RE: Speed Cameras Come Down After Accidents Go Up
Discussion
gareth001 said:
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
I don't think a cap on engine size is warranted or sensible. But making pass plus AND skid pan training a necessity, plus introducing a mandatory driving-rehab style campaign for all 15-18 year olds at school, and giving better insurance incentives for those who have undergone IAM or ROSPA training would work wonders.
Couple this with more off-road facilities to start learning at a younger age, and I think they'd be onto a winner. Bar far the safest drivers I know are the people who started driving before they hit their teens, and by far the worst are my 27 year old colleagues who decide to learn after a few anti-sabbaticals and think they're god as soon as they pass the (ridiculously easy) test just by virtue of the fact that most new drivers are 10 years younger than them!
the demise of the speed camera is obviously no bad thing but we still have to deal with the worse mobile speed trap. Fixed speed cameras are at known sites, generally signed in advance, usually visible before you are on top of them and are programmed with alerts in any sat nav. Furthermore their trigger speed is usually more than 3 or 4 mph over the limit in a 30 zone. So to get caught by one would possibly suggest that speed was excessive but strongly indicates that the driver wasn't paying as much attention as they could have been. Don't get me wrong, I am completely opposed to them for all the reasons raised here but I don't think that good drivers should consider them as a threat. I have had more than my fair share of performance cars, as have many of my "car enthusiastic" friends but between us I don't think we have been caught by a single static speed camera. On the other hand, friends who view driving as a means of getting from a to b and consider the car as no more than an expensive metal box to facilitate this, seem to report being "flashed" by a camera on a regular basis.
On the other hand mobile speed traps are here to stay I suspect. These have no signs, often are visible for a few seconds before you are caught, can't be reliably mapped on a sat nav and only give you 3 or 4 mph grace. They are placed to maximise revenue on an unnecessarily low speed section of dual carriageway or on the final stretch of 30 limit on a rural road before it reverts back to 40, 50 or 60 limit. most of them don't now even benefit from a traffic officer stopping and catching the real scum with no insurance, tax or tyre tread.
On the other hand mobile speed traps are here to stay I suspect. These have no signs, often are visible for a few seconds before you are caught, can't be reliably mapped on a sat nav and only give you 3 or 4 mph grace. They are placed to maximise revenue on an unnecessarily low speed section of dual carriageway or on the final stretch of 30 limit on a rural road before it reverts back to 40, 50 or 60 limit. most of them don't now even benefit from a traffic officer stopping and catching the real scum with no insurance, tax or tyre tread.
Edited by tuscanboy on Friday 23 July 21:04
Wouldn't it be nice if the government had realised that the feeling of being in an over-controlled society was causing unhappiness and low morale for people, and they were just trying to do something positive to improve that feeling. It would be nice to think that this was what was happening, and you can go with that as well, especially after the ID card scheme was scrapped. In fact, I do get a bit of a good feeling. I've always moaned about over spending, money wastage, etc, and those things seem to be high on the agenda right now.
Roj1957 said:
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..
ds, but I still lost). But my point is NO I do not even want scameras outside schools, I don't want them ANYWHERE!
Also get rid of all the nonsense chicanes and humps too which are no more than inconvenient hazards, and bring back sensible speed limits - 20mph ones can go immediately.
The one and only, the best, way to road safety is so simple: to get a sensible proportion of visible road traffic Police presence back on the roads. Would also result in an immediate drop in the number of hand-held mobile dicks I am fed up seeing daily.
I live in Derby, this particular speed camera on Burton road is placed a few hundred yards after a busy, traffic light controlled and very busy crossroads.....you would be struggling to up to an illegal speed while passing this camera!!!
Essentially, the factor of 'speed' at this location was never an issue, so the numpties who assessed this so called accident spot, have yet again failed to understand the true problem of the cause of accidents.
How many camera's around the country have been placed in ridiculous and ineffective positions, that ultimately had no effect on the prevention of accidents???
Dont we all just know the real truth
Essentially, the factor of 'speed' at this location was never an issue, so the numpties who assessed this so called accident spot, have yet again failed to understand the true problem of the cause of accidents.
How many camera's around the country have been placed in ridiculous and ineffective positions, that ultimately had no effect on the prevention of accidents???
Dont we all just know the real truth
It sounds like good news but I’m worried about the alternative.
I was reading the DfT Road Transport plan for the next 10 years back in 1988. This was an internal document signed by Paul Channon and not for the public eyes. Much of the changes were dropped when Labour got in.
The whole thing was focused on reducing cost to the state.
Speed humps were to be so common that if they laid down any more humps they would fill the gaps between the other humps. Since speeding would become all but impossible the need for Police traffic enforcement would be reduced. This was to facilitate massive savings by the redundancy of large numbers of Police Officers.
Urban roads were to be classified as trunk, feeder or residential. A system of locked barriers across the residential roads would stop through traffic. Feeder roads would lead traffic from trunk into residential roads, but it wouldn’t be possible to rat run through the back doubles from one trunk road to another. Only the emergency services would be able to unlock the barriers.
Some types of road user were identified as costing the UK economy, specifically motorcyclists. The data indicated that although car drivers were responsible for something over 90% of car V bike accidents, it would be counterproductive and expensive to deal with this. Too many votes would be lost. These accidents cost the NHS.
Bikes and their spares were almost exclusively imported and therefore a burden on the balance of trade figures.
It was therefore decided to, and I quote “close or severely limit the option of riding motorcycles upon UK roads”. The document recognised the political difficulties of doing so at the time of writing. It therefore proposed a strategy of reducing the number of motorcyclists by introducing legislation designed to discourage people from taking up or continuing to ride motorcycles. Introducing multi stage tests, power limits for younger riders etc were all designed to discourage riders.
Additionally it stated that “media contacts would be used to manipulate public perception of safety and desirability and social acceptability of motorcycling”
When the numbers of persons actively riding motorcycles falls to a level that the option can be closed...
The danger is that that plans like that may be dusted off and reinstated to save costs.
Additionally there is a danger that the logic of closing or severely limiting the option of doing things that cost the economy money may be applied to other types of vehicle. I foresee the same logic applied to high consumption or emissions vehicles.
I was reading the DfT Road Transport plan for the next 10 years back in 1988. This was an internal document signed by Paul Channon and not for the public eyes. Much of the changes were dropped when Labour got in.
The whole thing was focused on reducing cost to the state.
Speed humps were to be so common that if they laid down any more humps they would fill the gaps between the other humps. Since speeding would become all but impossible the need for Police traffic enforcement would be reduced. This was to facilitate massive savings by the redundancy of large numbers of Police Officers.
Urban roads were to be classified as trunk, feeder or residential. A system of locked barriers across the residential roads would stop through traffic. Feeder roads would lead traffic from trunk into residential roads, but it wouldn’t be possible to rat run through the back doubles from one trunk road to another. Only the emergency services would be able to unlock the barriers.
Some types of road user were identified as costing the UK economy, specifically motorcyclists. The data indicated that although car drivers were responsible for something over 90% of car V bike accidents, it would be counterproductive and expensive to deal with this. Too many votes would be lost. These accidents cost the NHS.
Bikes and their spares were almost exclusively imported and therefore a burden on the balance of trade figures.
It was therefore decided to, and I quote “close or severely limit the option of riding motorcycles upon UK roads”. The document recognised the political difficulties of doing so at the time of writing. It therefore proposed a strategy of reducing the number of motorcyclists by introducing legislation designed to discourage people from taking up or continuing to ride motorcycles. Introducing multi stage tests, power limits for younger riders etc were all designed to discourage riders.
Additionally it stated that “media contacts would be used to manipulate public perception of safety and desirability and social acceptability of motorcycling”
When the numbers of persons actively riding motorcycles falls to a level that the option can be closed...
The danger is that that plans like that may be dusted off and reinstated to save costs.
Additionally there is a danger that the logic of closing or severely limiting the option of doing things that cost the economy money may be applied to other types of vehicle. I foresee the same logic applied to high consumption or emissions vehicles.
I'm not really sure why people are so pleased about this. Presumably because they will now be able to speed (ie drive illegally) without fear of being caught?
Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
NaCl said:
A very interesting post from Uncle Fester.
I always suspected that the government were deliberately trying to legislate motorcyclists off the roads.
I’m not sure that it’s always government policy, although government policy is often what the Civil Service tell them to think. This is often the personal prejudice of the senior individuals advising the Minister.I always suspected that the government were deliberately trying to legislate motorcyclists off the roads.
Edited by NaCl on Saturday 24th July 07:56
It was a long time ago and DfT documents no longer cross my desk, so I don’t know what the current plans are.
My concern is that this was a Conservative policy under the last Conservative government. I’ve known old plans to be dusted off after a period in opposition before and I wouldn’t be surprised to see old ideas from the Thatcher era dusted off and revamped to reduce fiscal expenditure.
Anything activity that has a negative impact on the government figures is a potential target. Any vehicle that doesn’t use minimum imported fuel is at risk.
I think its a great idear to get rid of speed cameras, people moan because they get caught at 33 in a 30 like i did which is stupid because it aint going to harm any 1, i have got a fast car and i have uprated all the breaks, so i gaurantee i would stop twice as quick if a pedestarain jumped out infront of me while i was doing 33 than if a granny was doing 30, i bet the granny wouldnt even notice until after she had hit them.
IOW said:
I think its a great idear to get rid of speed cameras, people moan because they get caught at 33 in a 30 like i did which is stupid because it aint going to harm any 1, i have got a fast car and i have uprated all the breaks, so i gaurantee i would stop twice as quick if a pedestarain jumped out infront of me while i was doing 33 than if a granny was doing 30, i bet the granny wouldnt even notice until after she had hit them.
30Mph speed limits normally have a very good reason for being - most of us I'm sure only complain about cameras on A roads and the like where it is 'safer' to drive at higher speeds, especially in performance cars designed to be used at speed and/or by drivers who have had advanced training.A couple of observations.
Anyone thinking that this is the end of the war on motorists through speed is deluded. It's not going to go away.
Also, as has been aluded to / mentioned, it'll only be replaced by something else more difficult to avoid.
Think about it;
They're very obvious given the bright hue of yellow chosen, you get notification of where they are, you can buy / use satellite navigation systems that show you where they are as you drive too.
I love to drive as much as the rest of Pistonheaders but you're celebrating the death of the easiest thing to avoid.
Coupled with the need for money and maintaining the perception that "something is being done" to improve driving standards, it's clear that more subtle and spiteful measures will be considered.
My solution?
Make driving tests more difficult, put more police on the road, make a % of the RFL / Fuel Duty cover Third Party insurance, make MOT's more stringent, reduce the alcohol allowance to zero. I'd also be happy with a 20mph limit outside schools and put the limit up on NSL roads.
Road furniture / signage + Layout - get rid of the rubbish on the roads that makes it difficult to see, improve and maintain the quality of the road surface.
Above all, education and a change in habits - make people see that driving is an art & a priviledge, to be refined and enhanced. Not just some birthright and a test you take, then forget.
Of course, this and other much better ideas take time to instigate AND money.
Finally, spare a thought for those on the other side of the world - Speed Kills is a big message here in Australia and they have (at least in Victoria) a limit of 100kph / 110kph. That's about 62mph and they're zealous about catching speeders. A few K's over and that's that. Speed Kills messages are everywhere.
Yes, more speed = more energy brought to the accident + less chance of people walking away. But aggressive, careless, sloppy, inappropriate, selfish, arrogant, imbecilic, novice driving also play an integral part.
Will those in "control" listen and bring an intelligent solution?
Probably not..
Anyone thinking that this is the end of the war on motorists through speed is deluded. It's not going to go away.
Also, as has been aluded to / mentioned, it'll only be replaced by something else more difficult to avoid.
Think about it;
They're very obvious given the bright hue of yellow chosen, you get notification of where they are, you can buy / use satellite navigation systems that show you where they are as you drive too.
I love to drive as much as the rest of Pistonheaders but you're celebrating the death of the easiest thing to avoid.
Coupled with the need for money and maintaining the perception that "something is being done" to improve driving standards, it's clear that more subtle and spiteful measures will be considered.
My solution?
Make driving tests more difficult, put more police on the road, make a % of the RFL / Fuel Duty cover Third Party insurance, make MOT's more stringent, reduce the alcohol allowance to zero. I'd also be happy with a 20mph limit outside schools and put the limit up on NSL roads.
Road furniture / signage + Layout - get rid of the rubbish on the roads that makes it difficult to see, improve and maintain the quality of the road surface.
Above all, education and a change in habits - make people see that driving is an art & a priviledge, to be refined and enhanced. Not just some birthright and a test you take, then forget.
Of course, this and other much better ideas take time to instigate AND money.
Finally, spare a thought for those on the other side of the world - Speed Kills is a big message here in Australia and they have (at least in Victoria) a limit of 100kph / 110kph. That's about 62mph and they're zealous about catching speeders. A few K's over and that's that. Speed Kills messages are everywhere.
Yes, more speed = more energy brought to the accident + less chance of people walking away. But aggressive, careless, sloppy, inappropriate, selfish, arrogant, imbecilic, novice driving also play an integral part.
Will those in "control" listen and bring an intelligent solution?
Probably not..
nobodyknows said:
30Mph speed limits normally have a very good reason for being - most of us I'm sure only complain about cameras on A roads and the like where it is 'safer' to drive at higher speeds, especially in performance cars designed to be used at speed and/or by drivers who have had advanced training.
Hence the advanced lunacy of cameras on dual c/w and motorways.If 10% of the time, money and effort that goes into speed
control in the UK, went into better quality driving standards,
I'd be a lot happier.
As things stand in the UK, I just pop the cruise control
on and concentrate on the radio or CD.
Uncle Fester said:
Anything activity that has a negative impact on the government figures is a potential target. Any vehicle that doesn’t use minimum imported fuel is at risk.
Alas I feel Uncle Fester has hit the nail on the head.I just wish they would be honest about it!!
Trouble is a lot of us have invested a lot on money in our cars.
Some of these cars are perhaps now being considered by BIG BROTHER as less than acceptable?
I personally am wishing more and more these days, that I had left this country when I was in my 20s.
But then where in the world is not following these trends? UAE perhaps?
There is no doubt modern cars are more efficient, and that actually makes them faster!
But some good news?
The speed camera on the A21 South bound just before the Tonbridge exit had a huge blue bag over it this afternoon?
It has been "BENT" over for a while now, perhaps someone has acted "Independently"??
Or have the Council just taken it out of action?
A message for the legislators - keep screwing down the relief valve and eventually there will be an explosion!
dcb said:
As things stand in the UK, I just pop the cruise control
on and concentrate on the radio or CD.
Ironically, it was doing just that - and the only time in my life where I made a conscious decision to stick to the speed limit - that got me my only speeding ticket - for doing 70 in a 50 zone approaching the Severn Crossing on the M5.on and concentrate on the radio or CD.
Unaware of the scameras, I just slowed down in good time from my leisurely pace of 70mph to go through the booth in a equally leisurely manner totally unaware that I was in fact a lunatic driving way too fast and should be punished for it.
thomashenry said:
I'm not really sure why people are so pleased about this. Presumably because they will now be able to speed (ie drive illegally) without fear of being caught?
Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
+1.Also, if they really are a 'money making scheme' as the motoring lobby tell us, why on Earth is the government getting rid of a money maker at a time when it desperately needs money?
If you drive at the speed limit, then speed cameras are irrelevant to you.
Although obviously a lot of drivers have been zapped speeding, there are an awful lot who havn't, either by being cunning one way or another, or as you say, "Drive at the speed limit", taint hard to do.
I'd rather have no cameras than cameras that are poorly applied and located. I bet everyone wouldn't mind if all existing cameras were relocated to outside every School in the UK. We can't pick and choose so if the government can't implement a clear, consistent camera policy, I'd rather lobby for removal of all cameras.
It's a toughie but I've always said, if you drive within the speed limit or keep your eyes open, you are unlikely to get zapped by a camera. What I hate is the sneaky speed guns / mobile cameras.
It's a toughie but I've always said, if you drive within the speed limit or keep your eyes open, you are unlikely to get zapped by a camera. What I hate is the sneaky speed guns / mobile cameras.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff