- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,281
- Reaction score
- 1,997
- Country
speeding fine
- Thread starter joe-90
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
Yes, I'm sure it will start happening all over the place. What that article DIDN'T say, however, is just how fast those drivers were going, or at what time and in what conditions. In fact, to someone of a cynical disposition, it might be tempting to think that these were somewhat "cherry-picked" statistics to suit an argument!
I am not familiar with Woodstock road, but didn't they say TWO cameras were left running? Why haven't they quoted any figures from the other one? Did those figures not suit their argument? How many vehicles does Woodstock Road carry in 5 days? Would 110 of those represent the motoring Armageddon that the tone of the article would have us believe? Are we talking about a residential road that would only see (say) 200 cars in 5 days, and of tose 200, 110 of them were doing 150MPH past a playground? That would, indeed, be bad. On the other hand, maybe it's a road that would see 10,000 vehicles in 5 days and of those 110 of them were doing 36 MPH at 2.00 in the morning? That would put rather a different perspective on it wouldn't it?!
POOR REPORTING INDEED!
Still, we'll soon know the truth. If, nationally, we see deaths and serious injuries start to rise in the year or two after the camera switch-off, I'll have to eat a large slice of humble pie. If, on the other hand, we see no real difference, the so-called "safety-campaigners" and camera partnerships will have a bit of explaining to do won't they????
I am not familiar with Woodstock road, but didn't they say TWO cameras were left running? Why haven't they quoted any figures from the other one? Did those figures not suit their argument? How many vehicles does Woodstock Road carry in 5 days? Would 110 of those represent the motoring Armageddon that the tone of the article would have us believe? Are we talking about a residential road that would only see (say) 200 cars in 5 days, and of tose 200, 110 of them were doing 150MPH past a playground? That would, indeed, be bad. On the other hand, maybe it's a road that would see 10,000 vehicles in 5 days and of those 110 of them were doing 36 MPH at 2.00 in the morning? That would put rather a different perspective on it wouldn't it?!
POOR REPORTING INDEED!
Still, we'll soon know the truth. If, nationally, we see deaths and serious injuries start to rise in the year or two after the camera switch-off, I'll have to eat a large slice of humble pie. If, on the other hand, we see no real difference, the so-called "safety-campaigners" and camera partnerships will have a bit of explaining to do won't they????
B
Big Tone
Well said Avocet. You know their tactics well I see. The fact is their 'proof' is thinner than a diaphanous nighty and when confronted with some hard facts they disappear like a fart in the wind, but here’s the thing…
Whether the vehicle is going at 20, 30, 40 or 50mph it is still no reason to walk or pull out in front of that vehicle!
People drove at all sorts of speeds when I was a kid but I was taught the Green Cross Code and I didn’t go around either with an iPod or mobile phone stuck in my ear wandering into roads.
The same goes for drivers who didn’t have so many in-car distractions back then; they were busy driving and concentrated on where they were going and what they were doing.
To substitute good driving and observation for lower speed limits and enforcement is a complete abrogation of responsibility on everyone’s part! You will create zombies in cars running into other zombies, but it’s going to be okay because we’re only doing 20mph everywhere.
That is the kind of answer and thinking from Safety Camera Partnerships. If the same body ran scuba diving schools you’d never be in anything deeper than a kiddie’s swimming pool.
Whether the vehicle is going at 20, 30, 40 or 50mph it is still no reason to walk or pull out in front of that vehicle!
People drove at all sorts of speeds when I was a kid but I was taught the Green Cross Code and I didn’t go around either with an iPod or mobile phone stuck in my ear wandering into roads.
The same goes for drivers who didn’t have so many in-car distractions back then; they were busy driving and concentrated on where they were going and what they were doing.
To substitute good driving and observation for lower speed limits and enforcement is a complete abrogation of responsibility on everyone’s part! You will create zombies in cars running into other zombies, but it’s going to be okay because we’re only doing 20mph everywhere.
That is the kind of answer and thinking from Safety Camera Partnerships. If the same body ran scuba diving schools you’d never be in anything deeper than a kiddie’s swimming pool.
O
oompah
Some very good points,but over the next year or two there will be more drivers on the already congested roads many of them will be newly passed drivers,therefore more drivers/cars=possibly more accidents so the "safety campaigners " will already have some ready made statistics to fall back on.If there is no discernable % increase in deaths/serious injuries then I suspect nothing will be heard.
Sponsored Links
Then you're not allowing enough time,
there's no need to rush around and I always tell clients the booking time is approximately so always let them know if I'm running late. Some job takes longer so you cannot guarantee the booking time and rushing around is not the answer. If you're speeding at 40mph instead of 30mph, I bet you only gained a couple of minutes on the whole journey.
I have seen it time and time again where motorists speeding ahead of me and I still catch up with them so what the point of it all?
Get up 10 mins early will help
Traffic volumes have been increasing since at least the last war. In fact, with the recession, I think we're likely to see a levelling-off - or even a slight fall in traffic levels.
That said, I do worry that the recession will also bring a drop in roadworthiness of vehicles as people skimp on maintenance. It will also reduce the rate at which older cars are being replaced by newer, safer cars. There are a lot of confounding factors, to be honest.
One of the things I most despise about the camera partnership claims is the "x% reduction in KSIs since the cameras went up" thing that they always bleat on about. When you actually start examining these claims closely, they fall apart!
The main thing is the "Reduction To The Mean" phenomonon - whereby they have couple of accidents (the justification for the camera) and then when they put the camera up, and hey-presto, the following year shows a reduction in accidents AT THE CAMERA SITE! In much the same way as if I lived on a road where there were no KSI accidents for 10 years, then we had a couple in one year.
I start putting my wheelie bin out facing the opposite way and the following year, no accidents. CLEARLY, this was as a result of me putting my wheelie bin out facing the other way!
The other thing is that just as traffic levels have been increasing, on average, ever since WWII, deaths and serious injuries have been falling. THEY ALWAYS HAVE!!! In fact, if you look at the long term trend, the rate of decrease of deaths and serious injuries, actually GOT WORSE in the mid 1990s, when cameras started to become widely used!
None of this stops the camera partnerships claiming great successes for themsleves though! When my local camera partnership first started operating, they proudly announced that their goal was to get the number of KSIs in my county down to "X" within "y" years.
On the face of it, that sounded pretty ambitious, but when you looked at the rate at which they had fallen in the previous "y" years, it became evident that far from saving any lives, they would have to actually go out and kill a few MORE motorists to achieve that target!!!!
That said, I do worry that the recession will also bring a drop in roadworthiness of vehicles as people skimp on maintenance. It will also reduce the rate at which older cars are being replaced by newer, safer cars. There are a lot of confounding factors, to be honest.
One of the things I most despise about the camera partnership claims is the "x% reduction in KSIs since the cameras went up" thing that they always bleat on about. When you actually start examining these claims closely, they fall apart!
The main thing is the "Reduction To The Mean" phenomonon - whereby they have couple of accidents (the justification for the camera) and then when they put the camera up, and hey-presto, the following year shows a reduction in accidents AT THE CAMERA SITE! In much the same way as if I lived on a road where there were no KSI accidents for 10 years, then we had a couple in one year.
I start putting my wheelie bin out facing the opposite way and the following year, no accidents. CLEARLY, this was as a result of me putting my wheelie bin out facing the other way!
The other thing is that just as traffic levels have been increasing, on average, ever since WWII, deaths and serious injuries have been falling. THEY ALWAYS HAVE!!! In fact, if you look at the long term trend, the rate of decrease of deaths and serious injuries, actually GOT WORSE in the mid 1990s, when cameras started to become widely used!
None of this stops the camera partnerships claiming great successes for themsleves though! When my local camera partnership first started operating, they proudly announced that their goal was to get the number of KSIs in my county down to "X" within "y" years.
On the face of it, that sounded pretty ambitious, but when you looked at the rate at which they had fallen in the previous "y" years, it became evident that far from saving any lives, they would have to actually go out and kill a few MORE motorists to achieve that target!!!!
For those that are intersted, Jeremy Vine will be discussing speed cameras at 12:30 today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tcx33
"Oxfordshire turned off its speed cameras at the start of the month. Since then, speeding offences in the county appear to have soared. Is it becoming a magnet for racers?"
That paragraph is a quote from the above link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tcx33
"Oxfordshire turned off its speed cameras at the start of the month. Since then, speeding offences in the county appear to have soared. Is it becoming a magnet for racers?"
That paragraph is a quote from the above link.
B
Big Tone
I think you refer to Regression To The Mean Avocet(RTTM)which I mentioned a few pages back.
Not speeding doesn’t mean you are safe any more than speeding is always unsafe. By me there is a road which until a year ago was a NSL, (60), but they dropped it to 40.
So using the reasoning from some here, I was safe driving at 60 along there on Monday but dangerous along there on Tuesday. Nothing in that area or along that road has changed in my lifetime; no extra housing, roads – nothing! There has never been an accident there either; no flowers languishing at the side for months on end.
Just because someone has changed the sign, people suddenly and inexplicably finger wag about how dangerous and unsafe you are for going so fast when in fact nothing has changed except someone thought they would just lower the limit after all these years. Changing that sign was all that was needed to turn me into a dangerous driver for some reason.
There is this ridiculous notion that a numerical figure takes into account the dozens of variables in weather, pedestrians, traffic etc. and any transgression above it suddenly spring boards you into a homicidal territory.
People happily rant about how they never ever speed as though that is the guide to good safe driving. They happily travel UP a hill at a legal 30 on a DRY day feeling pious only to travel back DOWN that same hill later AT NIGHT at the same speed when it’s bucketing down with RAIN. The fact that they did not speed is all that matters to them without the slightest regard for what is actually safe!
The two situations are totally different and when I have driven with and talked to such people the hypocrisy absolutely makes me gag! The two situations are completely different and the bullsh1t argument they come out with when I explain this is “I would go slower coming back in those circumstances”. NO YOU DON’T YOU LIAR!
One situation is far more dangerous than the other and yet you treat them the same. As far as you are concerned you are not speeding so that’s fine in your book and you can go around telling everyone just what a good safe driver you are simply because you do not speed and how anyone who does is a maniac.
Not speeding doesn’t mean you are safe any more than speeding is always unsafe. By me there is a road which until a year ago was a NSL, (60), but they dropped it to 40.
So using the reasoning from some here, I was safe driving at 60 along there on Monday but dangerous along there on Tuesday. Nothing in that area or along that road has changed in my lifetime; no extra housing, roads – nothing! There has never been an accident there either; no flowers languishing at the side for months on end.
Just because someone has changed the sign, people suddenly and inexplicably finger wag about how dangerous and unsafe you are for going so fast when in fact nothing has changed except someone thought they would just lower the limit after all these years. Changing that sign was all that was needed to turn me into a dangerous driver for some reason.
There is this ridiculous notion that a numerical figure takes into account the dozens of variables in weather, pedestrians, traffic etc. and any transgression above it suddenly spring boards you into a homicidal territory.
People happily rant about how they never ever speed as though that is the guide to good safe driving. They happily travel UP a hill at a legal 30 on a DRY day feeling pious only to travel back DOWN that same hill later AT NIGHT at the same speed when it’s bucketing down with RAIN. The fact that they did not speed is all that matters to them without the slightest regard for what is actually safe!
The two situations are totally different and when I have driven with and talked to such people the hypocrisy absolutely makes me gag! The two situations are completely different and the bullsh1t argument they come out with when I explain this is “I would go slower coming back in those circumstances”. NO YOU DON’T YOU LIAR!
One situation is far more dangerous than the other and yet you treat them the same. As far as you are concerned you are not speeding so that’s fine in your book and you can go around telling everyone just what a good safe driver you are simply because you do not speed and how anyone who does is a maniac.
Yes, I meant RTTM, and yes, your point about suddenly reduced speed limits is worth further discussion.
In fact, I feel it worth asking anyone in this discussion who has travelled on a 60-limited road at 50-60 only to find that the same road has now had its limit reduced to 40, whether they accept they had been driving dangerously all those years?
In fact, I feel it worth asking anyone in this discussion who has travelled on a 60-limited road at 50-60 only to find that the same road has now had its limit reduced to 40, whether they accept they had been driving dangerously all those years?
B
Big Tone
Very good point indeed. Just watch them try and squirm and wriggle out of that one. Anything but admit they were driving dangerously because that would be an admission of both the fact that safety cannot be measured by speed alone and a poor reflection on their driving prowess.
It would seem that the argument now proposed is that each driver sets his/her own speed limit according to the road/weather conditions. Interesting, I wonder how it would pan out it practice.
O
oompah
Surely that would depend on the circumstances of the reasoning behind reducing the the speed limit.
No, I'm not proposing that! What I would like to see is a retention of a few SIMPLE speed limits (say 30, 60, and 80 for cars) AND a MUCH greater degree in flexibility of prosecution thresholds. That's what we used to have and it gave us the safest roads in the world.
It's pretty obvious (well, to my way of thinking anyway!) that a speed limit is a very blunt instrument. Over the last 15 years or so, we have seen more and more rigourous enforcement of those limits AND a greater variety of limits AND those limits changing frequently and inexplicably. At the same time, we have also seen the UK slip down the league table of KSI reductions compared to other countries. Coincidence? Perhaps - or maybe we've just been barking up the wrong tree!
To my mind, a speed limit can never be of much use beyond providing an indication of the likely peak hazard density in a particular area. Currently every motorist is expected to use their skill and judgement as a driver to select an appropriate speed for the conditions WITHIN the limit. Clearly there are some that believe that this ability deserts us as soon as we reach the limit!
In my ideal world, speed limit compliance would not be automatically enforced by machine at an arbitrary margin above the limit concerned without any regard for the prevailing conditions. Such a method simply penalises those who may, in fact, be driving perfectly safely. It would NOT penalise the joyrider in the stolen car or the incorrectly registered car - arguably the fastest and most dangerous. Instead, it criminalises the vicars, housewives and district nurses doing 36 in a 30.
If, on the other hand, we had trained traffic cops who could take the much wider context of the offence into consideration, that would be much better. If they felt that someone was exceeding the speed limit AND causing a potential danger, they could stop them there and then (not send them a bill and some points in the post a few weeks later). If, on the other hand, the heinous crime in question was doing 80 on a near-deserted motorway, they could choose to turn a blind eye.
It's pretty obvious (well, to my way of thinking anyway!) that a speed limit is a very blunt instrument. Over the last 15 years or so, we have seen more and more rigourous enforcement of those limits AND a greater variety of limits AND those limits changing frequently and inexplicably. At the same time, we have also seen the UK slip down the league table of KSI reductions compared to other countries. Coincidence? Perhaps - or maybe we've just been barking up the wrong tree!
To my mind, a speed limit can never be of much use beyond providing an indication of the likely peak hazard density in a particular area. Currently every motorist is expected to use their skill and judgement as a driver to select an appropriate speed for the conditions WITHIN the limit. Clearly there are some that believe that this ability deserts us as soon as we reach the limit!
In my ideal world, speed limit compliance would not be automatically enforced by machine at an arbitrary margin above the limit concerned without any regard for the prevailing conditions. Such a method simply penalises those who may, in fact, be driving perfectly safely. It would NOT penalise the joyrider in the stolen car or the incorrectly registered car - arguably the fastest and most dangerous. Instead, it criminalises the vicars, housewives and district nurses doing 36 in a 30.
If, on the other hand, we had trained traffic cops who could take the much wider context of the offence into consideration, that would be much better. If they felt that someone was exceeding the speed limit AND causing a potential danger, they could stop them there and then (not send them a bill and some points in the post a few weeks later). If, on the other hand, the heinous crime in question was doing 80 on a near-deserted motorway, they could choose to turn a blind eye.
I'm not sure it would. According to some on here, speeding is a very black-and-white, absolute offence. Above the limit = "dangerous", below it = "safe". For as long as that mind set persists, "circumstances" shouldn't come into the discussion! (Though from a personal point of view, I quite agree with you - "circumstances" is actually the key - and the reason why over zealous enforcement of a particular limit can never deliver any real safety benefit)!
- Status
Sponsored Links
