As if we didn't already know.

[Strangely Brown]

Had a quick look down the first couple of pages and didn't spot an existing thread.

Speed cameras have failed to cut accidents. Well, no schitt, Sherlock.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8719263/S...

[Pints]

This can only mean that they're going to scrap all the tax cameras from our roads.

No? Thought not.

[XitUp]

Figures are meaningless without knowing if the volume of traffic went up or down and by how much in those areas.

Seeing as the article mentions Humberside, which hasn't existed for over a decade, then I'd call into question it's legitimacy.

[Jasandjules]

Getting this kind of knowledge in the public eye is a good start though.

Soon the morons who equate speeding with safety will be quieter.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Playing devils advocate. Speed enforcement is not about reducing accidents but reducing the outcome of those accidents. Limiting the impact so to speak.

[Rawwr]

Jasandjules said:

Soon the morons who equate speeding with safety will be quieter.

They won't. Unfortunately, there's a large degree of almost religious zeal when it comes to road safety campaigners.

[The Moose]

Rawwr said:

They won't. Unfortunately, there's a large degree of almost religious zeal when it comes to road safety campaigners.

Not at all helped by 'speed kills'. What they meant is 'the mis-use of speed kills'. slightly different, but whole different meanings.

Oh well!

[johnvthe2nd]

It's not just the speeding fines though, surely the insurance companies make a killing by upping premiums whenever points are mentioned .. I know mine do, and I have a few. They won't be keen on scrapping cameras.

[Rawwr]

I don't believe having a couple of SP30s have any effect on an insurance premium.

[jbi]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Playing devils advocate. Speed enforcement is not about reducing accidents but reducing the outcome of those accidents. Limiting the impact so to speak.

modern cars are exponentially safer and stronger than even just a few years ago, and I would wager that a 40mph crash today is safer than a 30mph one in 1999

[Rawwr]

jbi said:

modern cars are exponentially safer and stronger than even just a few years ago, and I would wager that a 40mph crash today is safer than a 30mph one in 1999

Not all cars on the road are modern cars.

[jbi]

Rawwr said:

jbi said:

modern cars are exponentially safer and stronger than even just a few years ago, and I would wager that a 40mph crash today is safer than a 30mph one in 1999

Not all cars on the road are modern cars.

true... but thankfully the least safe (small hatchbacks) also tend to be the shortest lived and thus, replaced more quickly.

[shed driver]

jbi said:

Rawwr said:

jbi said:

modern cars are exponentially safer and stronger than even just a few years ago, and I would wager that a 40mph crash today is safer than a 30mph one in 1999

Not all cars on the road are modern cars.

true... but thankfully the least safe (small hatchbacks) also tend to be the shortest lived and thus, replaced more quickly.

It's a pity then that the Mk 1 pedestrian is still in widespread production.

SD

[jbi]

shed driver said:

jbi said:

Rawwr said:

jbi said:

modern cars are exponentially safer and stronger than even just a few years ago, and I would wager that a 40mph crash today is safer than a 30mph one in 1999

Not all cars on the road are modern cars.

true... but thankfully the least safe (small hatchbacks) also tend to be the shortest lived and thus, replaced more quickly.

It's a pity then that the Mk 1 pedestrian is still in widespread production.

SD

and with that argument, why bother driving, there's the potential risk at every corner

[HellDiver]

shed driver said:

It's a pity then that the Mk 1 pedestrian is still in widespread production.

SD

Natural selection at work. If you're stupid enough to walk out on to a road when there's a vehicle there, then...

[AllNines]

XitUp said:

Figures are meaningless without knowing if the volume of traffic went up or down and by how much in those areas.

Seeing as the article mentions Humberside, which hasn't existed for over a decade, then I'd call into question it's legitimacy.

Humberside does exist - it's the area around the Humber. Similar to Thames Valley. Each area has its police force so named, it doesn't mean that the county is named the same...

[johnvthe2nd]

Rawwr said:

I don't believe having a couple of SP30s have any effect on an insurance premium.

try it.

[McSam]

shed driver said:

It's a pity then that the Mk 1 pedestrian is still in widespread production.

SD

Then isn't it a good job that such a massive priority is made of pedestrian protection in modern safety testing?

I'd be happy to avoid either - good job braking performance and electronic stability has improved so much recently so I can - but I'd far rather be hit by a brand new Fiesta than even a mid-90s one.

Among other things, that's why car's bonnets are getting higher and higher. Keeps your bonce off the cylinder head when you dent your way through the bonnet.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

jbi said:

and with that argument, why bother driving, there's the potential risk at every corner

It's about moderating risk. Which is why speed limits exist in built up areas.

Failing to understand the reason for limiting speed is as bad as those advocating it's enforcement as the answer to road death and injury.

Speed limits are about moderating risk in certain locations. By trying to place an element if control over any outcomes. The limit isn't about trying to stop the crash.

Car safety has both improved survival rates and also to an extent created a situation where drivers feel safer as such their views on risk adjust. We share the roads with all manner of other users however who haven't got a safety cage. Motorcyclists, pedestrians to name a few. We also share the roads with lots of road side furniture. That also has to be considered when imposing limits on certain roads.

The biggest issue is that speed limits have been used to make up for poor road design and bad driver training. They are cheap to enforce and easily applied.

Speed limits only work when there is a genuine fear that you'll be caught if you exceed them. The only question in that sense that matters is whether cameras increase or decrease that fear?

The biggest cause of crashes is distraction, drink driving etc. Speed is something like 4.%. Vehicle defects far less. Of course speed is a factor in almost every injury.

Speed limits have a part to play in road safety. However they need to stop being used as the fall back position.

[Rovinghawk]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed limits only work when there is a genuine fear that you'll be caught if you exceed them.

There's a school of thought that they'd work better if they were perceived as reasonable- the wholesale application of 50 limits on previously NSL roads for no apparent reason will have eroded this perception.

RH