Speed Cameras: Cash Machines or Safety Systems?

[BigPerk]

Maybe, but the point is that that's what they are there for. 'Safety' cameras are there specifically to prevent/limit speeding,NOT to track criminals, and we just couldn't employ enough police to do this job to the same coverage.

Of course we need traffic police as well for the serious issues you mention, but cameras don't increase the incidence of tragedies IMHO, they reduce it. I'm all for sufficient police resources and effort (even though I'm not an ex-policeman ), and not just on the roads as the background to the recent case of the double suicide clearly demonstrates.

And lets be realistic, when you see a policeman (woman) actually pointing a gun at you, how often is his (her) position dictated by road safety considerations? And how much discretion does he (she) actually show after he (she) flashes? [PC over]
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[laidlawbob]

I think we need to remember that we live in an imperfect world which is down to us as human beings. The fact is that people do drive at inappropriate speeds and are thus a potential danger to others as well as themselves and something needs to be done about it.
We should stop talking in absolute terms and recognise no enforcement system is perfect. We are making the best of a bad job.
Firstly it is a fact that the income from cameras now goes straight to the Government so Partnerships have no Financial Interest in putting Speed cameras in. In fact it costs them money to install them.
Yes speed cameras do have their drawbacks but they are here to stay. We should concentrate on the arguments for making them work better.
Let's have good guidelines for their installation and enforcement and ensure they are complied with. Remember enforcement is carried out by people not cameras. They have the discretion as to how to enforce. For example in my own area, where you are exceeding the speed limit by a small amount, you have the option of going on a Training Course rather that being fined or getting points. Let's make sure that we have speed limits which are appropriate and are not either too high or too low.

From my professional experience I know that speed limits are an emotive issue and people tend to let their hearts rule their heads. For them facts are irrelevant. Above all let's start talking facts not opinions.

Bob
_________________
Laidlaw Bob

[Mikegps]

One key issue that must be considered when evaluating the real value of speed cameras, and the public perception of their purpose, is to consider that fact that the vast majority of drivers do not deliberately set out with the intention of constantly driving above the speed limit.

Any driver who sets out on a journey with the absolute intention of deliberately ignoring and exceeding every set speed limit is an idiot and not safe to be driving. These are the people who if caught by real live police will be prosecuted, every time, and deserve to be prosecuted when caught by cameras.

However the vast majority - or at least a significant portion - of people caught by a camera intend to be driving within the speed limit and probably didn't realise that they had exceeded it. However an isolated and unintended momentary lapse of concentration, or prioritising their driving observations to events on the road or roadside rather than keeping their eyes on the speedometer, can result in them drifting 4 or 5 mph over their indended speed. If this happens in the vacinity of a speed camera they will be prosecuted and this is the factor that can seem unjust.

Anyone who claims they have never ever accidentally exceeded the speed limit is either a liar or one of those people who drive eveywhere at 15mph. Anyone who claims that they have never been distracted is simply a liar.

Obviously such a circumstance is just as potentially dangerous as when a car is deliberately driven above the speed limit. The key difference is that a speed camera will slow down the deliberate speeding motorist - but only at the site of the speed camera - but it will not slow down the unintentional exceeding of the speed limit, either at that camera site, or elsewhere.

It could be argued that the deliberately speeding motorist is looking for speed cameras and so is less likely to be caught. Unfortunately the distraction of just looking for speed cameras could result in them failing to notice other hazards. Ergo speed cameras can cause accidents.

I passed the Institute of Advanced Motorist test and then provided guidance to others preparing for the IAM test. It was recognised by all - inluding the serving traffic police officers who conduct the IAM test - that one of the most difficult elements of the IAM test was controlling speed, especially in 30mph limits. Exceeding the speed limit and/or failing to maintain appropriate progress - that is driving too slow for the road conditions and cirumstances - both result in IAM test failure.

To have not been caught by a speed camera is now a case of "There but for the grace of God go I". People are caught by cameras that they know are there, but they were distracted. So it should be argued that the use of speed camera detectors is more important to a driver intending to observe speed limits because it will alert and warn them that they are approaching a camera, that their concentration should be focused on the road, and their speed, preventing them accidentally exceeding the speed limit in an "accident blackspot" area.

[alan_sh]

[Darren]

[BigPerk]

Yes, I know sudden braking happens (I've done it for one, when I haven't had PGPSW on the case), that's why I'm not very keen on the way they are set up and used where it's for revenue seeking.

But I still think that there are enough in genuine positions for accidents to be reduced overall. It's a bit like someone's comment about safety belts, where adhoc arguments about instances where they caused injury do not outweigh the general case.

I'm basing my comment on the assumption that accident statistics DO support (proper) camera use, but I admit I haven't actually looked them up, so I can't be too dogmatic.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[Andy_P]

[DennisN]

At 100mph on the motorway, everything else is travelling in the same direction, so a surprise occurrence (another vehicle) is not going to be so unavoidable as a pedestrian popping out from between parked vehicles at 40mph.

Bearing in mind that 36mph on the camera is probably in excess of 40mph on a vehicle speedometer, the driver is flagrantly driving criminally in that circumstance - 33% excess on his speedo - he SHOULD be criminalised and fined! The 100mph driver is absolutely aware he's doing that, so should a 40mph driver in a 30 zone. I have a relative with whom I decline to travel as a passenger, simply because I'm scared stiff inside the speeding vehicle - I'm talking 40mph in a 30mph zone - he does it all the time, consistently, every day. And higher speeds in higher limit areas. He mocks me because I always take longer to reach a destination than he does. I don't drive at 15mph, but I DO drive at well under 30mph in a 30 zone housing estate - you simply cannot see a child or animal coming from nowhere and whoever "owns" the child or animal simply cannot ALWAYS prevent it from coming out of nowhere - those are the times when it gets hit (or you swerve into a lamppost) - not every day, just once in a while.

It is NOT difficult to keep within the speed limit in a 30 zone - don't engage top gear and shove your foot down! DON'T try to drive at 30mph! As for "progressive driving", the IAM are downright wrong if they say it's "driving too slow for the road conditions and cirumstances" to drive at 20-25mph in a built up area where children may be running loose amongst cars parked in estate roads.
_________________
Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

[Andy_P]

One way to stop the sudden braking for a camera would be for the entire road network to be covered by SPECs cameras, so no-one could *ever* speed, and as we know, the new SPECS 2 system is perfectly capable of doing this.

So what do people think about that scenario?

To be honest, I think something like that is eventually inevitable.
Once the technology is there, it just has to end up being used. (the DNA database is a similar example), something intended for criminals eventually becomes used for everyone.
It wouldn't happen in a lot of other countries, but in the UK we are too complacent (or lazy!) to complain about erosions of civil liberties

[Mikegps]

[quote="DennisN"]At 100mph on the motorway, everything else is travelling in the same direction

DennisN

Interestingly you suggest that it is not difficult to keep below 30mph and then state that you can do it by driving at 25mph. Exactly my point, you drive at 25mph; others, who like you find it difficult, drive at 15mph. Why don’t we simply have someone with a red flag walk in front of us?

With regard to your comment about the IAM. Please read my message again. Where is there any reference to the IAM suggesting that “to drive at 20-25mph in a built up area where children may be running loose amongst cars parked in estate roads“ is too slow? If you drive as fast as 20-25mph in the “road conditions and circumstances” you describe then I recommend you urgently improve your driving standards to that required by the IAM or RoSPA.

I suspect that the very low concentration of speed cameras in estate roads plagued with parked cars is because there are very few drivers who would consider driving anywhere near 30mph. Hence no income from such a camera.

You fail to criticise driving at 100mph on a motorway because, “everything else is travelling in the same direction, so a surprise occurrence (another vehicle) is not going to be so unavoidable as a pedestrian popping out from between parked vehicles at 40mph”.

Perhaps you might like to inform Felipe Massa that you don’t get accidents and injuries if everyone is travelling in the same direction. You could then inform the families of all the drivers killed in motor racing of this fact.

The speed limit on motorways for HGVs and vehicles towing is 60mph. The difference in speed between 100mph and 60mph is 40mph. A sudden lane change by a vehicle travelling 40mph slower is exactly the same “as a pedestrian popping out from between parked vehicles at 40mph”. If a car travelling at 70mph pulls out in front of you, when you are driving at 100mph, the difference in speed is the same as pedestrian stepping out at 30mph. And please don’t try to suggest that no one changes lane when an oncoming vehicle is less than 60 feet behind them, in many cases they never even consider the speed of the oncoming vehicle when changing lanes.

Have you never considered that at 100mph the distance travelled, during the time it takes to react to hazards, is significantly greater than the distance when travelling at 70mph/60mph? So unless there is a method of linking the accelerator mechanism to the human being’s thought processes there is significant increase in risk. Braking from 70mph to 60mph takes less time and therefore a shorter distance than braking from 100mph to 70mph and 60mph. Or perhaps you are suggesting that a driver doesn’t need to concentrate fully when only driving at 30/40/50/60/70mph?

Another factor you fail to consider is that it is more tiring/exhausting to travel at a higher speed than at lower speeds. Anyone who has taken part in motorsport, track days, or even experienced driving at the higher speeds permitted on unrestricted sections of autobahns, in Germany, will know that the level of concentration required becomes physically tangible in a very short time. And I can assure you that in each of those three situations, above, the standards of your fellow drivers are infinitely higher than that experienced on UK motorways.

You then suggest that a driver travelling 33% in excess of a speed limit “SHOULD be criminalised and fined“. 100mph in a 70mph speed limit? I’ll let you do the maths.

You suggest not engaging top gear in a 30mph zone, I would suggest staying out of 4th gear and 5th gear as well as top gear. If any 7 gear automatics want to change above 4th gear at 30mph in Drive, I would hope the driver would switch the gearbox from auto to manual selection.

[DennisN]

Mikegps I could argue virtually every one of your paragraphs if I were minded to, but I won't.

The maths of 100mph in a 70 zone had not escaped me and was the reason I deliberately used the figure of 33% excess for 40mph in a 30 zone. Just consider that the 100mph driver is coming up on another vehicle travelling at 70 - if that vehicle suddenly pulls out, it nevertheless continues moving away at 70mph whilst the 100mph driver is hitting the brakes. On the other hand, the pedestrian popping out into the path of a 40mph speeder is most probably standing stock still, not running away, whilst the driver is chucking out the anchor. The 40mph driver gets there ("catches up") sooner than the 100mph/70mph driver.

And I really do despair of the old, old chestnut

[Harry06]

Just a thought, but the danger of higher speed driving on motorways is always highlighted by the "someone pulling out in front of you" example.

Surely if it's easier to maintain a greater level of concentration at lower speeds then these 60mph middle lane drivers wouldn't be blindly pulling out in front of people in the third lane.

Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating idiotic speeding but it strikes me that the problem isn't so much how fast some people travel. It's how ignorant and selfish some people are.

[BigPerk]

I agree with that Harry06. While I wouldn't drive at 100 in the UK, and I'm sure DennisN wasn't actually suggesting doing that on the M25 (especially in his van ), there is no doubt to me that if a motorway is wide, empty and straight it shouldn't be a problem providing the driver is competent at that speed, and they don't have a blowout or something like that. Indeed a burst tyre is something I wouldn't enjoy at 50 or 70 either.

Driving at speeds MUCH greater than cars on your inside does seem risky, but the problem about people 'suddenly' pulling out seems to me to depend partly on whether you only 'suddenly' notice them . I have found that drivers follow their wheels - I watch them carefully, and while they point straight ahead the driver cannot pull out in front of me (the meercat.com ad springs to mind). I also do most of my faster driving in the outside lane, not the centre, to avoid artics' antics.

But the main thing for me is how much time I actually save while using all that extra fuel (and what am I going to do with the time anyway?). So I don't generally really do more than 85 in the UK or 90 on the continent - and that's only relatively infrequently. Honest
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

[253]

[Calomax]

Lots of interesting arguments and valid points on both sides and, as an infrequent visitor to the UK (once or twice per year) I won't get into the debate. But what I will say is that it's very noticeable how speeding had reduced considerably over the last 15 or 20 years.

I remember drivers scarcely slowing down in 30, 40, and 50 zones, and I tended to do the same because I found the speeding majority intimidating when I slowed to the limit, while the average speed on motorways seemed to me to be around 80 to 90mph. Now it's obvious that the majority drive from about the limit up to no more than 10% above.

I'm just back from a week in the south of England and was very impressed by the lack of speeding. Except driving through the New Forest which is limited to 40mph I was constantly beiong overtaken and it's very noticeable that there are no speed cameras in the area.

Incidentally my observations were based on the indicated TomTom speeds not the car's speedometer which, like all of them, over-reads, in my case by about 10%.

So while I agree that many cameras appear to be revenue generators, I also think they have made a contribution to safety generally, as others have said, especially the average speed cameras, although I only experienced them through the road works on the M3
_________________
TT Go Essential

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!