RE: £1m Scamera 'Not For Casualty Reduction'
Discussion
One other point is that reductions in speed limits (and the exploitation that follows) has much more to do with cost than road safety:
A lower-speed (limit) road has a much reduced maintenance schedule than a higher-speed (limit) one.
THAT is why speed limits are coming down and scameras have been going up.
So next time some muppet say "If you don't exceed the speed limit you won't get fined", tell them why the limit is so low - it's got almost NOTHING to do with safety.
A lower-speed (limit) road has a much reduced maintenance schedule than a higher-speed (limit) one.
THAT is why speed limits are coming down and scameras have been going up.
So next time some muppet say "If you don't exceed the speed limit you won't get fined", tell them why the limit is so low - it's got almost NOTHING to do with safety.
saaby93 said:
Puff the magic.. said:
saaby93 said:
ok I used the wrong word. If you raise the limit so it's in line with what most people consider a safe speed for the road - it's FSIs that reduce as well as collisions/accidents.
Really! How so? Is that a guess or idle allegation?Puff the magic.. said:
saaby93 said:
Your assumptions about 'more' dont tie in both in terms of average speeds and FSIs
You still don't understand do you?Maybe a read of thiswould help you.
What we're discussing is preventing accidents. Obviously if you prevent all accidents the severity becomes irrelevant.
I think it was said there were none in the OP - despite the speed limit being too low.
Puff I think you need to look into the causal factors of accidents and the results in the FSI figures, before supporting use of cameras and limits against the relevant guidance
ok
It is you who makes no sense.
stackmonkey said:
Puff the magic.. said:
Police install film in camera - Cost £2,000
Police recover and develop film - Cost £1,000
Well it wouldn't surprise me that they're charging for these services on a digital camera, but it does disappoint.Police recover and develop film - Cost £1,000
Puff the magic.. said:
I'm not advocating limits against guidance at all.
Oh yes you are 
Puff the magic.. said:
What I am saying is "how come someone driving through the limit or looking at it on a web based image can work the limit out better than those who have been responsible for setting it"?
Because as said earlier we do do that objectivly.The responsible people find it easier to submit to political pressure too.
The guidance is supposed to help them so they can defer responsibility by saying 'the guidance says it will be safer if we raise it' which ties in with most peoples assesment when driving along there ( taken from traffic speeds and accidents).
The speed camera guidance says similar
But those responsible still find it easier to leave it as it is.
I thought you knew all this
Perhaps this is a good time to leave Puff in his wonderful world where politicians and bureaucrats always do the right thing.
And is this a good time to raise the perennial question of artificial speed limits versus driving at the appropriate speed to the conditions? Do I trust some faceless bureaucrat (perhaps like Puff) to tell me what speed is safe? No I do not.
I know Bournemouth/Poole well and many people I know there are questioning the need for so many cameras - particularly as their situations are somewhat suspect in many cases. They represent excellent examples of how cameras detract from paying attention to the road and pavement as you find yourself looking out for them to the detriment of any other observations.
I'm afraid all innovation and original thinking in this country is lost in the fog of bureaucratic empire building and motivations based on individual ambition.
PS I love the photos of dead cameras on Saloms link - I think I will go and have another look. Oh, and if some nosey Government bod is looking at this, I am waving but not with all my fingers.
And is this a good time to raise the perennial question of artificial speed limits versus driving at the appropriate speed to the conditions? Do I trust some faceless bureaucrat (perhaps like Puff) to tell me what speed is safe? No I do not.
I know Bournemouth/Poole well and many people I know there are questioning the need for so many cameras - particularly as their situations are somewhat suspect in many cases. They represent excellent examples of how cameras detract from paying attention to the road and pavement as you find yourself looking out for them to the detriment of any other observations.
I'm afraid all innovation and original thinking in this country is lost in the fog of bureaucratic empire building and motivations based on individual ambition.
