Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 00:23

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 19:45 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
The Sun - original story here.
Daily Telegraph here
Daily Telegraph - Andy Bloxham wrote:
Top ten speed cameras identified
By Andy Bloxham - 6:58AM GMT 31 Oct 2011

The top ten speed cameras by revenue have been identified and they take £3 million a year from motorists.

Britain has around 6,000 speed cameras, which generate £100m a year in tickets. Photo: ALAMY

A single temporary camera on the A1(M) southbound, between junctions four and three in Hertfordshire, captured an average of 789 drivers a month.

If each driver received a £60 fixed penalty, that would raise £568,080 a year, making it the most profitable camera.

In second place was a fixed camera on the A3 on Anglesea Road in Portsmouth, which caught an average of 537 motorists a month, or £387,000 a year.

Third place went to a site on the A40 Western Avenue in London, where 499 speeders per month were found, on average, making an estimated £359,000 in fines.

A camera on the M11 in Essex, where Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, was caught and allegedly asked his ex-wife to take his penalty points, caught an average of 176 motorists a month.

The worst-performing speed trap was one on the A348 in Ferndown, Dorset, which caught no speeders in three years.

The Sun, which compiled the figures using Government information, found the most perilous route for fines was a 12-mile stretch of seafront in Brighton, East Sussex, which is lined with 11 cameras that caught 18,045 drivers in three years.

Britain has around 6,000 speed cameras, which generate £100m a year in tickets.

A spokesman for Drivers’ Alliance told the Sun: “Cameras don't improve safety. They're often placed to generate maximum revenue.”

A spokesman for the road safety charity Brake said: “They are an extremely effective way of enforcing the law, reducing speeds and preventing tragedies.”

One of the inventors of speed cameras was Maurice Gatsonides, a Dutch rally driver who developed the “Gatso” camera as a training tool to improve his cornering speed.
I have been on the radio today talking about this (BBC Radio Lincolnshire) which saw the Speed Camera Partnership invite me onto a Speed Awareness Course which I will be most interested to attend! :)
It is utterly shameful that proper policies are not yet in place to rid this Country of this roadside menace.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2011 14:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07
Posts: 248
No, but at the same time, at least you are standing up and fighting for the silent majority and common sense. Brighton seafront is a nightmare. And largely pointless. During busy times you cannot exactly get up much speed along there due to the amount of lights.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 14:37 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 14:16
Posts: 2
It is obvious by these top 10 revenue generating cameras, that they do little for road safety and the speeds the prosecuted motorists were doing would suggest that the speed limit is too low, which to me is a common problem all over the country.

I use the motorway every day for work and if I sit in the middle lane cruising behind the cars in front I will be doing just over 80mph, which is above the guidelines of 10% + 2 mph, so does that mean we are all motoring criminals or are the speed limits too low.

Modern cars with modern brakes make motoring much safer than it used to and the technology is improving safety every year, but when was the last time our speed restrictions were looked at.

Speed cameras are in place for one thing only and it's nothing to do with road saftey.

Where speed is concerned we live in a nanny state and it's time that changed, why can't the government keep up with the times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 15:00 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
volvster wrote:
... why can't the government keep up with the times.

Because of people like BRAKE there is a significant minority who find setting speed limits in a proper scientific way unacceptable. These people, however misguided, have votes.

BRAKE should subtitle their campaign "the knee-jerk response to road safety". There is no sense, only an emotional appeal.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 18:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3428
Quote:
but when was the last time our speed restrictions were looked at.


Unfortunately, the car hating Labour government, insisted that all local councils did a speed limit review of all their A and B roads by 2011 or 2012 (not sure which) but this is why so many limits have changed (for the worse) over the last few years.
Unfortunately speed limit guidelines set out by the Dept. for Transport, in 2006, are totally ignored by local councils, in favour of the "guidelines" of more local road safety "experts", like Mrs Smith down the road who has just bought a house on a main road and realised she doesn't like traffic and the councillor who wants to make a name for himself in the parish.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 23:29 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 14:16
Posts: 2
I saw on the news that after the recent crash on the M5, that the 'Campaign Against Speed' were quick to pounce on the fact that speed had yet again contributed to a serious accident, and it was a good reason that the speed limit should not be raised to 80mph on motorways.

I could have throttled the dozy misguided cow, as eye witnesses have already said that there was a thick blanket of smoke across the motorway from a nearby fireworks display and after the cars in front braked everyone behind just piled in causing the resulting carnage, but if they had been doing 60mph there would still have been a bad accident as most motorists dont expect to find cars stopped in front of them on a motorway, the truth is, as I mentioned in my original post, if the speed limit is raised to 80mph, then all that will happen is that most motorist would be driving at a legal speed.

I was told by a police motorway patrol sergeant that unless you were driving dangerously or out of character with the cars around you, that they would be unlikely to stop you until you exceeded 85mph, which I think is the police using their discression wisely, or they would be stopping virtually every car they sat behind.

I may seem like I am encouraging speeding, but I own a Volvo S60 T5, which the police themselves use on the motorway, I have passed my Advanced driving test and I hold a Motor Sports Organisation license, so I think I'm a compident driver and believe that on open motoways that safe driving can be achieved at speeds of up to 90mph without the need for speed camaeras. and most accidents on motorways are caused by people who can't drive at 50mph let alone anything faster or the continual lane changers who should be banned from using motorways and I blame the Dept of Transport for allowing people to pass their driving test without ever setting tyre on a motorway.

volvster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 16:56 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 16:35
Posts: 1
A few years ago I managed to get up to 9 points (I'm clear now... phew). I got two SP30s on the same day, from the same camera, one from the front of the van and one from the rear. I've been driving since 1977 and the three SP30s that made up my 9 points were all obtained within a couple of months. A fully grown man with 4 children I actually wept. I thought that I would find the next three years almost impossible to get through. In fact, I would say I was so obsessed with keeping my eyes peeled for the cameras that I was barely paying attention to the road... in fact it was so damned dangerous that any notion of speed cameras being for 'safety' is a complete joke.

I do not want to break the law. I don't drive too fast. I obey speed limits and always have done. Each of my SP30s was questionable to say the least. However, I didn't challenge them as I should have done.

As an alternative to these ridiculous cash cows that local councils and police forces employ for our 'safety' (yeah right) I am 100% behind the signs that flash your current speed at you. These make me slow up immediately... and the thought of people behind me seeing me do this is embarrassing. These things WORK. But of course, they don't generate any income and they don't keep us plebs in our place.

I may be old, I may be cynical... but I'm convinced that I am right. Speed cameras CAUSE more accidents than they prevent.

I now have a satnav that shouts at me when fixed cameras are nearby. I just don't get it... how is that allowed? How can that make me a better, more alert driver? It makes one wonder if TomTom might have a speed camera manufacturing arm... :tumbleweed:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 19:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
:welcome: volvster
volvster wrote:
It is obvious by these top 10 revenue generating cameras, that they do little for road safety and the speeds the prosecuted motorists were doing would suggest that the speed limit is too low, which to me is a common problem all over the country.
Many speed limits have been changed from this 85th %ile to the average mean. Since many motorists are now too scared (for their licences) to dare to go over the posted limit it can be hard to access what the 85th%ile might be (on some roads and in some locations). The previous surveys took a straight dry road and good conditions with no obvious reasons to otherwise slow.
volvster wrote:
I use the motorway every day for work and if I sit in the middle lane cruising behind the cars in front I will be doing just over 80mph, which is above the guidelines of 10% + 2 mph, so does that mean we are all motoring criminals or are the speed limits too low.
The normal actions of the responsible and competent motorists should be deemed legal. However I would never advise that you 'just' sit in the middle lane of course.
volvster wrote:
Modern cars with modern brakes make motoring much safer than it used to and the technology is improving safety every year, but when was the last time our speed restrictions were looked at.
This is true and braking distances can be significantly reduced for modern cars, but if a motorist is failing to pay proper attention and crucial clues are missed, then all the braking in the world will not necessarily stop you in time.
This current review to 80mph is sensible and much more in keeping with the 85th%ile but no reports exist (that I am aware of) to verify what the current 85th%ile truly is.
volvster wrote:
I saw on the news that after the recent crash on the M5, that the 'Campaign Against Speed' were quick to pounce on the fact that speed had yet again contributed to a serious accident, and it was a good reason that the speed limit should not be raised to 80mph on motorways.
A very ill conceived move.
volvster wrote:
...I was told by a police motorway patrol sergeant that unless you were driving dangerously or out of character with the cars around you, that they would be unlikely to stop you until you exceeded 85mph, which I think is the police using their discression wisely, or they would be stopping virtually every car they sat behind.
Good traffic police that recognise the balance of appropriate and proper enforcement do exist, but they ought to be the norm not the exception. Much is wrong with the policing of our roads and the loss of much of the Traffic Patrols is a big reason why we now have seriously low driving / riding standards as bad habits become standard. See topic here on the M5 crash.
volvster wrote:
... and believe that on open motoways that safe driving can be achieved at speeds of up to 90mph without the need for speed camaeras.
Safe driving /riding can, and was, achieved on our roads without a single speed camera in sight. During this time and for many many decades prior to this we held the safest roads in the world, however we no longer hold this accolade, and haven't done so, since the advent of the speed camera onto our road network in spite of other improvements.
volvster wrote:
and most accidents on motorways are caused by people who can't drive at 50mph let alone anything faster or the continual lane changers who should be banned from using motorways and I blame the Dept of Transport for allowing people to pass their driving test without ever setting tyre on a motorway.
Whilst we know that the motorists who sit within the lower percentage capabilities it is not necessarily related to their specific speed rate. (here and here) We have a webpage that shows all the effects of speed cameras on our roads - here.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 19:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
:welcome: einstein
einstein wrote:
.... In fact, I would say I was so obsessed with keeping my eyes peeled for the cameras that I was barely paying attention to the road... in fact it was so damned dangerous that any notion of speed cameras being for 'safety' is a complete joke.
Sadly your tale is all too common and the effect of the speed camera in this way also common, but that has led to accidents and when people have died it is all too tragic.
einstein wrote:
I do not want to break the law.... Each of my SP30s was questionable to say the least. However, I didn't challenge them as I should have done.
There are clear operational guidelines that when in breech of them, it would be very sensible to query those actions - or lack thereof etc. Many don't query the NIP's and just accept the points as it makes 'life' less stressful and somewhat easier. They rely on this and the fines to encourage automated compliance without consideration of those effects that it encourages. (Namely worse motoring skills not better.) We can never measure safe driving (riding) by mph.
einstein wrote:
... I am 100% behind the signs that flash your current speed at you. These make me slow up immediately... and the thought of people behind me seeing me do this is embarrassing. These things WORK....
They are actually 9 times cheaper than speed cameras. They are either phrased as SID (Speed Indicator Device) or VAS (Vehicle Activated Sign), and yes they do work, and people do slow.
To have Councils spend our precious resources on the wrong road safety system/s, is disgraceful, when (in our opinion) the case is proven that they do not work and can never improve road safety. When only 5% of accidents have speed as a contributory factor, (not the cause), all one can hope for then is that the effect of an accident might be reduced! Hardly the actions of a responsible Council, who are meant to be doing all that they can to prevent accidents by spending money wisely on proper road engineering and science.
einstein wrote:
I may be old, I may be cynical... but I'm convinced that I am right. Speed cameras CAUSE more accidents than they prevent.
We and others still await any concrete proof that any speed camera anywhere has managed to prevent one accident.
einstein wrote:
I now have a satnav that shouts at me when fixed cameras are nearby. I just don't get it... how is that allowed? How can that make me a better, more alert driver? It makes one wonder if TomTom might have a speed camera manufacturing arm... :tumbleweed:
We do encourage many good motoring abilities, and good observation is one of those prime requirements, along with Consideration, Courtesy, Confidence, Anticipation, Awareness, Attitude, (Attention), Space all around you (for your mistakes and others), Two sec gap, Time to Travel or COAST.
TomTom did get into trouble when it sold (Australia) the feed back of all of its clients who had sped on certain roads and so the Authorities appointed cameras accordingly. They do not (that I am aware of) have any link (other than this) to any speed camera industry profit or manufacture. There was an honest approach that if people know where they are then they have no excuse to then receive a NIP from one. The original scanner receivers were simply picking up an output signal (or wavelength - I am sure others can correct me), and as the speed cameras have evolved so have the locations and types of equipment and how they are identified. Many including myself notify their SatNav provider any otherwise unknown location of every speed camera device. each Council can provide locations of all known speed camera operations and it is the updated database versions that the Sat Nav Companies obtain and try to keep up to date.
Some Police/Councils are trying to obtain the ability to locate a speed camera operation on entire stretches of road, thus seriously increasing the paranoia that already exists.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.216s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]