The new speed cameras....and accidents caused by the current ones...

[laptop]

if the number of accidents remains the same, then the number of fatalities and serious injuries will fall if speed limits are adhered to or reduced.

This.

So, to argue that speed does not kill, one would have to argue that increased speed reduces the number of accidents.

This is all looking at traffic as a system, statistically.

Drivers have difficulty doing this. The car is a machine for inculcating the illusion of free will. (That's why people are so attached to them.) It is an illusion: the driver is merely a component of the feedback loops that keep the traffic system flowing (or not).

Certainly, from my point of view as a pedestrian trying to stay alive, I have to be concerned with traffic, not drivers.

 

[tarannau]

Those who use simplistic slogans which lots of people know to be untrue undermine their own message (and, sadly, undermine the important aspects of the message as well (i.e. inappropriate speed causes collisions and kills)).

cf: Ecstasy kills, kids. Look, here's a tragedy (Leah Betts, etc.) Don't do it! Er ... but I and my mates do E every weekend. Everyone does and they don't die. So they're obviously talking bollocks. So we won't take any notice.

Yes, but if they shoved 8 E's down their neck in quick succession they'd stand a higher chance of experiencing severe distress or death.

Same largely applies to driving at 50mph in a 30mph limit for example.

Appreciate the daft comparision mind. Genius.

 

[slainte]

agh and what about arseholes whom slam on the anchors just prior a speed camera being totally UNAWARE of the limit they are in or more importantly are at the limit and then SLOW down further...causing a chain effect of those riding driving AT THE LIMIT which can as in that case CAUSE an accident...

Whats wrong with re-test...is it cause nearly everyone here are so precious about their licence or BARELY passed their test that they then jump to the camp of "ive passed my test therefore i don't need to be occasionally re-assessed!

I cannot believe its just going to "speed=kills" clearly there is many commenting here with no licence of any description at all by the stupid posts and retorts ...maybe also for those NOT in the know there is for instance inaccuries of speedos so you can get an individual whom is doing 35mph but their speedo states 30mph which is a KNOWN fact hence the option of 10% plus 2 to allow for this variation...
Missing to point back to the original.. I personally STATE PERSONALLY think that AVERAGING SPEED CAMERAS OVER DISTANCES IS A GOOD THING...why cause it REALISTICALLY allows for times of needing to EXCEED and also by proxy SLOWING DOWN but one must maintain an AVERAGE speed of 30 in a 30 40 in a 40 50 in a 50 and at national in a national....end of.

Not noticing what speed you are on..sorry but this is bolloxs period...if in built up areas and your attention is taken up with cyclists,kids pedestrians then its not a motorway is it.

And for speed other than 30 there is repeaters and if you don't notice it get the fuck off the road... the PROBLEM with current cameras is that clearly people DONT TAKE NOTICE of the speed of the road they are on then COMPOUND their problem by usually the following sequence...

EKK camera take eyes of road look about slam on the breaks look at speedo keep looking at mirror to see if there is a flash behind . yes? no ? so I know I GOT AWAY with it ..eyes still off the road then....eyes forward even at 30 mph thats 33 feet per second ....and you have spent about 3 to 4 seconds not paying attention to anything about you...and you can scale up the distance with eyes off the road with further speeds ...that is NEVER addressed...sorry but silly mantras buzz word slogans and officious odeous civil servants ignoring reality and pushing an agenda DOES NOT bring people back from the dead...
Yeah I have an attitude about it cause I have witnessed far too many accidents along and about M25 north/south circular where the CURRENT cameras plastered everywhere.

Im not advocating speed I am advocating regular tests and re-tests and if you are a dozy twat whom doesn't OBSERVE road signs speed limits and an AWARENESS of the speed they drive ride at..get the fuck off the road..you WILL KILL MAIM SERIOUSLY INJURE someone only a matter of time..

I mean the current crop of cameras are having the speed of the road SLAPPED on the back of BIG BRIGHT YELLOW cameras cause even with the REPEATERS on non 30 mph roads they STILL CLEARLY HAVE NO CLUE OF THE SPEED OF THE ROAD OR THEIR OWN VEHICLE SPEED.....probably on the mobile I expect...

 

[detective-boy]

Appreciate the daft comparision mind. Genius.

It's not daft. But I wouldn't expect a prejudiced cunt like you to even try and understand it.

 

[Jonti]

Those who use simplistic slogans which lots of people know to be untrue undermine their own message (and, sadly, undermine the important aspects of the message as well (i.e. inappropriate speed causes collisions and kills)).

cf: Ecstasy kills, kids. Look, here's a tragedy (Leah Betts, etc.) Don't do it! Er ... but I and my mates do E every weekend. Everyone does and they don't die. So they're obviously talking bollocks. So we won't take any notice.

Yeah, I fully concur with the general sentiment here.

The thing is, if people stopped doing drugs, there would be fewer drug-related deaths, no doubt about it. And if the average speed that people drive at were 5 or 10mph slower, there would be fewer road deaths, no doubt about that either.

Speeding cars kill. And they kill far more often than does E.

 

[detective-boy]

Speeding cars kill. And they kill far more often than does E.

Bearing in mind that there are millions of car journeys every day - way, way more than there are doses of E taken - that's not surprising.

But the key statistic (which no-one knows) is how many offences of speeding are there to (a) collisions DIRECTLY caused and (b) resulting deaths. I suspect the answer is millions to one. So there are millions of occasions when people exceed the speed limit and no collision or death ensues ... hence the simplistic "Speed kills" message is counterproductive ... millions of people every day know that it is bollocks.

Why the huge numbers of people who cling to it fail to see this and fail to move to a more specific message, I don't know. At the moment you have the vast majority of speed cameras on main trunk routes, catching millions of motorists a few miles an hour over the limit, usually in circumstances creating no actuial danger to anyone whilst there is almost no enforcement of 20mph and 30mph limits in dangerous residential areas, outside schools, etc.

The continued failure of the "Speed Kills" brigade to move to a more sophisticated message means that the really dangerous speeding drivers (i.e. those exceeding 30mph in residential areas with lots of pedestrians around) are NOT being addressed. And, to be honest, the absence of any such enforcement probably convinces the simpletons that what they are doing isn't really a problem.

 

[Jonti]

But we're concerned with actual, real lives being shattered and prematurely ended. The high numbers of people killed by cars etc mean it's a problem of high importance.

In that context, it's incredibly distasteful to find people in denial that (all other things being equal) speed kills.

Agreed it might be better to say "Speeding cars kill", but the shorter slogan gets the message across. Well, mostly.

 

[detective-boy]

In that context, it's incredibly distasteful to find people in denial that (all other things being equal) speed kills.

The point is, it doesn't though. Otherwise Lewis Hamilton would be dead.

This is the absolutely central point: it is not speed per se that kills - it is not even speed in excess of the posted limit which kills, it is inappropriate speed that kills and that may well be a speed which is actually BELOW the posted limit.

"Speed kills", particularly when associated with arbitrary, one-size-fits-all-circumstances speed limits, is simplistic bollocks. And people know that so the message is ignored by many / most of the people who need to hear it.

 

[gentlegreen]

.. but in the absence of any other method, nabbing persistent speeders should presumably get a fair few dangerous drivers in the process ?

 

[Teaboy]

As somebody who does a heck of a lot of driving I find that the average speed camera's are much more affective in cutting down speed, than the stand alone units or particuarly the mobile units.

 

[Cobbles]

.. but in the absence of any other method, nabbing persistent speeders should presumably get a fair few dangerous drivers in the process ?

No - speed cameras aren't very good at spotting really dangerous stuff like bald tyres or morons who tailgate.

For that (as well as most other instances of dangerous driving) you need a copper, preferably in a vehicle that's capable of giving chase (e.g. not some diesel/LPG enviro-drivel slug-box).

 

[Crispy]

enviro-drivel slug-box

Marvellous

 

[detective-boy]

.. but in the absence of any other method, nabbing persistent speeders should presumably get a fair few dangerous drivers in the process ?

Yes, a few. But it misses all the drink drivers; those using mobile phones whilst driving; tailgaters and all the rest whose actions ALWAYS increase the dangers of collisions. And all those who are untraceable via their registration numbers (of which there are very many, including most of those who are unlicensed / uninsured...). And, as a side effect, it unnecessarily pisses off dozens of drivers doing a few miles over the posted speed limit in circumstances which carry absolutely no danger and could / should be dealt with by way of warning in exactly the same way that minor breaches of every other law are usually dealt with by warning.

It is a blunt instrument, applied bluntly, by unthinking "Speed Kills" zealots who, through their total failure to engage in sensible debate, fail to address many REAL issues on our roads (including speeding in non-trunk road areas where children and other pedestrians are mostly at risk).

 

[Termite Man]

It is a blunt instrument, applied bluntly, by unthinking "Speed Kills" zealots who, through their total failure to engage in sensible debate, fail to address many REAL issues on our roads (including speeding in non-trunk road areas where children and other pedestrians are mostly at risk).

I agree but saying "speed increases the chances of accidents and death is more likely in a collision at higher speeds" isn't quite as catchy as speed kills !

 

[detective-boy]

I agree but saying "speed increases the chances of accidents and death is more likely in a collision at higher speeds" isn't quite as catchy as speed kills !

Another symptom of dumbing down, I suppose.

I wouldn't have such a problem with the slogan itself if there was any evidence that the speed legislation was being enforced in a sensible manner, alongside other enforcement and with an appropriate degree of discretion. Sadly it isn't (though the option of a "re-education" course for speed offences just over the posted limit is a step in the right direction and they are now being started up in many new areas).

 

[obanite]

Got to say I agree with Mr. Shouty Pants here

There's been a lot of noise lately about the motorcycle test desperately needing more emphasis on riding on roads at >30mph, because that's where loads of accidents occur - people on bikes not necessarily above the speed limit, but trying to get their knee down on that twisty through the peak district or down the back of town. I'd say the same needs to happen for cars too. People need instruction on high speed driving as well as how to do a parallel park.

 

[Cobbles]

I agree but saying "speed increases the chances of accidents and death is more likely in a collision at higher speeds" isn't quite as catchy as speed kills !

At least it's accurate.

"speed may increase the chances of accidents in certain circumstances and death can more likely in a collision at higher speeds" is even more accurate.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

At least it's accurate.

"speed may increase the chances of accidents in certain circumstances and death can more likely in a collision at higher speeds" is even more accurate.

Except that's bollocks. Higher speed is only going to increase the danger of death and if you're talking about certain circumstances you've already gone into the subset of events where your "may" is already specified. Your wording is excessively mealy mouthed and can be interpreted to give completely false conclusions, ie. a higher speed collision is not always more dangerous than a lower speed one.

You fail at logic.

 

[Cobbles]

a higher speed collision is not always more dangerous than a lower speed one

Absolutely correct

Ram into a concrete pillar in a G-wizz at 40 MPH (does it go that fast?) = die

Ram into a concrete pillar at lots more than 40 MPH in a Mercedes S class and die (e.g. Lady Di).

Ram into a concrete pillar at lots more than 40 MPH in a Mercedes S class wearing a seatbelt and survive (per Lady Di's ex-police minder).

See - it all depends on the circumstances.

Also, get hit by a Ford Mondeo doing 30 MPH and survive; get hit by a bus doing 15 MPH (e.g. s-l-o-w-e-r) and croak (happened on Princes Street in Edinburgh after they took away all the nasty speedy cars).

 

[berniedicters]

Absolutely correct

Ram into a concrete pillar in a G-wizz at 40 MPH (does it go that fast?) = die

Ram into a concrete pillar at lots more than 40 MPH in a Mercedes S class and die (e.g. Lady Di).

Ram into a concrete pillar at lots more than 40 MPH in a Mercedes S class wearing a seatbelt and survive (per Lady Di's ex-police minder).

See - it all depends on the circumstances.

Also, get hit by a Ford Mondeo doing 30 MPH and survive; get hit by a bus doing 15 MPH (e.g. s-l-o-w-e-r) and croak (happened on Princes Street in Edinburgh after they took away all the nasty speedy cars).

Nope, still failing at logic.

 

[Sunray]

I'm in favour of having much more simplistic speed rules on the road. Average speed cameras will just be got round by more sophisticated software on the TomTom. You can floor it till you get near the camera and then you have to pull over onto the hard shoulder. It happens near the end of the congestion zone time limit, people pull over to wait when they realise they are a bit early. There will be people who realise (with no TomTom) they were going too fast so will slow *right* down.

Less accidents are happening because the cars are much more reliable and safer than they ever were so that is the essential driving force on road safety.

I am also sure that the motorways should have a much higher speed limit (maybe 100mph) and a minimum of 60mph. Towns and residential areas much more anti-car. Not speed bumps but clever road design that forces you to drive slowly.

Given that the (pretty sensible) Germans don't even have a limit on their fast roads, I can't see why we do. Its not like there are pedestrians to worry about. There is a point where all the safety and speed limits will not produce you any results, humans are Stupid/Forgetful/Distractable/Clumsy whatever, even the greatest driver can make a mistake and write off a family of four. Nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Absolutely correct

Ram into a concrete pillar in a G-wizz at 40 MPH (does it go that fast?) = die

Ram into a concrete pillar at lots more than 40 MPH in a Mercedes S class and die (e.g. Lady Di).

Ram into a concrete pillar at lots more than 40 MPH in a Mercedes S class wearing a seatbelt and survive (per Lady Di's ex-police minder).

See - it all depends on the circumstances.

Epic fail.

Ram into a concrete pillar in a car at 40mph vs 50mph, your statement implies that it might be just as safe. Which is utter bollocks as simple physics will show you. Your over complication of things is wrong, now this is nitpicking but if you're going to have the arrogance to correct another poster you should at least have the decency to get it right. In (virtually) every case once you're in an accident the slower the objects are impacting the better it is for you.

 

[laptop]

I was thinking on the bus about this perception-of-safety thing, and drivers' insistence on insisting it's all about their individual cases and their refusal to look at it statistically.

Apparently, speeding is OK in individual cases because skilled driver is skilled and everything.

But I remember my dad coming back from the Advanced Driving course to say that the message was: you want to stay alive, you assume that every other driver on the road is a psychopath who's about to have a stroke. Ignore their indicators, wait until you see the wheels turn, and stuff.

So this skill thing applies only to you. Drivers in general are - drivers who want to stay alive are advised - nutters.

Thing is, as a pedestrian I can't tell it's you, the skilled one. Best assume you're all nutters, every last one. Best impose speed restrictions on all of you, without exception, to reduce the damage when you do something nutty.

 

[gentlegreen]

Thing is, as a pedestrian I can't tell it's you, the skilled one. Best assume you're all nutters, every last one. Best impose speed restrictions on all of you, without exception, to reduce the damage when you do something nutty.

That's my take on it as one who grew up in a car-less household, did his learning on motorcycles and is a cyclist most of the time and a driver only occaisionally.
The general level of incompetence out there is staggering. I can't begin to get into the heads of people who are totally detached from the process of driving and only see it as a means to an end.
I notice the daily "little incompetences" in indication, road positioning, inability to use the handbrake .... I saw a police car at traffic lights a month or two back doing the usual thing of inching closer and closer to the large van in front until the driver can't have been able to see a thing.

And I don't need to mention to other cyclists the basic huge incompetence we witness every day regarding speed/distance and that shiver that goes up and down your spine when some moron really threatens your life.
Luckily, much of the traffic I encounter on a daily basis is static because the en-caged motorists are too stupid to see the staggering benefits of getting out of their cars and onto a bike for jouneys of a few miles. (in my case it was a move from motorcycle to pushbike).
.
My ex. was dreadful - always complaining that I drove her car as if I was riding my bike and that I would cause accidents because people would expect me to drive like she did - at lethal speeds on suburban streets because she was late again getting her kids to cadets or whatever.I wanted no part of a lifestyle like that.
You only have to witness the amount of ShellGrip being plastered all over the roads .. that, and modern disc brakes are probably the only things keeping the levels of carnage as low as they are.

I have no time for the "expert drivers" who are inconvenienced by blanket restrictions - it's a "freedom" I'm perfectly happy to deny them.
.

 

[slainte]

gentlegreen can you clarify then ....do you blanket all car drivers then "hostile" all the time...or inconsiderate all the time...



I have an advanced licence (motorcycle) what is generally put forward is to stereotype ie the man in white van wont probably indicate, the black cabbie will just do a u turn...

but that in itself doesn't engender them being a cock constantly surely..and on the topic of advanced licence surely also its better than someone considered and did it rather than have the viewpoint of ...I dont need it..

I hope Im making sense here...however...averaging speed cameras versus static cameras what say you...

 

[gentlegreen]

It's mostly on the way home. I set out with good spirits - I actively enjoy my daily cycle rides.
I've chosen a route whereby I have the least possible contact with other vehicles.

I make best use of the road from a see / be seen point of view, and generally it works very well - especially as I use the same route every day, but then some idiot always has to spoil it, makes me realise my vulnerability and I respond accordingly by staking my claim on the road so the drivers behind me don't even try to squeeze past dangerously.

There seems to be this lemming instinct in many drivers. If I quite reasonably allow a vehicle to pass me - especially if it's a large one, I can guarantee that several more will follow at speed - leaving it far too late for comfort. I've noticed recently them exaggeratedly steering wide of me and dangerously close to cars coming in the opposite direction as if that somehow lets them off the hook.

... so it's a mixture of emotions - the best I allow myself to feel about the people behind the wheel is neutrality - they could easily kill me.

I would think averaging speed cameras can only be an improvement, but what we really need is distance / speed cameras to get the incompetents retrained, and the sociopaths off the road.

 

[slainte]

the incompents re-trained I am all for hence my own personal belief in re-taking test and I mean the DVLA one at that too.

However, there is HUGE resistance to this ...and there shouldn't be ...it is a "fear" of not passing..which begs the question...why are you unaccompanied on the road then if you follow.

I'll let you into a secret though scale up the twattage when on a motorcycle or scooter generally at higher speed roads too.

You (cyclist) and me (motorcyclist) will always be worse off in any collision..

I don't think though that cameras address this only the speed issue not incompentent driving / riding skills...

 

[Cobbles]

Epic fail.

Ram into a concrete pillar in a car at 40mph vs 50mph, your statement implies that it might be just as safe. Which is utter bollocks as simple physics will show you. Your over complication of things is wrong, now this is nitpicking but if you're going to have the arrogance to correct another poster you should at least have the decency to get it right. In (virtually) every case once you're in an accident the slower the objects are impacting the better it is for you.

Can you explain how the some of the slowest roads on the planet (India) lead to probably the highest accident rate - surely if speed=appalling danger then the remaining unrestricted German Autobahns ought to top the list?

Nope, they come nowhere near.

 

[Crispy]

Can you explain how the some of the slowest roads on the planet (India) lead to probably the highest accident rate - surely if speed=appalling danger then the remaining unrestricted German Autobahns ought to top the list?

Nope, they come nowhere near.

That's not his point. His point is that if you crash, it's going to be more damaging, the faster you're going. And exponentially more, due to e=mv^2

 

[fredfelt]

Can you explain how the some of the slowest roads on the planet (India) lead to probably the highest accident rate - surely if speed=appalling danger then the remaining unrestricted German Autobahns ought to top the list?

Nope, they come nowhere near.

Cobbles, do you really need to be told why roads are less safe in India - well you did ask...

Road design (or lack of it)
Unroadworthy vehicles
Overcrowded vehicles
People living and leading their lives on the streets
Priority being given to the biggest vehicle, rather than the most vulnerable
Very little policing leading to intoxicated and untrained drivers
Maybe even faith in reincarnation