Beat the Speed Cameras

[stevespray]

In my opinion the ‘speed camera’ issue will run and run. I think most people would agree that they are widely regarded as revenue generating devices. In my opinion our authorities are backward thinking. Instead of looking at new ways to combat genuinely dangerous driving (such as drink / drugs which someone has already mentioned) the authorities are pre-occupied with spending money on research which vindicates their flawed approach. When these reports come out they are simple a play on words. In a recent report, which cost millions to compose, it was stated that “speed was a contributory factor in over 80% of all accidents”. This is where our taxes are spent ladies and gentlemen. (Funny how I’ve never seen two stationary cars collide!!)

In my opinion the money would be better spent on educating people on driving correctly. I live in the county of South Gloucestershire and we suffer from a plethora of needless and useless road schemes ranging from unneeded speed humps, badly placed speed cameras, needless speed restrictions and, last but not least, needless sets of traffic lights which cause road congestion at places where there previously wasn’t any. Do the authorities ever back down and admit their mistakes or errors? NO! They spend even more money in an attempt vindicate what they are doing. How can you win with people who act in this manner?

The fact is that the authorities are under pressure to collect indirect taxation. The cost of policing is spiralling out of control. The main cause of this increased cost is actually violence and civil disorder control. It is however far more difficult to pass these costs onto the perpetrators of such crimes (mainly because these crimes are alcohol / drug fuelled and in order to get the money out of these people they need to be arrested and detained + processed etc…all very long winded). It is however far easier to take a couple of photo’s of a speeding car and then let the DVLA computer do the rest. The profits of such convictions are very efficient, there is a very low cost per conviction when compared to your pub brawlers.

I read with interest of the new ideas which our government has regarding charging for road usage. One thing that you can be sure of is that it will cost you more to drive. Apparently they are going to use GPS to track the route and time of your journey. My worry would be this – How easy would it be to use the same system to calculate you speed on the different roads used on your journey?

In the meantime my local authority have asked the government to change the guidelines on the usage of mobile speed cameras. They want to be allowed to use cameras anywhere within 15 miles of know accident back spots. They have suggested that ‘on some roads it is difficult to detect exactly where the black spot is’. The fact is that the authority have calculated that by having the ’15 mile rule’ they will be able to site a speed camera anywhere they want; I don’t think that there is a single centimetre of road in South Glos which lies more that 15 miles from a fatal road accident.

Until our government takes a forward think view on driving habits we will continue to be blighted with this nonsense, it is I fear a typically British disease.

Steve.

 

[Pippppin]

Speedsters

Sorry for stating the "bleeding obvious", but the best way to beat speed cameras is to drive within the legal speed limit.

Road safety statistics show that a pedestrian hit by a speedster doing 40mph in a 30mph zone has almost a zero chance of survival. However, at 30mph the chance of survival is high.

I suspect that J.Clarkson and most speedsters think that "slow" drivers, pedestrians, and anything else which gets in their way, should be shot....thankfully we do have a government to ensure we do not live entirely at the mercy of such peeople, for whom the safety of others is the least of their concerns.

 

[rossored]

You're quite right Pippppin. However, in fairness I don't think the thread has mentioned at all speeding in the lower limits, or the problems of cameras in town. Its more the out-of-town money-making machines that I and most others seem to have a problem with.

90mph on the motorway is a very different story to 45 or even 35 in the town, and perhaps I should put straight that I for one was not advocating speeding anywhere, least of all in town - it just happens to be my personal opinion that the mass of cameras littering the countryside are a pain in the backside and are quite uneccersary .

 

[stevespray]

Pippppin,

Whilst I acknowledge the points which you are making I do not feel that things are as clear cut as you make out. Whilst I don’t necessarily share Mr Clarkson’s implied views I do, from time to time, find that needless slow drivers cause myself and other drivers unnecessary suffering. I recently found myself in a line of traffic behind a car travelling at about 35 – 38 mph on a clear dry 60 mph road. The driver of the car appeared to be oblivious that, over the course of 2 – 3 miles, a queue of some 12 – 15 cars had been building up behind him. When myself and several other cars decided to over take the driver flashed his lights and blew his horn. Our over taking was perfectly safe. I can assure you that these types of instances are not uncommon in the sleepy backwaters of South Gloucestershire! The Highway Code appears to state that you should prepare yourself to drive in a manner which is in keeping with the speed limit and conditions applicable to any given road. The Highway Code also states that you should not drive in a manner which causes undue hindrance to other road users. It goes on to state that if you are driving a vehicle which is travelling more slowly than other traffic then you should pull your vehicle over, and let traffic past, when the queue which has built up exceeds 8 vehicles. Rarely do you see slower drivers doing this. I have personally driven in many countries across the world. In most places, if someone wishes to pass you, they move up behind you and flash their lights a couple of times. This would normally lead to you allowing them to pass you at the next suitable point. Unfortunately, in the UK, moving up behind the driver in front and giving them a quick ‘flash’ is seen as aggressive and unacceptable driving! I wonder why this is so? Surely if you are holding someone up then you would want to remove your hindrance as quickly as possible?

Steve.

 

[tightone]

Sorry for stating the "bleeding obvious", but the best way to beat speed cameras is to drive within the legal speed limit.

Road safety statistics show that a pedestrian hit by a speedster doing 40mph in a 30mph zone has almost a zero chance of survival. However, at 30mph the chance of survival is high.

Stastics also show that at 50mph you would have already passed the spot where the drunkard staggers into the road and at 0mph it's, oh so much safer. I believe people got killed on horses before the days of cars, maybe they should have had speed limits then too.

For the ultimate in safty we could all stay home. :idea:

 

[stevespray]

tightone...

As I mentioned in a previous post - My £8 million study revealed that two stationary cars rarely collide!

Steve.

 

[Pippppin]

On balance..

I totally agree Stevespray...unless there is a good reason (ie potential hazard ahead) then there is no excuse for not driving at the speed limit + or - say 10%.

I am often behind drivers doing 40mph on a single lane 60mph road, who then still do 40mph when the road becomes a 30mph limit.

However, on balance, and I am currently driving about 1000 miles per month, I see the problems and potential problems caused by speedsters far more than the nuisance caused by willfully slow drivers

 

[tightone]

You may find interesting

Hi all, just a little more to throw into the arena.

In particular this links to a piece by Paul Garvin, the Chief Constable of Durham Police, who doesn't approve of speed cameras and has refused to install large numbers of fixed cameras in the area covered by his force.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/ncam07.xml

And Association of British Drivers site with plenty to say, from a somewhat biased point of view admitted
http://www.abd.org.uk

And an interesting article discussing data correlation and the issue of speed cameras in general
http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html

Drive safely and try not to gain to many points, that's on your licence, not your trades

 

[G-Man]

The number of people nabbed for speeding seems to be increasing exponentially every year.

Part of this would be down to the increase in the number of cameras, but if the main aim of speed cameras is to reduce the number of people speeding, are they actually working?

G-Man

 

[Trader333]

Apparently they are going to use GPS to track the route and time of your journey. My worry would be this – How easy would it be to use the same system to calculate you speed on the different roads used on your journey?

It is already possible to determine speed by GPS because it is already in use by TomTom Navigator. On a different subject, if the ridiculous plans that the government has to start charging £1.34 per mile travelled on certain roads comes into effect then the economy of the UK will instantly collapse. Can you imagine how much it will cost every item that travels by road to reach its destination ? In my view inflation would rocket and then so would interest rates. I think that this suggestion is an election losing policy that would be the equivalent that introducing the Poll Tax was for Thatcher.

In my view the government should stop shafting the motorist when they are not prepared to provide real alternatives and not willing to take the step necessary to invest in them either.



Paul

 

[peto]

Bracke said "If we are serious about applying speed limits should not the cameras be hidden." ........ Good point and might get people reading and obeying signage instead of camera-spotting.

Pippppin referred to pedestrian fatality figures at various speeds. Gov statistics show that at 20mph a pedestrian stands a 95% chance of survival, whilst those hit at 40mph die in 90% of cases. Since 774 pedestrians were killed in 2003 and 7,159 were seriously injured this direct correlation with speed cannot be ignored. Urban limits are beginning to be reduced to 20mph near schools and some residential areas, personally I'd like to see this scheme extended.

Basic physics shows that the energy of a car rises exponentially with it's speed, as does the braking distance, so doubling your speed will do 4 time the damage. In a previous life I cleared up wreckage from crashes on the M1 and the result of being hit at 70 is not pretty.

Stevespray quotes from the Highway Code. Unfortunately the H C doesn't exactly say any of the 3 points you make, although the spirit is there! Check http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/ . There has long been a recommendation to 'slow moving vehicle drivers' to allow a following long queue past (8 vehicles was never specified), and the latest editions have broadened the terminology a little to include other drivers. I do not however think the intention was ever to encourage faster drivers to roar up the boot of slower drivers flashing their headlights, as would be commonplace if Steve's rec was taken up. Tailgating is already one of the most widespread examples of bad driving seen without encouraging it. Rule 144 specifically states that if a following driver is attempting to overtake one should maintain a steady course and speed (unless necessary to slow down i.e. the other guy got it wrong; and except on single-track roads).

Trader333 I also think the GPS idea will cost far too much to set up and administer, the government's track record with IT projects doesn't inspire me either. far simpler would be to replace road tax with a small increase in fuel duty, thereby reaching those who use the roads more, encouraging eco-friendly low-consumption cars, and removing one tier of taxation so reducing admin costs. The "Big Brother is Watching" feeling also runs down my spine at the thought of it, although I guess a corrupt administration already would have a fearsome array of tools to 'Watch' us with. The point about control of speeding with such a system i have no problem with.

Having said all that in defence of speed limits and in favour of adhering to them, I would never claim that it is the only or even the main problem. If drivers used common sense, consideration, restraint, stayed alert and awake and attentive to their task, updated their skills and their knowledge of motoring law regularly, and avoided mind altering drugs and liquids, we probably wouldn't need them. But we have to cater for the lowest common denominator (all too common!) and speed limits help do that.

pete

 

[stevespray]

Peto…..Excellent post – You are clearly very knowledgeable on the subject area.

I’d like to add a few further comments if I may.

I think that your final point it the basis for many people taking the views which they do regarding speed limits. As I already mentioned, in my area there are an abundance of apparently needless speed restrictions, many are on roads which are perfectly safe. Our local authority just seems to have a policy of blanket speed reduction. This becomes very apparent when one undertakes a sizeable journey which takes you through other authority areas. An example I would give is the A30 as it passes through deepest Cornwall. There are sections of that road which still pass through towns and villages. I find that the speed limits on sections of that road are excessively high (I’d expect a lower speed limit) and there are clearly points at which you would feel genuinely uncomfortable if you maintained the advertised limit. I’m not sure how this is reflected in their accident rates. My point is that, as a driver, you are forced to take on the responsibility of assessing how safe is ‘safe’. If my local authority were in charge of those sections of road then I am certain that you would see some 60mph stretches reduced to 30 limits. As you say, it all comes down to the lowest common denominator – this is why it becomes a problem for the people who take the time and effort to develop their skills. People who take responsibility for their driving skills are so rarely rewarded. In fact, all you can look forward to is a slight reduction in insurance premium. Blanket reduction of speeds does not reward or motivate people to improve their skills. At the end of the day car drivers are human beings and not robots.

My second point regards the government’s income from road users. It is an area of ‘taxation’ which is massively disproportionate – the government makes far more from the motorist than it ever pays back. Because of this the cost of motoring is massively skewed and it just keeps getting worse. As I mentioned before, speed cameras are just another way of efficiently collecting revenues as the ‘back office’ infrastructure is already in place. Because of this the driver is always going to feel like the ‘soft target’ – again this does not motivate the driver but makes him / her feel alienated.

I personally feel that we are going progressing down a cul-de-sac with regard to how our authorities deal with motorists. We just end up with a ‘tit for tat’ mentality. (They introduce speed cameras – We start thinking of ways to get round them).
What next?

Steve.

 

[kenbachelor]

Having read all the comments re speed cameras on this thread, I am conscious that the most obvious has not been stated.

If we all stuck to the speed limit none of the cameras would be needed, so actually it is down to us!

 

[G-Man]

I think it is all to easy to prosecute drivers and that is one way to generate a stealth tax. Two thoughts come to mind though.

