Speed cameras

[Labrador]

And how many pieces would be have been if he had been hit. If this was a police publicity video, I think it is disgusting advocating driving at that speed in urban areas.

[marshman]

Poppy - how wise you are!!! Wind makes a huge difference in mpg, far more than cruise control. As indeed do road surfaces. To be honest I cannot really detect much difference in mpg using cruise, although I understand what people say but a decent breeze ruins the numbers. On a 3 hr trip recently it was nearly 20% worse heading into it (roughly) to the return later. Same speed, same temperature, similar time etc etc but probably a consistently strong fresh headwind on the outward leg

[MauriceMynah]

No Labrador, it's just a joke, not an official video

[Jim]

Simple really, speed limits are there for a reason so why not stick to them?  There is also the issue of "appropriate speed". Just because the limit is 30, 40 or whatever, due to conditions it really is a no brainer to drive at a sensible speed as opposed to working to the limit.

[Guest]

23 hours ago, marshman said:

Wind makes a huge difference in mpg, far more than cruise control.

Yes, something that cyclists and motor cyclists are much more aware of than motorists in their nice wind-tight cocoons !! 

In the wide open spaces of Norfolk it's something that old pedal cyclists like me take into account when planning a long circular route. Head into the wind first, then return with it.......

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

Yeah yeah yeah, yawn yawn yawn. We`ve all seen the fake films, listened to all the made up statistics etc etc etc, and i`m bored with it all. So, if a child is run over, why on earth is he or she in the road?, lack of parental discaplin and education. You don`t learn everything in life at school.  So, if the child was run over on the pavement, then why is the car on the pavement, gross stupidity by the driver. One thing people should remember is that most people who are run over, are run over ON THE CARRAIGEWAY, which is there own stupidity. If  somebody is run over while crossing a pelican crossing, while the lights are on read, or on the pavement, that`s the fault of the driver. But if you`re on a 4 lane motorway, or a dual carraigeway A road, and the road is empty, dry, and good visibility, there`s now harm in doing a few miles an hour over the limit, because geuss what, i`m busy looking at the road, and what`s around, rather than having my eye`s glued to a speedometer, and NOT paying attention to what`s going on around me. And i don`t give a damn if people don`t like it.

For those that use the roads every day, it`s impossible to keep to a constant speed, especially when you have to go DOWN hill where speed has a tendency to creep up, and YES, EVERYBODY on this thread who drives a car, or rides a bike has done exactly that themselves. It`s just that some will always refuse to admit it, but are all too keen to play god when someone else does.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, SPEEDTRIPLE said:

So, if a child is run over, why on earth is he or she in the road?

I've quoted just that one sentence in your post Neil, because it focuses on the very crux of the matter.

If a child suddenly wanders into the road, it's your responsibility to minimise the chances of you hitting or killing them, even if you're "in the right".

One of the main purposes of the hazard perception test in the driving theory test..

 

[TheQ]

50 minutes ago, Strowager said:

I've quoted just that one sentence in your post Neil, because it focuses on the very crux of the matter.

If a child suddenly wanders into the road, it's your responsibility to minimise the chances of you hitting or killing them, even if you're "in the right".

One of the main purposes of the hazard perception test in the driving theory test..

 

Unfortunately the hazard perception test is now causing it's own hazards with more and more  people braking every time a car comes the other way.

 on the southern bypass I had  someone in front of me, every time they got to a lorry they braked and then crept passed the lorry.

[BroadAmbition]

I drove home today in the 'GriffTile' van - which of course being an LGV means I can only do 50mph on a single carriageway road even if the limit for cars and the like is 60mph.  I was given the heads up on Friday by Bro' about those cameras at Kings Lynn to Sutton Bridge.( I missed the A17 joining the A47 AT Kings Lynn on my journey down to the boat on Thursday night)   They seem to cover only the eastbound carriageway traffic from Sutton Bridge to Kings Lynn and are forward facing only, (So bikers are not affected)  The cameras seem smaller than the traditional average speed cameras that we know and love.  I wasn't able to take any photo's as I was driving with no passenger present

Griff

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

2 hours ago, Strowager said:

I've quoted just that one sentence in your post Neil, because it focuses on the very crux of the matter.

