JetSet Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 There have obviously been many changes in the law since 1966, Seat Belts, Crash helmets, Drink driving laws, etc, but no major legislation since 1990, so you can draw your own conclusions as to why the death rates have more than halved in the last 20 years. Pete One major point overlooked in the statistics of road deaths / camera introduction point is the advancement in the vehicles on the roads, both in terms of occupant safety and pedestrian impact safety. We have curtain airbags, bonnets which pop up to try and cushion pedestrian impacts etc etc... Thousands of advancements. NCAP ratings for occupant and pedestrian safety ratings have mor than doubled in some cases for comparable cars over the last 20 years. Good point. I guess you can manipulate these figures as much as you want but I'll point out that there are probably twice as many vehicles on the road today compared to 1990 and half as many accidents reported to the police. Let's look at The U.S.A, a country with very few speed cameras, 42,700 deaths in 2004 , modern up to date cars with arguably higher standards of built in safety, good roads, yet a death rate that's at least 3 times higher than ours . Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinmac Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 A590 running in to Barrow. Pretty much impossible to speed on this road due to traffic density. Statistics; 740 Casualties in last 5 years. That was in 1995 and has got a lot worse. Its closed at least once a week due to major pile ups. Accident stats cannot be related to speeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just shows the Yanks cant drive. Anyone that says we need to slow down to prevent accidents is talking out their backside. If that was the case, why dont we all drive round at 5MPH like we used to with a man waving a flag in front of our car? Yes excessive speed can kill, but it has to be taken into context, and camera dont have a sense of context, unless they have invented some new AI camera that knows what you were doing and if you appeared drunk etc. What has been shown as much better prevention is those signs that light up with your speed. These make you and others aware you are speeding and give a chance to slow down in high risk areas. This IMO is a much better alternative to speed cameras but they dont net the government any money now do they Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Anyone that says we need to slow down to prevent accidents is talking out their backside. If that was the case, why dont we all drive round at 5MPH like we used to with a man waving a flag in front of our car? It might prevent accidents in some cases - if somebody has even a second more reaction time then they might be able to avoid hitting something/somebody. It won't wipe out accidents to 0%, because people will still do stupid things and not pay attention, but at least if the speed is less then the bang won't be as loud. Yes, policing is based on monitoring speed because this is the only aspect they can realistically monitor on a large scale, without huge additional resources. They can't be everywhere to catch the idiots and the drunks, but they can try to regulate at least part of the problem. As I said - we have but a basic test to determine whether or not somebody is fit to drive a car on the roads. This test focuses purely on practical ability under regulated conditions. How can the government begin to weed out the potential idiots that will cause accidents? There has to be a way of these poeple being identified, and driving too fast may be an indication. I'm not saying speed is the only issue - the cause of accident is more to do with general poor awareness - but speed is the one thing that can at least be quantified and monitored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walbertonio Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 ^^ but trying to re-iterate my point from my earlier post, that's what they should take the money out of camera schemes and put it into a proper awareness/anticipation test. Imagine if it was compulsory across the UK - be lucky of half of UK drivers would still be on the road the next day, heh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nope - the government use speed as a method of "weeding out the bad drivers" because its relatively easy, and makes lots of money. To weed out people who actually cause the problems would cost money rather than generate it, and be a lot more difficult. So who is the one making death on our roads cheap, the drivers who have accidents, or successive governments who wont invest in a proper method of reducing it? Its very easy to quantify and monitor the emissions of each vehicle using its rated emission level and recorded mileage each year, but why bother changing it when the current system of charging based on the level alone without taking into account usage generates billions from motorists who dont use their cars. I tax four, but Ill bet if I work out the total tons of CO2 I emit it will be less than some who may only have one car but do more mileage. So in an emissions based taxing system, which the VED is now supposed to be, is it fair that I pay four times as much if not more, for emitting less? Its the same with the "speed kills". Yes it does, but its by no means the sole contributor, yet its targetted as though it is - because doing it properly is too difficult and doesnt make as much money for