UK speed camera tolerances revealed (Somewhat).

[Munroast]

The problem with this subject is there are always too camps. Often those who've been impacted by road deaths, think the answer is to reduce speed. If only he'd been driving at 20 instead of 40 etc. They see speeding as the cause of everything. Speeding driver runs down person on zebra crossing: primary issue here is attitude and observation. Speeding driver misjudges bend: inability to adapt a speed for the conditions, speeding driver hits vehicle emerging from side roads: observation..Speeding driver, high as a kite.. speeding driver on the run from a robbery... Its easy to see speeding as the cause. Its also very easy for authorities to do things relating to speed. When they don't work, they try to do more.

You can't compare countries either. We have a huge concentration of vehicles in the SE and we have a lot of international traffic. Not something you see in Sweden for example with the vehicle density per mile closer to the north of Scotland, than Sussex or Surrey.

And yet the quieter areas have the most dangerous roads per head of population. I live in one of those areas with very quiet roads (when out cycling I'm may be passed once in every 5 to 10 miles) But sadly the quiet roads attrack the wannabe racing drivers, speeding is rife and as such we have the 10th most deadly roads in Britain.
https://www.peeblesshirenews.com/news/16585179.scottish-borders-roads-are-in-uks-top-ten-deadliest/

Congestion greatly reduces speed, and the slower the traffic gets the safer the roads become.

 

[JohnD]

these quiet roads are often rural single carriagways, so you have the opportunity to crash head on if you overtake optimistically or corner badly. Being quiet, people often like to go fast, so they hit e.g. tractors turning out of fields, or other unexpected obstacles. They don't generally have crash barriers, central reservations or traffic lights at junctions or pedestrian crossings. They may have trees at the side, which are very bad obstacles to hit.

 

[mointainwalker]

LOL - I don't care what you do or did for a living, your persona is shining through very well.

Oh, the astonishing hubris !!!!

what an unpleasant person you are coming over as -

Laugh, I almost wet myself. Munroist, are you always such a self-absorbed, unseeing prat ?

 

[Munroast]

Oh, the astonishing hubris !!!!



Laugh, I almost wet myself. Munroist, are you always such a self-absorbed, unseeing prat ?

The car obsessed soon get rattled when you suggest they should drive a little slower or have a smaller car. TBH I thought I would have had a lot more abuse by now, carry on with the name calling, i'm sure a few others will be joining in, but I'm sure underneath you know it's environmentally and socially unacceptable to drive at speed - that's why your so rattled. LOL

 

[Avocet]

The car obsessed soon get rattled when you suggest they should drive a little slower or have a smaller car. TBH I thought I would have had a lot more abuse by now, carry on with the name calling, i'm sure a few others will be joining in, but I'm sure underneath you know it's environmentally and socially unacceptable to drive at speed - that's why your so rattled. LOL

Not so much "rattled" as "bored". You haven't really said anything new. You haven't brought any new arguments to the table. You appear to be somewhat anti-car, yet you have at least three vehicles in your household. As far as I can tell, your only solution appears to be ridiculously low speed limits and heavy-handed draconian enforcement of those limits - which to be honest, is something we've all heard before....

 

[motorbiking]

These speed cameras are so visible now that they are really catching people who are driving 'without due care and attention'. And that is what they should be prosecuted with instead of speeding. Speeding is bad enough but speeding whilst not concentrating should be automatic loss of licence. If you must speed then the bare minimum must be you give it 100% concentration.
So I would leave the highly visible cameras to get those off the road who should not be driving, and I would have hidden cameras to target those arrogant motorist who think their skills allow them to exceed the limits.

Have a read: Driving without due care and attention

The problem with heavy handed enforcement is:
1. People try to avoid getting prosecuted, so you get more hit and runs
2. People resent the courts and police so don't assist with more serious crimes
3. People don't accept they are wrong, so commit other crimes (e.g. driving while disqualified, criminal damage against speed cameras, nails on the talivan parking spot).

I'm also curious as to what qualifies you to decide what needs to change? Or are you just someone who passed a driving test 20 years ago?

 

[Thomasthepiperson]

The mobile speed cameras around where I live, look like British Gas vans. The most effective speed control measures, are to install your speed is signs and you get a green smiley face if you stick to the limit, seems to do the job.

 

[JBR]

The problem with heavy handed enforcement is:
1. People try to avoid getting prosecuted, so you get more hit and runs
2. People resent the courts and police so don't assist with more serious crimes
3. People don't accept they are wrong, so commit other crimes (e.g. driving while disqualified, criminal damage against speed cameras, nails on the talivan parking spot).

On the other hand, we must be aware that there is little or absolutely no prosecution of arrogant cyclists who regard themselves as above the law...

which, of course, in effect they are!

(I've just been watching 'Cyclists: the Scourge of the Roads', on Channel 5 this evening!)

 

[Munroast]

Have a read: Driving without due care and attention

The problem with heavy handed enforcement is:
1. People try to avoid getting prosecuted, so you get more hit and runs
2. People resent the courts and police so don't assist with more serious crimes
3. People don't accept they are wrong, so commit other crimes (e.g. driving while disqualified, criminal damage against speed cameras, nails on the talivan parking spot).

I'm also curious as to what qualifies you to decide what needs to change? Or are you just someone who passed a driving test 20 years ago?

I would suggest not concentrating whilst speeding meets the criteria of "driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver". As I said earlier the bare minimum of anyone speeding is they should be concentrating on the road ahead. Anyone caught by one of these highly visible static speed cameras that often have preceding warning signs and all the tell tale road markings should forfeit their licence. Do you really want them sharing the road with you?

The problem with namby pamby liberal lefty, 'lets let everyone off' attitude is destroying Britain, crime in general is now out of control and the and the more they reduce sentencing with light handed enforcement the worse it is getting.

Probably the same reason as what qualifies yourself to have an opinion. Is only yours justified?

On the other hand, we must be aware that there is little or absolutely no prosecution of arrogant cyclists who regard themselves as above the law...

which, of course, in effect they are!

(I've just been watching 'Cyclists: the Scourge of the Roads', on Channel 5 this evening!)

There seemed to be a lot of car drivers in that programme who thought they were also well above the law too, and who in that programme would have been more likely to kill or seriously injure someone else ? Thought the policeman summed it all up pretty well.

 

[Notch7]

Anyone caught by one of these highly visible static speed cameras that often have preceding warning signs and all the tell tale road markings should forfeit their licence. Do you really want them sharing the road with you

I would rather share the road with drivers concentrating on driving safely.

Drivers that put all their energy into following the speed limits to the letter are not necessarily the safest drivers.

We have already established in this thread that soeeding is not the major cause of accidents.

All you are saying is you think think the safest drivers on the road are those that follow the speed limit when they drive past cameras.

 

[Notch7]

The problem with namby pamby liberal lefty, 'lets let everyone off' attitude is destroying Britain, crime in general is now out of control and the and the more they reduce sentencing with light handed enforcement the worse it is getting

Oh dear there is so much incorrect with the above

Lets take just one point: you think heavier sentencing would reduce crime.

It wont and it doesnt Old Bean

 

[JBR]

There seemed to be a lot of car drivers in that programme who thought they were also well above the law too, and who in that programme would have been more likely to kill or seriously injure someone else ? Thought the policeman summed it all up pretty well.

You are perfectly correct!

However, the important point that I made was that it is far easier to prosecute motorists when they are in the wrong than it is for cyclists, and the obvious reason for that is, quite simply, that cyclists are not identifiable and can (unless they are incapacitate by injury) quickly ride away and cannot be easily traced.

The only way of overcoming this disparity is to ensure that cyclists, like motorists, carry some form of easily read identification, such as tabards. This, of course, would require them to register themselves on a government database, and could also be tied to a legal obligation to have insurance.

 

[Munroast]

I would rather share the road with drivers concentrating on driving safely.

Drivers that put all their energy into following the speed limits to the letter are not necessarily the safest drivers.

We have already established in this thread that soeeding is not the major cause of accidents.

All you are saying is you think think the safest drivers on the road are those that follow the speed limit when they drive past cameras.

No, that part was purely addressing whether a speeding fine is all that is needed in that circumstance. If they don't know they are speeding then they shouldn't be driving, and if they do know they are speeding on the grounds they think there driving is far better than the normal, then why are they not seeing these highly obvious cameras? Either way lets have them off the road.

As mentioned earlier I would like to see lower speed limits and strict enforcement, however that is as much to do with environmental concerns as safety.

 

[Avocet]

No, that part was purely addressing whether a speeding fine is all that is needed in that circumstance. If they don't know they are speeding then they shouldn't be driving, and if they do know they are speeding on the grounds they think there driving is far better than the normal, then why are they not seeing these highly obvious cameras? Either way lets have them off the road.

That all depends whether you measure "good" driving by how well someone can keep an eye out for speed cameras rather than road hazards, I guess... The funny thing is that you're advocating 40 MPH limits and yet people still get caught by cameras in 30 MPH limits, so shouldn't you really be advocating 30 MPH blanket limits across the entire road network? In fact, thinking about it, 20 would be even safer than 30, so why not 20 MPH limits over the whole country?

As mentioned earlier I would like to see lower speed limits and strict enforcement, however that is as much to do with environmental concerns as safety.

The environmental case for speed limit reduction is much harder to dispute than the safety case, I'll agree. So, as a means of incentivising environmental improvements to the nation's vehicle fleet as a whole, would you support the idea of higher speed limits for low emissions vehicles?

 

[Munroast]

You are perfectly correct!

However, the important point that I made was that it is far easier to prosecute motorists when they are in the wrong than it is for cyclists, and the obvious reason for that is, quite simply, that cyclists are not identifiable and can (unless they are incapacitate by injury) quickly ride away and cannot be easily traced.

The only way of overcoming this disparity is to ensure that cyclists, like motorists, carry some form of easily read identification, such as tabards. This, of course, would require them to register themselves on a government database, and could also be tied to a legal obligation to have insurance.

I too would like to see more done to address the idiots on push bikes, they do just seem to do what they want with impunity. As mentioned earlier I would follow what they do in Germany where traffic laws cover all transport, not just motorised vehicles. This would at least mean that when the police do stop one it is potentially points on their driving licence/higher insurance costs etc. (and the vast majority of cyclists are drivers)


I don't think the tabard thing is going to work, gov is desperately trying to encourage cycling and any such scheme would just put people off. Besides which, it will be the usual nonsense of only the already responsible and law abiding taking part, the idiots will just carry on as is.

At the end of the day it is the cars etc that are causing the vast amount of the carnage, we have just been conditioned over the years to accept it as normal.