If a child suddenly wanders into the road, it's your responsibility to minimise the chances of you hitting or killing them, even if you're "in the right".

One of the main purposes of the hazard perception test in the driving theory test..

 

I know what you`re saying Strow, but as far as i`m concerned, i`l fight it to the death if i ever found myself in that scenario. And i will always challenge this ridiculous idea that a motorists is ALWAYS regarded as being at fault, because it`s easier, and dare i say it, more profitable to prosecute and claim damages from their insurance.  In the US, they have a law called "Jaywalking" where pedestrians WILL, and often ARE prosecuted for causing accidents because of their own stupidity and neglegence. It`s way past the time where such a law should be introduced in this country. Unfortunately, that will never happen because too many corrupt lawyers make too much money from successfully prosecuting innocent motorists, who more often than not, have done absolutely nothing wrong, let alone illegal.It was quite recently that cycling pressure groups were pushing for the law to be changed so that every, and i mean EVERY RTA involving cyclist and any type of motor vehical, would automatically be the motorists fault, with 100% blame. God help all motorists if stupid politicians bring in such a law.

 

[Guest]

Sorry Neil, I find your attitude on this thread quite disturbing.

I won't be making any more replies to you on this subject,

[Siddy]

Speed cameras

Above link for Norlfork cameras

New Truvelo D-cams, are these the new type to look for?

Up here it's all smart motorways and between Leeds & Bradford on the M62 you can clock enough points to get a ban there's that many. I can come home late on with a few cars on the motorway and the signs say 40mph and there's no issue but you can't go any faster cause the cams will get you.

[BroadAmbition]

Ah I see, both ways in all weather conditions and at night too

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/vector.htm

Griff

[TheQ]

7 hours ago, Siddy said:

Speed cameras

Above link for Norlfork cameras

New Truvelo D-cams, are these the new type to look for?

Up here it's all smart motorways and between Leeds & Bradford on the M62 you can clock enough points to get a ban there's that many. I can come home late on with a few cars on the motorway and the signs say 40mph and there's no issue but you can't go any faster cause the cams will get you.

yep... The old type had big boxes to contain rolls of film, the new ones being digital don't need that.

The M62 has a set of speed cameras hidden on the back of almost every other cross motorway gantry ( and there are a lot of them), like the M25 from the M40 To M4.

The idea with it being smart which the M25 isn't, is to control the flow of traffic to reduce traffic jams from the A1 past the M1 to a few miles beyond. Have been up there with it in use, it's still a very long, slow, mobile car park.

[ian141]

The trouble with the whole speeding debate is it's flawed in so many areas. The idea that speed kills is nonsense. If it were the case, I would have been dead a long time ago.

It is poor driving ( and poor road sense from pedestrians) and a failure to take road conditions into account that causes accidents and deaths. The use of speed cameras is merely a token gesture that allows the authorities to claim that they are improving road safety whilst in actual fact, the main reason for cameras is to generate income.  

A much better way to improve road safety would be to have far more traffic police that were able to assess motorists behaviour and driving and recommend appropriate action. i.e. retraining, disqualification etc. The current situation merely fines drivers - in what way does a £100 fine (or whatever it is now) make that driver a 'better or safer driver'? The trouble is though, that scheme would cost money and not generate it - so it's a non-starter for the powers that be.

My other issue with speed cameras is, they take nothing into account except speed. So 50mph in a 40mph limit on a quiet Sunday morning with not a soul about would get you a ticket, when in reality the likelihood is the danger of that extra speed is little to non existent.. However, 29 mph outside a school at chucking out time may well be too fast - but that's fine because you're inside the speed limit. The image pedalled by the authorities  really does seem to be that if you're under the limit that means you are safe. I also find most cameras are very cynically places. I cannot recall a single one in my home town that is anywhere near a school for example. They are generally placed in order to reap the biggest rewards.