PS I love the photos of dead cameras on Saloms link - I think I will go and have another look. Oh, and if some nosey Government bod is looking at this, I am waving but not with all my fingers.
Edited by TVRWannabee on Friday 3rd December 16:26
TVRWannabee said:
And is this a good time to raise the perennial question of artificial speed limits versus driving at the appropriate speed to the conditions? Do I trust some faceless bureaucrat (perhaps like Puff) to tell me what speed is safe? No I do not.
A speed limit only tells you the enforcement level. It doesnt tell you a safe speed to drive - conditions or otherwise. You have to work that out from the road and other road users. Wow I thought I'd met some condescending facetious t
ts before but this Puffter beats the lot 
Somebody in a nice suit has decided that I can only drive safely at xxMPH therefore I should bend over and say 'ok he's the qualified one and I'm just the internet surfer (who happens to objectively drive that route every day)'?
How the hell would anything get changed if only the '''''experts'''' get to decide? If I submit my case to this guy who has spent his life filling body bags due to all this excessive speed, is he really going to whip them all out and say 'talk like that gets you in one of these'?
The mind boggles
ts before but this Puffter beats the lot Somebody in a nice suit has decided that I can only drive safely at xxMPH therefore I should bend over and say 'ok he's the qualified one and I'm just the internet surfer (who happens to objectively drive that route every day)'?
How the hell would anything get changed if only the '''''experts'''' get to decide? If I submit my case to this guy who has spent his life filling body bags due to all this excessive speed, is he really going to whip them all out and say 'talk like that gets you in one of these'?
The mind boggles
saaby93 said:
TVRWannabee said:
And is this a good time to raise the perennial question of artificial speed limits versus driving at the appropriate speed to the conditions? Do I trust some faceless bureaucrat (perhaps like Puff) to tell me what speed is safe? No I do not.
A speed limit only tells you the enforcement level. It doesnt tell you a safe speed to drive - conditions or otherwise. You have to work that out from the road and other road users. Ironically I know of roads in the New Forest that are 40mph but are narrow and twisty and often walked by the animals (and then just beyond the limit drops to 30mph). Guess what? Everyone drives at 40mph and lo and behold the animal deaths along them are legion.
Too many gumbies think the speed limit says they can drive at that speed safely.
And that is the problem - the more you tell people what to do, the more they stop thinking for themselves.
Puff the magic.. said:
I'm not advocating limits against guidance at all. What I am saying is "how come someone driving through the limit or looking at it on a web based image can work the limit out better than those who have been responsible for setting it"?
Because they are realists and not robbing, thieving, scheming corrupt s? Anyway, the limits don't have to be about accidents and risk etc any longer.They can be voted in under the climate change banner.And we all know how trustworthy those lot are, too.TVRWannabee said:
saaby93 said:
TVRWannabee said:
And is this a good time to raise the perennial question of artificial speed limits versus driving at the appropriate speed to the conditions? Do I trust some faceless bureaucrat (perhaps like Puff) to tell me what speed is safe? No I do not.
A speed limit only tells you the enforcement level. It doesnt tell you a safe speed to drive - conditions or otherwise. You have to work that out from the road and other road users. Ironically I know of roads in the New Forest that are 40mph but are narrow and twisty and often walked by the animals (and then just beyond the limit drops to 30mph). Guess what? Everyone drives at 40mph and lo and behold the animal deaths along them are legion.
Too many gumbies think the speed limit says they can drive at that speed safely.
And that is the problem - the more you tell people what to do, the more they stop thinking for themselves.
The blanket limits in the forest weren't too bad until they extended them onto the fenced roads, as a result people ignored the unwarranted ones and also the ones where it matters, misusing the limits took away their real meaning. As for some of the traffic calming they are now putting in
It's only time before someone gets hurt or killed by the crap between 10 bends and Brockenhurst!Silver940 said:
TVRWannabee said:
saaby93 said:
TVRWannabee said:
And is this a good time to raise the perennial question of artificial speed limits versus driving at the appropriate speed to the conditions? Do I trust some faceless bureaucrat (perhaps like Puff) to tell me what speed is safe? No I do not.
A speed limit only tells you the enforcement level. It doesnt tell you a safe speed to drive - conditions or otherwise. You have to work that out from the road and other road users. Ironically I know of roads in the New Forest that are 40mph but are narrow and twisty and often walked by the animals (and then just beyond the limit drops to 30mph). Guess what? Everyone drives at 40mph and lo and behold the animal deaths along them are legion.
Too many gumbies think the speed limit says they can drive at that speed safely.
And that is the problem - the more you tell people what to do, the more they stop thinking for themselves.
The blanket limits in the forest weren't too bad until they extended them onto the fenced roads, as a result people ignored the unwarranted ones and also the ones where it matters, misusing the limits took away their real meaning. As for some of the traffic calming they are now putting in
It's only time before someone gets hurt or killed by the crap between 10 bends and Brockenhurst!As so often the measures that might help are devalued by the implementation of barmy measures alongside.
Coming out of Brook in the Forest heading north on the B3079 you leave a 30mph limit (and to be honest you couldn't go much faster anyway), travel on a 40mph limit for 100 yards and then into a 30 limit again. Why?
Having had a recent slip up with a camera (now disabled in Tidworth)which resulted in a 'Speed Awareness Course' I just had to add my bit.
Expecting to leave the course much admonished having been shown the error of my ways it had the exact opposite result when shortly after it began we were asked 'Did you spot the camera on the way here? Ha, you'd be suprised how many people get caught out there, people don't realise what the limit is.'
My thought - 'Why the f**k don't you put up some signs then'.
Followed by 'Well, we put the limits 10mph low so a greater percentage of people stay below what should be the safe limit'.
Ok - so they have just told me it is safe to do 10mph over the posted limit.
As well as that new limits in the Hampshire area have caused a ludicrous discrepancy between the limit and the actual road and surroundings with wide and open roads being 30 and narrow twisty ones through some villages still being 40, the same applies to 40 and 50 limits.
This has caused myself and the majority of others from respecting and obeying the limits which as another poster has pointed out defeats the object and can be dangerous when there is a real danger which might not be obvious.
As for Puff, well - I just think of Nazi Germany, people like him just obey.
Gnasher
Expecting to leave the course much admonished having been shown the error of my ways it had the exact opposite result when shortly after it began we were asked 'Did you spot the camera on the way here? Ha, you'd be suprised how many people get caught out there, people don't realise what the limit is.'
My thought - 'Why the f**k don't you put up some signs then'.
Followed by 'Well, we put the limits 10mph low so a greater percentage of people stay below what should be the safe limit'.
Ok - so they have just told me it is safe to do 10mph over the posted limit.
As well as that new limits in the Hampshire area have caused a ludicrous discrepancy between the limit and the actual road and surroundings with wide and open roads being 30 and narrow twisty ones through some villages still being 40, the same applies to 40 and 50 limits.
This has caused myself and the majority of others from respecting and obeying the limits which as another poster has pointed out defeats the object and can be dangerous when there is a real danger which might not be obvious.
As for Puff, well - I just think of Nazi Germany, people like him just obey.
Gnasher
gnasher328 said:
As for Puff, well - I just think of Nazi Germany, people like him just obey.
No Puff is ok - all he usually goes on about is speed cameras and how they enforce the limit.
If the speed limits were where they should be, Puff would be harmless.
You need decide which part of the system is causing the problem, and first off is that a speed limit doesn't tell you a safe speed to drive - you have to work that out from the look of the road and road users. Today a speed limit shouldn't be lower than mean traffic speeds, and only lower than NSL if there's development or a serious unsolvable accident history. Otherwise it's into contributory territory.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff