Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Joined: Feb 07, 2006 Posts: 616 Location: Midlothian
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:
The problem with Clarkson is that he talks b****cks. He is liked by many people because he dares to say what many are thinking. Unfortunately he doesn't really do sufficient research. Even HIS graph doesn't back up HIS theory. Road crash fatalities have dropped since the introduction of Gatsos, but it would be impossible to claim that this drop has got any direct correlation to the Gatso.
The sole purpose of installing Gatsos these days, is to reduce fatal and serious crashes at known 'black spots'. They have successfully done so at most sites, however people quickly learn where they are sited and adjust their speed only on the approach to the Gatso and as soon as they are clear they speed up again.
Despite the fact that I am a Traffic Officer (or Road Policing Officer as we are now called in Scotland), I am not a fan of many of the Gatso sites. I, like Jeremy Clarkson agree to them being sited in 30mph limits but their positions outside built up areas should be better thought out.
Road deaths will probably continue to fall, not necessarily because of more or even better sited cameras, but their rate of decline will get slower and slower. They will never cease completely as there will always be people prepared to do something ridiculous behind the wheel, usually at someone else's expense.
It is unreasonable for the Government to expect the complete eradication of speeding motorists, although the rising number of S.P.E.C.S. cameras may make us think otherwise. _________________ Tommo...
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:24 am Post subject:
The real b****cks is the actual facts that increasing the number of cameras might clear that blackspot then move problem further on and "Appears" to have little effect in reducing the overall fatalities.
North Wales has not gone mental on the cameras but instead the police hide themselves away all along the A55 at random places and times. Aswell as other places in the area, the result being that people don't drive like complete morons untill the camera sites and speed up again.
Anyone how spends any time at all in North Wales quickly learns that driving like a tw## will definately earn you points.
But the big surprise is that I understand that fatalities have reduced in the areas where the police did the job rather than installing more cameras.
And North Wales police have had some serious success in reducing fatalities.
To qualify my post, I really can't remember the source but North Wales was compared directly with another area in the North East where Camera numbers were increased. The fatalies were directly compared.
Final thought: The Sun ran some anti-camera story and quoted the Thelwall Viaduct on the M6 catching 800 people a day Boooo Hisss etc etc the paper ranted on.
What they failed to mention was the fact that the the North bound side was closed for over two years and 6 lanes were compressed into the original 4 southbound side (3 each way) with a 40mph SPECS camera system.
Being so tight in lane, without the SPECS a mental amount of people would have been killed and the M6 shut down probably everyday.
So yea it was perfectly placed but the Sun used it and twisted it, so sometimes the cameras actually help ..... sometimes
If anyone knows the M6 really well, consider this ..
Put a SPECS system all the way from Junction 8 at the RAC Control tower in Birmingham, all the way to 32 or 33 at the M55 turn off for Blackpool, and I bet top money that any time or day you'd never be stuck ever again
And the journey I take once a month or so wouldn't be a lottery of anywhere between 1Hr 10mins from Junction 8 to 23 or 5hrs 45mins currantly the record for the same trip
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 3:27 am Post subject:
Just had a another tiny thought ...
With the increasing sales on Satnavs and the avaliable Camera database, people will have even better advance warning when to slow down and when to drive like a tw##.
Will this not potentially increase fatalities and over confidence increases??
Joined: Apr 29, 2006 Posts: 179 Location: Reading, UK
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 9:21 am Post subject:
MR_TiGGer wrote:
Just had a another tiny thought ...
With the increasing sales on Satnavs and the avaliable Camera database, people will have even better advance warning when to slow down and when to drive like a tw##.
Will this not potentially increase fatalities and over confidence increases??
If you assume that people who want to know where speed cameras are so they can slow down, would otherwise exceed the speed limit, then the answer must be yes (all else being equal). But it's no different to the argument about whether speed cameras should be clearly visible.
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 10:49 am Post subject:
999tommo wrote:
The sole purpose of installing Gatsos these days, is to reduce fatal and serious crashes at known 'black spots'. They have successfully done so at most sites
So why hasn't the overall number of people killed on the roads dropped?
Let's say that there are 6,000 or so Gatsos. Let's say that for every 6 gatsos there is 1 life per year saved - a very conservative estimate if you look at the claims the camera partnerships make. So that would mean there should be 1,000 fewer deaths on our roads due to the gatsos.
Or are you saying that these 1,000 people go elsewhere to have their accidents? How does that work then. Are people driving more dangerously at non gatso sites to compensate for the restrictions put on them by the gatso?
Nope, the who gatso lie is a trick played using statistics called regression to the mean.
Here's how it works. You have a stretch of road where there is normally 1 fatality every 3 years. One year, there are a spate of accidents and 4 fatalities happen on that road. So they put up a gatso and then the next year guess what, things are back to normal (regression to the mean) and there is only 1 person killed. The scamera partnership can credit the installation of the gatso with making this happen.
The fact that the overall number of road deaths is not dropping sharply bears this theory out. _________________ Gone fishing!