In my view many motorists see a speed camera, and fixate on staring at the speedometer in an attempt to avoid a ticket (hands up how many peeps have done so), rather than looking where they are going... I'm really not sure how that improves road safety... 

 

 

 

[Poppy]

27 minutes ago, ian141 said:

The trouble with the whole speeding debate is it's flawed in so many areas. The idea that speed kills is nonsense. If it were the case, I would have been dead a long time ago.

It is poor driving ( and poor road sense from pedestrians) and a failure to take road conditions into account that causes accidents and deaths. The use of speed cameras is merely a token gesture that allows the authorities to claim that they are improving road safety whilst in actual fact, the main reason for cameras is to generate income.  

A much better way to improve road safety would be to have far more traffic police that were able to assess motorists behaviour and driving and recommend appropriate action. i.e. retraining, disqualification etc. The current situation merely fines drivers - in what way does a £100 fine (or whatever it is now) make that driver a 'better or safer driver'? The trouble is though, that scheme would cost money and not generate it - so it's a non-starter for the powers that be.

My other issue with speed cameras is, they take nothing into account except speed. So 50mph in a 40mph limit on a quiet Sunday morning with not a soul about would get you a ticket, when in reality the likelihood is the danger of that extra speed is little to non existent.. However, 29 mph outside a school at chucking out time may well be too fast - but that's fine because you're inside the speed limit. The image pedalled by the authorities  really does seem to be that if you're under the limit that means you are safe. I also find most cameras are very cynically places. I cannot recall a single one in my home town that is anywhere near a school for example. They are generally placed in order to reap the biggest rewards.

In my view many motorists see a speed camera, and fixate on staring at the speedometer in an attempt to avoid a ticket (hands up how many peeps have done so), rather than looking where they are going... I'm really not sure how that improves road safety... 

 

 

 

If more people were to learn how to senibly use their cruise control this would occur less often. The reluctance (at best) of may to do so surprises me.

In my view this debate encompasses a typical attitude, sadly all  too prevalent in this country - ' I know what's best, and I won't be told otherwise by anybody else' !   Evidence matters not to this type of person.

Perhaps it's an '80's ' thing......

[MauriceMynah]

Ian141, firstly welcome to the forum, and what a hot potato you've picked for your first post!

"Speed Kills" is just a slogan, nothing more nothing less. You are quite right in that as a statement it is incorrect, but as a slogan it works. "Inappropriate speed kills" would be more accurate but less catchy. I also agree with you that if the government seriously wanted them to be accepted as "Safety Cameras" they would be placed  by schools and suchlike.

Poor driving is the main cause of accidents, I have no doubt whatsoever about that, however, it is convincing a person that their driving skills are lacking that is so difficult.!

[Hockham Admiral]

Apparantly advancing age does bring some benefits

[Hockham Admiral]

Oh Dear! I somehow wiped the first two paragraphs of my post out......... it went something like this:

"I used to pay scant regard to speed limits out side built-up areas in our younger years. About 20 years ago we had a 150mph 'bike and a Lotus Elan Sprint to play with....  

Nowadays I engage the auto-throttle at the posted limit and sit back and watch the world go by.   

Apparently........... etc"

[Wildfuzz]

17 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Poor driving is the main cause of accidents, I have no doubt whatsoever about that, however, it is convincing a person that their driving skills are lacking that is so difficult.!

I have to say when I started my job I considered myself a good driver both due to many years on bikes and cars and also car control when in my distant youth I raced a bit. However.......... I have since been lucky to have many months driver training and now as a police advanced driver, and tactically pursuit trained I can say that I was naïve as to my abilities in every aspect of driving. However saying that we had a interesting session on the simulator that test new drivers danger perception, the whole lot of us failed because we were "to aware" of potential dangers, my failure was mentioning a dog walker in a field beside the road and that I was aware the dog may run out!!!!! Having been fortunate to be able to drive powerful cars very fast on public roads where the need arose, I am a very sedate driver in my own vehicle, and can only thank my career for some superb tuition. It is a shame it is not available to the public generally as I have no doubt I am now a better driver, although I would never pass the DOT test due to the way we are taught to drive.

