|
|
 Posted 02/08/2007 11:40:28 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/11/2007 19:28:12
Posts: 2,
Visits: 7
|
|
Nigel Humphries from the ABD says "that accidents have not fallen" - in fact it is the British Medical Journal research that states this showing that hospital road accident figures do not match the police figures.
Meredydd Hughes says "Some people say that braking suddenly when they see a safety camera can cause more accidents. For one thing, they shouldn't be speeding in the first place.." he clearly is locked in his politically correct ivory tower here and gives us the 'spin', the truth is in these cases people brake first as a precaution regardless to the speed they are travelling and then look at their speedometer.
He also says "There is no record of fatalities due to location of safety cameras." but that is because the police do everything possible to cover up speed camera ineffectiveness - take the number of inaccuracies reported in mobile cameras for instance yet these are ignored and I wonder how many wrongful convictions occur as a result - but Mr Hughes and comrades care not one jot if this is the case as long as the money keeps rolling in.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 02/08/2007 12:00:21 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 03/08/2007 14:03:37
Posts: 1,
Visits: 5
|
|
I don't really know of legal reasons behind speed cameras but I wanted to say that as long as the car producers are still trying to get their bhp better and better and the idiots buying specific cars due to the high bhp they are meant to achieve we will always have speeding on our roads. We can buy 'Sat Nav's' that inform us of every stationary speed camera. We can buy chips and modules freely to make our vehicles go faster.
So all I'm saying is that the government are allowing us to go faster for a price with which they make VAT, etc, on sales, then penalise us again in speeding charges.
Stop producing high speed cars, stop producing high speed tuning kits, stop early warning systems in our navigation systems and maybe thats a start???
'Racing' between speed camera's and other traffic calming, e.g. speed bumps, is a massive problem, and has become worse since the introduction of speed camera's.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 02/08/2007 13:06:22 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 08/11/2007 19:28:12
Posts: 2,
Visits: 7
|
|
[quote]~*Jakasta*~ (02/08/2007)
as long as the car producers are still trying to get their bhp better and better and the idiots buying specific cars due to the high bhp they are meant to achieve we will always have speeding on our roads.
[/quote]
So what's a safe speed? You see your point has no merit simply because people can be killed at 5 mph or safe at 200 mph.
Speed plays a minor role in accident causation inattention is the far greater cause of accidents and distractions should be reduced not increased - speed cameras are a distraction.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 02/08/2007 15:28:30 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/08/2007 17:42:52
Posts: 1,
Visits: 4
|
|
| Hughes says "The average person is a lazy driver who doesn't even know how long it takes for a car to stop after braking so we need limits for people to follow." Apart from the insult to the majority of the adult population (you remember, the people who pay his wages) he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. If the average driver didn't know how long it takes for his/her car to stop then they'd be constantly running into the back of the vehicle in front. In fact that happens very rarely, so they obviously DO know how long it takes their car to stop. Speed limits have nothing to do with it, you can be sticking to the speed limit and still run into something if you're travelling too close or you're not paying attention - like checking your speedometer every few yards when you're near a camera to make sure you're not about to contribute to Mr Hughes' pension. Speed cameras have contributed nothing to road safety, despite the spin from the police and camera partnerships, all they've done is take tens of millions of pounds off people who weren't about to cause an accident and give it to the police. They hung *censored* Turpin for highway robbery, which is what Hughes and his like are doing, but who can you complain to when you're being robbed by the police?
