were called by a number of people, there were around fifty cars stationery at the time watching it develop, yet not a single cop turned up to take details. Their excuse was that no one had been hurt!

[singlecoil]

daytona355 said:

singlecoil said:

Whether it was or not, I can guarantee that the collision would have been less serious at a lower speed.

No you can't actually guarantee that, you don't know the circumstances...

I don't need to know the circumstances, I only need to know some simple physics, GSCE level stuff is quite sufficient.

[RobinOakapple]

daytona355 said:

singlecoil said:

Whether it was or not, I can guarantee that the collision would have been less serious at a lower speed.

No you can't actually guarantee that, you don't know the circumstances. I was once in a traffic queue, at the front, waiting for a Lorry which had blocked the road by carrying out a reversing manoeuvre which was questionable anyhow, and once he finished it, rather than waiting for the road to clear, decided to try to drive off before, presumably, plod turned up and saw what he had done. He turned immediately left, and drove up into the bonnet of my car, writing it off, and I doubt he achieved more than 5 mph before suddenly realising his cab was a couple of feet higher in the air than it should be, and parked it still on top of the car. I narrowly avoided being crushed in the car, missed me by inches as everything sort of exploded around me, glass everywhere. Could easily have been a fatality if he had been a couple of foot further back alongside me as I could never have got out quickly enough, and I don't think anyone would have expected him to try to drive away from where he was before the road had cleared around him due to the stupidity of his reversing and his final position

By the way, for all you cop lovers out there, they were called by a number of people, there were around fifty cars stationery at the time watching it develop, yet not a single cop turned up to take details. Their excuse was that no one had been hurt!

Your story is a good one, but doesn't change the fact that the faster something is travelling, the higher the energy transfer will be when it hits something.

[Jasandjules]

RobinOakapple said:

Your story is a good one, but doesn't change the fact that the faster something is travelling, the higher the energy transfer will be when it hits something.

True. But "less serious" is a misnomer. The lorry could travel at 10mph and crush a car killing all the occupants.

[RobinOakapple]

Jasandjules said:

RobinOakapple said:

Your story is a good one, but doesn't change the fact that the faster something is travelling, the higher the energy transfer will be when it hits something.

True. But "less serious" is a misnomer. The lorry could travel at 10mph and crush a car killing all the occupants.

You are being pedantic, but that's not what bothers me, what bothers me is the attempt to misdirect. In the vast majority of collisions the consequences will be less severe if the collision takes place at lower speeds, and more severe if the speeds are higher. Of course one can find or imagine examples where everybody involved will die at very low speed but that doesn't change the general rule.

[daytona355]

Singlecoil said he GUARANTEED that the speed was the factor, I pointed out he couldn't. He wasn't party to the crash, so he didnt know if it was a crash on the road at normal driving speeds, or a low speed punt that was unfortunate in its result. I would have thought a 'picky' post would have been right up your street, given that's all I ever see from certain people on PH

[RobinOakapple]

daytona355 said:

Singlecoil said he GUARANTEED that the speed was the factor, I pointed out he couldn't. He wasn't party to the crash, so he didnt know if it was a crash on the road at normal driving speeds, or a low speed punt that was unfortunate in its result. I would have thought a 'picky' post would have been right up your street, given that's all I ever see from certain people on PH

Well, maybe I'm mistaken but what I thought he said was something along the lines of

singlecoil said:

Whether it was or not, I can guarantee that the collision would have been less serious at a lower speed.

So not what you said he said. I reckon that he's right too, and you, as usual, are wrong.

[daytona355]

He still doesn't know if the accident was at 5mph or 50mph, so as usual, you are barking up the wrong tree, and are wrong to have a pop at me.... Dum dum

[RobinOakapple]

daytona355 said:

He still doesn't know if the accident was at 5mph or 50mph, so as usual, you are barking up the wrong tree, and are wrong to have a pop at me.... Dum dum

"Road traffic accidents usually involve impact loading, such as when a car hits a traffic bollard, water hydrant or tree, the damage being localized to the impact zone. When vehicles collide, the damage is proportionate to the relative velocity of the vehicles, the damage increasing as the square of the velocity since it is the impact kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) which is the variable of importance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_(mechanics)

You are obviously not educated in the physical sciences, so I will help you out.

Velocity is a term for scientists. Think of it as being the same as speed. Damage (to vehicles, their occupants and their surroundings) gets worse as the impact speed rises. And it gets a lot worse for every increase in speed.

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

daytona355 said:

He still doesn't know if the accident was at 5mph or 50mph, so as usual, you are barking up the wrong tree, and are wrong to have a pop at me.... Dum dum

"Road traffic accidents usually involve impact loading, such as when a car hits a traffic bollard, water hydrant or tree, the damage being localized to the impact zone. When vehicles collide, the damage is proportionate to the relative velocity of the vehicles, the damage increasing as the square of the velocity since it is the impact kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) which is the variable of importance."

If kinetic energy is indeed the variable of importance, then, as a matter of urgency, we need to invoke legislation to limit the speed of lorries and buses to 20mph on motorways and 10mph everywhere else.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

daytona355 said:

He still doesn't know if the accident was at 5mph or 50mph, so as usual, you are barking up the wrong tree, and are wrong to have a pop at me.... Dum dum

"Road traffic accidents usually involve impact loading, such as when a car hits a traffic bollard, water hydrant or tree, the damage being localized to the impact zone. When vehicles collide, the damage is proportionate to the relative velocity of the vehicles, the damage increasing as the square of the velocity since it is the impact kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) which is the variable of importance."

If kinetic energy is indeed the variable of importance, then, as a matter of urgency, we need to invoke legislation to limit the speed of lorries and buses to 20mph on motorways and 10mph everywhere else.

Of course it's important, it's just another part of the compromise that is made.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

daytona355 said:

He still doesn't know if the accident was at 5mph or 50mph, so as usual, you are barking up the wrong tree, and are wrong to have a pop at me.... Dum dum

"Road traffic accidents usually involve impact loading, such as when a car hits a traffic bollard, water hydrant or tree, the damage being localized to the impact zone. When vehicles collide, the damage is proportionate to the relative velocity of the vehicles, the damage increasing as the square of the velocity since it is the impact kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) which is the variable of importance."

If kinetic energy is indeed the variable of importance, then, as a matter of urgency, we need to invoke legislation to limit the speed of lorries and buses to 20mph on motorways and 10mph everywhere else.

Of course it's important, it's just another part of the compromise that is made.

I know - I was just introducing some perspective to where apparently none exists