M4 speedcamera lies
Discussion
http://www.tnn.co.uk/UKNews/plonearticle.2005-07-21.2461668834
ABD research undermines M4 cameras :banghead:
New research from the Association of British Drivers (ABD) has damned the M4 speed cameras as "a massive mistake". The Association was also charged £111 for access to vital information about the causes of crashes which, it believes, should have been made public.
In data provided by Wiltshire Constabulary :cop:, driver inattention topped the list of accident causes, followed by poor lane changing and careless/reckless behaviour. In fact, not one single accident had excess speed as the sole cause.
But included in the crashes that allowed the Partnership to use speed cameras were:
an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge
:eek:
an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another :tank::tank:
several tyre blowout accidents :rotate: :rotate: :rotate:
a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway :driving:
ABD research undermines M4 cameras :banghead:
New research from the Association of British Drivers (ABD) has damned the M4 speed cameras as "a massive mistake". The Association was also charged £111 for access to vital information about the causes of crashes which, it believes, should have been made public.
In data provided by Wiltshire Constabulary :cop:, driver inattention topped the list of accident causes, followed by poor lane changing and careless/reckless behaviour. In fact, not one single accident had excess speed as the sole cause.
But included in the crashes that allowed the Partnership to use speed cameras were:
an accident where a pedestrian fell from a bridge
:eek:
an accident where a gust of wind pushed one lorry into another :tank::tank:
several tyre blowout accidents :rotate: :rotate: :rotate:
a crash where a car drove the wrong way up the motorway :driving:
theboyfold said:
Shocking news, I hate scameras! 
Fair enough, but check out the reply in the tnn website:
Stuart Waudby said:
Posted by Stuart Waudby at 22/07/2005 11:06 AM
I am somewhat sceptical of this report, you have seemed to miss the point that Speed is a major factor in the majority of these exceptions you have pointed out:
Where the pedestrian fell from the bridge excess speed of oncoming traffic will increase braking distances and increase the risk of further injury from impact with a vehicle.
If the weather was windy then the lorries could have avoided impact by driving at a lower speed to reduce the effect of the sidewind and enabling more reaction time or accepting a slightly lower speed and not overtaking in the first place.
Tyre blowouts are caused by a number of factors which include incorrect inflation, wear and tear and speed. I have rarely seen a blowout incident which was not caused directly by excess speed or excessive swerving caused by excess speed.
If a car is driving the wrong way up the motorway then excess speed will reduce the reaction time of the oncoming drivers and increase the odds of an impact.
Perhaps the ABD (and Mr Mark McArthur-Christie) should concentrate more on the safety of it's members and the rights of the general public to travel on roads without been put at risk by speeding drivers.
Mr Waudby's answer I find very sad.
This is the kind of person that we have to deal with.
Stuart Waudby said:Good god. I have never heard such utter BS in all my life.
Posted by Stuart Waudby at 22/07/2005 11:06 AM
I am somewhat sceptical of this report, you have seemed to miss the point that Speed is a major factor in the majority of these exceptions you have pointed out:
Where the pedestrian fell from the bridge excess speed of oncoming traffic will increase braking distances and increase the risk of further injury from impact with a vehicle.
If the weather was windy then the lorries could have avoided impact by driving at a lower speed to reduce the effect of the sidewind and enabling more reaction time or accepting a slightly lower speed and not overtaking in the first place.
Tyre blowouts are caused by a number of factors which include incorrect inflation, wear and tear and speed. I have rarely seen a blowout incident which was not caused directly by excess speed or excessive swerving caused by excess speed.
If a car is driving the wrong way up the motorway then excess speed will reduce the reaction time of the oncoming drivers and increase the odds of an impact.
Perhaps the ABD (and Mr Mark McArthur-Christie) should concentrate more on the safety of it's members and the rights of the general public to travel on roads without been put at risk by speeding drivers.
I agree with the reply, it's quite true.......
BUT the fact remains that his reply is saying the majority SHOULD slow down, to avoid the MINORITY making mistakes. A bit like saying, 'The country has loads of burglers, thus everyone should have a house alarm, and if you don't you will be fined'.
