This is why I love track days...
You can speed as much as you like.....works for me.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Do speed cameras really cut accidents ?
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
i shall leave this thread to those of you who believe the selfish gratification of desires is the only goal of humanity.
Anyway I thought you liked self gratification....
I might go have a quick lady wank myself now :lickface:
Speeding because you like speed is selfish.
Oh yeah, misread that one... woops! You could still see the funny side of it though...
Any excuse for a lady wank n all that
Orgasminator
Quote by GnV
snip...
What works best to prevent speeding is high profile policing. The covert tactics employed by using an unmarked truck do little to prevent speeding. It just adds wieght to the arguement that its about revenue rather than prevention.
and given the size of the hole as mentioned earlier, the coppers up your way have small dicks
Given the height of the hole (about 6ft from the ground) it might imply something else altogether!
Sex God
Quote by vampanya
And speed cameras are supposed to be placed where there have been so many accidents in the past but the accidents are rarely attributed to speed. They're placed where they can make the most money NOT where they can prevent the most accidents.
Rather like a stretch of dual carriageway very near to me...
A 50mph limit that has has speed camera's fitted and working there since the day it opened....
Sex God
Quote by vampanya
Fixed cameras are cash cows nothing more. If they wern't there would be more outside schools and less on long straight roads. People slow down past them then continue as normal. So yes - they might work on that 100yd section of road but not overall.
What works best to prevent speeding is high profile policing. The covert tactics employed by using an unmarked truck do little to prevent speeding. It just adds wieght to the arguement that its about revenue rather than prevention.
Your first paragraph maybe offers some explanation for the covert cameras mentioned in your second. It's obviously true that motorists get used to the locations of the fixed cameras, slow down just long enough to pass them, and then immediately speed back up again.
If drivers know that there may be covert cameras lurking in the vicinity, some might well think twice before they put their foot down in the first place, so there's a deterrent effect, and those who've been caught by one and got their mandatory three points might just be a bit more cautious in future, so they're possibly a behaviour changer too?
Neil x x x ;)
Orgasminator
I agree, but while fixed cameras are not the answer covert ones don't deter either, they just catch people. Quietly.
If the police are there anyway with the speed traps why not be seen doing it? They wouldn't catch as many but then they would have an effect on speeding. Thats the aim isn't it?
And again, where was the last speed trap you saw? Was it by a school or other youth hang out? Or was it on an open road?
We have a particularly nasty one where they lay in wait less than 100 yards before a national speed limit on a dual carrigeway, still in a 40mph. Its not dangerous to speed up there, people do because they can see the sign just ahead. Its also just after a slip road so your attention is on the merging traffic, not looking for a speed trap.
Kerching!
If the police are there anyway with the speed traps why not be seen doing it? They wouldn't catch as many but then they would have an effect on speeding. Thats the aim isn't it?
And again, where was the last speed trap you saw? Was it by a school or other youth hang out? Or was it on an open road?
We have a particularly nasty one where they lay in wait less than 100 yards before a national speed limit on a dual carrigeway, still in a 40mph. Its not dangerous to speed up there, people do because they can see the sign just ahead. Its also just after a slip road so your attention is on the merging traffic, not looking for a speed trap.
Kerching!
I went out for a little gentle poodle today on my bike down to Hastings.
I counted roughly 22 fixed cameras of which I would say only four were in built up areas, the rest were on dual carriage ways.
I went down a road that said 50mph with house either side of the road....it should hve been a 30 limit in my view, and some roads that were 30mph that were not built up and could have easily been 40 or possibly 50mph limits.
There seems to be very little consistency in where they put them, and down the road that was a 50mph limit, at the bottom was a school....an odd one.
As has been said already, the ones on the dual carriageways people just slow up and then speed up again as soon as they are past them...hardly a deterrent I would say.
I never saw any hidden ones today parked by the side of the road, but as I kept within the speed limits I had nothing to fear even if there would have been any.
I counted roughly 22 fixed cameras of which I would say only four were in built up areas, the rest were on dual carriage ways.
I went down a road that said 50mph with house either side of the road....it should hve been a 30 limit in my view, and some roads that were 30mph that were not built up and could have easily been 40 or possibly 50mph limits.
There seems to be very little consistency in where they put them, and down the road that was a 50mph limit, at the bottom was a school....an odd one.
As has been said already, the ones on the dual carriageways people just slow up and then speed up again as soon as they are past them...hardly a deterrent I would say.
I never saw any hidden ones today parked by the side of the road, but as I kept within the speed limits I had nothing to fear even if there would have been any.
Sex God
Quote by vampanya
I agree, but while fixed cameras are not the answer covert ones don't deter either, they just catch people. Quietly.
If the police are there anyway with the speed traps why not be seen doing it? They wouldn't catch as many but then they would have an effect on speeding. Thats the aim isn't it?
Perhaps for the same reason that some police officers walk about in uniform, and others are plain-clothed?
Maybe the covert camera is similarly designed to catch those who insist on habitually breaking the law of the land when they think noone else is looking? Maybe it's there so that the relevant authorities are afforded an opportunity to make habitual law-breakers properly think through the consequences of their actions by way of punishment, even if they're only personal ones? I'd say covert speed cameras are pretty much in line with other areas of law enforcement, and exist for similar reasons.As for high-profile policing, it seems that Council Tax payers, sometimes, don't seem to like paying for it all that much, any more than they like speed cameras?
N x x x ;)
Sex God
Ok so speed limits in themselves are sometimes inconsistent but let's not forget that we each have it within our powers never to pay a speeding fine again.
Abide by the speed limit.
They are, in almost all cases, clearly marked and if in doubt in a built up area do 30. It's our choice.
(I've no doubt there will be posts now detailing poorly marked ones - I did say, in ALMOST all cases.)
Abide by the speed limit.
They are, in almost all cases, clearly marked and if in doubt in a built up area do 30. It's our choice.
(I've no doubt there will be posts now detailing poorly marked ones - I did say, in ALMOST all cases.)
Sex God
after a problem with my car some years ago i was removed from the motorway buy the police for traveling at 30mph which they considered too slow
ya just cant win
ya just cant win
Warming the Bed
Well if you think driving on a motorway at 30mph is good then watch out for that lorry coming up behind you.
One of my pet hates is the variable speed limits on the 2am they are flashing 40mph and no reason for at 7am it says 50 and we sit still for long periods.
One of my pet hates is the variable speed limits on the 2am they are flashing 40mph and no reason for at 7am it says 50 and we sit still for long periods.
Quote by croydoncouple38
Well if you think driving on a motorway at 30mph is good then watch out for that lorry coming up behind you.
One of my pet hates is the variable speed limits on the 2am they are flashing 40mph and no reason for at 7am it says 50 and we sit still for long periods.
Actually I was told ages ago that is the best time for them to check the signals work properly.
The drivers using that stretch do not know that at the time though.
Some good research here on the impact of speed cameras in specific locations -
Of course there's an issue about whether there is a measurable effect, or whether what they're reporting is regression to the mean, but given the extreme range of the risk spectrum you can understand why people think 'better safe than sorry.'
The most local speed cameras to me are outside a local park, which makes the road safer for all concerned going to and from the park, and on a dreadful S bend cum junction that has taken three lives in ten years prior to the camera being put in place. Now, interestingly, I think the re-engineering that has also been done at that point could make it safe enough point to experiment with taking the camera down and see what happens. Trouble is, if what happens is a nineteen year old puts his Nova into a tree, killing himself and leaving his best mate a cabbage, as happened previously, who wants to be the one to go and see his mum and say 'Yeah, we weren't sure if the camera was having any effect, so we did an experiment...'
I genuinely don't know. I think there have been some bloody awful examples of the use of speed cameras, and some really good ones too. I think some speed camera partnerships have been really effective, and some have become self serving bureaucracies dominated by producer interests, to use a phrase beloved of management wonks. Insufferable twunts like the former chief constable of North Wales don't help the issue. But I keep coming back to the breadth of the risk spectrum...
Of course there's an issue about whether there is a measurable effect, or whether what they're reporting is regression to the mean, but given the extreme range of the risk spectrum you can understand why people think 'better safe than sorry.'
The most local speed cameras to me are outside a local park, which makes the road safer for all concerned going to and from the park, and on a dreadful S bend cum junction that has taken three lives in ten years prior to the camera being put in place. Now, interestingly, I think the re-engineering that has also been done at that point could make it safe enough point to experiment with taking the camera down and see what happens. Trouble is, if what happens is a nineteen year old puts his Nova into a tree, killing himself and leaving his best mate a cabbage, as happened previously, who wants to be the one to go and see his mum and say 'Yeah, we weren't sure if the camera was having any effect, so we did an experiment...'
I genuinely don't know. I think there have been some bloody awful examples of the use of speed cameras, and some really good ones too. I think some speed camera partnerships have been really effective, and some have become self serving bureaucracies dominated by producer interests, to use a phrase beloved of management wonks. Insufferable twunts like the former chief constable of North Wales don't help the issue. But I keep coming back to the breadth of the risk spectrum...
Orgasminator
Quote by Kaznkev
A couple of people on this thread seem to support speed cameras outside school,parks or other designated places they consider acceptable for children to be.
i ask again why childrens lives should be curtailed because they wish to break the law with impungnity.
As foxy said you dont want a fine dont speed.
You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. No-one here has advokated speeding (or killing children).
Childrens lives should of course not be curtailed by anyone wishing to break the law. And sadly most of the accidents involving children are causes by other factors. Factors which speed cameras would have no bearing on whatsoever (pulling out of junctions without looking properly eg). How many of those children where pedestrians and how many passengers? As you like research to back up your claims, go and check your stats from earlier and see what the break down of causes of those accidents are and THEN tell me that cameras would have prevented them.
Speed cameras are not magic wands to protect kids from bad driving.
Quote by vampanya
A couple of people on this thread seem to support speed cameras outside school,parks or other designated places they consider acceptable for children to be.
i ask again why childrens lives should be curtailed because they wish to break the law with impungnity.
As foxy said you dont want a fine dont speed.
You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. No-one here has advokated speeding (or killing children).
Childrens lives should of course not be curtailed by anyone wishing to break the law. And sadly most of the accidents involving children are causes by other factors. Factors which speed cameras would have no bearing on whatsoever (pulling out of junctions without looking properly eg). How many of those children where pedestrians and how many passengers? As you like research to back up your claims, go and check your stats from earlier and see what the break down of causes of those accidents are and THEN tell me that cameras would have prevented them.
Speed cameras are not magic wands to protect kids from bad driving.
...or from kids just running mindlessly into the road directly in front of a car - even if its travelling at 20mph! A wheel passing over a kids head makes a nasty mess and the survival rate is not good.
I have read the thread.
I have no objection to speed limits.
I have no objection to speed limits being enforced.
I am not entirely convinced that cameras are the way forward although they would seem to be a cheap effective way of ensuring compliance with the law. I have noticed that the 50mph limit through motorway road works is more commonly observed now that average speeds are monitored and enforced.
I think the penalties for speeding should be increased and I hope that one day speeding and thereby increasing the risk and extent of damage to human beings, becomes as socially unacceptable as drunken driving. There really is no excuse for it.
I have no objection to speed limits.
I have no objection to speed limits being enforced.
I am not entirely convinced that cameras are the way forward although they would seem to be a cheap effective way of ensuring compliance with the law. I have noticed that the 50mph limit through motorway road works is more commonly observed now that average speeds are monitored and enforced.