the treasury, so this half cocked scheme is being touted as the be all and end all by safety campaigners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris`I Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Chris for PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nope - the government use speed as a method of "weeding out the bad drivers" because its relatively easy, and makes lots of money. To weed out people who actually cause the problems would cost money rather than generate it, and be a lot more difficult. So who is the one making death on our roads cheap, the drivers who have accidents, or successive governments who wont invest in a proper method of reducing it? Its very easy to quantify and monitor the emissions of each vehicle using its rated emission level and recorded mileage each year, but why bother changing it when the current system of charging based on the level alone without taking into account usage generates billions from motorists who dont use their cars. I tax four, but Ill bet if I work out the total tons of CO2 I emit it will be less than some who may only have one car but do less mileage. So in an emissions based taxing system, which the VED is now supposed to be, is it fair that I pay four times as much if not more, for emitting less? Its the same with the "speed kills". Yes it does, but its by no means the sole contributor, yet its targetted as though it is - because doing it properly is too difficult and doesnt make as much money for the treasury, so this half cocked scheme is being touted as the be all and end all by safety campaigners. Speed doesnt kill tho. Inappropriate speed does - which boils down to dangerous driving at the end of the day. At the end of the day, it seems the goverment or police are only interesting in making money rather than making a safer fairer system. Your point about the road tax is very true. I tax 3 vehicles and insure 3 separate vehicles. But, I can only drive one at once. So in theory why should I need to pay 3 lots of tax and 3 lots of insurance. It should all be based upon person - what risk are they, what risk is the vehicles they are going to drive and how much emissions is that person likely to be putting into the enviroment as a total over that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chesterfield Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Speed doesnt kill tho. Inappropriate speed does - which boils down to dangerous driving at the end of the day. Yep, thats true, but in the statistics they just have "speed". So anyone having an accident within the legal limit, but still too fast for the conditions, one of the factors goes down as "speed". Then they use these "speed" figures to justify cameras because of the numbers of accidents involving speed. Its all a massive con to justify the easy method of making money using cameras rather than police who have discretion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Speed doesnt kill tho. Inappropriate speed does - which boils down to dangerous driving at the end of the day. Yep, thats true, but in the statistics they just have "speed". So anyone having an accident within the legal limit, but still too fast for the conditions, one of the factors goes down as "speed". Then they use these "speed" figures to justify cameras because of the numbers of accidents involving speed. Its all a massive con to justify the easy method of making money using cameras rather than police who have discretion. Totally agree. But i also seem to recall seeing some figures that even with the "doctored" statistics, speeding was only responsible for a very very small number of accidents overall. Just emphasises that they only want to line their pockets rather than actually make things safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazhull8474 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Simple dont speed and if you do speed take the points and fine that comes with it. If your found excessive speeding in Belgium they want the money on the spot or take your car from you. With being in Germany i must admit no one speeds on minor roads as they know they can just jump on the autobahn and let loose if they want. And i would be lieing if i said that i have not done it myself on numerous occasions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evest Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nope - the government use speed as a method of "weeding out the bad drivers" because its relatively easy, and makes lots of money. To weed out people who actually cause the problems would cost money rather than generate it, and be a lot more difficult. So who is the one making death on our roads cheap, the drivers who have accidents, or successive governments who wont invest in a proper method of reducing it? Unfortunately there is no law against being a generally crap driver - they are often only brought to task once their actions have led to an accident. Speed is an absolute which can be measured but I do agree that it isn't the be all and end all cause of accidents.Some money is put back into scheme such as the Speed Awareness Workshops - I think these are a step in the right direction of re-education, and can be effective. Its very easy to quantify and monitor the emissions of each vehicle using its rated emission level and recorded mileage each year, but why bother changing it when the current system of charging based on the level alone without taking into account usage generates billions from motorists