It's a bit mad to say everyone should keep slow just in case someone falls from a bridge. Would it not be better to say 'Traffic should maintain safe stopping distances to allow each vehicle to react to any event that could occur'.
M4 stopping distances are bonkers at times, esp. Friday afternoons.
Webby
>> Edited by tvrman on Wednesday 27th July 14:33
BUT the fact remains that his reply is saying the majority SHOULD slow down, to avoid the MINORITY making mistakes. A bit like saying, 'The country has loads of burglers, thus everyone should have a house alarm, and if you don't you will be fined'.
It's a bit mad to say everyone should keep slow just in case someone falls from a bridge. Would it not be better to say 'Traffic should maintain safe stopping distances to allow each vehicle to react to any event that could occur'.
M4 stopping distances are bonkers at times, esp. Friday afternoons.
Webby
>> Edited by tvrman on Wednesday 27th July 14:33
I'm ashamed to share the same name as that Waudby bloke! Mr Waudby,are you actually mad?........and as for the bridge bit,I blame the speed of the geezers descent for his demise,not the speed of the traffic on the road at the time.
I agree with TVRMan.Outlaw tailgating.If no one tailgated on the motorway,we could all drive at 140 and still probably halve the accident rate.....plus the roads would be fun again.
People like Stuart Waudby make me so angry.
I agree with TVRMan.Outlaw tailgating.If no one tailgated on the motorway,we could all drive at 140 and still probably halve the accident rate.....plus the roads would be fun again.
People like Stuart Waudby make me so angry.
"If the weather was windy then the lorries could have avoided impact by driving at a lower speed to reduce the effect of the sidewind and enabling more reaction time or accepting a slightly lower speed and not overtaking in the first place."
most lorries are limited to 58mph
I have only ever known 2 tyre blow outs. one tyre was damaged running over something very hot, the other was a car tyre fitted to a van.
The pedestrian may have been doing over 70 mph if he had fallen 45m...
A drunken woman drove at 80mph for 30 miles along the M4 — on the wrong side.
Rebecca Denton, 37, narrowly missed a head-on crash with a petrol tanker and clipped a car’s wing mirror.
real police checking cars and drivers and pedestrians may have prevented some of these "accidents"
most lorries are limited to 58mph
I have only ever known 2 tyre blow outs. one tyre was damaged running over something very hot, the other was a car tyre fitted to a van.
The pedestrian may have been doing over 70 mph if he had fallen 45m...
A drunken woman drove at 80mph for 30 miles along the M4 — on the wrong side.
Rebecca Denton, 37, narrowly missed a head-on crash with a petrol tanker and clipped a car’s wing mirror.
real police checking cars and drivers and pedestrians may have prevented some of these "accidents"
All used as reasons for speed cameras....
80 wrong way = -80 to speed camera, thus not caught...
Lorries doing 58 in high winds < 75/80Mph trip, thus not caught....
Is it a case of "Speeding kills because stupidity cannot be caught and prevented on unpaid revenue generating machines"?
InRong
80 wrong way = -80 to speed camera, thus not caught...
Lorries doing 58 in high winds < 75/80Mph trip, thus not caught....
Is it a case of "Speeding kills because stupidity cannot be caught and prevented on unpaid revenue generating machines"? InRong
Hello boys, thank goodness for Google Alerts or I wouldn't have found you.
You think i'm sad ? I think you are all sad for trying to justify driving at illegally high speeds on the road.
dcb - What do you mean by "This is the kind of person that we have to deal with." ? are you some sort of speed mafia ?
CupraR - "Good god. I have never heard such utter BS in all my life." Exactly which comment ? Please explain your point of view. p.s. I am not a religious man but God usually has a capital G.
tvrman - Some sense at last, I think the point I was trying to say was that *slower is safer*. I would express my view more as "The country has loads of vehicles capable of dangerous speeds, thus everyone should drive at safe speeds, if you don't you will be fined."
nicklytwohats - So you agree that less speed = lower accidents
zzr - "Speed only effects the severity of the outcome," Unfortunatly the human body does not have instantaneous reactions. Velocity * reaction time = distance QED. p.s. as you get older the reaction time increases.
Stueywilliams - Stuey, tailgating is already illegal, it is called "careless driving" or "dangerous driving" if the speed / conditions are bad enough. Most cars are not capable of 140 mph and if everyone drove at such a speed the capacity of the motorway would be reduced to about 10% of what it is now.
You think i'm sad ? I think you are all sad for trying to justify driving at illegally high speeds on the road.
dcb - What do you mean by "This is the kind of person that we have to deal with." ? are you some sort of speed mafia ?
CupraR - "Good god. I have never heard such utter BS in all my life." Exactly which comment ? Please explain your point of view. p.s. I am not a religious man but God usually has a capital G.
tvrman - Some sense at last, I think the point I was trying to say was that *slower is safer*. I would express my view more as "The country has loads of vehicles capable of dangerous speeds, thus everyone should drive at safe speeds, if you don't you will be fined."
nicklytwohats - So you agree that less speed = lower accidents
zzr - "Speed only effects the severity of the outcome," Unfortunatly the human body does not have instantaneous reactions. Velocity * reaction time = distance QED. p.s. as you get older the reaction time increases.
Stueywilliams - Stuey, tailgating is already illegal, it is called "careless driving" or "dangerous driving" if the speed / conditions are bad enough. Most cars are not capable of 140 mph and if everyone drove at such a speed the capacity of the motorway would be reduced to about 10% of what it is now.
tony13579 - All EEC lorries are all limited to 56mph. In adverse conditions 56mph is way too fast, try it sometime in something larger than your tvr and yaris.
InRong Ghia - I agree that cameras cannot prevent irresponsible drinking and driving. If you were to limit your vehicle to 70mph then you would not get caught either.....
radracer - When you are old enough to have children you might realise that not everyone has quite so much road sense as yourself. Do not be so quick to judge, no one "deserves" to be hit by a car.
Flame on !
InRong Ghia - I agree that cameras cannot prevent irresponsible drinking and driving. If you were to limit your vehicle to 70mph then you would not get caught either.....
radracer - When you are old enough to have children you might realise that not everyone has quite so much road sense as yourself. Do not be so quick to judge, no one "deserves" to be hit by a car.
Flame on !
Stuart,
You've obviously come here to try and cause people to make a big deal, and then you sit back and accuse us all of being 'speed freaks' etc etc...
Well, i hate to dissapoint you, but I drive a Lexus, at, or below the speed limit, at almost all times (however, I personally feel that it is in the best interest of road safety to take my eyes off the speedometer from time to time to look at the road, and as such, may actually stray above the speed limit).
But that isnt the point, the point is, your arguments are flawed. Simply saying accidents can be avoided by driving slower is factually incorrect, as well as being quite closed minded.
For instance - you could say deaths would be cut to 0 if we all just stayed at home, expect for the fact that most accidents happen in the home - so perhaps not a good idea...
While speed is ALWAYS a factor in EVERY road accident (becuase, if the cars were stationary, there couldnt be an accident), however, in the truck example - the accident was down to adverse weather conditions - and as you rightly say, perhaps they were driving too fast for the weather, BUT, they were still within the legal limit - so it was not EXCESS SPEED that was the issue - it was Innapropriate speed...
I think some points made by safety groups are very valid - unfortunatly, you seem so focused on 'speed kills', to actually come accross as credible to anyone with a few brain cells.
The issue is not SPEED, it is INNAPROPRIATE speed, it isnt as simple as 'exceeding the speed limit, it is driving too fast for the road, for the conditions not to mention lots of other factors...
Single track lanes in the countryside have a NSL posted, and doing 60mph (legally) down one of those is more dangerous than doing 80mph on the motorway..
>> Edited by fidgits on Monday 1st August 11:32
You've obviously come here to try and cause people to make a big deal, and then you sit back and accuse us all of being 'speed freaks' etc etc...
Well, i hate to dissapoint you, but I drive a Lexus, at, or below the speed limit, at almost all times (however, I personally feel that it is in the best interest of road safety to take my eyes off the speedometer from time to time to look at the road, and as such, may actually stray above the speed limit).
But that isnt the point, the point is, your arguments are flawed. Simply saying accidents can be avoided by driving slower is factually incorrect, as well as being quite closed minded.
For instance - you could say deaths would be cut to 0 if we all just stayed at home, expect for the fact that most accidents happen in the home - so perhaps not a good idea...
While speed is ALWAYS a factor in EVERY road accident (becuase, if the cars were stationary, there couldnt be an accident), however, in the truck example - the accident was down to adverse weather conditions - and as you rightly say, perhaps they were driving too fast for the weather, BUT, they were still within the legal limit - so it was not EXCESS SPEED that was the issue - it was Innapropriate speed...
I think some points made by safety groups are very valid - unfortunatly, you seem so focused on 'speed kills', to actually come accross as credible to anyone with a few brain cells.
The issue is not SPEED, it is INNAPROPRIATE speed, it isnt as simple as 'exceeding the speed limit, it is driving too fast for the road, for the conditions not to mention lots of other factors...
Single track lanes in the countryside have a NSL posted, and doing 60mph (legally) down one of those is more dangerous than doing 80mph on the motorway..
>> Edited by fidgits on Monday 1st August 11:32
stuartwaudby said:Hello.
CupraR - "Good god. I have never heard such utter BS in all my life." Exactly which comment ? Please explain your point of view. p.s. I am not a religious man but God usually has a capital G.
"I am somewhat sceptical of this report, you have seemed to miss the point that Speed is a major factor in the majority of these exceptions you have pointed out" - If you mean the speed at which the pedestrian fell off the bridge, the speed of the gust of wind that pushed one lorry into another or the speed at which the car drove the wrong way up the motorway, then yes you have a point. However, how speed cameras would have prevented any of these accidents only God knows (capital G)
Where the pedestrian fell from the bridge excess speed of oncoming traffic will increase braking distances and increase the risk of further injury from impact with a vehicle. - Darwin at work?
If the weather was windy then the lorries could have avoided impact by driving at a lower speed to reduce the effect of the sidewind and enabling more reaction time or accepting a slightly lower speed and not overtaking in the first place. - This would be inappropriate speed not "illegal speed". Again nothing speed cameras will prevent in any way.
"Tyre blowouts are caused by a number of factors which include incorrect inflation, wear and tear and speed. I have rarely seen a blowout incident which was not caused directly by excess speed or excessive swerving caused by excess speed." - What absolute garbage. Unless you exceed the tires speed rating then excess speed has nothing to do with tyre blow outs. Do speed cameras detect poorly maintained tires now? That must be a new feature I am unaware of.
If a car is driving the wrong way up the motorway then excess speed will reduce the reaction time of the oncoming drivers and increase the odds of an impact. - No people driving the wrong way down the motorway will increase the odds of an impact.
"Perhaps the ABD (and Mr Mark McArthur-Christie) should concentrate more on the safety of it's members and the rights of the general public to travel on roads without been put at risk by speeding drivers." - Perhaps you should take a reality check and realize that "speed kills" is an inane statement. Inappropriate speed leading to a sudden stop is what you need to worry about.
Stuart Waudby said:
Posted by Stuart Waudby at 22/07/2005 11:06 AM
I am somewhat sceptical of this report, you have seemed to miss the point that Speed is a major factor in the majority of these exceptions you have pointed out:
Where the pedestrian fell from the bridge excess speed of oncoming traffic will increase braking distances and increase the risk of further injury from impact with a vehicle.
If a pedestrian falls off a bridge - a pretty freak accident then they are in a certain amount of trouble the moment their skull hits the pavement.
The problem with this particular example you have used is that it is a freak accident. You have failed to put this particular accident as "really really really rare".
You can also look at the statistics that probably already exist - a human falling 20 feet onto a concrete surface doesn't usually survive.
Stuart Waudby said:
If the weather was windy then the lorries could have avoided impact by driving at a lower speed to reduce the effect of the sidewind and enabling more reaction time or accepting a slightly lower speed and not overtaking in the first place.
Lorries are limited to 56mph so speed cameras have absolutely no effect.
And why are you using statistics that involved lorries to beat up the general motorist? The safety of the goods vehicle has been done to death - you cannot start attributing statistics from this catergory as the basis for a safety policy involving cars.
Stuart Waudby said:
Tyre blowouts are caused by a number of factors which include incorrect inflation, wear and tear and speed. I have rarely seen a blowout incident which was not caused directly by excess speed or excessive swerving caused by excess speed.
