Sky news vote. Speed cameras

The "problem" with the sky poll is it asks if you think they save lives.....it doesn't ask if you like them/want them etc.

I'm afraid all the evidence does suggest they save lives, no real arguement with that

livvy wrote: Offensive weapon legislation for instance requires no victim.

Ah yes. I rememeber the ledigslation that prevented the use of automatic hand guns by members of gun clubs. What a waste of time. All it achived was to prevent law abiding citizens from enjoying a hobby. Has gun crime dropped since it came in. No!! why?? because it was an ill concieved knee jerk reaction to, if I remember correctly, Micheal Ryan.

Most of these law enforcement techniques, in order to convict successfully, require the offender to be a law abiding citizen in the first place i.e if i wasn't registered as the owner of my car then they wouldn't have been able to catch me with a camera, or if I had false plates fitted.

Any I drifted off topic there

I don't care what government polls say, I also don't care what the justification for speed cameras is. My only point on this thread was that those of us who don't think speed cameras save lives are not alone. At the very least the 6000 odd people who voted no in the sky news survey are in agreement.

Peter Fenwick wrote: livvy wrote: Offensive weapon legislation for instance requires no victim. Ah yes. I rememeber the ledigslation that prevented the use of automatic hand guns by members of gun clubs. What a waste of time. All it achived was to prevent law abiding citizens from enjoying a hobby. Has gun crime dropped since it came in. No!! why?? because it was an ill concieved knee jerk reaction to, if I remember correctly, Micheal Ryan.

I think you remember incorrectly then, because firearms legislation is seperate to that which governs offensive weapons.

People can still shoot at gun clubs, but certain weapons can no longer be used/kept. They can still continue with their hobby.

Yes offences involving firearms have steadily increased since 1987, but are you suggesting it would have been an opposite trend (fewer crimes) if the gun owenership laws had not been changed ?

Most of these law enforcement techniques, in order to convict successfully, require the offender to be a law abiding citizen in the first place i.e if i wasn't registered as the owner of my car then they wouldn't have been able to catch me with a camera, or if I had false plates fitted.

Speeding is NOT law abiding, it's just a different offence to having false plates fitted. People are of course prosecuted with false plates etc. where those offences are detected. They usually find themselves in a cell for a while, not sent a NIP through the post.

steven.seed wrote: It is impossible to refute the relationship between speed & the increase in energy involved with that. But that doesn’t mean the increase in energy is unsafe. If the increase in energy is controlled correctly it is perfectly safe.

I agree, I have never said speed in itself is dangerous, but what do you think of the standard of driving in this country ?

Everybody here (& everywhere else) seems to be complaining about it.

The speed limits are based around one ability level & it's not the highest ability level. The numbers of collisions that do occur are evidence in fact that, for whatever reason, people do not manage  risk on our roads particularly well. Now those collisions may not all be as a result of speed (a good portion are) but never the less an increase in speed will just serve to expose their defeciencies further, by giving them less time to correct or cover for them. Then when those collisions do occur (as they do) you are bringing extra energy to it.

It is impossible to refute that the greater the energy in any collision the more damage will be caused. That all depends on what is colliding with what. Modern vehicles are better designed with crumple zones and deformable materials etc so therefore are less likely to cause damage than older vehicles.

Yes
But a higher speed collision in a modern vehicle still causes more damage than a lower speed collision in a modern vehicle (like for like vehicles). That is what my statement says, not comparing different cars, but different speeds. For the same set of given circumstances where the speed is the only difference, higher speed = higher damage levels.

It is impossible to refute that the greater the energy the more likely death will be in any collision. Not necessarily, it again depends on what collides with what. Crash test research done by manufacturers has shown that depending on the shape and materials a vehicle is made from, a collision at a higher speed can cause less damage. An example of this was when (I think it was Honda) found that their ‘soft bonnet’ deformed too much in collision with pedestrians at slow speed and caused worse injury than at a higher speed which did not give the bonnet time to deform to much before the pedestrian was thrown clear.

See answer to my last point.

Like for like, injury is more likely (not necessarily results in, but more likely to result in injury or death) with an increase in speed.

It is impossible to refute that increased speed means less time to deal with any hazard. True but the more important factor is the ability of the driver and the vehicle to react that hazard. A quick reaction at 60 mph is more likely to avoid or cause less damage in a collision than a slow reaction at 40mph.

I refer you to the answer to previous points.
The standard of drivers is not that high. Sure a good driver can drive at speed safer than a poor one. A good driver will limit reacting to anything, they will anticipate it and start to do something about it incase it happens, not wait for it to start. Our limits are set to a base common standard for all abilities, not set to what is safe for the most skilled only.

What is open to discussion is the best way to deal with it. Manufacturers have been dealing with it since before speed cameras by introducing lots of safety features that have reduced the number of deaths and injuries far more than speed cameras. I would think most people advocate an increase in road traffic patrols but no one in government seems to listen.

Yes manufacturers have made cars safer & as such they have contributed to both fewer & more surviveable collisions.

But in Germany, France the USA etc they have cars with the same safety levels, but they all have higher collision & death rates per billion Km's than we do, so it isn't the cars alone.

People used to bitch about traffic patrols, people used to say "why aren't you out catching burglars" to them, so guess what, they got scaled down & posted elsewhere. Those same people say traffic officers weren't so bad now. Oh the irony.

Cameras do not lead to more deaths & collisions on our roads, they lead to less. As such they are an addition to complement other measures to reduce death & injury on our roads.
I too would like to see more traffic Police, but if you look at it from a managers point of view they are far more expensive. Cameras cost most Police forces nothing (only the SCPs that run at a loss cost the Police from their budgets & your SCP, Cheshire, ran at a loss last year so some of that will be coming from your Police's budget). In the main though they pay for themselves & get results.

Now cameras are an attempt to manage that risk by limiting speed, as are speed limits themselves. But trying to limit the speed of a poor driver will not prevent them having collisions. Incidents happen at all speeds. Insurance companies claim that most crashes occur on roads that are within 3 miles of where people live the majority of which are on urban roads at lower speeds.

No cameras won't get rid of all collisions, nothing will. It is about risk management & keeping the balance. Trying to limit the numbers as much as possible to what will be acceptable to society as a whole.

In a vast number of collisions, if the driver had more time, they could take steps to avoid the collision in the first place. This would be particularly useful to those that end in fatalities & serious injuries.
How many times is it said folowing a collision to the Police dealing with it, "They came out of nowhere, I didn't have a chance."

Offer the government viable, realistic, cost effective alternatives to the satsifactory management of that risk. I don't see a lot of that happening & without it they will continue using blunt instruments (cameras) because the data shows it does what they are looking for. And this is the short sightedness of the government and camera safety partnerships. Surely saving lives shouldn’t be about cost effectiveness. Most people have learned to live with speed cameras but what we find hard to accept is that more and more cameras go up but very little is being done to police the bad drivers on the road. A camera can only record a vehicle exceeding a speed limit but not the person who drives dangerously below the speed limit whereas a traffic officer can do both and much more besides.

Most traffic officers do little speed enforcement (only those at greater margins over the limit), because they can leave it to the SCPs. They concentrate on other matters, without SCPs they'd have to concentrate on speed enforcement more.

If you don't want more to go up, offer the government other effective means to reach their casualty reduction targets. They will have to be cost effective though. Why you ask, because everytime we vote we don't want higher taxes, we vote for parties that promise not to tax us more. Improving our roads costs big money & if we want more expensive ways than cameras we have to pay more & people don't want to pay more. That's why many people will say, let the speeders pay.

Don't just rubbish cameras because they control or punish speeding, offer viable alternatives. Its not the cameras that are being rubbished, it’s the overuse of them to the detriment of proper policing of the roads.

Give the government the cost effective alternatives.

Raising the standard of drivers in this country would be the most preferable, but people don't do it voluntarily & forcing them to would cost huge amounts. It would also take a long time & not give immeadiate benefits to help the government meet it's targets.
I agree the long trem benefits are far greater than limiting speed.

But limiting speed gives far more immeadiate results to meet those targets.
Reducing speed costs them little & gives them results.
For that reason they'll do as much as they can get away with.(IMHO)

My personal view.

We need to increase skill levels.
We need more traffic Police.
We need some cameras. (The more we can have of the former, the less we can have of the latter, but because they are already here we won't get rid of them).
The more people take responsibilty & improve their own skill levels, reducing the collisions they have, the less need the government will have for more cameras.

B 7 VP wrote: A good positive post Steven, Not that livvy can understand anything less than party doctrine, and THAT is the reason for So much disagreement and resentment by US-the drivers who have to drive by a Political solution of illconceived kneejerk reactions, by NObrainers in the Govt and DFT. Not once you note,  has livvy agreed that more Traffic Police ON the street would change the attitude of roadusers.Drivers used to pay attention and driving standards improved when Trafpol are sighted, and we knew that they could be anywhere--Unlike these days when you can drink and Drugs to your hearts content, without fear of detection--oohh!!forgot Scams will soon sort it out, as well as all the other bad driving practices that the trafpol are NOT around to see!! In my part of the world, seven deaths due to Drugs-Drink, and jaywalking over the past 15 months will be included in the "speed related stats"cos that is the Correct Slime Govt way of collecting the Crime Scene figures--NOT once will any official details be given--only the word SPEED mentioned as many times as possible--No mention that Drugs cannot be tested for like drink--BUT-its No prob is it??, the Cameras will catch everything, eh livvy??.

I think I've been quite clear that cameras will not solve all the problems, I have never suggested they will.

I think I also said in my last post (if you actually read it) that the higher skill levels & the more traffic officers, the less likelyhood that the government will need for cameras.

I have said time & time again that I support the call for more traffic officers, not cameras in their place.

It doesn't detract from the fact though that cameras are here, they are not likely to be removed (by any party) & they have contributed to a reduction of deaths & injuries on our roads.

If people do nothing else but bitch about cameras, then I can see more of them coming.
If people do something about raising standards & we get more traffic Police I can see that increase in cameras being averted.

I've already said that IMHO the trafpol we have are more interested in dealing with offenders for a variety of offences than in reporting people endlessly for speeding violations.

I'm not affiliated to any party line.
I don't want to see more cameras, I'd raher it be more Police.
But I won't blindly rubbish what they do because of that, as some others do.
If people help themselves (& the government) then more cameras shouldn't be needed & perhaps we can persuade the government of that.

I do see why they government have gone down the line that they have though, because it's cheap for them, it's easy for them & it gets results. I also see that it is realistically only a short term solution & that there are better long term ones. If people start the ball rolling towards better long term solutions, then they may be able to get the government with that program & deflect them away from more cameras. If however people whine & attack cameras without offering better solutions, then I fear that those who are opposed to cameras will have no say whatsoever in the shape of future policy. They will be passengers in it (not drivers) & it will be dictated by those with a less than positive attitude towards the motor car.

I remember using some magazine article on car costings to try and get my then boss to let me have a 320i estate, as overall it cost less than the others due to its high resale value.

Although my boss agreed it did seem the best cost option, I still didn't get one as he thought customers wouldn't like to see an engineer turn up in a BM.

I ended up with a top of the range laguna estate.

Livvy said,

I agree, I have never said speed in itself is dangerous, but what do you think of the standard of driving in this country ?

Everybody here (& everywhere else) seems to be complaining about it.

The speed limits are based around one ability level & it's not the highest ability level. The numbers of collisions that do occur are evidence in fact that, for whatever reason, people do not manage  risk on our roads particularly well. Now those collisions may not all be as a result of speed (a good portion are) but never the less an increase in speed will just serve to expose their defeciencies further, by giving them less time to correct or cover for them. Then when those collisions do occur (as they do) you are bringing extra energy to it.

Then obviously those drivers with the deficiencies have them at what ever speed they travel so need to be dealt with and cameras will never do that so instead of more cameras better policing. Perhaps everyone who is at fault in an accident should be re-assesed. I have been driving for 35 years and have been involved in one accident when someone ran into the back of my car when I had stopped at a pelican crossing  yet I personally know of two what I would call not very confident drivers who never speed and yet have both had several accidents each.

It would actually be interesting to see the % of drivers caught speeding who have actually been involved in accidents.

But a higher speed collision in a modern vehicle still causes more damage than a lower speed collision in a modern vehicle (like for like vehicles). That is what my statement says, not comparing different cars, but different speeds. For the same set of given circumstances where the speed is the only difference, higher speed = higher damage levels.

Yes but only in the event of a collision. Surely the objective should be to prevent the collisions not just attempt to make them happen at a lesser speed.

See answer to my last point.

Like for like, injury is more likely (not necessarily results in, but more likely to result in injury or death) with an increase in speed.

Same as my last point.

Yes but only in the event of a collision. Surely the objective should be to prevent the collisions not just attempt to make them happen at a lesser speed.