RE: Speed Cameras Watch As Accidents Increase
Discussion
Furyous said:
...I've never understood the argument about people watching their speedo being dangerous. How long does it take you to check your speed?! Half a second, maybe one second at the most. It's not hard to judge your speed while looking at the road, and you don't need to check your speed every five yards. It's such a feeble argument.
It's not a feeble argument, the majority of drivers don't glance at their speedo, they stare and for more than a few seconds. Even at 30, thats a lot of time not to be looking at the road around you, a lot of distance not being aware of what is happening ahead of you.T1berious said:
I can't imagine there's a single driver that can honestly say these things promote safety.
If we're talking about visible Gatsos, then I'm not so sure. The 2 main victims of a visible Gatso are:1) The idiot who didn't see it. Your observation must be very poor to miss it.
2) The idiot who rear-ends someone else for slamming on the brakes.
If you have good observation and keep your distance from the car in front, how can they cause you any problems? They give points to careless drivers and ultimately take their licenses away.
I acknowledge that their existence might cause problems for an average driver, but on balance
Furyous said:
I've never understood the argument about people watching their speedo being dangerous. How long does it take you to check your speed?! Half a second, maybe one second at the most. It's not hard to judge your speed while looking at the road, and you don't need to check your speed every five yards. It's such a feeble argument.
It's not hard to judge your speed without a speedo if you practice the skill, but people don't. Regular glances down could mean that for 5% of the time the driver is not looking where they're going.I get to spend a bit of time sitting alongside 'average' drivers, and the brainwashing effect of the 'Speed Kills' campaign is staggering. They look at the speedo three times as often as their mirrors, know the locations of all the cameras in the area and brake to below the limit when they get there, and are extremely judgemental about any vehicle traveling faster than them.
These drivers know nothing of observation, anticipation and planning - they live in the moment, reacting to events that a better driver would have seen coming a mile off. They cannot conceive of any aspect of road safety other than watching their speed - the emphasis on speed has completely wasted the opportunity to actually improve driving standards.
Just look at the 'Make sure you hit children at 20mph' campaign - nothing about how it might be better to pay attention and not run them over in the first place.
Edited by S. Gonzales Esq. on Tuesday 26th July 13:29
Mutley said:
Furyous said:
...I've never understood the argument about people watching their speedo being dangerous. How long does it take you to check your speed?! Half a second, maybe one second at the most. It's not hard to judge your speed while looking at the road, and you don't need to check your speed every five yards. It's such a feeble argument.
It's not a feeble argument, the majority of drivers don't glance at their speedo, they stare and for more than a few seconds. Even at 30, thats a lot of time not to be looking at the road around you, a lot of distance not being aware of what is happening ahead of you.The reason there is so much emphasis on speed is because it's quantifiable and therefore easy to fine people. Bad driving as a whole is a grey area and they can't build revenue generating machines (ooh sorry) to fine people, they actually require human interaction. I've never understood how a speed camera can reduce the risk of accident. It records your speed over a small distance so it's quite possible to travel at double the limit, brake for the camera and then continue at double the limit.
I drove to Skegness about a month ago and it just felt like the road was set up to catch as many people as physically possible. Reduction in speed limits followed by an immediate camera, back to an increased speed limit then 400 yards down the road another drop in limit with a camera. I couldn't concentrate on the road as much as I wanted to and spent most of the time glaring at the speedo. There was no apparent reason for any of this but people are too stupid to realise and think it's all about not killing children.
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
It's not hard to judge your speed without a speedo if you practice the skill, but people don't. Regular glances down could mean that for 5% of the time the driver is not looking where they're going.
I get to spend a bit of time sitting alongside 'average' drivers, and the brainwashing effect of the 'Speed Kills' campaign is staggering. They look at the speedo three times as often as their mirrors, know the locations of all the cameras in the area and brake to below the limit when they get there, and are extremely judgemental about any vehicle traveling faster than them.
These drivers know nothing of observation, anticipation and planning - they live in the moment, reacting to events that a better driver would have seen coming a mile off. They cannot conceive of any aspect of road safety other than watching their speed - the emphasis on speed has completely wasted the opportunity to actually improve driving standards.
Just look at the 'Make sure you hit children at 20mph' campaign - nothing about paying attention and not running them over in the first place.
Interesting post and spot on.I get to spend a bit of time sitting alongside 'average' drivers, and the brainwashing effect of the 'Speed Kills' campaign is staggering. They look at the speedo three times as often as their mirrors, know the locations of all the cameras in the area and brake to below the limit when they get there, and are extremely judgemental about any vehicle traveling faster than them.
These drivers know nothing of observation, anticipation and planning - they live in the moment, reacting to events that a better driver would have seen coming a mile off. They cannot conceive of any aspect of road safety other than watching their speed - the emphasis on speed has completely wasted the opportunity to actually improve driving standards.
Just look at the 'Make sure you hit children at 20mph' campaign - nothing about paying attention and not running them over in the first place.
Are we developing a generation of drivers for which obeying the speed limit is more important than driving to the conditions?
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Sorry, but if this is the case then you were too damn close to the car in front. Anything could have been round that bend - not just a Gatso.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I hate speed cameras (note - not safety cameras; they're not measuring how many safetys per hour I'm doing) as much as the next man, but there does also seem to be an element of selective quoting of figures in the story and febrile ranting on this thread.
Don't get me wrong - I would much rather every speed camera in the land were binned and we got on with training drivers better instead, but if anti-camera people seize on dubious or incomplete evidence to "prove" that the cameras are bad, then we're just as bad as the pro-camera lobby who have long done the same to "prove" that they're good.
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I hate speed cameras, however I also hate people who drive without due care and attention.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Good job you did not hurt the kids in the mpv!!
Quite why you bothered to admit you are a careless driver is beyond me.
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
What were you in that brakes slower than a full MPV plus your gap ?As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I do around 40-50k miles a year and have to agree with some of the previous comments ref the standard of driving in the uk falling. Why this fixation with speed?
Camera vans is something I just don't get. I never see them in urban areas, never near schools or places like that. They always appear on motorway bridges (statistically our safest roads?) or dual carriage ways often with a new, slower limit for no reason.
I think limits in the uk should be set by the gov so each road standard has the same limit. Limits on our roads these days appear to be all over the place and I'm sure it largely depends on how anticar the council is as to what limit the road has. As for the notice they have to put up when they plan to change a limit. Have you seen them? Near me last year they tried to change a limit. Up went the A4 sign with small print around a tree facing into the woods!
The stats are all flawed anyway. Accidents which involve a speeding driver are added to the stats even when speed wasn't the cause. Or they were a joyrider and are going to drive fast whatever limit the road has
Fact is any stats can be made to prove any point you want
Camera vans is something I just don't get. I never see them in urban areas, never near schools or places like that. They always appear on motorway bridges (statistically our safest roads?) or dual carriage ways often with a new, slower limit for no reason.
I think limits in the uk should be set by the gov so each road standard has the same limit. Limits on our roads these days appear to be all over the place and I'm sure it largely depends on how anticar the council is as to what limit the road has. As for the notice they have to put up when they plan to change a limit. Have you seen them? Near me last year they tried to change a limit. Up went the A4 sign with small print around a tree facing into the woods!
The stats are all flawed anyway. Accidents which involve a speeding driver are added to the stats even when speed wasn't the cause. Or they were a joyrider and are going to drive fast whatever limit the road has
Fact is any stats can be made to prove any point you want
AlexKing said:
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
Sorry, but if this is the case then you were too damn close to the car in front. Anything could have been round that bend - not just a Gatso.As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
I hate speed cameras (note - not safety cameras; they're not measuring how many safetys per hour I'm doing) as much as the next man, but there does also seem to be an element of selective quoting of figures in the story and febrile ranting on this thread.
Don't get me wrong - I would much rather every speed camera in the land were binned and we got on with training drivers better instead, but if anti-camera people seize on dubious or incomplete evidence to "prove" that the cameras are bad, then we're just as bad as the pro-camera lobby who have long done the same to "prove" that they're good.
The only 'random' hazard that was NOT in view was the Gatso. This was because it was set a long way away from the verge and only became apparent once you were more or less on top of it. In my opinion it was an accident that had been engineered into the section of road by f
kwits who, if I had died in that accident, I would be suing for manslaughter!Edited by 911motorsport on Tuesday 26th July 14:34
Edited by 911motorsport on Tuesday 26th July 14:35
redgriff500 said:
911motorsport said:
Five years ago I was travelling at about 40mph behind an MPV full of kids.
As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
What were you in that brakes slower than a full MPV plus your gap ?As we rounded a bend in the road the driver spotted a gatso and, despite not speeding, instinctively anchored on. Rather than risk hurting the children in the MPV I was forced to take avoidance action and ploughed in to a tree.
I broke my kneck in three places and puntured both my lungs.
If that Gatso had not been there the accident would not have happened.
911motorsport said:
Being an advanced driver I was maintaining a safe distance for the speed and traffic conditions that prevailed. The bend was a gentle one, in a wide road which afforded a long view ahead (of a perfectly clear road).
The only 'random' hazard that was NOT in view was the Gatso. This was because it was set a long way away from the verge and only became apparent once you were more or less on top of it. In my opinion it was an accident that had been engineered into the section of road by fkwits who, if I had died in that accident, I would be suing for manslaughter!
What is it about drivers that do not understand 'following too close'. no matter how the person drives infront of you, if you hit them or have to choose a tree instead, you were too close, period.The only 'random' hazard that was NOT in view was the Gatso. This was because it was set a long way away from the verge and only became apparent once you were more or less on top of it. In my opinion it was an accident that had been engineered into the section of road by f
kwits who, if I had died in that accident, I would be suing for manslaughter!Advanced driver or advanced idiot?
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff