Speed Cameras

[ralphchadkirk]

Do you mean joining at Charlie Brown's? The speed limit off the NCR to the bottom of the M11 is only 50mph anyway...

Yep, doesn't go to 70 until after all lanes have joined (round the bend if I remember correctly)

 

[miami]

The really dangerous slow drivers are the ones who join the M11 from the eastbound North Circular where the lane gain is as lane 3. A panic stricken numptie doing 40 in the "fast lane" isn't somebody you want to be near.

Agree if they're panicing, however just because they're doing 40mph (or 20mph) doesn't make them dangerous. Makes them anonying, makes them bad drivers, but unless they suddenly leave their lane into the path of faster cars they aren't dangerous.

 

[Blamethrower]

Almost everyone is a bad driver in their own way, exacerbated by such large increases in traffic over the years. Everyone has a right to be there and I don't necessarily disagree with speed cameras. I've been caught a few times over the years but never anything excessive. I currently have no points and 10 years no claims yet generally don't like to hang around on the road.

I think we should all stop wagging our fingers at each other

 

[Minilad]

Almost everyone is a bad driver in their own way, exacerbated by such large increases in traffic over the years. Everyone has a right to be there and I don't necessarily disagree with speed cameras. I've been caught a few times over the years but never anything excessive. I currently have no points and 10 years no claims yet generally don't like to hang around on the road.

I think we should all stop wagging our fingers at each other

From someone with a username like yours thats quite ironic

 

[Butts]

Getting back to my original question, I am going to write to my MSP Michael Matheson, who as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, should be able to tell me if The Scottish Government intends to introduce Speed Awareness Courses in Scotland.

Will advise if I get a reply.

 

[tony_mac]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/643894/Campaigners-speed-awareness-courses-Scotland

CAMPAIGNERS are calling on the Scottish Government to introduce speed awareness courses north of the Border

 

[furnessvale]

Back to Dave's original point.
I haven't been using the A12 between Hackney and Redbridge recently, but have had cause to this week, and find to my surprise that most of the speed cameras (on both carriageways) have been removed.
Now, if Dave is right and the cameras were only there to raise revenue, what would be the reasoning for removing them?

I stand to be corrected but did the government not change the rules so that local authorities pay for the cameras and maintenance but revenue from them goes to the Treasury?

If that is the case there is not only no financial incentive for cameras but, even worse, they are a positive drain on LA finances. Road safety will come a poor second to that.

 

[Blamethrower]

From someone with a username like yours thats quite ironic

Blatantly, but it's a song by Reuben that accurately describes my profession, which I hate, from an album called "Very Fast, Very Dangerous"

I just don't like the way people always piously tell each other how to drive and what they should and shouldn't be doing. It's like an internet catch22, no-one wins, everyone ends up annoyed by each other.

 

[miami]

I stand to be corrected but did the government not change the rules so that local authorities pay for the cameras and maintenance but revenue from them goes to the Treasury?

If that is the case there is not only no financial incentive for cameras but, even worse, they are a positive drain on LA finances. Road safety will come a poor second to that.

We are told that there is no money, so any money spent will be a toss up. Spend £1m on speed cameras, or spend £1m on libraries, or spend £1m on fire engines.

It means that speed cameras will be put in where there's
1) A risk to life
2) The presence of the camera will reduce that risk

And won't be put in where the presence of the camera won't save lives.

 

[jon0844]

Under the safety camera partnerships, there was a rule brought in about a camera having to be nn miles from a known blackspot, but it was as the crow flies - and often this meant cameras went on different roads entirely.

I'd imagine that if you were seeking to place a camera somewhere, you'd be tempted to put it on an open road than outside a school where you'd hope that most people would use common sense.

Plus if the camera doesn't catch people, it would be considered a waste of money and questions would be asked about the placement.

When we had Gatso shells put up all over the late 1990s and early 2000s, the idea was that the cameras were moved around. The empty shells could still flash but there was no film/camera.

Suffice to say, when I lived in Enfield, there were some locations that were active (as in camera installed) 100% of the time, and some that were empty 100% of the time. I don't think I need to state which was which.

If they were entirely about road safety, they'd be in all danger spots and clearly marked so you had no choice but to slow down on a section of road that by design is potentially dangerous, schools etc.

Average speed cameras would also be used more.

And running such cameras at a loss because people didn't speed at all would be considered a success, not prompt people to consider removing or re-siting them. Reducing casualities would be paramount.

But to me, the bigger problem is that it's not all about speed. Cameras can't do jack about all the other offences that are commonplace and put people at far more risk. Most accidents (I'd say the vast majority) are not caused by people exceeding a speed limit.

 

[miami]

But to me, the bigger problem is that it's not all about speed. Cameras can't do jack about all the other offences that are commonplace and put people at far more risk. Most accidents (I'd say the vast majority) are not caused by people exceeding a speed limit.

You're right
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 10% of all injury collisions reported to the police, 13% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death.1 This includes both ‘excessive speed’, when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).

So even if breaking the speedlimit was eliminated entirely, it wouldn't make a major dent

In 2014, 282 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 126 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.

So magically enforcing the speed limit at best would save 15% of the 1807 deaths in 2014.

On the other hand it does nothing about people blindly doing 30 in the rain past a school at kicking out time.

 

[furnessvale]

So magically enforcing the speed limit at best would save 15% of the 1807 deaths in 2014.

On the other hand it does nothing about people blindly doing 30 in the rain past a school at kicking out time.

Two wrongs have never made a right.

I'd be very happy saving the 15% using automatic means, freeing humans to look at the other problems.

 

[miami]

Two wrongs have never made a right.

I'd be very happy saving the 15% using automatic means, freeing humans to look at the other problems.

But how does the cost of enforcing that limit compare with the cost of saving lives in other ways?

If you could spend £1,000,000,000 saving 1 life, or buy 1000 MRI scanners saving a hundred, which would you choose?

Councils have obviously weighed up the costs and benefits and decided in many cases there is no need for cameras.

 

[GB]

But how does the cost of enforcing that limit compare with the cost of saving lives in other ways?

If you could spend £1,000,000,000 saving 1 life, or buy 1000 MRI scanners saving a hundred, which would you choose?

Councils have obviously weighed up the costs and benefits and decided in many cases there is no need for cameras.

Where have you got this cost ratio from or have you just plucked out of the air?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So even if breaking the speedlimit was eliminated entirely, it wouldn't make a major dent

In 2014, 282 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 126 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.

So magically enforcing the speed limit at best would save 15% of the 1807 deaths in 2014.

On the other hand it does nothing about people blindly doing 30 in the rain past a school at kicking out time.

But surely avoiding 15% - or indeed any % of deaths is worthwhile, no?

Given that Police Forces will always have to prioritize their spending from finite budgets, it makes perfect sense for them to make maximum use of any means by which they can detect dangerous driving at minimum cost. That means they have more money left to spend on other work on road safety (or on other crime), and therefore can have the biggest possible impact on safety within the constraints of their budgets. So I don't think having speed cameras is a problem; rather, the problem is that continual budget cuts mean that Police forces can't devote adequate resources to dealing with the many other forms of dangerous driving as well.

Besides, I can think of two possible reasons why the impact of speed cameras could be greater than the raw statistics on numbers of accidents caused by speeding would indicate:

1. Firstly, it seems plausible that people who break speed limits are quite likely in many cases to be the same people who drive dangerously in other ways. So catching those people when they speed may have a side-effect of making other accidents less likely (because some of the more dangerous drivers have lost their licenses or been made to go on safety courses etc. thanks to speed cameras).
2. Secondly accidents aren't the only problem with speeding. Even when speeding doesn't directly cause an accident, it does make the roads less pleasant for other road users and for residents of the area (who may well feel unsafe around their homes thanks to drivers routinely breaking speed limits even if they are not actually injured in accidents). So if speed cameras reduce the level of speeding, that has other benefits besides the raw numbers of accidents.

 

[furnessvale]

But how does the cost of enforcing that limit compare with the cost of saving lives in other ways?

If you could spend £1,000,000,000 saving 1 life, or buy 1000 MRI scanners saving a hundred, which would you choose?

Councils have obviously weighed up the costs and benefits and decided in many cases there is no need for cameras.

Indeed, councils have been forced to shoulder all the costs but the benefits go to the Treasury.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly, it seems plausible that people who break speed limits are quite likely in many cases to be the same people who drive dangerously in other ways. So catching those people when they speed may have a side-effect of making other accidents less likely (because some of the more dangerous drivers have lost their licenses or been made to go on safety courses etc. thanks to speed cameras).

Reminds me of when I first joined the police. We were instructed to target known prolific burglars for traffic offences.

Get them banned, then arrested for disco driving and eventually jailed.

Off the streets for whatever reasons and they are no longer prolific burglars.

 

[Spamcan81]

I think that in the event of speed limits going up on the motorway, there really should be an extension to the driving test to include motorway driving. I found it quite odd that having passed my test, I could have gone home, had a cup of tea, and then gone out onto the motorway with nobody else in the car. Fortunately, I didn't (my first time driving on the motorway was done late-evening whilst nice and quiet, with my dad in the front as well), but I certainly think that Motorway driving ought to form part of the practical test, rather than just a few questions on the theory.

One of the more sensible posts in this thread although you can learn on a non motorway dual carriageway at speeds of up to 60mph so that is some preparation at least for motorway driving. It's a long while since I passed my test but are they all taken in urban areas still?

 

[tony_mac]

One of the more sensible posts in this thread although you can learn on a non motorway dual carriageway at speeds of up to 60mph so that is some preparation at least for motorway driving. It's a long while since I passed my test but are they all taken in urban areas still?

Not seen the highway code for a while either?
Cars have a 70mph limit on a dual carriageway (and I did spend some time learning on one before I took my test).

No, not all tests are in urban areas - and some are a long way from a dual carriageway (such as Lerwick, and I think Aberystwyth)

 

[Spamcan81]

Not seen the highway code for a while either?
Cars have a 70mph limit on a dual carriageway (and I did spend some time learning on one before I took my test).

No, not all tests are in urban areas - and some are a long way from a dual carriageway (such as Lerwick, and I think Aberystwyth)

Fat fingers I'm afraid. Should proof read before hitting "submit reply."

 

[tony_mac]

No worries - but it's surprising how many experienced drivers don't know the correct speed limits!
I know a lot of people get caught out when driving a small van on a dual carriageway.

 

[ainsworth74]

No worries - but it's surprising how many experienced drivers don't know the correct speed limits!
I know a lot of people get caught out when driving a small van on a dual carriageway.

I find it surprising how many people don't know what a dual carriage way is!

 

[EssexGonzo]

I find it surprising how many people don't know what a dual carriage way is!

I find it surprising how many halfwits don't know what the inside lane is for.

 

[90019]

There's a bit of the A1, a few miles from Torness, I think, where they've put the dual carriageway ahead sign on a part that's already dual carriageway, just with only one lane on each side at that point.