[smellyloo]

I guess in the USA most would argue that guns don't kill it the twerp on the end who kills.

BUT ...... it is a fact that the faster you travel the more likely you are to kill somebody if involved in an accident.

Now's heres the thing, accidents happen when you least expect them to!! They can happen to anyone of us at any time. Even the saintly driver travelling in excess of the speed limit because they "deem" it safe to do so can suddenly find themselves in a perilous situation that could result in death to them or others.

Recently a father has asked that ctv footage of his daughter being mowed down and killed whilst crossing a pelican crossing be made public. She wasn't killed because the driver was drunk (he was by the way) she was killed due to the excessive speed he was traveling.

Our roads are so overcrowded these days that it seems quite absurd that people still harp on that speed traps are an erosion of our civil liberties.

[vanessan]

Wildfuzz - to a large extent the public can benefit from driver training by undertaking an advanced driving course with the Institute of Advanced Motorists. Their courses are based on police driving and I know from experience that pretty well EVERY driver will have something that needs correcting. 

Own up now, how many of us can sometimes drive from a to b and not remember what happened during that trip? Minds wander all too easily and that's when road traffic signs get missed, particularly speed limit signs it seems. Learning how to observe the road correctly and try and anticipate what other road users are going to do would help to make us all better drivers. It can sometimes, for one reason or another, be easy to slip over the speed limit, I'm sure we have all done it. But a quick glance at the speedo will tell you that correction is needed, it doesn't need to be a fixation.

I think I can understand what Speedtriple was getting at but cannot agree about the child in the road scenario. These things do happen and that's where observation and anticipation come in, particularly in built-up areas. I believe the majority of drivers who had an unfortunate incident involving a child, would feel desperately guilty - even if well within the speed limit.

Driving is not as much fun as it used to be, that's for sure!

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

I think one reality is that some of the speed limits are as inappropriate as the speeds some motorists think to be OK.

If I were to have any say in the matter, I would have 20mph outside every school, with 30mph for 200 yards (metres if you prefer) before the 20 limits. Both those speed limits to be "defended" by speed cameras. Those speed cameras would be switched off at 8pm and turned on again at 7am.

All other speed limits should have a 10 year review to see if they're appropriate. Frequently what will happen is that a speed limit is reduced AND speed cameras are introduced in the same place (usually after a few accidents have occured at that place.) where only one OR the other is really necessary. This frequently results in inappropriate speed limits existing.

 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, vanessan said:

........ I believe the majority of drivers who had an unfortunate incident involving a child, would feel desperately guilty - even if well within the speed limit.

Yes indeed.

If you maim or kill a human being, let alone a child, then any decent person will carry that memory to their grave.

If it wasn't your fault, and you were driving impeccably and within the speed limit, you will not be prosecuted.

If the police find you were speeding however, you could be charged with manslaughter or causing death by dangerous driving, and you would not just be banned, but could easily get a prison sentence and a criminal record.

So many people think they're ace drivers, until fate and circumstances conspire to put them in a situation where they could kill someone, and it could actually be largely their fault, no matter how much they think it couldn't possibly happen.

[batrabill]

Driving ability[edit]

Svenson (1981) surveyed 161 students in Sweden and the United States, asking them to compare their driving skills and safety to other people. For driving skills, 93% of the U.S. sample and 69% of the Swedish sample put themselves in the top 50%; for safety, 88% of the U.S. and 77% of the Swedish put themselves in the top 50%.^[26]

McCormick, Walkey and Green (1986) found similar results in their study, asking 178 participants to evaluate their position on eight different dimensions of driving skills (examples include the "dangerous–safe" dimension and the "considerate–inconsiderate" dimension). Only a small minority rated themselves as below the median, and when all eight dimensions were considered together it was found that almost 80% of participants had evaluated themselves as being an above-average driver.^[27]

One commercial survey showed that 36% of drivers believed they were an above-average driver while texting or sending emails compared to other drivers; 44% considered themselves average, and 18% below average.^[28]