Forum menu
Fair point, but as a pedestrian I'd rather get nearly hit by a driver who was driving moderately over the speed limit but was paying full attention to the road and hazards present and therefor was in a possition to stop or avoid me as I stepped out into the road without looking, than be hit bu a dopey driver tootling along at 25mph whilst texting on his phone, who didn't even brake because the first time he saw me was as I dissappeared over his roof.
But the careless eejit will still be careless...that's my point. mccruiskeen had a good plan for improving driving standards. What's yours? Because of the careless eejit, we have to have limits. You can't simply say that we should all be allowed to drive at whatever speed we want, [i]as long as we're careful[/i] because the careless eejit that thinks he's not careless at all, because that's the very nature of carelessness will then drive faster than normal and kill someone instead of injuring them.
So how do we increase the carefulness of careless eejits?
Do you flash other drivers when you see a speed camera van?
Well I would but I'd end up crashing trying to pull my trollies down and showing my arse to oncoming vehicles.
a moot point I think, both very likely to be fatal. The only reason that thirty is considered survivable is because they are taking into account reaction and braking time of an alert driver, so a [i]much[/i] lower impact speed, if an impact at all.Would you.rather the dopey driver was going 35 or 25?
Tangential point, but I see more and more people using phones in cars these days.
Very true! It seems that after an initial no tolerance period, the bizzies have given up on this...or as I suspect more strongly, everyone thinks he or she can get away with it now after the indignant atmosphere that accompanied the legislation.
Not a moot point at all. Slower speed. More time for all involved to react. Fact.
"[i]Not a moot point at all. Slower speed. More time for all involved to react. Fact.[/i]"
The example was a driver not seeing a pedestrian who in turn didn't see the driver. Reactions are, in that specific example, indeed moot.
It's a moot point if I'm still dead, if you ask me. Which you did I think?
Yes of course I do, doesn't everyone who isn't a sociopathic ****er?
"[i]Yes of course I speed, doesn't everyone who is a sociopathic ****? [/i]"
FTFY 😉
pottsathome - MemberYeah i flash mainly at other vans but that s just a brotherhood thing. I need to ask this for all the people saying they never do flash and i hope they all get caught. Do you never ever ever speed or maybe chance a red light or answer a quick call or even nip down the shop without a seatbelt. Maybe you are all saints but i doubt it
Brotherhood of what - ignorant idiots with no appreciation of the potential of their actions or inactions?
And no to all of your apparently rhetorical questions. 'Answer a quick call'?' WTF is that important? If that makes me a 'high horse' person Brycy, so be it. Given that this is a cycling forum I, erm, actually ride a bike most of the time rather than drive.
They catch people ... who [s]are driving so fast that they can't slow down even to the speed limit as they[/s] come round a corner and see a copper with a hairdryer or a massive fluorescent van who's already nabbed them before they've had a chance to slow down (for less than the speed limit used to be on that bit of road, before they reduced it for no obvious or valid reason).
FTFY
Never flash to warn.
More traffic police, fewer cameras please.
speed cameras...target one...aspect of (?) bad driving...No substitute for good, observant and fair traffic coppers, which have steadily decreased in numbers since the advent of cameras...
More traffic police paid for by more traffic cameras, then? Or, to put it another way, how much extra tax did you want to pay for more traffic police?
Of course KSIs are random by their nature
KSIs are random by their nature? So someone is just as likely to be killed or seriously injured [url= http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=walworth+road,+london&ll=51.49332,-0.099652&spn=0.000957,0.002411&hnear=Walworth+Rd,+London,+United+Kingdom&gl=au&t=m&z=19&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=51.493278,-0.099523&panoid=CDmNQ0NXt4qH86OOI-yZ9Q&cbp=12,288.53,,0,12.01 ]here[/url] as [url= http://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=ben+nevis,+scotland&hl=en&ll=56.560182,-4.735143&spn=0.006775,0.01929&sll=51.493278,-0.099523&sspn=0.000964,0.002411&vpsrc=6&gl=au&hnear=Ben+Nevis&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=56.560182,-4.735143&cbp=12,0,,0,0&photoid=po-48048518 ]here[/url]? That seems a little unlikely. Perhaps I've misunderstood something? It wouldn't be the first time.
They're rarely on corners.
"[i]before they've had a chance to slow down[/i]"
Nah - tush and pish. You get a perfectly good chance to slow down when you approach the big white sign with the red circle and the number in it.
KSIs are random by their nature? So someone is just as likely to be killed or seriously injured here as here? That seems a little unlikely. Perhaps I've misunderstood something? It wouldn't be the first time.
It was a different end of the discussion - I'm interested more in when a number of KSIs at a stretch of road becomes a significant enough statistic to justify a speed camera. It seems that in 2002 it was changed to 4 but aracer reckons that has since changed and that there was even a radius around that stretch where there had been 4 KSIs where you could plonk a camera wherever you wanted. (I find this second part hard to believe but lack the interest anymore to google it). I didn't bother clicking on your links because I've lost interest in the thread.
EDIT: I meant "random" in that we cannot predict when they will happen - we can estimate the number over any given time from historical data, but not when. As we all know, accidents (for want of a better word) occur on stretches of road where the probability of them occurring might be very low and they sometimes never occur (or very infrequently) where the probability might be very high.
What it comes down to (i.e. the statistical argument) is that one person will use the maths to justify speed cameras, while someone else will use it to show that they have no effect on the likelihood of anymore KSIs occurring.
I'm in the camp of them being necessary as long as people continue to drive like tossers. Nothiwithstanding, that everybody on STW is at a level that the AIM could only dream of. 🙂
Aracer, How does regression to the mean explain lower speeds in this context?
Aracer, How does regression to the mean explain lower speeds in this context?
Best of Luck with an answer to that question.
You might get a FTFY though. 🙂
Have to agree with the people who said general shit driving may be worse than just speeding. I mean, I'm not a great driver but at least I can indicate and keep it between the lines, which is more than a lot of folk.
I'm usually [i]flying[/i] along and I can still manage it!
But the careless eejit will still be careless...that's my point. mccruiskeen had a good plan for improving driving standards. What's yours? Because of the careless eejit, we have to have limits. You can't simply say that we should all be allowed to drive at whatever speed we want, as long as we're careful because the careless eejit that thinks he's not careless at all, because that's the very nature of carelessness will then drive faster than normal and kill someone instead of injuring them.
DD, see my edit, sorry. I completely agree with the eejit hypothesis, for what it's worth, I always drive like every other road user is. Having to legislate for the lowest common denominator is why we need speed limits. Which I'm certainly not arguing against. How would I change the careless driver culture? For what it's worth, I'd make the driving test harder, introduce compulsory recertification every two or three years and make having a driving licence something to be proud of, rather than a god given right. At recerts people would have to demonstrate a high level of anticipation and planning in their driving, and if at any point on the road someone demonstrated a failure of anticipation or planning, their licence would be removed pending a retest. Fringe benifits, quieter roads, and a regained pride in the not to be underestimated skill required to drive a motor vehicle safely restored.
But there would be no public support because most of them would struggle to keep their licenses...
EDIT;
I'm in the camp of them being necessary as long as people continue to drive like tossers. Nothiwithstanding, that everybody on STW is at a level that the AIM could only dream of.
See I completely agree, [i]except[/i] that I don't think speed cameras make any difference to people driving like tossers at all. The only sort that could possibly have an effect would be some sky et style all seeing traffic speed monitoring system that could punish for any speed infringement, no matter where or when. And even then, people would still drive like tossers, but maybe more often within the speed limit.
Yes - Because I try not to be a **** everyday
oh, and I suppose everyone with a license on here has never drifted over the speed limit in their life?
EDIT: I meant "random" in that we cannot predict when they will happen - we can estimate the number over any given time from historical data, but not when. As we all know, accidents (for want of a better word) occur on stretches of road where the probability of them occurring might be very low and they sometimes never occur (or very infrequently) where the probability might be very high.
Stochastic then. Yes
In short, yes. 😛
EDIT: I think. 😕 Tired. Bed.
I was just trying to explain the context of my comment to konabunny.
Aracer, How does regression to the mean explain lower speeds in this context?
You're asking me how the factor which explains one thing explains something completely unrelated, which I've made no claim for it explaining?
What do you think explains the lower speeds at camera sites?
Well, i 'm sure aracer will be along soon to disabuse us of our misconceptions around inferential statistics
Ok, i apologise, i had made some assumptions relating speed to accidents. but do explain how regression to the mean explains the reduction in number of accidents, without statistics?
What do you think explains the lower speeds at camera sites?
Erm.. People slowing down?
do explain how regression to the mean explains the reduction in number of accidents.
I thought you were the statistician? Given the requirement for a number of accidents in a time period before a camera is put in place...
Edit: I see your edit about not using stats - how am I supposed to explain a statistical issue without using stats?
Erm.. People slowing down?
I was hoping for a slightly more in depth analysis than that from you!
I thought you were the statistician? Given the requirement for a number of accidents in a time period before a camera is put in place...
No, not me. But even if it were, don't let that stop you.
No, not me.
Yet you presented at ICOTS? 😯
Edit: I see your edit about not using stats - how am I supposed to explain a statistical issue without using stats?
Ok, use stats if you really need to.
No, not me.
Yet you presented at ICOTS?
Yes
So what did you present at a scientific conference about teaching stats that didn't require you to be a statistician then?
konabunny - Member
My quote:
More traffic police, fewer cameras please.
KB's response:
More traffic police paid for by more traffic cameras, then? Or, to put it another way, how much extra tax did you want to pay for more traffic police?
Er, non thanks. I'd like to pay the same proportion of tax to fund a decent traffic police presence as I did 20 years ago.
Didn't seem to be a problem then.
How about we take all the money that's being paid to private, profiteering speed camera 'partnerships' and put decent, intelligent and experienced traffic officers back on the road?
No, not me. But even if it were, don't let that stop you.
Well I'm sure if you can understand Utts you can cope with the concept of regression to the mean - GIYF.
As a habitual, constant speeder for around a decade, I've got no problem with the things tbh- other than the really well hidden ones, it's just a bad observation tax.
As for flashing oncoming drivers- is your first thought, when someone flashes you, "Uh oh- a speed camera?" Mine isn't. It's "Are you flashing me or some other guy? Do I know you? Do you think you know me? Are my headlights on? Are my headlights off? Is my car on fire? Are you flashing me out of anger? Should I pull out? Is my bike falling off the roofrack? and so on"
Unless you flash morse code "Watch out there's a speed camera" in which case, I'll be all over it.
.-- .- - -.-. .... --- ..- - - .... . .-. . .----. ... .- ... .--. . . -.. -.-. .- -- . .-. .-
How about we take all the money that's being paid to private, profiteering speed camera 'partnerships' and put decent, intelligent and experienced traffic officers back on the road?
So we're agreed that speed cameras aren't about revenue raising, then?
and put [u]decent, intelligent[/u] and experienced traffic officers back on the road?
I see a flaw in your plan.
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2152 [/img]
I've never warned anyone and never will.
The average cams on the M60 catch 470 idiots a month. That I find hilarious.
Ok, if you don't know that's fine.
They would be 'scammeras' if they tricked you i.e. caught you driving under the limit and fiddled with their calibration.
If you drive over the limit your a big boy/girl and know the many risks of doing this so can't complain.
I too drive over the speed limit so if I was ever 'caught' it'd be a fair cop TBH.
Its not rocket science. Theres a camera van on a stretch of Snake Pass. Many people go for a 'hoon' down there however a family returning from a day at Fairholmes don't really want to have a head on with someone overtaking cars at great speed either do they?
The schizophrenia of STW
On another thread running at the same time as this many poster thought it right that a fare dodger on a train got assaulted, however catching people speeding is wrong?
Thousands killed on the roads every year but its OK to help people avoid being caught speeding?
No one dies as a result of fare dodging but its OK to assault a fare dodger?
TJ+1
Shut up TSY, TJ is talking nonsense again.
Stealing bikes is bad but how many people on here dabble in Coke or smoke weed?
Weed lines the pockets of ****less growers/criminals etc etc.
Selective liberal morality.
They would be 'scammeras' if they tricked you i.e. caught you driving under the limit and fiddled with their calibration.
Interesting story about that; I used to work at a small haulage firm, and we were sent an NIP for one of our lorries for 37 in a 30 zone. The driver disputed it and it did seem unlikely as the site was only about 50 yards from a t junction that the waggon would have pulled out from. We checked the tachograph, and the vehicle hadn't been over 30mph for the entire journey in question. A copy of the tacho was sent to the safety camera partnership and they dropped the matter like a hot potato, without actually admitting an error. A bloke from the car garage next door was also done on the same day, and wrote to them referring to our driver, but still ended up paying up, and taking the points.
v8ninety - MemberAh, KSIs. Killed OR seriously injured. I've attended a few of those that have been used to justify speed camera placement in my home town. Firstly, seriously injured? My arse. Precautionary trip to hospital usually.
The classification of injuries as used in the [url= http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/reported-road-casualties-gb-main-results-2010.html ]DfT Reported Road Casualties[/url] is defined in [url= http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/s20instructionsforthecom5094.pdf ]STATS20: Instructions for the Completion of Road Accident Reports (PDF)[/url] Section 3.9 of Annex 3 where it states:
Examples of 'Serious' injury are:
• Fracture
• Internal injury
• Severe cuts
• Crushing
• Burns (excluding friction burns)
• Concussion
• Severe general shock requiring hospital treatment
• Detention in hospital as an in-patient, either immediately or later
• Injuries to casualties who die 30 or more days after the accident from injuries sustained in that accident.
A [i]"Precautionary trip to hospital"[/i] should not be recorded as Serious Injury.