h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am not necessarily saying that all laws are always correct, but I do say that when a law is in place, you cannot really moan about being caught.

On a general note, it is indisputable that an accident at speed is more likely to be fatal than one that isnt at speed. Also ones ability to avoid an accident is also compromised by the speed you are travelling at. Even the best drives have reaction times (unless they are Jedi) and the faster you are travelling the further your stopping distances are. Good drivers at slow speed are less likely to have an accident than a good driver at high speed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3807325.stm

www.abd.org.uk

has a few comments on the government stats behind these headline grabbing numbers.

As for traffic waves, seen this?
http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html

firstly, I agree totally with you. I always stick to the limit and look carefully for speed signs. If there';s any doubt - its 30. I hate being tailgated for this.

Secondly, scarey story for you. My other half told me that on his way home last night, when safe to do so, he carefully overtook a car who took exception to this, twice tried to run him off the road and became irate. When my other half decided to try and pursue him home (obviously in a heat related cross moment) the guy panicked and ended up doing well over 40 in a 30 zone to try and escape him. I point out at this juncture that Andy was on a pushbike! We need more speed cameras outside schools and along built up areas to really stop this nonsense.

and how exactly do you propose to use a speed camera to stop the bad, inconsiderate and downright dangerous driving?

As I hinted at in post 41 speed cameras cannot do anything about the problems caused by bad driving or incosiderate drivers. However they can and do do something about those drivers who risk the safety of others by driving too fast.

Look put simply a good driver driving at 50 mph has less time to react than a equally good driver driving at 30 mph. If they then have an accident then the car moving at 50 mph does more damage and is more likely to cause death or injury, that is physics I think.

Obviously speed control should be just part of an overall policy to make roads safer, something should be done about incompetant drivers, but that does not mean that doing something about speeding will not help safety.

I think is is a bad argument where people suggest becuase something else is just as bad or worse, we should not act on another bad thing...

Sorry if I sound exasperated, more frustration at my not being able to get my point across than anything else.

"Look put simply a good driver driving at 50 mph has less time to react than a equally good driver driving at 30 mph"
But a good driver wouldn;t be doing 50mph where it was inappropriate. And by inappropriate I mean where they could not stop or avoid an unexpected hazard.

See I agree with much that you have to say but I do think that speeding is a nice easy thing to measure and detect. Thing is, 20 mph in the wrong conditions can kill. 90mph in the right conditions won't.

One thing that has not been accurately shown yet is the correlation and how they got these figures. Because they keep telling us that road deaths and accidents have fallen where speed cameras are and that speeds are lowering, yet the number of people killed on our roads for 2000,2001,2002 (latest figures I can find) has barely changed (3409, 3443, 3431 respectively). So if the cameras are working that well then there is something out there killing a lot of people to make up for speed, or the camera's are not having a lot of effect. This takes into account that obviously car numebrs will have risen, but emergency proceedures also mean more people surviving.

I would slightly disagree with "90mph in the right conditions won't.' Argument because what happens if you have a blowout? At 70mph you'll probably be OK at 90 you'll probably die. This sort of thing can just happen (e.g. you drive over something sharp you did not see) and so I think driving faster is intrinically more dangerous than driving more slowly. OK if you're on an empty motorway you're probably going to kill noone but yourself but it *is* less safe than driving more slowly.

Secondly I don't like the money raising argument because
(a) If they want to make money out of people who are breaking the law speeding then that's fine by me.
and
(b) They actually don't make a lot of money out of it at all. Financially I believe they make a modest profit, nothing more. As the transport sectretary said ( am I actually agreeing with Alistair Darling? ) the perfect speed camera will make zero money if everyone drives within the speed limit.

I'm fully in favour of speed cameras, around where I live, former race tracks (aka. inner city dual carriageways) have been transformed into roads where everyone is held down to around 40 mph. Much safer than the former 70mph recklessness next to where children play etc.
Secondly I believe it actually frees up police time to go off and deal with dangerous/dunk driving as opposed to concentrating on speeding offences.

"dunk driving"
Oi, no ball games in the car!

OK, fair point on the blowout at speed. But the cause of that accident isn;t speed, it's either poor maintenance of the vehicle or just plain bad luck. Not, however, a case of speed causing an accident. But a valid point.

"a) If they want to make money out of people who are breaking the law speeding then that's fine by me."
Fair enough! I think there are some things that need fixing with the law first but then that's me!

"(b) They actually don't make a lot of money out of it at all. Financially I believe they make a modest profit, nothing more. "

From the Govts Transport 2000 stuff.
"In the year 2000 over 1 million fixed penalty tickets were issued and the estimated revenue from them was about £44.3 million. There were also 139,200 fines from court proceedings for speeding worth about £18 million. The total fines for speeding for the year 2000 were therefore about £62.8 million. "

That's 62.8Million pounds in revenue. In 2000. I wonder what it is now?

I agree that speeding is an issue. It just seems to me that the Govt. Transport lot have fastened on to speed and demonising it to the exclusion of all else. Speeding cameras and lower limits are not helping. Or if they are then there is something else out there bumping up the accident statistics and I really think we should be looking at that now.
Given that most traffic coppers I know (I'm the son of one) state quite clearly that the number one cause of accidents on our roads is bad driving (of which speeding is a component) perhaps we should be looking closer at that?

And as Orcus pointed out, since speed camera convictions can be handled by administrative staff, SCs free up police time for precisely this purpose. Anyone who feels persecuted for being punished for breaking the law is a whinger. I presume these people are against all use of CCTV for any purpose, and the punishment of offenders in general?

Noggin

"Anyone who feels persecuted for being punished for breaking the law is a whinger"
A somewhat large brush you have there Noggin

Well, I don't feel persecuted for being punished for breaking the law (I have a completely clean license and have since I was 17. No marks, no blemishes, not even a warning for anything.). Therefore I am not a whinger. Good-oh!

On the other hand I think there is far too much effort and spin being built up around an issue that does not deserve it.

I do feel, especially in a supposed democracy, that if I feel that particular laws, ways of policing those laws or the attitude of the establishment (Govt., TRL, Police) then i can speak out and say this.
The focus is wrong, the implementation is suspect and lives are not being saved. That's what I think anyway.

And here we go round again.

When I said dunk driving I was of course referring to the use of and

I was as I said only slightly disagreeing on that point.

I guess the trouble with legislating against "bad driving" - which I would agree is of course the cause of most accidents - is how one defines it. Speeding is of course one factor, as has been pointed out, an accident at 80 mph will do more damage than one at 30.
I guess you must treat it as a factor thing for legislative purposes

ie.

Degree of bad driving = excessive speed * lack of due care and attention * conditions * distance to driver in front * degeree of intoxication * other unmentioned factors.

I think that this is all legislated against already really it's just a question of how it is handled. Speed is one thing that can be relatively easily spotted and dealt with, others are harder to enforce. I would fully support more effective solutions to the other factors also.

Dealing with burglary (as was mentioned in a much earlier post) is an entirely different ball game and I'm not convinced is something to which this can be compared.

Degree of bad driving = number_of_England_st_georges_flag_on_car * 100

Heaven's Orcus, you're not trying to suggest a cohesive and integrated traffic policing and management policy are you?

The answer is really simple. If more males could manage to drive without a finger up their nose the roads would be a far safer place.

I enjoy driving and I believe I drive at safe speeds relevant to the conditions and according to where I am. However, this doesn't mean I adhere to the speed limit all the time. I use common sense and a "defensive driving" technique which means adopting the attitude: "if it can happen - it will happen". It also means anticipating well ahead; taking into account parked vehicles, schools and the actions or intentions of people in peripheral vision.
Almost every day I see examples of drivers taking ludicrous risks with other people's lives by driving at excessive speed in built-up areas, leaving themselves no chance at all to avoid a child running into the road etc. and these people worry me more than the driver who wants to exceed the limit on a dual carriageway.

There are probably technical reasons why speed cameras are not often found on our back-streets but that is where they are needed.

So there!

You can add baseball caps to the St.Georges flags formula and you will have a pretty good idea of what level of driving to expect.

Of coursev though part of the point of this thread is that I recognise people will choose to speed, but well you know:-

"If you cant do the time, dont do the crime"

"Heaven's Orcus, you're not trying to suggest a cohesive and integrated traffic policing and management policy are you?"

Indeed, and in fact I'm your man! I will of course accept a substantial golden parachute when it all falls apart 12 months down the line

"Look put simply a good driver driving at 50 mph has less time to react than a equally good driver driving at 30 mph"
But a good driver wouldn;t be doing 50mph where it was inappropriate. And by inappropriate I mean where they could not stop or avoid an unexpected hazard.

See I agree with much that you have to say but I do think that speeding is a nice easy thing to measure and detect. Thing is, 20 mph in the wrong conditions can kill. 90mph in the right conditions won't."


The vast majority of motorists have shown beyond any argument that they either cannot, or cannot be trusted to make that judgement and remain within the bounds of safety - their own safety or that of others. Beyond *any* argument.

I came up with a great solution to this. If the anti-camera lobby want to get rid of them, it's simple. The cameras are funded by the revenue that they create, so if you destroy the source of revenue then you can get rid of the cameras. I propose a mass campaign of Civil Obedience, where all the drivers stay within the speed limit for a year. That will put paid to the cameras for sure.



Might save a few lives as well.