Tyre blowout are one of those things. The way to avoid a tyre blow out is for MOT centres actaully picking up the defects during the yearly check. There are many cars out their with dodgy MOTs - start on them first. You can tell which tyres are likely failures - they are generally worn out or too old and considering tyres cost cost so little maybe tyres should be given a maximum age before they must be compulsory replaced.
Regardless of doing 90 when you get a blow out, any speed is pretty bad including 70mph.
Stuart Waudby said:
If a car is driving the wrong way up the motorway then excess speed will reduce the reaction time of the oncoming drivers and increase the odds of an impact.
heavens above man - if a car is coming down the wrong side of a motorway no speed camera is going to save my life. divine intervention is be required.
if the oncoming car is obeying the speed limit at 70mph and I am "speeding" at 90mph, then the closing speed would suggest 160mph.
160mph is approx 69 yards per second.
If I spot the car approaching from 1/2 mile away then I have 10 seconds to take avoiding action. The chance I saw it an 1/2 mile is probably quite low - I'll probably spot them at the 300 yard mark which gives me 4.3 seconds to plan a reaction after I have confirmed that someone really is going the wrong way down a motorway.
The reaction I now have to plan is fairly complex - i have to swerve and do my best not to hit anyone else - or i could swerve regardless and take out someone to my left or right. Now if i choose the latter I am doing something i don't often do which is hitting another motorist deliberately. This is all taking time.
Following my plan through from realising that there is an oncoming car, planning a reaction (the standard reaction of BRAKE simply isn't going to work), and executing the reaction is going to going to take time.
But I only have 4.3 seconds.
If I was doing 70mph, the nice enforced limit, and the car coming at me is also doing 70mph, the closing speed has decreased by 20mph, giving approx 62yards per second.
I now have a much better opportunity of 4.8 seconds.
That half second isn't going to save my life. Its not going to play any part of me avoiding that accident.
Quite simply - no safety campaigner is going to save my life or anyone elses in this example. The closing speeds are unimaginable and short of everyone driving at 20mph someone driving down a motorway the wrong way is asking for trouble.
The other problem with this analogy is that driving at 70 is can be far more dangerous than driving at 90. I will admit - i have been known to drive at 90mph on a motorway, and all the while I concentrate hard on what is ahead, what is behind, etc.
However, could all those who concentrate at 70 put their hands up?! No one concentrates at 70 as the brain is simply not being fed enough information. A piece of research in America showed that when they abandoned speed limits in one state the number of accidents and deaths went down.
The reason being is that people drove at a speed that they were comfortable with and could handle. You will probably find that this speed also corrolated a certain point in their mind which kept them focused on the task at hand.
The UK version of this research is the original 85% rule which was used to create speed limits on roads. UK research has show that if speeds are too low then people switch off and cause accidents. If the speed limit is too high then they drive too fast for their ability and fall off the road.
There is a happy medium which people like you are trying their best to destroy. In many places, I think you're ilk has already succeeded.
The fall in deaths on the road recently is probably nothing to do with safety measures like cameras, chicanes, speed humps etc but increased occupancy and pedestrian safety features from the car manufacturers.
>> Edited by tinman0 on Monday 1st August 21:34
I would hazzard a guess that M McArther-Christie knows a great deal more about safe driving than S Waudby. Through his tireless work with the IAM and RoSPA he is giving a huge amount of his time to the advancement of road safety.
Stuart, your closing comment is most telling. You class 'speeding' drivers as dangerous. If you define 'speeding' as innapropriate speed for the conditions then you are correct. If you define it as a speed in excess of the posted limit then you are a danger to yourself and those around you.
Stuart, your closing comment is most telling. You class 'speeding' drivers as dangerous. If you define 'speeding' as innapropriate speed for the conditions then you are correct. If you define it as a speed in excess of the posted limit then you are a danger to yourself and those around you.
Just out of interest, and going back to the bridge-jumper, what would happen if the chap jumping/falling off the bridge had gone through the windscreen of a car, killed the driver and by some miracle survived? That would be manslaughter, would it not?
I therefore propose that ALL pedestrians are banned from bridges. It's the only way to be sure.
I therefore propose that ALL pedestrians are banned from bridges. It's the only way to be sure.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff