speed camera obsession

Author
Discussion

daveinhampshire

527 posts

125 months

Wednesday 19th September 2018
quotequote all
It was less about police numbers but more their tasking. When I was at Eastleigh there was a good size traffic office as well as other stations in the area. They were not available for general deployment and effectively run their own department. I used to assist them regularly on the M27 on the lorry checks.

Just before I left they moved traffic into general deployment meaning they could be scraping the drunks up on a Friday night or dealing with petty theft. I barely see a police car on the motorway and even the unmarked has vanished recently. I guess traffic isn't a priority, that's left to civilians in vans with a camcorder.

JNW1

7,710 posts

193 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
ghe13rte said:
I read them. ETSC are keen on speed enforcement too: https://etsc.eu/how-traffic-law-enforcement-can-co...

Do you read them?
So do you agree with the extract below from the article you quoted? I think many would be more sympathetic to the use of things like mobile cameras if they were used in the way described but often they're not.....

"It is argued that speed enforcement is most appropriate on specific road stretches where collisions are concentrated. Such targeted action brings road safety benefits in the most dangerous road sections and makes it easier to explain the reasons of enforcement to the general public".

The Turbonator

2,792 posts

150 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
I know people who consider speeding more dangerous than drinking and driving. Says it all really.

I get called a hypocrite when I tell people they've probably had too much to drive because I sometimes drive at 80 or 85 on the motorway.

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
The Turbonator said:
I know people who consider speeding more dangerous than drinking and driving. Says it all really.

I get called a hypocrite when I tell people they've probably had too much to drive because I sometimes drive at 80 or 85 on the motorway.
Pissed people in "iffy logic" shock.

The Turbonator

2,792 posts

150 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Pissed people in "iffy logic" shock.
Nope, even when they're sober they still stand by it.

Crackie

6,386 posts

241 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
ghe13rte said:
Crackie said:
ghe13rte said:
V8RX7 said:
oyster said:
livinginasia said:
As we all know, the obsession with lowering speed limits and adding cameras is all about revenue generation and nothing to do with “safety”. The “safety” argument is so thin, it really is laughable.

But that’s the world we live in unfortunately, a few obsessed campaigners really do influence and make the rules for the majority. Sad times.

And before all the members of “Brake” jump on this thread and tell me I am wrong, forget it - I am not.
That's right YOU know these things for a fact?

And you're NOT wrong?
.
I fail to see the statistics you have produced to refute his facts

IIRC the last ones I saw stated that speed was the main cause in less than 5% of accidents.
I fail to see anything he wrote as being factual so f-you.

Motorway driving isn’t stressful at all if you simply comply with the law. What I see very often is st-driving from people thinking they are in the Gumball rally. What really is stressful is one of your speedy mates holding thousands of drivers up while their rally car is being swept off the motorway in pieces.
Rather than resorting to your usual rude, adversarial, ad hominems, possibly you could discuss what the OP wrote.

No doubt you know that Norway has made massive improvements in road safety during the past decade and now has the safest roads in Europe. Have they done this whilst adopting the speed kills mantra spouted by the hard of thinking? Their jump from 6th in the EU league to number 1 was achieved by education and training...……...and they INCREASED their motorway limit in 2014.

Out of interest, do you ever read the EU's PIN data on road safety? You might be slightly less vocal on the PH speed related threads if your arguments related to facts rather than simplistic juvenile anecdotes.



https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN_ANNUAL_REPO...


Edited by Crackie on Wednesday 19th September 19:42
I read them. ETSC are keen on speed enforcement too: https://etsc.eu/how-traffic-law-enforcement-can-co...

Do you read them?
Yes, I've read their speed enforcement data too.

Their data shows that, despite significantly increased enforcement during the last decade, KSI incidents have remained virtually the same.

Norway's dramatic improvements, during the same period, point to improved driver training being the way forward. They are number one in the world and significantly better the UK and Sweden, who have historically had the safest roads.

Reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured is the ultimate goal, surely? Norway's model is working better than ours and everyone else's too.

I do hope you will respond with a serious attempt to debate the subject i.e Is increased enforcement the best way to improve road safety or are there more effective solutions?

Sadly, based upon your posting history, there will be relentless anti-speed rhetoric delivered in the usual graceless fashion.

Edited by Crackie on Thursday 20th September 15:03

Chamon_Lee

3,778 posts

146 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
Crackie said:
Yes, I've read their speed enforcement data too.

Their data shows that, despite significantly increased enforcement during the last decade, KSI incidents have remained virtually the same.

Norway's dramatic improvements, during the same period, point to improved driver training being the way forward. They are number one in the world and significantly better the UK and Sweden, who have historically had the safest roads.

Reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured is the ultimate goal, surely? Norway's model is working better than ours and everyone else's too.
We are far too arrogant in this country to follow someone else that does things better. We would much rather do things in a crappy way with crap results.

surveyor_101

5,069 posts

178 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
Chamon_Lee said:
We are far too arrogant in this country to follow someone else that does things better. We would much rather do things in a crappy way with crap results.
This gets my goat because taking any interest in driver improvement or following any guidance (like not parking head on into opposing traffic on the wrong side of the road) makes you an anal car bore in this country.

Yet, when the M5 is shut for 12 hours and a car trip that takes 1 hour becomes 4.5 hrs everyone becomes concerned with driver safety.

I was on the M5 the other day and lane 2/3 were struggling for 70mph and lane 1 was more or less empty and some nutter was undertaking us all at 100mph!







TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
surveyor_101 said:
I was on the M5 the other day and lane 2/3 were struggling for 70mph and lane 1 was more or less empty and some nutter was undertaking us all at 100mph!
Was it you? If not, why weren't you in L1 doing 70ish...?

Davidonly

1,080 posts

192 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
Driving around Germany on a grand tour just now. Hardly a scam anywhere to be seen, including on POI via sat nav. Only seen them in 50 km/h and 30 km/h areas in Dresden.

Its' a joy compared to driving at home. Not a SINGLE ASC so far smile Lots of roadworks mind you. Oh and plenty of limit free Autobahn including brand new stretches. Must have leaned how to build a new road without 'accident blackspots' installed from day 1 here...

Mostly excellent lane discipline, although some tailgating here and there. Cruise at 110 -120 mph for ages on some bits. Its like actually travelling somewhere.

I always feel my faith in logic and engineering restored for a while by my regular visits to this country. Bavaria is my fave part (so far) although really liked Wismar earlier in the trip.

I also love the way road work speed limits end with virtually the last traffic cone rather than a mile later with everyone fuming under the ASC threat for absolutely no reason.

There are some strange limits set and new reductions but overall much more bearable than UK.

Back home the 'gong' sound on the NAV for a new speed camera warning is literally continuous in some parts of the country.

Having said all that, Cumbria, Northumberland, parts of Wales and Scotland are still great places to drive smile







Ken Figenus

5,678 posts

116 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
Roofless Toothless said:
I live close to the A12, not that far from its junction with the M25. Turn right and it's about 10 miles to the M11, left and about the same to the Dartford crossing.

There isn't a day go past without there being a major accident and subsequent congestion on at least one of these roads. Most the crashes seem to occur at busy times when I doubt you could get anywhere near the speed limit.

My experience of driving on these roads is that the levels of stupidity and impatience are such that they must be the primary causes of incidents. Of course, speed doesn't cause accidents, it just stops you getting out of them. But the causes are elsewhere.

The trouble is, you can't fine people for impatience.
Have to agree. Today yet again again the Welsh bit of the M4 was yet again closed due to an accident - ruined many plans for today for many thousands. Very few of these sad regular incidents have anything at all to do with speed - its almost always Mums dying in bog standard cars (I rescued one and her baby, perched on top of the M4 central reservation in a Nova a few years ago myself...) or non motoring enthusiasts/non speeders again in bog std cars, trundling along.

The roads are barely policed these days - well other than for speed - nobody is having a 'quiet word' for poor driving/lack of knowledge/skills any more.... I just think as many say, they eye is well and truly on the wrong cheaper ball here.

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
surveyor_101 said:
I was on the M5 the other day and lane 2/3 were struggling for 70mph and lane 1 was more or less empty and some nutter was undertaking us all at 100mph!
that's because you were all in the wrong lane.........

JNW1

7,710 posts

193 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
daveinhampshire said:
Just before I left they moved traffic into general deployment meaning they could be scraping the drunks up on a Friday night or dealing with petty theft.
A comment often made in response to accusations of inappropriate priorities is that traffic sits separate from other parts of the police force and therefore things like burglary wouldn't be their thing to deal with; however, your comment above suggests that's not the case (or at least it's not necessarily the case everywhere?).


