New speed cameras.

[cidersurfer]

1. 20 mph where there might be children playing is totally appropriate. Why would anyone want to risk a child's life for the sake of going quicker than is safe?

It's nothing to do with children, it's about risk assessment. The approach should be that all life is worth consideration not just kids. FWIW I think the bl##dy school run should be banned IMHO as they are the worst offenders on the road. Kids climbing all over the inside of the 4 x 4 with the driver ranting at them and not concentrating. Okay, it's a generalisation but you get the point.

I'm with motco, it doesn't catch the oiks who are the hazard as their cars aren't registered to the right address anyway and there is no deterrent. Cameras do not present the same effectiveness as the response trained copper in his jam sandwich. It's all about revenue.

[steve_m]

FWIW I think the bl##dy school run should be banned IMHO as they are the worst offenders on the road. Kids climbing all over the inside of the 4 x 4 with the driver ranting at them and not concentrating. Okay, it's a generalisation but you get the point.

I'm with motco, it doesn't catch the oiks who are the hazard as their cars aren't registered to the right address anyway and there is no deterrent. Cameras do not present the same effectiveness as the response trained copper in his jam sandwich. It's all about revenue.

I agree too, cameras raise money, plod saves lives.  They have replaced plod with cameras and deaths and serious injuries are rising at the moment after having been falling for 20 or so years.  The communist lentilists equate speed with danger and cameras with reducing speed and therefore reduced danger . . . it's dumbing down thinking, the kind of thinking that Bliar and his cronies have fostered.

Most schools don't even teach the cycling professiency test or the green cross code these days - that's scandalous.  If they showed kids the pics I saw when I was a kid they wouldn't walk in front of cars like they do now.

The roads and cars have changed but the driving test hasn't kept pace . . . we need to have regular re-training and encourage people to take more care in their driving, treat it as a learned skill not a right.

[franco12]

I think we're being a little too hasty saying that cameras don't save lives.

In 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain. This was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents, the lowest total for over 40 years.

The number of miles travelled has increased by 800 % since 1952.

So increase in road use & decrease in deaths- So what factors are involved-

Better Cars- Better Roads- Better Education- but  look at the curve below and examine what happens to road deaths after the speed cameras popped up in 1992.

You'd have expected the number of deaths on the road to have dropped dramatically after the mandatory seat belt legislation- But nothing that noticeable.

The first speed cameras were introduced in britain in 1992- and guess what...

Massive drop in fatalaties.

Stats from the national office of statistics

[cidersurfer]

In 2004, 671 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in Great Britain. This was 21 per cent of all deaths from road accidents, the lowest total for over 40 years.

Can you tell me how many of them were on their mobiles or texting or listening to their iPods? The driver is allowed to drive on the road and responsibility lies with pedestrians as well as the driver of the vehicle. How many pedestrians have been prosecuted for causing a road traffic collision due to their lack of care?   It could probably have been a lot lower. FWIW Car design has a lot to do with those statistics.

[franco12]

I made an assumption- in my previous post-

"Less Deaths- is a good thing".

I might be wrong- will have a think about it and come back later.

[michaelc]

It's no good having a pop at cameras generally - there are obviously places where they work - and I think average speed ones are much safer than Gatsos, 'cos they avoid the slow-down-speed-up syndrome.

It would be more effective to concentrate the bile on where they are disguised, badly placed or inappropriate - and where they might actually help but for unexplainable reasons, aren't there. On the A50 between M6 J20 and the A556 there have been four fatalities in the past couple of years due entirely to excess speed - but not a camera in sight - not even a mobile one. Yet in the centre of Knutsford, just after the limit drops down to 30, and where as far as I know there hasn't been a single incident, there's a virtually permanent camera in the back of a white van.

[cast iron]

1. 20 mph where there might be children playing is totally appropriate. Why would anyone want to risk a child's life for the sake of going quicker than is safe?

2. But obviously some people do, so the law has to be enforced somehow.

2. Speed bumps slow down ambulances and fire engines

3. Average speed cameras therefore seem a sensible answer to enforcing realistically set limits

4. But if the M-way speed limit was raised to an appropriate level I'd be more convinced that they're not just after my money

Are you suggesting that speed cameras will allow ambulances and  fire engines to go as quick as they need, and therfore still possibly kill a child?

Looking at Francos graph, the fatalities have been decreasing uniformly, therfore have cameras actually contributed?

[Boomy]

I think i have worked out the system they use for the limits set on some of these cameras anyway.

You can pretty much guarantee that if a drivers logic, experience, assessment and awareness dictates that say 50 mph is perfectly "safe" on a section of road, the limit set on the camera will be 40 mph or less.

If for years he or she has driven another section of road at 40 mph, the limit will now be 30 mph.Etc etc etc.

Despite the fact the driver would of adjusted accordingly (meaning sometimes slower, sometimes nearer their "safe" maximum) they are still caught and have to pay if they are not fully concentrating on the speedo.It's easy money because often they are using your own logic and experience against you.

To achieve 20 mph near many school run areas would be a dream come true for many by the way.Most drivers would never try to travel at over 20 mph simply because they can't, you have to give way at least 100 times trying to get through such roads these days.

These roads are often jammed solid with people who fight for spaces, parking where they like 2 hours before the kids even start to appear.Then it is often like someone stamped on an ants nest as they run across the road appearing from behind the 4x4's because "Mum" is too busy on the phone to hold their hand etc etc.

An hour later, they are all gone, the "danger" is gone.Kids can no longer run in front of your car and give you nightmares for the rest of your life as they bounce off the bonnet.

Yet here comes Mr Johnson on his way home from a late day at the office.Never had an accident in his life, a perfect driving record and he is caught doing 26 mph at 8.30 PM and fined.

Burn the child killing witch i say.

[steve_m]

I think we're being a little too hasty saying that cameras don't save lives.

There may be the odd camera that does, of course, but the principle and the general application of cameras does not make any difference.  They are used to raise money, lower noise, lower emissions etc, not lower lives)  If they genuinly had been proved to save lives we would have them everywhere.

We used to have the three E's, or was it 4 E's ?  Education, Engineering, Enforcement.  (Did I miss one ??) We have forgotten about Education and Engineering because they cost money, take time and don't generate revenue in a measurable way that modern politics requires.  Cameras do, they tick all the modern politico and enviro boxes but don't achieve the reduction required.

I'd ignore or at the very best be very sceptical about anything from the NAO, you've been reading the news over the last couple of months    

If you have a look at Safespeed there is a lot of statictical analysis that is far more useful than that published by the NAO including then page I've linked to about the regression to the mean.

Many USA states have decided not to implement speed cameras, Canada threw them out and Australia is turning against them after being one of the keenest advocates of cameras.

Even several UK police chiefs don't believe in them and have so far resisted their installation, Durham for example doesn't have fixed cameras, only mobile traps.

[michaelc]

Why was he 'working late at the office'? Bet his missus would like to know.

[Boomy]

Why was he 'working late at the office'? Bet his missus would like to know.

He was on the phone trying to find out why he was given a parking ticket by a commission based moped rider for stopping to help a road accident victim who had attempted to run across a dual carriageway.

[cidersurfer]

Nice one Boomy

[cidersurfer]

ABD carries a lot of useful information as well.

[Fat Albert]

Franco

Do you really believe what the government put up on their disinformation sites?

For example, the average number of road related fatalities over the past 6 years is approximately 4,200 per year. Every government stat published states that approximately 800 (or 19%) are drink related each year.

This is true, unfortunately it suits them not to tell you that those figures include drunk pedestrians hit by sober drivers and drunk passengers killed in collisions with sober drivers.

Governments lie all the time about everything.

And to repeat, this government has funded a national database which stores, forever, the ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) information of EVERY car that EVER passes an ANPR camera. The evidence from these cameras has already been used to support criminal prosecutions. There are plans to extend the ANPR system throughout the 'A' road network over the whole country.

They are watching you, every day, every journey. This Labour government has presided over the biggest loss of personal freedom in the history of British democracy.

[Boomy]

ABD carries a lot of useful information as well.

Good site that.

Looks like being able to have a blat on a country lane will soon be coming to an end aswell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....d19.xml

Before long the last place you will be able to enjoy your vehicle will be the race track.Well, so long as you keep it quiet.