RE: Speed Cameras Come Down After Accidents Go Up
Discussion
kbee540 said:
Note: the argument that you're more likely to hit someone whilst staring at the speedo starts to lose its effectiveness at such low speeds.
Really? It may affect how hard you hit an object, but every second you are not observing the road and its surroundings when driving increases the chance of hitting an object.Wll Done Derby City Council! Just need to get rid of the Scamera van dressed as a builders van! I also notice that these vans are now more and more on the A52 between Derby and Ashbourne, what I also notice which is nice is that people are begining to flash again to let on coming drivers know whats ahead! perhaps the decision has something to do with a drop in revenue! only a thought!
silverMX said:
The councillor has said: "Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with speed on that road"
Souldn't it be: Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with accidents on that road"
?
Blindly fingering speed as the culprit for all accidents isn't the way now, is it? That'll just blinker progress!
Could not agree more.Souldn't it be: Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with accidents on that road"
?
Blindly fingering speed as the culprit for all accidents isn't the way now, is it? That'll just blinker progress!
LukeBird said:
silverMX said:
The councillor has said: "Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with speed on that road"
Souldn't it be: Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with accidents on that road"
?
Blindly fingering speed as the culprit for all accidents isn't the way now, is it? That'll just blinker progress!
Could not agree more.Souldn't it be: Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with accidents on that road"
?
Blindly fingering speed as the culprit for all accidents isn't the way now, is it? That'll just blinker progress!
Is it me or have the "road safety partnerships" quietly changed their names from "safety camera partnerships" to justify keeping their at least some of their budgets/jobs even when the speed cameras (and the very basis of thier existence) are disapearing to be replaced with somthing else that is hopefully more sensible/useful but will probably end up just being a government funded lobbying organisation?
Said it before, but I'll repeat it.
In years to come people will look back and say: 'what dicks implemented such ludicrous schemes to collect money and obstructed traffic by implementing the construction of road hazards everywhere ie: humps bumps and chicances and poles with cameras on. Were they all mad?'
...YES!
Never better said!!!!!!!!;)
In years to come people will look back and say: 'what dicks implemented such ludicrous schemes to collect money and obstructed traffic by implementing the construction of road hazards everywhere ie: humps bumps and chicances and poles with cameras on. Were they all mad?'
...YES!
Never better said!!!!!!!!;)
Should save previous remedial or sporting work on these objects....no more angle grinders, "necklaces" (blazing petrol filled tyres, followed by red carnations next day!) or peppering with pellets.
Next target should be camera vans - who gets the revenue from these? Similarly, couldn't "scarecrows with hairdriers" (coppers with hand held guns)be more gainfully employed looking for uninsured or dangerous drivers. Nearly forgot: no revenue generation, but would increase the popularity of "plod" with the motorist in general.
Don't worry about the flashing signs....they won't criminalise you.
Next target should be camera vans - who gets the revenue from these? Similarly, couldn't "scarecrows with hairdriers" (coppers with hand held guns)be more gainfully employed looking for uninsured or dangerous drivers. Nearly forgot: no revenue generation, but would increase the popularity of "plod" with the motorist in general.
Don't worry about the flashing signs....they won't criminalise you.
I've been driving for about 10 years and I'm unfortunate enough to have had 5 people hit into me in this time and I've hit 1 - so I have had my fair share. None of these incidents were excessive speed related. They were as follows:
Hit by van in fast food chain drive through as they didn't look as pulled off
I hit the person because he had to brake quickly to avoid an idiot reversing down a main road
Hit on rear as going around a corner as I had to brake suddenly due to oncoming car on wrong side of road
Hit on rear 2 weeks later in stop start traffic on M25, person behind didn't realise I had stopped again
Hit on rear in stopped traffic as person behind slipped foot onto accelerator
Unknown person hit into door in car park
As you can see all of the incidents above have been caused by bad driving - none have been due to exceeding the speed limit. Insurance wise all of these (except hitting door in car park by unknown and the reversing car) were deemed as third party at fault and happened within the first 5 years of me driving. Although insurance wise the statistics are pointing towards third party drivers for me, I wanted to improve my own driving to see if this helped. So I took an advanced driving course around 4 years back. Since then I've not had a single accident on the road - call this co-incidence, but I believe that I'm more aware of what is around me. Therefore I'm not putting myself into situations that accidents may occur, regardless of who's fault it would be.
So my advice for anyone driving would be to take an advance driving course - it's only about £100 but saves money on your insurance and can save your life. I would love to see the things that are taught on advanced driving made compulsory to all drivers, not just the ones who fancy doing it.
Hit by van in fast food chain drive through as they didn't look as pulled off
I hit the person because he had to brake quickly to avoid an idiot reversing down a main road
Hit on rear as going around a corner as I had to brake suddenly due to oncoming car on wrong side of road
Hit on rear 2 weeks later in stop start traffic on M25, person behind didn't realise I had stopped again
Hit on rear in stopped traffic as person behind slipped foot onto accelerator
Unknown person hit into door in car park
As you can see all of the incidents above have been caused by bad driving - none have been due to exceeding the speed limit. Insurance wise all of these (except hitting door in car park by unknown and the reversing car) were deemed as third party at fault and happened within the first 5 years of me driving. Although insurance wise the statistics are pointing towards third party drivers for me, I wanted to improve my own driving to see if this helped. So I took an advanced driving course around 4 years back. Since then I've not had a single accident on the road - call this co-incidence, but I believe that I'm more aware of what is around me. Therefore I'm not putting myself into situations that accidents may occur, regardless of who's fault it would be.
So my advice for anyone driving would be to take an advance driving course - it's only about £100 but saves money on your insurance and can save your life. I would love to see the things that are taught on advanced driving made compulsory to all drivers, not just the ones who fancy doing it.
Anubis said:
Get rid of these nasty boxes once and for all. I'm fed up of feeling like I am going to do something wrong for a split second (33 in a 30) rather than feeling more relaxed allowing me to concentrate on the actual standard of driving.
Stop treating us like mindless morons that need to be watched all the time and let us all use a bit of common sense - 99% of drivers obey the rules yet so many of us are punished.
If the road is that unsafe put speed bumps on them or put up bigger warning signs.
Most people that get caught don't realise until the dreaded letter comes through by which according to these numptys the speed could have killed someone days ago; unfortunately a letter 7-14 days after the event will NEVER stop the 'potential accident' that happened a few days before. A police officer pulling someone over for dangerous driving on the other hand WILL stop accidents.
Remove this dictatorship & profit style system.
This sums up the situation perfectly. I couldn't have put it any better.Stop treating us like mindless morons that need to be watched all the time and let us all use a bit of common sense - 99% of drivers obey the rules yet so many of us are punished.
If the road is that unsafe put speed bumps on them or put up bigger warning signs.
Most people that get caught don't realise until the dreaded letter comes through by which according to these numptys the speed could have killed someone days ago; unfortunately a letter 7-14 days after the event will NEVER stop the 'potential accident' that happened a few days before. A police officer pulling someone over for dangerous driving on the other hand WILL stop accidents.
Remove this dictatorship & profit style system.
Having just spent 3 weeks in and around Carnation, Washington, I was amazed that (a) they don't have speed cameras, only saw a hand held one in a cop car as I entered Carnation, mind you, the limit there is 20, and (b) no ones seems to speed.
If it says 40, they do 40, if its 60 they do 60, OK, a tad over on the 4 lane Interstates, but generally speaking, they drive at the posted limit.
Why do so many drivers seem hell bent on totally ignoring limits? I do think cameras can be dangerous though, some years ago, I was catching up a truck in L1, and the dual carriageway was coming up to a sweeping left hand bend, I let the car catching me up pass, then pulled out to pass the truck.
As the car passed the truck, he saw the fixed camera, he jammed his brakes on so fast, I nearly rear ended him. Was I to close? didn't think so, but judging by his speed and mine, I maybe wrongly, assumed I could pull out whilst he continued on his merry way.
If it says 40, they do 40, if its 60 they do 60, OK, a tad over on the 4 lane Interstates, but generally speaking, they drive at the posted limit.
Why do so many drivers seem hell bent on totally ignoring limits? I do think cameras can be dangerous though, some years ago, I was catching up a truck in L1, and the dual carriageway was coming up to a sweeping left hand bend, I let the car catching me up pass, then pulled out to pass the truck.
As the car passed the truck, he saw the fixed camera, he jammed his brakes on so fast, I nearly rear ended him. Was I to close? didn't think so, but judging by his speed and mine, I maybe wrongly, assumed I could pull out whilst he continued on his merry way.
As long as you only nearly rear ended him then you weren't to close
Vipers said:
Having just spent 3 weeks in and around Carnation, Washington, I was amazed that (a) they don't have speed cameras, only saw a hand held one in a cop car as I entered Carnation, mind you, the limit there is 20, and (b) no ones seems to speed.
If it says 40, they do 40, if its 60 they do 60, OK, a tad over on the 4 lane Interstates, but generally speaking, they drive at the posted limit.
Why do so many drivers seem hell bent on totally ignoring limits? I do think cameras can be dangerous though, some years ago, I was catching up a truck in L1, and the dual carriageway was coming up to a sweeping left hand bend, I let the car catching me up pass, then pulled out to pass the truck.
As the car passed the truck, he saw the fixed camera, he jammed his brakes on so fast, I nearly rear ended him. Was I to close? didn't think so, but judging by his speed and mine, I maybe wrongly, assumed I could pull out whilst he continued on his merry way.
If it says 40, they do 40, if its 60 they do 60, OK, a tad over on the 4 lane Interstates, but generally speaking, they drive at the posted limit.
Why do so many drivers seem hell bent on totally ignoring limits? I do think cameras can be dangerous though, some years ago, I was catching up a truck in L1, and the dual carriageway was coming up to a sweeping left hand bend, I let the car catching me up pass, then pulled out to pass the truck.
As the car passed the truck, he saw the fixed camera, he jammed his brakes on so fast, I nearly rear ended him. Was I to close? didn't think so, but judging by his speed and mine, I maybe wrongly, assumed I could pull out whilst he continued on his merry way.
Edited by stbauto on Friday 23 July 16:21
If they really wanted to improve driving standards the test would be harder to pass therefore ensuring only the best drivers got a license.
To rectify it on an easier basis and allow new drivers to gain experience, they could keep the driving test as it is but insist that all new drivers MUST take the advanced driving test within five years of their original passing date. If they did not make the effort to do this their license would have an end date and they would effectively be be without a license in five years time. At which point they would need to apply for a provisional and start all over again. Five years should be ample time for a driver to get experience, build up confidence and show by way of a test they have improved their driving skills.
As in a previous post this could increase the driving standards, starting with all new drivers. I don't want to pick on anybody but we have to start somewhere as the roads are getting busier all the time. The benefit should be a reduced insurance premium. Surely a bonus for young drivers that are hit by high premiums anyway.
To rectify it on an easier basis and allow new drivers to gain experience, they could keep the driving test as it is but insist that all new drivers MUST take the advanced driving test within five years of their original passing date. If they did not make the effort to do this their license would have an end date and they would effectively be be without a license in five years time. At which point they would need to apply for a provisional and start all over again. Five years should be ample time for a driver to get experience, build up confidence and show by way of a test they have improved their driving skills.
As in a previous post this could increase the driving standards, starting with all new drivers. I don't want to pick on anybody but we have to start somewhere as the roads are getting busier all the time. The benefit should be a reduced insurance premium. Surely a bonus for young drivers that are hit by high premiums anyway.
The simple problem is the test is too easy, its only based around "normal" driving conditions and often you learn and take your test in quiet areas or quiet times, what the test should be like is the Scandinavian tests where you have to learn to do everything, you even have to spend time on the skid pans and on loose surfaces.
The test should consist of modules based on each area of driving in the uk,
so rural roads urban roads, motorway, busy roads like main routes into city centres. Every single area of common driving in the uk, and seeing as it isnt unusual for there to be heavy rains and high levels of surface water (well i grew up in manchester where there definitely was alot of standing rain there should be skid pan training and tests. And I dont think the test should be just for new drivers if the test does get changed to something more comprehensive then everyone without advanced driving qualifications should be made to take the entire test again or atleast parts of the test
The test should consist of modules based on each area of driving in the uk,
so rural roads urban roads, motorway, busy roads like main routes into city centres. Every single area of common driving in the uk, and seeing as it isnt unusual for there to be heavy rains and high levels of surface water (well i grew up in manchester where there definitely was alot of standing rain there should be skid pan training and tests. And I dont think the test should be just for new drivers if the test does get changed to something more comprehensive then everyone without advanced driving qualifications should be made to take the entire test again or atleast parts of the test
Too late for me I'm afraid I have just received my 3 points and a £60 fine from Thames valley Police....First offence in over 30 years of driving!!! But I do agree that cameras should be installed at appropriate locations e.g near schools where speed maybe the deciding factor between life and death of a child or any pedestrian that is unfortunately run over..
But I don't agree that for a first offence we automatically get our licence endorsed with 3 points, surely in most cases a fine should be sufficient. Or as per some years ago if you were stopped by the police you might have just got a warning "naughty boy don't do it again!" which when I was younger was enough to put the wind up anybody!! Unfortunately with the society we live in today, common sense seems to have all but disappeared from most, if not all the public services..
Chas-Chiro said:
If they really wanted to improve driving standards the test would be harder to pass therefore ensuring only the best drivers got a license.
To rectify it on an easier basis and allow new drivers to gain experience, they could keep the driving test as it is but insist that all new drivers MUST take the advanced driving test within five years of their original passing date. If they did not make the effort to do this their license would have an end date and they would effectively be be without a license in five years time. At which point they would need to apply for a provisional and start all over again. Five years should be ample time for a driver to get experience, build up confidence and show by way of a test they have improved their driving skills.
As in a previous post this could increase the driving standards, starting with all new drivers. I don't want to pick on anybody but we have to start somewhere as the roads are getting busier all the time. The benefit should be a reduced insurance premium. Surely a bonus for young drivers that are hit by high premiums anyway.
Would be more like the motorcycle way if you don't do an intense course. Take your CBT (1/2 day if you pass), then ride around on a limited bike for up to 2 years then take your proper test. But again you can still pass at different levels of cc.To rectify it on an easier basis and allow new drivers to gain experience, they could keep the driving test as it is but insist that all new drivers MUST take the advanced driving test within five years of their original passing date. If they did not make the effort to do this their license would have an end date and they would effectively be be without a license in five years time. At which point they would need to apply for a provisional and start all over again. Five years should be ample time for a driver to get experience, build up confidence and show by way of a test they have improved their driving skills.
As in a previous post this could increase the driving standards, starting with all new drivers. I don't want to pick on anybody but we have to start somewhere as the roads are getting busier all the time. The benefit should be a reduced insurance premium. Surely a bonus for young drivers that are hit by high premiums anyway.
That's part of the problem also - there is no restriction on what car you can own. Most people learn and pass their test in a front wheel drive car with no more than 1000cc engine. There is nothing stopping them the next day (apart from money) to go out and drive a supercar with 100's of bhp and rear wheel drive... How is that right?
Edited by gareth001 on Friday 23 July 17:56
silverMX said:
The councillor has said: "Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with speed on that road"
Souldn't it be: Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with accidents on that road"
?
Blindly fingering speed as the culprit for all accidents isn't the way now, is it? That'll just blinker progress!
I spotted that aswell....they still think speed causes all accidents because you can't crash when you are at a stand still can you Souldn't it be: Since the installation of the camera on Burton Road, for example, you look at the accident statistics and the number of incidents have gone up, so we need to look at alternative ways of dealing with accidents on that road"
?
Blindly fingering speed as the culprit for all accidents isn't the way now, is it? That'll just blinker progress!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff