Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)
  • 7.5 miles, 84 speed cameras – blimey that's a lot!
  • piedidiformaggio
    Free Member

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23796504-london-gets-first-urban-average-speed-cameras.do

    Speeding motorists who slow down for cameras face a new threat as Britain's first urban average speed traps are switched on in the capital.

    Eighty-four new cameras are being placed on the A13 to the east of London in a bid to reduce the high accident rate on the commuter route.

    For those that don't know, it's a massive road (8 lanes in some places) currently limited to 40mph (going to go up to 50 once these cameras are installed). I think that it's going to catch a huge number of people

    BillyWhizz
    Free Member

    I guess they must think the road needs it. As long as it slows people down then it doesn't matter how many cameras it takes.

    Capt.Kronos
    Free Member

    What worries me with such schemes – everyone drives with eyes fixed on the spedo. I suspect accident numbers will increase rather than decrease as a result.

    I wish they would do away with speed cameras, and then invest in unmarked cars/bikes who could actually do something about dangerous drivers rather than a blanket fixation on speed (yes, I do include excessive speed in that, but I would rather someone was caught driving whilst drunk/drugged even if they were sitting at the speed limit, rather than someone doing 80mph on the motorway)

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    CaptainFlashheart
    Free Member

    +1 for RobS comments above.

    Speed pre se isn't the major problem here. As Rob says, someone could be doing the speed limit but utterly banjaxed on the booze. If that is the case, they might slip by these all seeing eyes. If, however, they were to be involved in an incident, their reactions would be utterly shot and they would be far more likely to be the cause of a major accident, regardless of the speed.

    hora
    Free Member

    Blimey. Wakefield Road/Huddersfield has circa 20 within 1mile. I thought that was bad!

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    CF & RobS the argument that "Speed cameras are rubbish because they don't catch drunk/drugged drivers" is a straw man, and a particularly weak one at that. You're going to have to do a lot better than that to sucessfully argue that this a bad idea.

    uplink
    Free Member

    CF & RobS the argument that "Speed cameras are rubbish because they don't catch drunk/drugged drivers" is a straw man, and a particularly weak one at that.

    Is it?

    Where I live [Co Durham] we don't have any fixed cameras but for some reason or other we have one of the lowest road death rates

    http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2008/08/10/force-s-low-cost-of-cutting-road-deaths-79310-21504497/

    scaredypants
    Full Member

    I don't rate cameras – as they stand they're barely disguised cash machines.

    I think we should make drivers pay for a mandatory retest after any speeding offence (or collison?) rather than just a fine. If you don't pass a retest within a certain time you lose your licence.

    gavinski
    Free Member

    Dont know whether it is an active policy decision or not, but i live in Midlothian and there appears to be a much higher proportion of those signs that give you a readout of your speed and a happy or frown face depending. I really rate them and it is an instant reminder to slow down, rather than a month later with a bill.

    I know that some people just see them as a challenge, but for me they work, plus they are great on the bike!

    of course they don't help on multi lane roads…

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    The installation of these cameras allows them to INCREASE the speed limit to a more sensible one: something the petrol heads on here are always harping on about, so what's the issue?

    everyone drives with eyes fixed on the spedo.

    Really?? I've only been driving a couple of years and I don't find it particularly hard to maintain a steady speed without constantly eyeing the speedo.

    But yeah, that's a good argument for electronically enforced limits where the car would audibly warn you if you exceed the posted limit and would not allow you to exceed it for more than, say, 60 seconds. 🙂

    mudshark
    Free Member

    I nice bonus from my Satnav is that it beeps when I'm over the limit.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    Should be more average speed cameras I reckon (ie ditch the standard ones and replace with avg) coz I've seen loads of idiots near me slam on for the cameras and hit the gas as soon as they are passed, pees me right off.

    mrmichaelwright
    Free Member

    this one is going to run and run and run and run………….

    plant
    Free Member

    That assumes your satnav is accurate with the limit for the road – I know mine isn't. You'd have the same problem with cars.

    Don't take responsibility away from the driver. Drivers need to be MORE responsible and the suggestion of re-tests every 5 years and following an accident is the right way to go.

    Better education for everyone is required.

    Will be interesting to see if the introduction of specs and raising the limit works.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    That assumes your satnav is accurate with the limit for the road – I know mine isn't. You'd have the same problem with cars.

    If it was a mandatory measure, then I'm sure it would be relatively straightforward to design a system where the car was actively informed of the local speed limit (i.e. a local signal, rather than sat-nav & map based)

    But I agree that periodic re-tests should definitely be introduced. Doesn't have to be to the same rigour as the standard driving test – but an hour long, "can you drive?" assessment would be fine.

    mansonsoul
    Free Member

    Anything to slow drivers down is positive in my book. The issue I have with this is that the penalties are far to minimal. Speeding is illegal. If you speed you are a criminal. The problem is that we have allowed that to be a socially acceptable crime. It is not, it kills people.

    I think that to really stop speeding it should be a 3 strikes and you're out policy. If you are caught speeding, by any amount, 3 times then you should be given a lifetime ban from driving as it clearly shows you are not responsible enough to control a vehicle.

    uplink
    Free Member

    Speeding is illegal. If you speed you are a criminal

    no you're not
    For a normal fixed penalty speeding offence there is no criminal record

    mrmichaelwright
    Free Member

    speeding is an offence under criminal law and is therefore a crime

    just because they choose not to register it on your criminal record does not mean it is not a criminal offence

    uplink
    Free Member

    You can only be declared a criminal if you're convicted of a crime – fixed penalty notices are not a conviction

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Guess it depends if you want to look at it from a purely legal point of view or a general definition. Chambers says:

    criminal noun someone guilty of a crime or crimes.

    plant
    Free Member

    I love these debates and promise myself to laugh at some of the self-righteous people who always post – Judge, jury and executioneer – fills me with Dredd 😉

    Fact is we have a fixation on speed as 'speed kills'. It's the driver who kills, the speed is but a contributory factor. Educate the driver to use approporiate speed and the deaths are minimised. Set a statutory limit and someone will still kill but within the statutory limit as the conditions made the statutory limit inappropriate.

    I've driven this stretch a few times and on a dry late summers evening or early morning, an appropriate speed would be well in excess of the statutory limit. However, drive the same stretch on a windy (dare I suggest snowy?) wet rush hour morning and an appropriate speed would be well below the statutory limit. So anyone driving at an inappropriate speed but within the statutory limit can turn around and say "at least I wasn't speeding".

    I am interested to see what effect specs has with a raised limit but suggest the best solution would be to educate all drivers to a higher standard. Any politician want to take on that one? No. Far easier (politically) to treat us all like idiots and empty our pockets.

    Captain-Pugwash
    Free Member

    I was talking to a traffic cop who works with the mobile units and they take a massive amount of money with traffic offences and guess what it goes back into the local council coffers. They have targets that they have to hit and once they hit these targets any extra cash goes to the government (there is a surprise). It is easy money.

    My solution is sign up to these guys and get traffic camara updates every 2 weeks, including mobile units.

    http://www.pocketgpsworld.com/subscription.php

    I do 30k a year and they have saved me a few fines.

    CaptJon
    Free Member

    Like the Congestion Zone cameras, i suspect this is more about security that traffic offences.

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    the fixation on speed isn't to stop accidents, its to stop people getting killed when accidents happen.

    And no matter how much you educate people, there will always be accidents.

    ooOOoo
    Free Member

    I've driven this stretch a few times and on a dry late summers evening or early morning, an appropriate speed would be well in excess of the statutory limit.

    See I hear this a lot, and as a car driver I understand the logic.

    But as a Pedestrian & Cyclist I like speed limits for cars, as it gives the rest of us a chance. We have a rough idea of how quickly you may be travelling and can react accordingly.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    They have targets that they have to hit and once they hit these targets any extra cash goes to the government (there is a surprise). It is easy money

    I suspect the same is true for shoplifting fines, public order offences, vandalism penalties etc.

    Are they just easy money making exercises too?

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    So anyone driving at an inappropriate speed but within the statutory limit can turn around and say "at least I wasn't speeding".

    Err no they can't, or at least it's not necessarily a defense in law. A speed limit is exactly that, a limit or maximum allowable speed. It's not the speed at which you must travel.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    Speed is an easily identifiable offence and a contributing factor to injuries/deaths in the even of an accident (no speed doesn't directly cause accidents but more speed does directly cause more carnage) if they had driving-like-a-cock-detector-cams they'd have those installed everywhere too. As has been said earlier if you plough into the back of a car while doing 68 on the motorway in snowy conditions you can't say "I was under the limit so not my fault".

    But this is just rehashing old arguments isn't it?

    MrNutt
    Free Member

    speed cameras? what are they? the people's republic of Swindon exorcized them ages ago!

    JacksonPollock
    Free Member

    Speeding is illegal. If you speed you are a criminal.

    🙄

    To be a criminal you have to be convicted of a crime. A to be convicted the prosecution has to prove the two elements of a crime. The actus reus (the criminal act) and mens rea(the criminal mind or intent).