If everyone did stick to the speed limits as suggested and all the speed cameras became redundant would they be removed.

Secondly, if there were no more accidents depsite the speed travelled at, would the cameras also be left in place? I appreciate that this is unlikely, but a Stuttgart based manufacturer already has a radar based distance control cruise control, so surely it won't be long before we start seeing accident prevention electronics as standard in cars.

I still personally think that bad driving is worse than fast driving. Having avoided getting any endorsments on my licence, I don't necessarily have any reason to dislike the speed cameras myself though.

G-Man

 

[stevespray]

If we all stuck to speed limits then the government would have to look to other ways to collect its indirect taxation. Whether accident rates would drop is another matter. I’m interested in studies made in Southern California and also in German where findings have shown that slowing traffic isn’t always the answer. Apparently studies have shown that the more you slow traffic the more bunched it becomes. Slow it too much and you get large columns of slower moving traffic which offers very little room for other road users to interact with. Apparently faster moving traffic tends to cause traffic to move along in more pronounced groups with much bigger gaps between them thus leaving more room and time for other road users to interact. Studies have shown that pedestrians interact with traffic at a mainly subconscious level. When you attempt to cross a road with faster moving traffic you mind suggests that you look for a ‘safe gap’, in the traffic flow, at which to cross. Subconsciously this is different when you are presented with a long column of slower moving traffic. Essentially you see ‘no light at the end of the tunnel’ (ie you see no let up in the flow of traffic approaching you). You therefore set about determining the next best option which is a car approaching with a greater than average gap between it and the next car. As you have determined that you must cross you make a choice that the bigger gap represents the best chance of achieving your goal. The net result is an attempt to cross the busy road by taking an acknowledged risk rather than crossing the road by assessing a point at which it is safe to do so.

You see, while they can tell you that speed is a major contributor to most accidents, the simple removal of speed doesn’t automatically mean that a particular accident would or wouldn’t have occurred.

Personally I travel around 30,000 – 40,000 miles per year and have done for about 15 years. In that time I’ve never had an accident apart from being clipped by someone waiting to pull out of a t-junction (apparently she ‘slipped of the clutch’). I obviously like to put my apparent success down to my driving skills. In my opinion those skills where developed from quite a young age. By the time I was nine or ten my father was insisting that I no longer ride my bike on the pavement and was therefore forced to interact with ‘proper traffic’. Obviously on a bike you are aware of how vulnerable you are and basic survival instinct is developed very quickly. My belief is that this type of thing feeds into your driving skills in later years. You perception of hazards and dangerous situations are already greatly enhanced even though you may not be aware of it. One wonders if slowing traffic down and generally ‘making the world safer’ is a self defeating idea. In making everything happen in ‘slow motion’ peoples ability to develop naturally defensive skills could be being hindered in some way. Could the net result be a society which, on the one hand, moves more slowly but on the other hand is less well skilled?

Steve.

 

[Bluewave]

Interesting post, Steve. Thanks.

There was research released last month showing that it is easier for a child to catch a fast moving ball than when it is thrown very slowly. It appears that the brain has an easier time calculating the movement of fast moving objects than slow ones.

In my tennis coaching days I often witnessed bad shots being made when the ball was bouncing slowly compared to faster shots where the player wasn't able to "think" about the shot and just had to play it, relying on the brain to get the limbs and body into the correct position (which practise helps also). Tim Henman recently said he didn't do well at Queen's because he was finding the courts and balls too slow - presumably tournament organisers prefer slower games to allow for longer rallies and thus more for spectators to enjoy. Henman also complained that Wimbledon officials use balls taken out of their pressurised containers up to 2 weeks before the tournament starts, thus while they are still new they are softer and slower.

Ok, I have moved off subject somewhat. I am not suggesting drivers are better when travelling fast, although statistically there are more accidents under 40 mph than there are over 60 mph, which is due to a variety of reasons.

On a previous post in this thread someone suggested taking away all the signs and road markings, thus forcing drivers to slow down and take care around other road users. Equally, if a large spike was installed in the centre of every driver's wheel, how many do you think would excessively speed then? Cars have become so safe these days that people feel comfortable speeding in them. While I don't agree with the use and placement of speed cameras, how else are the authorities going to force a change of driving habbits when those drivers feel it's ok and safe to speed.

It wasn't so long ago when the introduction and enforcement of wearing safety belts was complained about by drivers. But thousands of lives around the world have been saved by this simple piece of equipment, and I'm sure many drivers these days would never consider not using their belts. A successful change of attitude has been made.

 

[SOCRATES]

I hold the view that speed does not kill. I hold the view that bad driving kills. I also hold the view that in addition to driving badly, driving at speed is very dangerous and can kill.

I hold the view that speed cameras fulfil two functions.

The first function is the extraction of fines from motorists as a separate income stream for the authorities.

The second function is more sinister, and deals with the process of dumbing down of the population, and of the development of ideas leading to draconian controls.

 

[Pippppin]

Dumbing down

Socrates

Few would disagree with your first point...as for your second, you are wide of the mark. The majority of the population are already "dumbed down"....they do not need any assistance from the authorities on that score.

Here is an idea. An "emotional intelligence test". This would clear many current drivers off the road, and necessitate them finding alternative means of transport...

 

[DaveJB]

High speed reduces the time you have to think (as in 'what do I do now to avoid this problem?) If you are reasonably bright then lower speed gives you longer to avoid a problem, and will likely lead to less accidents.
If you are thick as two short planks then your first, instinctive reaction is as likely to be right as the 15th option you try, and we're all probably safer if your thinking time is reduced. It stands to reason (<g>) that the dafter you are the faster you ought to drive, as speed limits only encourage you to override perfectly reasonable reactions with ill concieved 'thought out' responses.

Speed cameras are a tax. In the event of an accident the slower you are going the better, personally I think 'stupidity of driver' plays a much bigger factor than anything else.... I'd rather Michael Schumacher drove around my house at 80mph than some daft old coot who never passed a test ('didn't have 'em in my day sonny....') running at 30 mph. Limits in town should be 20-25, the average town is too busy, survival rates in pedestrians (no matter who is to blame for the accident) really do dictate this one.... the energy absorbed (1/2 mv squared) makes it a '4 units at 20 mph, 9 units at 30' comparison -

I like driving quickly, I reckon drop limits in towns, up them on straight, clear stretches... make the limit reflect the actual conditions, not an arbitrary rulebook that dictates "the limit will be x if there are houses on both sides/streetlamps less than y apart" and all that other rubbish. I am bloody livid that I was 'flashed' doing 60 on a straight section of dual carriageway a mile clear of all other traffic (I missed seeing the 50 sign <g>) where I could safely have taken off in a Tornado on full afterburner, while traffic regularly zips along the local roads (residential) at 40-50 mph. (I know it does, 'cos when my wife drives I always keep one eye on the speedo).

Dave

 

[stevespray]

Evening Dave….

I agree 100% with what you say. Unfortunately the law only seems to look at the amount by which you exceeded the limit. Tell me which is worst, 101mph on a 70mph motorway or 61mph on a 30mph urbanisation? The law sees both as ‘exceeding the speed limit by more than 30mph’.
Another thing which seems strange is that that we allow pedestrians such easy access to potentially busy roads. Apart from motorways people are free to cross where and when they feel like it. Why is ‘the pedestrian’ treated like someone who can not be educated to take some more responsibility? I feel that our government should make more effort to ensure that potential collisions between road vehicles and pedestrians be avoided by lessening the points of potential conflict. In many countries a pedestrian can be fined (and in some cases arrested) if they attempt to cross a busy road at a non designated point.

Another point worthy of note is the absolutely shocking state of our public transport. I speak for many people whom I know (as well as myself) who have stated that they would use public transport if it were not such a joke. Our railway system actually has the potential to be one of the best in the world but due to continual lack of funding it has evolved into an unreliable mess which seems to get worse at every turn. Furthermore, the costs of using the railways are a nonsense. Peak time returns between Bristol and London are generally over £100. Who wants to continually pay these fees for services which are constantly delayed or cancelled?? I’m am constantly amazed, when I travel abroad, by the quality of service offered by other countries public transport networks. I don’t want to sound too political here but this country is going to the dogs – taxes spiral upwards and the quality were receive in return is getting worse.

Okay – off my soapbox and open a cold bottle of Stella……

Steve.