I think the penalties for speeding should be increased and I hope that one day speeding and thereby increasing the risk and extent of damage to human beings, becomes as socially unacceptable as drunken driving. There really is no excuse for it.
Blimey there seems to be a lot of non drivers around.
The only ones I see who do not break the speed limits are the old farts out for a jolly little canter on a Sunday afternoon.
The ones with dodgy eyesight and should not even be on the road.
Anyone else breaks the speed limit be it on purpose or by accident.
Anyone who says they have not are not telling the truth.....still that happens a lot on forums.
The only ones I see who do not break the speed limits are the old farts out for a jolly little canter on a Sunday afternoon.
The ones with dodgy eyesight and should not even be on the road.
Anyone else breaks the speed limit be it on purpose or by accident.
Anyone who says they have not are not telling the truth.....still that happens a lot on forums.
Orgasminator
I dont think anyones whining about being caught and having to pay fines either. As far as I can see the bone of contention is the placement of the cameras in the first place and whether or not they actually contribute towards road safety. Noone in this whole thread has complained about being caught and fined.
Orgasminator
I can only find one mention of points and thats not a whine about receiving them either...
Quote by vampanya
I dont think anyones whining about being caught and having to pay fines either. As far as I can see the bone of contention is the placement of the cameras in the first place and whether or not they actually contribute towards road safety. Noone in this whole thread has complained about being caught and fined.
Seems some never read all the posts and just jump to their own conclusions.
Read my example about the A2 at 2 am...you may then see where I am coming from Flower me old chum.
Good post Vamps and at least you are taking notice of what has been written.:thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Speed cameras help to make speeding unacceptable. Speeding being unacceptable leads to fewer accidents and less damage from accidents. Seems logically speed cameras reduce the number and severity of accidents in general. They appear to do so at a profit. Looks like a win win to me.
I dont agree Ben
Proper education and targeted advert campaigns would be far more effective to make speeding unacceptable. Just like drink driving campaigns have done over the years. Not horrid hard hitting but like this one below for seat belts is far more powerful
Quote by kentswingers777
Any cameras taken down will be the direct decision of the local councils.
So will see if they put money before safety.
There should be speed cutting measures outside every school and every park.
As usual, this is some way from the truth.
See here for information about speed camera partnerships -
Councils are only one partner in such arrangements. The income from cameras can only be used for the work of the speed camera partnership - and councils only pay if the partnership's expenditure exceeds its income. SO, in short, you don't appear to know what you're on about.
Sex God
Quote by vampanya
A couple of people on this thread seem to support speed cameras outside school,parks or other designated places they consider acceptable for children to be.
i ask again why childrens lives should be curtailed because they wish to break the law with impungnity.
As foxy said you dont want a fine dont speed.
You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact. No-one here has advokated speeding (or killing children).
Childrens lives should of course not be curtailed by anyone wishing to break the law. And sadly most of the accidents involving children are causes by other factors. Factors which speed cameras would have no bearing on whatsoever (pulling out of junctions without looking properly eg). How many of those children where pedestrians and how many passengers? As you like research to back up your claims, go and check your stats from earlier and see what the break down of causes of those accidents are and THEN tell me that cameras would have prevented them.
Speed cameras are not magic wands to protect kids from bad driving.
I think Kazs' point is that only imposing limits near schools and parks limits childrens safety to those areas only...imposing limits universally means that the safety of children (and everyone else for that matter) is observed everywhere thus not curtailing their freedom to roam and play
Sex God
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Fair point blue perhaps the profit from speed cameras could fund such campaigns.
I like that Ben
Sex God
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
stuff
stuff.
I think Kazs' point is that only imposing limits near schools and parks limits childrens safety to those areas only...imposing limits universally means that the safety of children (and everyone else for that matter) is observed everywhere thus not curtailing their freedom to roam and play
im not sure that children should be allowed to roam and play on motorways where speed camera`s have been fitted for rush hour traffic
:lol: :lol: 