The problem with Clarkson is that he talks b****cks. He is liked by many people because he dares to say what many are thinking. Unfortunately he doesn't really do sufficient research. Even HIS graph doesn't back up HIS theory. Road crash fatalities have dropped since the introduction of Gatsos,
Maybe he does – but when you look at the graph what it says is road deaths where declining faster before Gatsos were introduced – when they were introduced they the reduction slowed considerably. Of course if there was any other factors that may effect the graph Clarkson would exclude them if they failed to support his argument – but so does the official side of the argument.
999tommo wrote:
but it would be impossible to claim that this drop has got any direct correlation to the Gatso.
So you are saying he talks rubbish – but when you say they improve safety you have no evidence to back it up! Sounds to me of a tale of a Kettle and a Pot.
In fact this seems to be the whole issue with speed cameras and speeding, no one seems to have "meaningful evidence" (i.e. independently corroborated that they are willing to share for free and able to identify across individual factors in accidents) that speed cameras/reducing speeding actually do anything for safety, other than the potentially relocate the problems.
I suspect the one big problem for a lot of people about speed cameras – they are robots so "expect humans" to have the same ability to be perfect, no leeway is given on circumstances _________________ J.
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject:
There is a Leeway built in of 10% +2mph, above that you deserve a ticket for being too blind, or going to fast to spot it, but my faithfull TT1 always informs me in time ..... so far
No - that is only the recommendations from some police committee IIRC - individual Police forces are free to ignore it and set it a 1 mph above the speed limit, and I have heard of examples where the leeway is set much lower (though whether examples are genuine I don't know) _________________ J.
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:
JimmyTheHand wrote:
MR_TiGGer wrote:
There is a Leeway built in of 10% +2mph
No - that is only the recommendations from some police committee IIRC - individual Police forces are free to ignore it and set it a 1 mph above the speed limit, and I have heard of examples where the leeway is set much lower (though whether examples are genuine I don't know)
Without knowing the exact source, I'm 99% certain that the 10% +2mph is a legal requirement to allow for speedo drift, and not a recommendation.
Anything more than that is up to the council and police force of that area.
Hopefully somebody can clarify this one way of the other??
Joined: Apr 20, 2006 Posts: 94 Location: God knows!! Ask Jane
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject:
PatC wrote:
MR_TiGGer wrote:
Just had a another tiny thought ...
With the increasing sales on Satnavs and the avaliable Camera database, people will have even better advance warning when to slow down and when to drive like a tw##.
Will this not potentially increase fatalities and over confidence increases??
If you assume that people who want to know where speed cameras are so they can slow down, would otherwise exceed the speed limit, then the answer must be yes (all else being equal). But it's no different to the argument about whether speed cameras should be clearly visible.
Why else would people want the camera database??
After all if as the police will say you are "Driving with due care and attention" then speed cameras are no threat to you, and a cam database is 100% pointless. There's no solid excuse for speeding.
Don't get me wrong, I drive over 50K a year and I'll often cross the limit, but Blackpool and North Wales?? No bloody chance!!
I'm fairly certain that if Cameras could be hidden and disgiused behind signs, within a few years, speeding would be the same a drink driving, and slowly removed. After all only a savage campaign by the police over years has made DD almost a thing of the past.
It'll never go away but it's not acceptable these days, and speeding if treated the same, it too would be unacceptable ..... unlike now.
Just my take on the whole issue, not a soap box rant just an opinion :D
Without knowing the exact source, I'm 99% certain that the 10% +2mph is a legal requirement to allow for speedo drift, and not a recommendation.
Anything more than that is up to the council and police force of that area.
Hopefully somebody can clarify this one way of the other??
There is no acceptance in Government for speedometer inaccracy allowing you to exceed the speed limit - the tolerances is something like +10% to 0% of speed actually being travelled -
A vehicle meeting these requirements would not be able to travel at a greater speed than that shown on the speedometer and a driver could not, therefore, inadvertently exceed speed restrictions. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to introduce instrument tests
Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 384 Location: Bedford, England
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject:
MR_TiGGer wrote:
Without knowing the exact source, I'm 99% certain that the 10% +2mph is a legal requirement to allow for speedo drift, and not a recommendation.
Anything more than that is up to the council and police force of that area.
Hopefully somebody can clarify this one way of the other??
There is no allowance whatever for speedo error. The law on speedos is that the speedo can overread by 10%, but must never underread. So if you are doing a true 70mph, they can show anything between 70 and 77. If you apply that to the +10%+2, then at a true 79MPH your speedo MUST be reading between 79 and 86.9. You can't claim you didn't realise you were over the limit if that is the case.
Joined: Mar 02, 2006 Posts: 384 Location: Bedford, England
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 2:07 pm Post subject:
The +10%+2 comes from the guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It gives trigger speeds above which action should be taken against the motorist, either by fixed penalty, or by summons. The full details can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/dzcep
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
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!
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