    There would be zero convictions if in every case intent to speed had to be proved…thus fixed penalties (not a criminal conviction) are issued with the inference that if you don't pay up then the situation will escalate…in my view these tactics are akin to racketeering (regardless of the rights and wrongs of driving too fast).

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    in my view these tactics are akin to racketeering

    No different from plea bargaining really is it?

    We're pretty sure you committed this offence. Plead guilty and get a reduced sentence or plead innocent and escalate it to court.

    JacksonPollock
    Free Member

    We're pretty sure you committed this offence.

    but can't quite prove it so make our life easier… 😉

    If the police instigate plea bargaining you know they are on the back foot!

    But yeah see what you are saying very similar. 😆

    apidya
    Free Member

    From the article:

    It is the first time that average speed cameras — traditionally used on sections of motorway — will enforce the limit on a road with multiple entrance and exit points, in an urban setting.

    I think this is inaccurate. Nottingham has had average speed cameras on it's roads for years (well over a decade). The north-western part of the ring road (A6514) has loads of them, and they also cover the A610 from the ring road out to the M1.

    Recently they've been put on the A60 too (Mansfield Road and London Road).

    My problem isn't so much with the cameras, as with the fact that they're distracting drivers, who are now all doing mental arithmetic trying to work out what their average speed is rather than concentrating on the road or the objects around them.

    ChrisS
    Free Member

    +1 for apidya's comments above.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    distracting drivers, who are now all doing mental arithmetic trying to work out what their average speed is

    Really?

    Are drivers honestly sitting in cars thinking: "Well I did 1 minute 17.8 seconds at 67mph, so I can either do 53 for the same time, or I can do 56.5mph for twice as long. Ah, but the next camera is in 500 yards so I'll need to do 37.8…."

    Wouldn't it be easier to just drive at, or below, the limit?

    apidya
    Free Member

    GrahamS:

    Are drivers honestly sitting in cars thinking: "Well I did 1 minute 17.8 seconds at 67mph, so I can either do 53 for the same time, or I can do 56.5mph for twice as long. Ah, but the next camera is in 500 yards so I'll need to do 37.8…."

    Maybe not to quite that degree, but I bet they're thinking along the lines of "oh cr@p, I was just at 45 there, I'd better drop down to 35 for a bit to bring my average down. Now how long do I need to drive at 35 for?"…. etc etc…

    All of which is taking their attention away from the road.

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Fair enough, though if they had their attention on the road to start with then presumably they wouldn't have been speeding in an average speed zone in the first place.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    I think we should make drivers pay for a mandatory retest after any speeding offence (or collison?) rather than just a fine. If you don't pass a retest within a certain time you lose your licence.

    Waste of time. Being able to drive is not the same thing as choosing to drive safely, I'd have thought that was fairly bloody obvious. I can drive nicely and pass a test, I can also do 100mph on the M4 if I want. Why would the two things be exclusive?

    There's a law that says you can't drive over a certain speed.

    SO DON'T.

    END

    F*CKING

    OF

    Not bloody rocket science is it? Now stop whining like bloody CHILDREN and get on with your frigging lives! And if you DO decide to speed take the bloody consequences like a grown up! I seriously can't believe how PATHETIC some people are! As a driver it is your responsibility to know how fast you are going and make sure it doesn't exceed the limit. If you can't handle it then turn in your license.

    plant
    Free Member

    Nice contribution Molgrips. Really useful.

    I know that not everyone is a professional driver but as a professional driver, driving is the one area where I do NOT have to have refresher training etc.

    As it happens, I work for an outfit that do recognise additional training and every 2 years, I undergo a refresher. Yes, my driving is effected by having someone sat with – just the same as everyone who did their test the first time BUT ….. I always pick up something new everytime AND the refresher training has CHANGED my driving habits and (in my opinion) I am a better driver for it. I can still charge up the M4 at 100mph+ (but I don't) but the times when I would charge up the M4 would be better calculated as to when such a speed would be appropriate for the conditions.

    What really gets me is that those that say "its a limit don't exceed it" don't seem to accept that it can be equally dangerous to drive at a speed that is less than the limit. This is where experience and training comes into it by the driver being able to assess an appropriate speed.

    There is no god-given right to drive and having to undergo regular training in order to keep up a licence would (in my opinion) have far more greater positive impact on road incidents than installing cameras.

    But before I end on a digression from the OP, I am keen to see what effect installing the cameras AND increasing the limit will have. Maybe it will be the start of increasing limits in other areas?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 40 total)

The topic ‘7.5 miles, 84 speed cameras – blimey that's a lot!’ is closed to new replies.