Petition against in appropriate speed Scameras

[JumJum]

Petition on this site for getting rid of in appropriate Scameras and improving road safety.

http://www.saferroads.co.uk/intro.php

This site has been set up to deal with an issue of vital importance to every road user in the UK - namely the growing use of speed cameras in the name of road "safety".

The purpose of this site is twofold.

Firstly, to provide access to information showing how misleading (some might even say underhand) the official line on speed cameras and road safety is, and how the authorities' obsession with speed cameras could actually be making our roads MORE dangerous.
And secondly, to give the growing number of road users who are unhappy with the situation the means to do something about it in the form of a petition calling for measures that will improve road safety by addressing the true causes of most accidents rather than merely persecuting motorists

Although speed is a contributing factor in 1/3 of accidents, it's only listed as the cause in 7%.
The majority of fatal accidents take place within the speed limit.
The largest number of fatal accidents are involving Pedestrians who in 80% odd of cases thier own actions are the primary cause of the accident that kills them .
Despite cameras deaths on our roads haven't really fallen in the past 5 years.

(the above is all from goverment, police and Dept of Transport and reports)

This petition appears a good way to express views as a collective.

I’ve signed and sent it off.

 

[andy_k]

Got to agree with most of the sentiments expressed here but there is another side to it

1, Yep cameras have been blamed for being a cause of a rise in road deaths because the argument goes there are less Police patrols but it's not because of the cameras it's because people are driving too fast and having accidents because they think nobody will be watching them and a lot put an almost blind faith in their camera detectors - the same statistics could be applied to these camera detectors and say that since they were legalised road deaths have risen. At the end of the day road deaths have risen because there are more people in more of a hurry using our already overcrowded roads

2, Yes the majority of fatal accidents take place within the speed limit but that doesn't mean excessive speed was not to blame - if you hit something that you could have avoided if you were driving slower which in almost 100% of cases is true then excessive speed was to blame be it 10 mph or 110 mph it's not the speed limit that decides what is excessive speed it's the conditions of the road and the situation you are in.

3, Yes pedestrians are usually the cause of their own deaths but once again, a pedestrian hit by a slow moving car stands a much better chance of survival than one hit by a fast moving car. It's not just the pedestrians fault as without the intervention of a car they'd still be alive.

I know at some time we all speed and we all have a justification for it, after all we are all good drivers, driving safe cars that are perfectly capable of safe speeds well in excess of the national limits but the point is that not everyone else is so the limits have to reflect that.

Living down here we are fortunate enough not to have many cameras to worry about but we do have areas within the towns with 20mph speed limits which are enforced religiously and these have done a lot more for cutting road deaths and injuries than any number of cameras would have done.

Do I like cameras? No not at all and I detest the fact that they are very often placed purely as revenue earners but if I'm driving within the speed limit I have no real need to worry about them do I?

Personally if I want to drive fast and let some steam off I'll book some time on a track, at least that way I don't have to worry about suicidal grannies in Nissan Micras who think the highway code is something about **** Turpin and pedestrians who are incapable of looking before they step out into the front of my car and as a bonus I get to drive as fast as I can in the company of some seriously good drivers.

Most speed limits are there for a reason and like all other laws they serve a purpose and the cameras are there to provide a deterrant to speeding motorists. Maybe once in a while, rather than trying to get them banned we should all think about what it would be like if whilst we were driving our very safe and over engineered cars we were the ones who ran over a small child that didn't think before it stepped out between two parked cars - sure it wouldn't be our fault but I don't ever want to have to be in that situation.

Statistics can say whatever you want them to say and should seldom be believed

I for one won't be signing that petition

Andy

 

[Andrew]

I live in the countryside and the roads outside the village are very dangerous. Lots of tight bends and a national speed limit make it very attractive to the motorcycle community. I have lost count of the number of deaths caused by excessive speed on these roads. Are there any safety cameras? No. Is the speed limit correct for the type of road? No.

Where are the safety cameras sited? Usually on dual carriage ways followed by a reduction in the speed limit. Well its an easy way to catch speeding motorists with out any thought going into the idea of "safety".

At the end of the day the cameras aren't helping. They serve the main purpose of generating money with saftey a secondary concern.

 

[mw_C32]

I agree with JumJum and Andrew. I'm not saying Andy is wrong its an unjust cheap and easy way of taxing the motorist.
In Deutschland they have had a reduction in road deaths but do not use fixed speed cameras. Whos educating who???
I've signed it and sent it off too.

 

[pepe]

Ill definately be signing it. In Bristol there is a notorious camera that earnt avon and somerset police so much money last year that although they are supposed to spend it on road safety there was simply too much cash ,so they had to give 3 million of the revenue to the government.
I think the second highest earning camera in bristol is a van mounted one which has been in the papers recently because it continually parks on zig zags and on double yellow lines !! A case of "Do as i say, not as i do" If ever i saw one.

 

[sheffmax]

I'm guessing that most of us drive more powerful than average vehicles. Surely, then, we should be more aware of the dangers of speeding than most? I've read all the arguments against speed cameras and I'm afraid that I cannot agree that it's possible to site them inappropriately. Rather than campaigning to have them removed we should be campaigning to have more of them put where the accidents do happen.

Whatever the motive for placing speed cameras anyone caught by them is breaking the law.

If the law is wrong then we should press for the law to be changed, viz. increase the maximum speed where appropriate.

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Whilst it's true that the only way cars will be 100% safe is if they're stationery it's hardly a practical solution is it?

This petition is NOT about removing speed cameras BUT placing them appropriately (schools/black spots etc. so that children who run into the road are NOT hurt or killed etc.) i.e. NOT place them just to raise revenue under the pretense that they're 'road safety aids'. Speed limits used to be set using the 85% rule (i.e most drivers WILL travel at a safe speed according to road conditions). Now they appear to be set arbitrarily (i.e to raise revenue). Lowering limits below these levels increases the 'spontaneous' tendency to speed.

What is much more important is focussing on innappropriate speed (i.e driver training). How did those idiots on TV's 'worst driver ' programmes EVER get a licence in the first place?? They are a menace at ANY speed.

If the powers that be didn't focus exclusively on speed (= revenue) then perhaps they would focus on this much more important issue.

I will be signing this petition for the above reasons in the hope that a 'proper' debate on the merits and demerits of camera locations will be instigated.

Cheers,

Dieter

 

[Flip]

I'm inclined look at the arguement this way-

If the hazard was obvious, folks would slow down.

If the danger isn't obvious then you can reduce the speed of passing traffic with a camera (yes I know this means you assume people know they are there!). By far the majority of vehicles on any given road are either "local" or regular users of that road, so some recognition of the fact there is a camera is realistic.

You end up with a situation where "I can't see a hazard, so there can't be one, and this must be a revenue-earner" is called.

Certainly around here, there are strict criteria for installing a camera (above average number of KSI (killed or serious injury collisions)) on that particular road. And although it isn't obvious why some sites have been chosen, the local authority are happy to provide the evidence.

The Police are onto a no-winner. They get to clear up the mess and at the same time get the flack for enforcement.

We all want cameras near OUR schools and homes (because WE don't speed there so won't ever get caught there?!) but not in other places where there is a chance we'd get caught.

There was often an arguement that unmarked Police cars were unfair. Burglars argue that Police methods are unfair too. No one likes to get caught, but becoming a victim is worse.

The real reason for petitions against cameras is folks think there is a realistic prospect of getting caught - and no one wants to admit it!

 

[JumJum]

"Whilst it's true that the only way cars will be 100% safe is if they're stationery it's hardly a practical solution is it?"

"If the law is wrong then we should press for the law to be changed, viz. increase the maximum speed where appropriate."

Very good points, really what’s happening now isn't just the speed camera's but also lowering of speed limits and an attack on cars. This petition is about more than speed limits is about letting the goverment know we are unhappy about a whole number of traffic policies.

Basically we need to be able to travel in an effective manner, so that we can all make money and have a thriving economy that can be taxed to pay for services.

Even reducing the speed of car/road traffic journeys by a couple of miles per hour costs tens of millions, one way of looking at it is this money could be spent reducing our poor infant mortality rate so saving babies in hospital. (I am aware that fatal road accidents are supposed to cost 1 million each, but even this costs is low compared to slowing down traffic too much)

I'd be happy to see us follow Italy's example where they have raised motorway limit to 93mph to save lives, they have proven through studies that people pay more attention to the road than at 80.

Only 4% of road deaths occur on motorways and only about 20 something % on country roads.

Yet two weeks ago on the way to a meeting in Scotland I saw two vans (one just after Lancaster well marked and one on the straight bit of the A74 across the border with poor markings), these vans could be put to far better use in the towns.

If they really wanted to save lots of lives the best way would be to educate or enforce the highway code on the group of road users most at risk and who pay least attention to the rules, pedestrians, ways to improve safety could be, prosecute for jaywalking like in the states, compulsory baby reigns for under 5's, pedestrian walkovers and fences to keep them out of danger.
This group is most at risk, yet we are still letting them die by concentrating on speed.

PS. I am not just having a go at pedestrians, I am a keen walker as well as driver, former member of the ramblers assoc and on the driving side, a current member of the Institute of Advance Motoring, but I do try to observe the highway code when doing either (apart from the odd bit of appropriate speed )

 

[sheffmax]

Originally posted by JumJum
compulsory baby reigns for under 5's

One way of getting rid of the royal family, I suppose.

 

[Brian WH]

Originally posted by sheffmax
One way of getting rid of the royal family, I suppose.

Keep to the point please, this is a Mercedes Forum.

 

[kikkthecat]

Originally posted by pepe

I think the second highest earning camera in bristol is a van mounted one which has been in the papers recently because it continually parks on zig zags and on double yellow lines !!

The real difference between 30 MPH and 40 MPH isn't the 10 MPH, it's the extra 45 ft it takes you to stop.

In the instance quoted above, all I can say is anyone speeding where zig zag lines are deserve all they get, and if a vehicle is parked on the zig zags and they still speed, they deserve even more. Always remember a speed limit is just that, a limit not a target.

I cant think of much that is more dangerous than doing away with the cameras and allowing individuals to set their own speed limits according to what THEY think is their own ability level, because those people are invariably wrong.

 

[Andrew]

Originally posted by kikkthecat
The real difference between 30 MPH and 40 MPH isn't the 10 MPH, it's the extra 45 ft it takes you to stop.

I'm sure most modern cars can stop well before that distance. Those distances quoted in the highway code are from a bygone era.

 

[Andrew]

Also double yellow lines are there for a reason. I.E. no parking at any time whatsoever. Fair enough an amubulance parked up attending to an accident. But not for the police to abuse and bend the rules to suit them.

 

[OGiii]

My objection is that Speed Cameras give Dibble the excuse that they are doing something to help road safety. In reality it's an easy cop which earns loads of money.

What about the true road safety issues that would take more effort to deal with.

I'll give you an example. One of my son's school is on a fairly busy road (30mph limit) about 1/2 mile from a motorway junction. Some to55ers drive past there as if they are still on the motorway - is there a camera there? No, because the vast majority of people drive past at a responsible speed and it wouldn't pay for itself. This morning I took him to school, crossing with the lollypop man on a zebra crossing, the first ar5e hole who was clearly gutted at having had to stop drove off while the lollypop man was still on the crossing, on my return crossing the lollypop man was stood stick upright trying to get somebody to stop, basically walking out to force them to! Why are people like this not 'policed', obviously because it would cost too much and the job can't be done by a camera.

Every time you go out in the car you see something that pi55es you off, and it's not always speeding motorists - under taking, lane hogging, mobile phones etc etc. Last night I saw 3 seperate cyclists all in dark clothing, all without lights. It'll be the poor car driver who gets the stick when he kills one of them - and will problably be accussed of speeding!

Here are a couple of interesting stats;
In 1999 Northamptonshire issued 4000 tickets - in 2000 it increased to 100,000 - what happened? Something in the water suddenly turn all the drivers in to crazed speed freaks?

Nationwide 2,000,000 tickets were issued in 2002, there were half that in '99 and only 300k in 1981!!

I don't condone inapproriate speed, and believe me I'm far from a saint, but lets get to grip with the real issues here.

 

[simonl]

Originally posted by Andrew
I'm sure most modern cars can stop well before that distance. Those distances quoted in the highway code are from a bygone era.

Whilst I agree with this, the thinking distance in the highway code is too short. It assumes a reaction time of 0.7s. A more realistic reaction time for a situation you are not prepared for is 1.7s. And at lower speeds the thinking distance takes a higher proportion of your overall stopping distance.

This week's auto express has a Gatso petition along similar lines.

I will be completing the form and sending it off.

 

[kikkthecat]

Originally posted by Andrew
I'm sure most modern cars can stop well before that distance. Those distances quoted in the highway code are from a bygone era.

Sadly this is part of the complacency that accompanies modern driving. If you look at simonl's post in this thread he says the highway code allows thinking time of 0.7 seconds but 1.7 secs would be more accurate, and if you break that down it gets quite scarey.

40 miles = 70400 yards and 1 hour = 3600 seconds
divide the 2 and the figure is 19.5 yards per second. I dont care how good your car is, on the basis of the reaction times quoted, at 40MPH, and depending on which figure you choose to believe you still travel anything between 14 and 34 yards before you even start to brake. A sobering thought.
I would love to see more cameras at the places they should be, schools, built up areas etc, and in that respect I agree with the petition but I still wont be signing it because there is no such thing as an inappropriate speed camera, only inappropriate speed. It doesn't matter where they put them, if one catches you out, it's because you broke the law.

 

[Flip]

So given that "Motorists want fewer speed cameras" as a headline is something akin to "Burglars want Police to stop working night shifts" or "BMW drivers want bigger vanity mirrors", why not turn the question around - if the petition was for cameras at particular locations, maybe that would help?

Our local authority produce a map of the county showing sites of serious & fatal collisions, and Speed Cameras. Difficult to argue with, and a real eye openner!!

:bannana:

 

[Dieter]

Hi (again),

I don't know from where you obtained a 1.7 sec thinking distance. Your'e assumption that this is a reaction time to an unexpected hazard is frankly ludicrous!!!

Driver's must be fully alert for all circumstance at all times and if I felt (that at 30mph) I would not be able to react for 75 feet (1.7 sec) I'd give up driving.

This is the nub of this issue. i.e. it's not speed per se which is dangerous it's 'c..p' drivers/driving. Thus the powers that be should focus more on these real issues not just cynically raise revenue.

I believe Autocar published a survey recently which showed that there were less cameras on Britain's 10 most dangerous roads than on the 10 least dangerous. Where's the sense in that and how/why did it occur?

I am NOT against Gatsos etc. per se I'm just against the principle of using them to raise revenue.

Cheers,

Dieter

 

[Flip]

Isn't the system now that all the money raised from fines, goes back into the Road Safety Partnerships? ie driver education, roads engineering and more enforcement (oh, and investigation of fatal & serious injury collisions...).

:bannana: