Speed Cameras-The case against
 

We're talking about this little gem on www.irishbikerforum.com

Just wondering if there is a wider opinion....
http://www.mikewaite.co.uk/factsheet...-case-against/

yes, less than 4% of accidents have speed as their primary causative factor. That statistic is from the governments own advisory body. (not some newspaper generated tatt!)
In most areas speed cameras have done nothing to reduce accidents or deaths in the long term. most of the data that is put out showing reductions contains data from a couple of selected years, which as a piece of statistical science is arse! Indeed in some areas the death rate has increased after speed cameras have been introduced! the reality is that the sample size is so mercifully low that it is difficult to extract any meaningful data, also one factor cannot be isolated in changes in death/injury rates because so may other factors have changed, car design being one of the most fundamental but also road layout and road furniture.

I am sure though that the placing of speed cameras is for entirely altruistic reasons and has nothing to do with the huge revenues now being generated from them!!
ah, I feel so much better for getting that off my chest!!

As with all arguments there are two sides, and it's funny how people ignore the obvious when trying to make their point. To be honest that whole 'thesis' on speed cameras sounded like "I want to ride at whatever speed I want and f*ck everyone else."
The most fatuous argument I've ever heard is "People who drive faster do so because they are better drivers." Yeah, I often think, as the lowered VW Golf with tinted windows and massive aerofoils goes steaming past my local primary school at fifty, stereo blasting and tyres squealing; "That guy's obviously a really good driver."
And the fact that speed is the causal factor in few accidents is beside the point, it makes any accident (no matter what the cause) much worse than it would have been at a slower speed.

Matt
Four years on bikes, four accidents: still alive 'cos I'm slower than your gran! :)

On a similar note:

Speed might not be the 'primary' cause of many accidents (how many is 4%?) but it may well be a 'contributing' factor and most certainly makes the outcome worse.

I know that I rather fall off at 20mph than 60mph (carefully levelled at speed limit)!

- 20 years of speeding without at ticket - What a hypocrite! I am:blushing:

Jens

speed scammeras
 

The big problem is that safety seems to be a bit of a side issue. How does an unmarked car with darkened windows and a bloke with a laser camera contribute to safety? they are just interested in the £60.
reason for my unhappiness is that i was done for 35 in 30, on a major A road, in a loosely spaced line of traffic, nowhere near a school or even a pedestrian. what am I supposed to do? drive down the road watching my speedo? what about watching the road?
innapropriate speeding is a different issue, no-one would have sympathy for someone doing 40mph past a school, or village postoffice etc. i see terrible driving, every day, on the A59 skipton to harrogate road, overtaking on bends/white lines etc. The only time i see a plod is at the end of a long straight section, with good viz and a camera that works to almost a mile.
Bah Humbug.

Rant over.

:taz:

I think you've hit the nail on the head there old chap, it's inappropriate speed thats the problem. And on that basis 30mph in a 40 won't get you nicked, but it maybe inappropriate, and dangerous, for the circumstances. likewise, is 90mph on a clear motorway (well, it does happen occassionaly!) really dangerous?

The speed limits in this country came into being when cars struggled to even reach 70mph, had dreadful brakes, awful handling, no safety features and would fail their first MOT on stuctural rot!! Are they that relevant to the cars of today.

Also the above comments are correct that speed will increase the severity of an accident, but speed has been set up as a causer of accidents and those that exceed the speed limit are the devils own spawn! Some committee of highly paid government ....wits came to the astounding conclusion that if we had a national speed limit of 30mph it would have a significant effect on road deaths. really!!

I happen to think that there are other issues which if they were dealt with would be more effective in reducing death and injury rates, but they don't raise as much revenue.

Some people may be reading this thinking 'ah yes, but if you saw the effects of an accident you'd think differently'. well, probably like a lot of people on this site ,I have lost too many friends in RTAs, and a member of my own familly, and I'm also an A&E nurse, so trust me, I know only too well what the effects are!

I see your point Moggy, and I guess most of us a guilty of going at speeds that we perceive to be safe while they bare no link to the speed limit at times...usually when the risk of being caught is low. But...

Doesn't this bring us back to Matts' "better" driver argument??

Are we all (including me!) so conceited that we know better than the local experts?

In my village we are canvassing the authorities for a 30mph speed limit for years now...apparently the village is to short and 30 children and innumerate drunks are not worth protecting from drivers going through at 70mph (speed limit is 60)!

Well, I guess the only person killed in the last year was 200 yards outside the village...

Jens

Ask a thousand drivers if they are a better than average driver, 999 of them will say yes!! (although of course I know in my case it's true, I'm way better than average!!)

One of the things I wonder with speed cameras is, do they lull people into a sense that if there isn't a speed camera, do what the hell you like, I wonder if by being so prescriptive we actually stop people thinking about what they are doing? I certainly see some crazy stuff as soon as people go past the camera.

Contentiousness is great!
 

Yep, it's a contentious issue all right. I can't comment on speed cameras down south but I know someone who used to work for the government department up in Scotland which look after road safety on trunk roads. He insists that speed cameras here are only put in areas which have PROVEN to be accident blackspots. Some of which you can really SEE in action. The junction at Ballinluig on the A9 is horrendous, hidden behind a corner, there used to be loads of accidents. There is now a fifty limit and a speed camera, so everyone is going slow as they come round the bend.
Of course there are examples of idiotic coppers nicking people only just over the limit, but idiotic coppers have been around as long as the police force.
Maybe it's just me but I think the national speed limits are fast enough. The roads, wether we like it or not, are for transport, not a playground. You want to ride fast? Do a track day.
Do I speed? Yep, from time to time, but only by 10% or so and only when the conditions seem suitable. Will I whinge if I get caught? No, my descision to speed is my own bloody silly fault and it's not like I don't know the rules.
Matt

Hear, Hear!

Jens

Surely the issue here is the speed limit as the camera is only there to catch and fine the drivers that ignore the speed limit.

27 years ago, when I was 18, I could travel between where I lived, in Dorset, and another town, in 10 minutes, almost legally.

There are no cameras on this route today but where the road passes through small villages and groups of houses, and specifically a bridge where a driver was killed, lower speed limits have been introduced. The same journey now takes double the time. I assume the distance between the two points has not changed, my LR Discovery does not accelerate at the same rate as my old Vauxhall 2 litre that I used to drive, but I'm quite happy to stick to the speed limit.

Forget the camera argument, they are only there to take your money if you break the speed limit, the one that is quite clearly on the signs.

clearly on the signs???
 

I had to go to London 2 weeks ago (to the theatre would you believe!),
whilst escaping after the show, I had to run the gauntlet of the dozens of speed cameras, only thay dont have the speed limit on them, and they are in areas of 30 then 40 then 50 then 30 then 40 etc.
I was constantly on and off the brakes trying to remember what the last sign said, if in doubt stomp the brakes down to 30.
talk about stressful, and I probably spent more time trying to spot signs and cameras then looking at the speedo than watching the bleedin' road.:cursing:

I think thats a valid point actually. on some bits of road people are so busy watching the cameras and watching their speedo (excessively!) that they aren't watching the rd. The bit on the stratford bypass in london is especially bad.

there is another coming out of portsmouth on the motorway. it's only a 40, about 100yrds before the limit increases but it's a tricky bit of rd and people are always in the wrong lane so having to change. because of the camera I think they are distracted, also sometimes you need to accelerate into a space to make a safe move, but can't because of the camera. On the 850 miles of most dangerous road in Britain there are just 4 cameras. where they are sited to aid safety I don't have a problem, but when they are sited just to maximise revenue I think it's a bit off. Happily that practice seems to be on the decrease thanks to a bit of an outcry about it.

If we are going to say that all speeding is bad, why don't all vehicles have speed limiters? well there has been a trial and the suggestion was it was dangerous. I would argue (as would the police advanced driving course) that to execute a safe overtake you move as swiftly past the other vehicle as possible, safely, and that usually involves temporarilly going over the speed limit so restricting vehicles could be dangerous, as is siting a speed camera on a straight stretch of rd with no side turnings that is a good place for people to overtake. speeding isn't always dangerous, it depends on circumstance.

now thats funny!!
of course you didn't write it, neither would you condone such outlaw behaviour!