who dont use their cars. I tax four, but Ill bet if I work out the total tons of CO2 I emit it will be less than some who may only have one car but do more mileage. So in an emissions based taxing system, which the VED is now supposed to be, is it fair that I pay four times as much if not more, for emitting less? Certainly agree with this. Usage is already taxed through fuel costs. It is unfair to tax just for owning a vehicle Its the same with the "speed kills". Yes it does, but its by no means the sole contributor, yet its targetted as though it is - because doing it properly is too difficult and doesnt make as much money for the treasury, so this half cocked scheme is being touted as the be all and end all by safety campaigners. Speed itself doesn't kill - but it does take away reaction time from people who are already no doubt at their capacity - resulting in their inability to react to the situation and maintain control of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nope - the government use speed as a method of "weeding out the bad drivers" because its relatively easy, and makes lots of money. Sure, but to be weeded out you have to commit 4 offences in what, 3 years? In the last 39 years I've committed just one, yeah speeding ....not telling you about the first six years though, just let me say I don't like paying fines Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The IoM seems to work quite nicely. Much like Germany, no-one ever speeds in the towns during the 20 and 30 zones because the cops will come down on you like a ton of bricks, and rightly so. Being able to drive some of the greatest roads on the planet at speeds that would get you banned for years over here was one of the most liberating experiences of my life, and because I was able to fully concentrate on the road ahead instead of looking at the speedo I'd argue that I was safer because of it. For me, the IoM is a better place to drive than the 'Ring could ever be. Food's better, too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon+Kat Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I went past one on my bike once with the git aiming his equipment out the back door (bikes dont have a front plate ), as i came past him, he pulled the camera out of the back door and threw the side door open and aimed at my rear numberplate gutted! Should have slowed down when you had the chance But thats one of the many great things about bikes! Being able to wheelie past speed cameras at double the limit with one finger raised and not getting your plate photographed...........only kidding, honestly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff-r Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 as pointless as they are. Some food for thought... UK Road Stats for 2009 2,222 dead 24,690 seriously injured 195, 234 slightly injured Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of small accidents that keep our insurance high... People berate the police and say "they should be out catching real criminals..." - real criminals don't kill and injure as many people as the above... And how many of those are caused by speeding? Not all of them thats for sure. Some will be caused by people texting, applying lipstick, poorly maintained vehicles, poor situational awareness, weather.......you get what I mean. Statistics can be used to prove anything you want. You just have to pose the question in a way that suits. Please dont just throw numbers at us. I couldn't agree more. To be honest speeding motorist probably prop up the economy, think about that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zedman08 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Speed don't kill.......................stopping does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
austin Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 You know guys, I'm so tired of all this constant blame game. Speeding, killing, speeding, killing. I'd really like to see the police give fines and points as often and as freely to drivers who hog fast lanes, not indicate, use wrong lights which create glare, cut in with no room for cutting in, use side mirrors for god knows what etc. Bottom line is we all speed at times and yer, if caught we just gotta suck it up and pay. What I can't take anymore is putting equals sign between doing 10mph over and going for a shooting rampage in an orphanage. Inconvenient truth is its not the speed that kills but lack of skills and responsibility. Skills necessary to control 1.5 ton pile of metal. Perhaps if driving instructors in this country were qualified and experienced enough, training a bit more thorough and tests slightly more challenging so that it takes higher IQ level than 20 to pass it, maybe then there would be less teenagers taking 40mph bends at 70 and rolling their cars. Maybe additionally to annual MOT, drivers should be taking reflex and concentration tests. I don't think it would be a bad idea to tighten drink-driving laws either. The way I see it the country which according to the government has a binge-drinking problem having practically the highest blood alcohol level allowance for drivers in whole of Europe is downright ridiculous: 0.0 mg per ml – Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary 0.2 mg per ml – Norway, Poland, Sweden 0.4 mg per ml - Lithuania 0.5 mg per ml - Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North) 0.8 mg per ml – UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland 0.9 mg per ml - Cyprus (South) Yeah, maybe then the beloved death-on-roads statistics would change. Hey, we might even see changes in insurance premiums. There, rant over. Ugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4RE Leather Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Before I became ill I used to teach safety awareness courses to Bus Driver's in London. The majority of accidents were caused by a combination of familiarity breeds contempt. The drivers were so used to traveling the same bit of road 10 times a day they would often drive to fast. Add that with the added distraction of the Mobile phone and Bang Death by bus. Everyone no matter who you are from Road Sweeper to MP takes their eyes off the ball when they drive, It is human nature and the speedo will creep over the 30mph limit very quickly. When ever I see a flashing 30mph sign it triggers the mind to concentrate. If cameras were replaced by flashing speed limits I truley think there will be less accidents. It's all about reinforcing the message and a constant reminder will hammer the message home. I have had an Origin B2 and now a PoGo Alert plus in my car. Not only does it bleep if there is a camera or radar van I have set it to bleep on accident black spots and schools. I use it as an aid not a way to speed and get away with it otherwise i would have fitted difusers. But at the end of the day. "SPEED KILLS" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 If cameras were replaced by flashing speed limits I truley think there will be less accidents. There's several of those flashing signs not far from where I live, the effect was instant you could see cars hitting the brakes as soon as they flashed . The downside is that after being there for a few months they are pretty well ignored now, they're almost constantly on and no one even bothers braking any more. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Most of the ones round here either flash at you long before you actually enter the 30 zone, or flash at you even if you're doing bang-on or just-below the speed limit. Now that breeds contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4RE Leather Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 I personnaly believe there should be a national data system set up if they truely believe that cameras are there to save lives not to make money. If every time a car sets of a camera it was logged and if that numberplate had never been snapped before a warning letter should go out to the registered keeper. Then if they are caught again they can be fined accordingly. I find it unfare that a constant offender is fined the same amount as a 1st timer. 3 strikes in a given time period and your out!! Peter:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 The thing that gets me is where they put the mobile cameras - Outside the school at end of day? ... no, Near a known bad bend and accident black spot?... no, On a perfectly straight piece of carriageway with good visibility less than 1 mile after the 50mph sign and half a mile before the next exit?...... that's the kiddie! I do think the speed limit on motorways is too low but when I see the line of cars with no more than a fag paper between each of them it makes me cringe. I used to work in a garage just of the M4 and we got to tow the wrecks in! I don't have the answer but I do seem to share the same frustrations as other posters here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4RE Leather Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I spend a lot of time on Motorways and when I was truck driving vertually lived on them. Unfortunately tail gating is one of the biggistcauses of inciidents and even the proffesionals are guilty. Do any of you remember the Comidian Roy Chubby Brown? He had a lovely big House hear Louth on the road the Grimsby. The council decided to open a rubbish dump on the road opposite. After a few weeks the stench was disgusting especially in the Summer months. Chubby complained to the Council which was either louth or Lincolnshire and they said basically. Tough luck. It's our land we will do what we want. A couple of weeks later they stuck a speed camera on the main road just up from his entrance. He complained that it obscured his vision and was a hazard. Soon after that another one went up on the other side of the road! Just thought you would like to know how cameras can be turned into weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancer Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 If speed is the main factor for accidents / deaths then surely the government would be planning on installing average speed cameras across the country? They are the only ones that are truly effective. Personally, as a cop, I use my discretion. I generally wont pull somebody unless they are doing about 15mph over the speed limit or if they are driving erratically/dangerously. I will also have a far lower tolerance for bangers being driven too fast. If I have to pay to keep my car in a safe state then im going to make sure everyone else does too. My biggest problem is with distracted drivers. Mobiles, lipstick/make-up, lighting a cigarette - do any of that on the move and your going to court. Personally I think smoking in a moving vehicle should be illegal for any person inside the car. The speed limits on the motorways should be raised - I honestly think this would make people more likely to obey the limits where they are imposed.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.