Speed safety claims wrong: research
Motorway cameras weaken safety
Motorway scameras cause crashes
The criticism came from Chief Insp Ian Bint, head of roads policing with South Yorkshire Police, following the imposition of a temporary 50mph limit on a 2.6 mile stretch of the M1 between junctions 32 and 33, with the aim of protecting workmen carrying out £3.6 million safety scheme. The impetus for Bint's remarks was, according to him, that over four days of safety camera operations, over 1,000 vehicles were filmed breaking the limit, with one driver travelling at 94 miles an hour.
However, according to road safety campaign Safe Speed, the best research that exists on the subject (TRL595 -- see link below) warns that fixed speed cameras in motorway roadworks increase crashes by 55 per cent.
Campaign founder Paul Smith said: "The degree of irresponsibility here is extraordinary. Despite the fact that our best science warns that these cameras massively increase danger, they persist, presumably running only on blind faith and a massive misunderstanding of the evidence that is available.
"TRL595 was hidden away until I uncovered it using the Freedom of Information Act. No larger study of motorway road works safety has ever been carried out in the UK. It is the best science.
"Motorists will not be surprised that these confounded cameras increase dangers. They would rather be concentrating on the road ahead instead of wholly artificial and distracting threats to their driving licences.
"We need road safety based on best science and best practice, not blind faith and twisted statistics. Speed camera policy has failed to improve road safety. Fixed speed cameras on motorway roadworks are amongst the most dangerous."
Smith called for cameras to be taken off our roads "right now".
Hmmm, something tells me that if 1000 drivers were caught speeding in 4 days, then either a) there weren't enough signs (doubt it!), or b) speed cameras are not the tool for the job.
It could well have been safe to do alot more than 94 mph? (if conditions were right)
Have you ever seen what happens when someone drives over a large motorway-size cone at high speed? I have. Three people dead and a totalled car. Fortunately -- but it was pure luck -- no one else was involved and a heavy temporary concrete block was the only other thing damaged.
The short story is that while travelling in a road works section of M6 motorway (under a 50 limit), fairly late at night, the carriage way was coned down to two lanes. Unlit road, not much traffic. Muppet with two friends in the car roared past me doing probably 80-ish. In distance (but unknown and not at all obvious at the time), a lorry drifted left and caught a cone which flipped out into the outside lane. It was dark, the cone was grubby and lying in such a way that it wasn't particularly obvious.
High speed muppet didn't see it until too late and probably couldn't have avoided it even if he'd tried... Instead, he hit it and it wedged under the front of the car. That appears to have reduced his ability to steer (and brake) because instead of following the curve of the road, he ploughed straight across the two lanes, through the line of cones, across the inside lane and hard shoulder and into a very large lump of concrete. The brake lights were on, but he didn't seem to slow much.
Crash bang, wreckage spinning everywhere. Nasty mess. The two in the front died more or less instantly, the back seat passenger died while being attended to by the paramedics. Very harrowing to watch. Ruined my entire weekend! Didn't do much for that of their relatives either I guess. The lorry was never traced (as far as I know), but it wasn't really his fault anyway. And all because the muppet assumed it was perfectly safe to speed through the roadworks because no one works during the night and there was little traffic.
Another example of Darwinian evolution....
hugh
This is one way of looking at it anyway...
I understand your point and don't necessarily disagree with it, but it sounds to me like the root cause wasn't the vehicle speed. Imagine if a biker, at a legal speed, had instead hit that cone........
I'm dead set against speed cameras in M'way roadworks - especially the SPECS average speed type - because they cause unneccessary bunching, unwarranted braking and up to three lanes of traffic inches apart from each other all travelling at the same speed for miles on end. Have you ever driven alongside a juggernaut at exactly the same speed? It's really intimidating...
You are assuming that the lorry driver was aware of the cone being flipped.
i know where my vehicle is at all times when driving and i know how to use mirrors
are you suggesting lorry drivers don't have this skill
because it would explain why they think the breaking distance for my car is 5 feet every time they carve me up
maybe the cone jumped out in front of the lorry
have you not seen toy story 1 or 2 not sure which
but iut sounds like my potato head bought it
What is more likely is that they find it difficult to adjust to a lower speed limit and therefore continue to travel at a higher speed regardless of the safety issue...
JJ
Don't know the specific dates (does anyone?), so it's a bit vague, but for that stretch of road.....
Generally, for a weekday it's around 65000 vehicles in each direction (VIED). On Saturday it's around 48000 vied and on Sunday's it's around 45000 vied.
So, assuming weekdays it would be 1000 vehicles out of around 520000 (4 days x 2 directions x weekday value)
Actual dates will get you actual numbers...
Perhaps the trick here is defining what is reasonable. Would you say that camouflaged/invisible cones in the road are reasonable? If so, then all bikers would have to get off and walk!
Why not ?
It could have been Perfectly safe ?
It could well have been safe to do alot more than 94 mph? (if conditions were right)
It may well have been perfectly safe...but its not too bright is it ??
Probably an unregistered (at the DVLA) or foreign car. Or stolen.
Why not ?
It could have been Perfectly safe ?
It could well have been safe to do alot more than 94 mph? (if conditions were right)
It may have been safe, it may not have been.
It may have been safe to do more than that & it may not have been.
What we do know though is that it's illegal & there is no requirement to show any danger for the offence to be complete. So any protestations about it being perfectly safe make absolutely no difference what so ever. If you decide to travel in excess of the limit you risk prosecution if caught, safe or not. The upper limit we are allowed to travel at is not based on our individual ability, it is a common denominator.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff