Calls for speed cameras!, oh god not again Options

[motormad]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/time-fo...ident-blackspot


Some people are calling for speed bumps on Bowling Green Road.
This is the 30mph section of "Tull Way", the road that goes up and along the back of the Wyvdale Garden Centre near the Thatcham/Newbury border.

Lets forget for a moment that SPEED DOES NOT CAUSE ACCIDENTS and you can crash just as badly at 30 as you can at 70, and these people are stupid to think that putting a speed camera will do anything other than distract motorists, and cause them to spend more time worrying about what speed they are doing than where they are going (which is already difficult enough for most people) - It's impossible to do more than 30 because the road is full of temporary traffic lights and is so pot-holed that you wouldn't do more than 15 on a good day.


So Mr Keith Woodhams.

We represent people and we need action; I’m tired of waiting year on year – I don’t want surveys.

“We don’t want to see someone get killed on that road because nobody has taken action.

“I don’t want to hear about more surveys, I want action – we are demanding that.

“We are trying to stop someone loosing control and killing someone.

“What on earth is wrong with this council – no more surveys.”

So you don't want people to do the surveys to see if there is any difference or benefit and instead to do something on your clearly highly educated whim. I drive down that road every day and I've not seen any "near misses". And speed does not cause people to lose control. That can happen at 30.

Thoughts?

[Simon Kirby]

Lets forget for a moment that SPEED DOES NOT CAUSE ACCIDENTS and you can crash just as badly at 30 as you can at 70...

I'm sorry motormad, but you're mistaken.

At 70 mph you have more than five times the energy than at 30 mph, and it's the energy that does the damage in an accident.

Your car's crumple zone can absorb a certain amount of energy, enough to preserve the integrity of the passenger cabin at 30 mph, but not at at 70 mph where that surplus crumples you.

At 30 mph a driver may well walk away from an accident, but even at 30 mph the pedestrian or motorcyclist won't.

But the speed you're driving isn't the whole story, because you're going to brake and swerve. Driving at 20 mph you may well have the distance to think and brake without actually having an accident at all. Drive faster and you travel that much further in your thinking distance, and it takes that much further to brake. So while you might avoid hitting the kiddie that runs into the road if you're doing 20 mph, at 30 mph you're still going fast enough when you hit to break their pelvis, and at 40 mph you kill them.

The real difficulty with speed is that people are not good at judging the risk, because basically it wasn't something that we needed in our evolutionary development avoiding lions on the African plains. We don't have a very good appreciation of speed, and we're also inclined to take disproportionate risks. It's not really our fault, we're just stupid like that. Enforcing speed limits is the only way to make our roads acceptable safe.

[dannyboy]

I'm sorry motormad, but you're mistaken.

At 70 mph you have more than five times the energy than at 30 mph, and it's the energy that does the damage in an accident.

Your car's crumple zone can absorb a certain amount of energy, enough to preserve the integrity of the passenger cabin at 30 mph, but not at at 70 mph where that surplus crumples you.

At 30 mph a driver may well walk away from an accident, but even at 30 mph the pedestrian or motorcyclist won't.

But the speed you're driving isn't the whole story, because you're going to brake and swerve. Driving at 20 mph you may well have the distance to think and brake without actually having an accident at all. Drive faster and you travel that much further in your thinking distance, and it takes that much further to brake. So while you might avoid hitting the kiddie that runs into the road if you're doing 20 mph, at 30 mph you're still going fast enough when you hit to break their pelvis, and at 40 mph you kill them.

The real difficulty with speed is that people are not good at judging the risk, because basically it wasn't something that we needed in our evolutionary development avoiding lions on the African plains. We don't have a very good appreciation of speed, and we're also inclined to take disproportionate risks. It's not really our fault, we're just stupid like that. Enforcing speed limits is the only way to make our roads acceptable safe.

well said.

[motormad]

I agree with what you're saying Simon.

I just don't think that a speed camera is a good solution, my problem is not speed cameras as such - it's people who think they save lifes (they don't, this is proven) and champion their existence with no evidence at all.
Speed cameras in Swindon removed - no raise in deaths or accident rates. Motorways, most of which have no speed cameras, again, the safest roads in the country.

If people paid attention this wouldn't be a problem, but as I've said with the amount of cars and people on the road it's very unfortunate that there will be accidents.
I don't think there have been any deaths on that stretch of road for a very very long time and aside from the ford KA incident (which we looked at and laughed because it was a KA) there haven't been any more problems than any other road.

My issue is the chaps opinion and demanding one NOW rather than waiting, as the council have already said (according to the article) for the survey results..

[dannyboy]

I agree with what you're saying Simon.

I just don't think that a speed camera is a good solution, my problem is not speed cameras as such - it's people who think they save lifes (they don't, this is proven) and champion their existence with no evidence at all.
Speed cameras in Swindon removed - no raise in deaths or accident rates. Motorways, most of which have no speed cameras, again, the safest roads in the country.

If people paid attention this wouldn't be a problem, but as I've said with the amount of cars and people on the road it's very unfortunate that there will be accidents.
I don't think there have been any deaths on that stretch of road for a very very long time and aside from the ford KA incident (which we looked at and laughed because it was a KA) there haven't been any more problems than any other road.

My issue is the chaps opinion and demanding one NOW rather than waiting, as the council have already said (according to the article) for the survey results..

If you are only travelling at the speed limit for that road ( or any other ) why are you so against speed cameras?

[motormad]

If you are only travelling at the speed limit for that road ( or any other ) why are you so against speed cameras?

You'd be happy having your actions monitored if you were not doing anything wrong?

FWIW I have no points on my license.

[On the edge]

,,,,,
My issue is the chaps opinion and demanding one NOW rather than waiting, as the council have already said (according to the article) for the survey results..

This is the key.

Reading through the article, its classic bit of LibDem politicing, That is, find a mention of some investigatory work the Council are quietly getting on with, just before the results are made public, go to the press with demands for instant action, backed up by some populist meaningless sound bites. Then, when the Council is ready to publish, claim the credit.

This is exactly what makes me so cynical of Local Government and so distrustful of its practitioners. Its all in the Campaign Book!

[dannyboy]

You'd be happy having your actions monitored if you were not doing anything wrong?

FWIW I have no points on my license.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a speed camera isn't passive. It only works if you are over the speed limit.

Having no points is only proof that you have never been caught driving against the law, not that you never have driven against the law.

and no, I have no problem being monitored. If I had I'd be living like Brill Lyle.

[Claude]

I don't have a problem with speed cameras - if you don't speed you won't get caught, that's fairly simple.

I have no idea what the one-off and ongoing costs of a speed camera is vs the revenue it might generate, if anyone has access to nationwide/force average data I'd be interested to read it.

I appreciate a speed camera may deter people from speeding as they pass the camera but not before or after, but, again, I don't have a problem with that.

I'm not familiar with the specific road/area but the reason it's being called for is because of a catalogue of incidents. It would be useful to have details of each incident & near miss, to know why/how it happened, and at what speed vehicles were travelling. Only with that information could you try and address the root cause(s). My guess is that information will never be known.

To some a speed camera is the obvious first step - it's a very visible statement and shows a willingness to take action. Whether it actually solves the problem or not time will tell.

Meanwhile, what other course of action could be followed? Does anyone have any counter-suggestions if a speed camera is deemed inappropriate?

[motormad]

Correct me if I'm wrong but a speed camera isn't passive. It only works if you are over the speed limit.

Having no points is only proof that you have never been caught driving against the law, not that you never have driven against the law.

and no, I have no problem being monitored. If I had I'd be living like Brill Lyle.

I never said I haven't driven against the law, I don't speed in build up areas. The camera doesn't affect me, but I don't just don't one with no reasoning. And I do not approve the attitude of Mr Woodridge in regards to his political agenda.

Speed Cameras are not going to fix an accident issue and slower drivers do not necessarily mean safer drivers - which is my point.

[Simon Kirby]

I agree with what you're saying Simon.

I just don't think that a speed camera is a good solution...

I don't particularly like speed cameras, and yes, I've been fined.

[GMR]

I used to live off Bowling Green Road in the 70s and I remember they had no paths down that road. People kept complaining until a motorcycle hit a baby and pram and killed the baby. Before you knew it they started putting a path in. Now I think that road is well lighted. Times change and new problems arrive.

[GMR]

I don't particularly like speed cameras, and yes, I've been fined.

I actually think speed camera's can actually do more harm than not. People ram on their breaks when they see a speed camera or slow right down. If drivers are not sure what the speed limit is in a certain area they slow down.

If you are somewhere like London and keep the right speed limit people get annoyed; they know were the camera's are and speed either side of it. So if you are following the rules you get a lot of abuse.

[dannyboy]

mandatory fitting of electronic speed limiters to all vehicles is the only answer. You enter an area where the limit is 30mph & your car will not go above 30mph etc etc.

pretty simple technology.

[On the edge]

mandatory fitting of electronic speed limiters to all vehicles is the only answer. You enter an area where the limit is 30mph & your car will not go above 30mph etc etc.

pretty simple technology.

Indeed! WBC actually have kit that could be very easily adapted to deliver another very effective solution which would probably be effective without the expense of installing tamper proof equipment in each vehicle, That is, why not simply install an uprated bollard device that pulls the sump off any vehicle going over it at more than 30mph? Cheap low cost solution...

I'm getting to like Big Brother!

[GMR]

mandatory fitting of electronic speed limiters to all vehicles is the only answer. You enter an area where the limit is 30mph & your car will not go above 30mph etc etc.

pretty simple technology.

I think that is a brilliant idea, the only problem is if the car had to speed up for some reason to save a life you are stuck. I would prefer that the car made a loud noise to say that you are going over the limit. Then there would be no excuse.

[Simon Kirby]

mandatory fitting of electronic speed limiters to all vehicles is the only answer. You enter an area where the limit is 30mph & your car will not go above 30mph etc etc.

pretty simple technology.

Like GMR, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this idea, but basically I like it.

I don't entirely buy the notion that it is ever necessary to break the limit - I would guess that there might be one or two times in a decade when breaking the speed limit made the positive difference between life and death, whereas there are some 2,000 people killed on the roads annually and in a large number of those excessive speed will have been a contributory factor.

My concern would be that it's another bit of complicated electronics to go wrong - it wouldn't be too helpful to be limited to 30 mph on a motorway for example, but I'm guessing it could be made reliable enough. I have a feeling the objection would be from those who wanted to break the speed limit, and that's just another good reason to implement the system.

[dannyboy]

Like GMR, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this idea, but basically I like it.

I don't entirely buy the notion that it is ever necessary to break the limit - I would guess that there might be one or two times in a decade when breaking the speed limit made the positive difference between life and death, whereas there are some 2,000 people killed on the roads annually and in a large number of those excessive speed will have been a contributory factor.

My concern would be that it's another bit of complicated electronics to go wrong - it wouldn't be too helpful to be limited to 30 mph on a motorway for example, but I'm guessing it could be made reliable enough. I have a feeling the objection would be from those who wanted to break the speed limit, and that's just another good reason to implement the system.

Trucks have limiters - 56mph om motorways, 40mph on single carriageways. That, albeit simpler system works well. I can't imaging that in this day & age it can't be made to work & work well for all vehicles & all roads.

Makes it very easy to spot the speeding trucks as they are the only ones in the middle lane ( normally Irish registered )

[Biker1]

Seems there is always this emphasis on speed.
I suppose it is because it is the easiest to police and convict?
I wonder what percentage of road accidents are caused by speeding?
How many are convicted of dangerous or careless driving compared with those for speeding?
There seems little emphasis on other bad driving such as mobile phone use, impatience, lane discipline, traffic light jumping, tailgating..............the list goes on.

[dannyboy]

Seems there is always this emphasis on speed.
I suppose it is because it is the easiest to police and convict?
I wonder what percentage of road accidents are caused by speeding?
How many are convicted of dangerous or careless driving compared with those for speeding?
There seems little emphasis on other bad driving such as mobile phone use, impatience, lane discipline, traffic light jumping, tailgating..............the list goes on.

don't worry - the driverless car will cure all of those too.

soon old fashioned driving will be something you do only at a designated circuit.