Dave Finney

380 posts

145 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
up_shift said:
stats or studies of mway crashes in proximity to cameras?
It's good to see evidence being requested every now and again.

TRL 595 is the largest report on speed cameras on British motorways. Here are the results for FSC (Fatal and Serious Collisions):

a 10% increase in FSC where average speed cameras were deployed
a 29% increase in FSC where fixed (Gatso) speed cameras were deployed
a 10% reduction in FSC where there was a Police presence

TRL 595 is unusual because:

1) it contains traffic flow measurements
2) it contains data at comparison sites (where no enforcement was deployed)

TRL 595 is similar to all other road safety reports, though, in that it does not contain RCT scientific trials.

Note, TRL 595 has data for speed cameras only on road work sections - not on open motorways.
Note, the results are the enforcement sites, compared to the sites with no enforcement.

Is that what you were looking for, up_shift?

The Selfish Gene

5,470 posts

209 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
those stats are what I always suspected - and accurate means surely we should be taking all the cameras down?

Ken Figenus

5,678 posts

116 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
Dave - that is a big thing to casually dropeekeekeek Do you have a link and a megaphone please?

So what next?!

TooMany2cvs

29,008 posts

125 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
Dave Finney said:
TRL 595 is the largest report on speed cameras on British motorways.
Are you meaning this TRL595?
https://trl.co.uk/reports/TRL595

Published 2004. I've not read it in depth, obviously, but the only speed cameras I can quickly see mentioned are "digital" or "analog" - which is what you'd expect 14 years ago - and searching it for "average speed camera" comes up with nothing.
<edit: Ah. By "digital", it explains... "Digital cameras described in this study measure the average speed of vehicles over a distance between two cameras using number plate recognition software." (p46, sec 3.5.6)>

Can you point us to where in it you're getting your figures from? It could well be that the cameras were placed in locations at higher risk of serious collisions, which'd explain the higher rates.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 20th September 16:43

ghe13rte

1,860 posts

115 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
JNW1 said:
ghe13rte said:
I read them. ETSC are keen on speed enforcement too: https://etsc.eu/how-traffic-law-enforcement-can-co...

Do you read them?
So do you agree with the extract below from the article you quoted? I think many would be more sympathetic to the use of things like mobile cameras if they were used in the way described but often they're not.....

"It is argued that speed enforcement is most appropriate on specific road stretches where collisions are concentrated. Such targeted action brings road safety benefits in the most dangerous road sections and makes it easier to explain the reasons of enforcement to the general public".
No

JNW1

7,710 posts

193 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
ghe13rte said:
JNW1 said:
ghe13rte said:
I read them. ETSC are keen on speed enforcement too: https://etsc.eu/how-traffic-law-enforcement-can-co...

Do you read them?
So do you agree with the extract below from the article you quoted? I think many would be more sympathetic to the use of things like mobile cameras if they were used in the way described but often they're not.....

"It is argued that speed enforcement is most appropriate on specific road stretches where collisions are concentrated. Such targeted action brings road safety benefits in the most dangerous road sections and makes it easier to explain the reasons of enforcement to the general public".
No
So you've linked an article which sets-out the ETSC's position - and invited people to read such articles with an implication they're worthy of note - but when it comes down to it you just want to cherry-pick the bits that correspond to your own views and disregard the rest? Why am I not surprised....

Dave Finney

380 posts

145 months

Thursday 20th September 2018
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
Are you meaning this TRL595?
https://trl.co.uk/reports/TRL595

Published 2004. I've not read it in depth, obviously, but the only speed cameras I can quickly see mentioned are "digital" or "analog" - which is what you'd expect 14 years ago - and searching it for "average speed camera" comes up with nothing.
<edit: Ah. By "digital", it explains... "Digital cameras described in this study measure the average speed of vehicles over a distance between two cameras using number plate recognition software." (p46, sec 3.5.6)>

Can you point us to where in it you're getting your figures from? It could well be that the cameras were placed in locations at higher risk of serious collisions, which'd explain the higher rates.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Thursday 20th September 16:43
Yes, that looks like it.

You'll struggle to find the results because the authors decided not to publish them.
They did, though, publish the data and that means that we can work out the results for ourselves
All the required data is in Table 3.18 and 3.19 (be careful, the tables are badly or misleadingly labelled).
Below are the results calculated from that data:



Edited by Dave Finney on Friday 21st September 23:18