|
|
|
|
| Posted 19/08/2007 01:06:03 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 30/08/2007 11:58:55
Posts: 2,
Visits: 3
|
|
| Speed cameras used in isolation are not necessarily a liability, but are generally ineffective in reducing the overall speed of traffic in specific areas, apart from the 50 yards either side of the camera. There are, however, considerably more effective ways of reducing traffic speed over a longer length of road and because they encourage slower driving rather than punish faster driving, they are seen as less 'oppressive' than the standard speed camera. The first is the average speed monitoring sites, whereby a number of cameras are installed over a stretch of road for a mile or so and measure how long you take to travel that stretch - not so much of the rapid deceleration and acceleration as with the single cameras. The other is the radar detection that flashes your speed when you go over the speed limit, often seen near schools and in built up areas, much more of a stern warning than an immediate punishment. These methods give the driver a chance to consider their road behaviour than to be viewed as a challenge to authority, but whichever method reduces excessive speed, let us not forget, it is neither the camera nor the car that causes the speeding, but the person behind the wheel who needs to take responsibility for their actions.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 23/08/2007 13:11:53 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 24/06/2008 12:30:53
Posts: 4,
Visits: 21
|
|
StunAmy (19/08/2007)
The first is the average speed monitoring sites, whereby a number of cameras are installed over a stretch of road for a mile or so and measure how long you take to travel that stretch - not so much of the rapid deceleration and acceleration as with the single cameras. We have had these locally on lengthy roadworks with general expectations being that dropping the speed on the road from 70 to 40mph would mean longer traveling times. However this has been seen to be false as drivers are doing an average speed instead of accelarating and decelarating widely. Also I live in a small village which benefits from temprary speed warning signs and I do mean benefits. While in position there is a distinct drop in speeding traffic. By that standard just having a police car sitting on the main stret of the village also has this effect.
|
|
|
|
| Posted 10/10/2007 00:17:07 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 13/10/2007 21:00:00
Posts: 6,
Visits: 6
|
|
| BOO HOO TO ALL YOU WHO HATE SPEED CAMERAS. I LOVE THEM. WE ALL TOOK A DRIVING TEST. WE ALL KNOW THE SPEED LIMITS, IF YOU DON'T THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULD REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AND READ UP ON THE MATTER. IF YOU READ UP ON THE MATTER THEN YOU CAN READ THE SPEED SIGNS. WHY DO WE NEED THIS SOUPED UP MONSTER GAS GUZZLING CARS WITH HIGH SPEEDS AND BRAKING CAPABILITIES? HALF THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THEM CAN NOT CONTROL THEM. ASK ANYONE YOU KNOW WITH A POWERFUL CAR IF THEY HAVE TAKEN AN ADVANCED DRIVING COURSE. I BET MOST OF THEM WOULD SAY NO OR STATE THEY ARE AN EXPERIENCED ENOUGH DRIVER ALREADY??? WITH THE AMOUNT ON THE TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD WHAT IS YOUR AVERAGE SPEED NOW DAYS? 20 MPH 30 MPH? WHY SPEED JUST LEAVE EARLY OR ARRIVE LATE, BUT ARRIVE SAFELY. IF ANY OF YOU HAVE SONS, DAUGHTERS, NIECES OR NEPHEWS THEN YOU WILL HAVE WATCHED THEM PLAY HAPPILY OUTSIDE. SO HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOMEONE WAS SPEEDING DOWN YOUR STREET WHEN THEY WERE PLAYING OUTSIDE THEIR HOUSE? AS FOR THE MONEY THAT IS CREATED FROM THESE MACHINES. GREAT. IT IS A TAX FOR IDIOTS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME. IF THEY WANT TO SPEED THEN THEY PAY THE MONEY FOR THE PRIVILIGE.
Don Kiddick
|
|
|
|
| Posted 05/12/2007 23:06:54 |
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 05/12/2007 23:17:50
Posts: 2,
Visits: 2
|
|
| There's a speed camera on a stretch of road near here that has never seen an accident in living memory, yet a stretch of road a mile away has seen at least 6 deaths in 20 years and its still a 60 mile an hour limit with no speed camera. The mobile speed camera is about 10 metres from the change over from 30 to 60 on another stretch of road almost every week, there aren't any houses on the road, not even a footpath, its road you have to use to get to a main road further up that leads to the local sixth form college so a lot of young inexperienced drivers are getting done as they tend to brake too late and are still doing more than 30 as they approach the camera. This would cause no problem to anyone and some people even drive too slowly now as they are expecting the camera to be there. Money making or safety? Hmmmm!
KIT
|
|
|
|