Sp!ke
Administrator
Interesting article...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What a fascinating and well researched piece. Every motorist should read it. And every MP.
"A child walks into the road the raod without looking. The cause of the accident is not the speed of the car, it is the child's lack of attention. The car is travelling at 15 mph and the child is badly bruised but back at school in a few days. The car is travelling at 30 mph and the child never returns to school. So, although speed may not have caused the accident, it does decide the outcome; and it will always be so: the relative speeds of the objects involved, determines the damage, injury, deaths. When the mother hears the screech of breaks outside her house, her concern is not the cause of the accident, it is the outcome. Speed kills.
Posted by Paul Randall on November 12, 2007 9:39 AM
"
Andy
I agree with most of your very valid points but the paragraph I have highlighted does you no justice and is unfair. ANY camera that consistantly records a HIGH number of speeding motorists over an extended period of time is in my own personal opinion wrongly sited and I say that with certain proviso's. Once the high numbers are noted then the local authority has a responsibilty to investigate the reasons why this is happening. If they just sit back and collect the fines then that camera is no more than a revenue collector.However, I have challenged any readers to demonstrate with facts that cameras are placed with a revenue objective in mind. It doesn't surprise me that no-one has. We have opinions on their siting - I had strong opinions about one and so found out about it and it had met all the rules for siting AND had reduced accidents on the stretch of road.
I agree with most of your very valid points but the paragraph I have highlighted does you no justice and is unfair. ANY camera that consistantly records a HIGH number of speeding motorists over an extended period of time is in my own personal opinion wrongly sited and I say that with certain proviso's. Once the high numbers are noted then the local authority has a responsibilty to investigate the reasons why this is happening. If they just sit back and collect the fines then that camera is no more than a revenue collector.
The next example is historical, but it will still apply at numerous locations nationwide.
A few years ago there were extended roadworks on the M42. The repairs, labour etc were all shut-down over the extended Christmas peroiod and for mile after mile there was unobstructed three lane motorway with NO roadworks, no workers ANYWHERE, yet the 50mph camera's were still flashing away. That to me is unjustifiable, unfair and contributes nothing to road safety. You can dismiss these points and say they don't count, that is your right, but to me they are simply revenue collectors that help fill the coffers of the government.
Of course there is a place for enforcement of our speed limits and speed camera's are a great aid, but it is very rare to see them located outside our schools and the honest reason for this is because they will not detect the numbers that they might if located elsewhere.
Regards
John
Example 2 - I would assume that the speed restriction was also in force, otherwise the camera evidence would be null-and-void. Roadworks are usually removed during holiday periods to reduce congestion (on example of good thinking ) but you'll often find that the surface is not adequate for the usually rated speed of 70 which is maybe why the restriction is kept in force.
Regarding the reasons for siting camera's they are a great idea and when genuinely applied I fully support them, but this criteria is definitely, undeniably sometimes abused in our area. We have the example of the deer jumping into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Exceeding the speed limit was certainly not an issue but the camera was still approved.Example 1 - You would need to know the criteria for a camera being there in the first place. Excessive speed on it's own is not a valid legal reason for a speed camera to be positioned in a particular location. There may be various risk factors involved, etc, etc. However, it must be doing something as these are not cheap to run (you can get figures easily from your local governing authority). All the time people are whizzing by clocking up points and fines would eventually remove them from the road (through banning) - OK, we know that's doesn't always happening but you see where I am going.
Motorway example,Mr E said:Example 2 - I would assume that the speed restriction was also in force, otherwise the camera evidence would be null-and-void. Roadworks are usually removed during holiday periods to reduce congestion (on example of good thinking ) but you'll often find that the surface is not adequate for the usually rated speed of 70 which is maybe why the restriction is kept in force.
If you can't understand the criteria then what chance the rest of us. I totally agree about having cameras with time sensitive activation, a great idea and one I fully endorse along with traffic light controlled round-abouts Being stopped at 3am at an empty roundabout just because the traffic lights are activated is extremely frustrating.Mr E said:I agree that cameras should be sited at schools and other locations, and perhaps be time sensitive too. I had the technicalities explained in great detail to me which I didn't fully understand (not my field of expertise this radar stuff) but fixed and mobile sites also have to fit in with a number of "environmental" criteria too in order to work properly.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.