Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Sep 16, 2019 00:03

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 20:27 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Here
Leicester Mercury wrote:
Almost a third of speed fines in Leicestershire from 10 cameras
Monday, February 22, 2010, 09:31

Nearly a third of all motorists caught speeding in Leicestershire are snared by 10 cameras, it has emerged.
Last year, 17,426 drivers were caught breaking the speed limit by nine cameras in the city and one in the county.
Based on the minimum £60 penalty for a motorist caught speeding, the 10 cameras have generated more than £1m in fines.
The cameras have also seen 52,278 penalty points slapped onto drivers' licences – enough to disqualify 4,356 drivers.
The busiest cameras are in Aylestone Road, near Banks Road; two in King Richard's Road; London Road, near to University Road; Welford Road, near to Leicester Prison; two in Tigers Way; Uppingham Road, near to Peters Drive; one mobile camera site in London Road, near to Leicester racecourse, and Station Road, in North Kilworth.
Hema Lad, from Leicestershire Safety Camera Partnership, who released the figures, said: "These are central roads with high volumes of traffic even outside peak times, so automatically it is more likely the numbers will be higher compared to a static camera out in the county.
"But, equally, if they are very busy roads people should be more careful because not only are there more cars and therefore more danger, but, in the city there are more pedestrians."
The other 117 cameras, which includes 67 mobile camera sites and 11 cameras that only record motorists jumping a red light, recorded 40,120 offences over the same period.
The remaining cameras generated in excess of £2.4m in fines and 120,360 penalty points.
Money generated from speeding fines goes directly to the Government, not to the local authority.
Critics say the cameras are solely as a source of revenue.
However, before each camera is placed, the partnership must meet criteria based on the number of collisions resulting in injury and evidence of a speeding problem.
Since speed cameras were introduced there has been a 63% reduction in collisions resulting in fatality or serious injury at camera sites.
There has also been a 31% reduction in personal injury casualty collisions.

Ms Lad said: "Just looking at the fact that collisions are going down and that we are catching less people shows us that the problem is reducing and that the cameras are working.
"We are not trying to catch people, we are trying to deter people from speeding."
Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said he was in support of speed cameras, but added that many drivers would not learn to slow down until they were hit in the pocket.
He said: "To some extent people learn, but perhaps there are people that have not had their first ticket. The first ticket is the one that has the biggest effect."
Oh how little they understand what it happening ! They are not fit for purpose.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 20:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Leicester Mercury wrote:
However, before each camera is placed, the partnership must meet criteria based on the number of collisions resulting in injury and evidence of a speeding problem.
Since speed cameras were introduced there has been a 63% reduction in collisions resulting in fatality or serious injury at camera sites.
There has also been a 31% reduction in personal injury casualty collisions.

You must know by now what I'm thinking.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 22:54 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Steve wrote:
You must know by now what I'm thinking.

Oh yes indeed it screams a complete lack of understanding about road accidents and road safety. I can easily throw everything at them from 85%ile, RTTM especially and of course how speed and speeding is totally misunderstood. So sad.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 23:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 17:12
Posts: 618
Location: Borough of Queens, NYC, NY USA
What sort of dangers might entail from accusing the Leicester Mercury (in this example) of being complicit with the 'speed kills' agenda?

Or is the Leicester Mercury already known to be a government owned and operated institution?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 01:06 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
The Rush wrote:
What sort of dangers might entail from accusing the Leicester Mercury (in this example) of being complicit with the 'speed kills' agenda?
Or is the Leicester Mercury already known to be a government owned and operated institution?

I wasn't it is the people within the article - sometime the paper fails to show who wrote the article and I then place the paper within the quote tags ...
I thought I was clear but if not then I apologise - to be clearer I am referring to :
Hema Lad, from Leicestershire Safety Camera Partnership, and Andrew Howard of the AA - IMHO of course !
the RTTM facts are ignored in spite of the fact that they have been proven to be unaccounted for and so the 30% figure quoted is really only 5% making the whole system become highly questionable.
The AA's (Automobile Association) are aware of the stats too and know from their own regular survey's and the media that approx 75% of people still speed, so are people really slowing due to a ticket ?- I think not.
So yes they are all unfit for purpose in my honest opinion as they are deliberately concentrating on speed alone as a factor of safety and yet it is far more involved.
The hint that fatalities are down are no surprise and during a recession people drive more 'defensively' and also go less far, less often and so reducing exposure to danger.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 17:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
Leicester Mercury wrote:
However, before each camera is placed, the partnership must meet criteria based on the number of collisions resulting in injury and evidence of a speeding problem.
Since speed cameras were introduced there has been a 63% reduction in collisions resulting in fatality or serious injury at camera sites.
There has also been a 31% reduction in personal injury casualty collisions.

You must know by now what I'm thinking.

Not any more they don't, perhaps someone should tell them!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 17:26 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
Leicester Mercury wrote:
However, before each camera is placed, the partnership must meet criteria based on the number of collisions resulting in injury and evidence of a speeding problem.
Since speed cameras were introduced there has been a 63% reduction in collisions resulting in fatality or serious injury at camera sites.
There has also been a 31% reduction in personal injury casualty collisions.

You must know by now what I'm thinking.

Not any more they don't, perhaps someone should tell them!

Should we be asking ourselves why they don't?
Should we also be asking ourselves why the SCPs continue to perpetuate their misrepresentation?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 17:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
If this headline is true then we might infer the following:

- the speed limit is incorrect at the camera location as so many drivers perceive it safe at a higher speed;
- the presence of a camera has been ineffective at slowing down drivers and thus it should be replaced by other speed control measures.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 17:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
malcolmw wrote:
If this headline is true then we might infer the following:

- the speed limit is incorrect at the camera location as so many drivers perceive it safe at a higher speed;
- the presence of a camera has been ineffective at slowing down drivers and thus it should be replaced by other speed control measures.

You could also infer:
- the driver didn't know the speed limit
- the driver didn't know what speed he was driving at
- the driver didn't care what speed he was driving at
- the driver didn't know how to read the speed limit
- the driver was practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was :lol:

I don't believe my list is exhaustive but it trumps yours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:11 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
If this headline is true then we might infer the following:

- the speed limit is incorrect at the camera location as so many drivers perceive it safe at a higher speed;
- the presence of a camera has been ineffective at slowing down drivers and thus it should be replaced by other speed control measures.

You could also infer:
- the driver didn't know the speed limit
- the driver didn't know what speed he was driving at
- the driver didn't care what speed he was driving at
- the driver didn't know how to read the speed limit
- the driver was practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was :lol:

I don't believe my list is exhaustive but it trumps yours.

You could also infer:
- needlessly low limits eroded respect for that law (wiping out your point about care)
- needlessly low limits resulted with accidental but safe creep of speed (wiping out your point about knowing the limit and knowing the speed)
- the driver wasn’t practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was (see how easily that was turned around?)

Also not exhaustive, but now trumps yours.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
If this headline is true then we might infer the following:

- the speed limit is incorrect at the camera location as so many drivers perceive it safe at a higher speed;
- the presence of a camera has been ineffective at slowing down drivers and thus it should be replaced by other speed control measures.

You could also infer:
- the driver didn't know the speed limit
- the driver didn't know what speed he was driving at
- the driver didn't care what speed he was driving at
- the driver didn't know how to read the speed limit
- the driver was practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was :lol:

I don't believe my list is exhaustive but it trumps yours.

You could also infer:
- needlessly low limits eroded respect for that law (wiping out your point about care)
- needlessly low limits resulted with accidental but safe creep of speed (wiping out your point about knowing the limit and knowing the speed)
- the driver wasn’t practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was (see how easily that was turned around?)

Also not exhaustive, but now trumps yours.

I don't think so at all, very poor. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:35 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Greenshed, Have you any thoughts as to why SO MANY drivers:

- didn't know the speed limit
- didn't know what speed he was driving at
- didn't care what speed he was driving at
- didn't know how to read the speed limit
- was practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was

AT THOSE CAMERAS IN PARTICULAR and not all the cameras in general?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Mole wrote:
Greenshed, Have you any thoughts as to why SO MANY drivers:

- didn't know the speed limit
- didn't know what speed he was driving at
- didn't care what speed he was driving at
- didn't know how to read the speed limit
- was practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was

AT THOSE CAMERAS IN PARTICULAR and not all the cameras in general?

Yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 18:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
I don't think so at all, very poor. :lol:

That's rich :D from someone who can't bring themselves to acknlowledge something so straightfoward and proven as RTTM.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 00:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
GreenShed wrote:
Mole wrote:
Greenshed, Have you any thoughts as to why SO MANY drivers:

- didn't know the speed limit
- didn't know what speed he was driving at
- didn't care what speed he was driving at
- didn't know how to read the speed limit
- was practising the Safespeed methodology and got caught out because he wasn't as observant as he thought he was

AT THOSE CAMERAS IN PARTICULAR and not all the cameras in general?

Yes.


Fancy illuminating us then??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 02:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 19:11
Posts: 172
Location: Southampton
If so many drivers are still exceeding the speed limit and accident rates are going down then surely this shows that speed is not the main cause of accidents, which we all know from the Government's own statistics.

It is interesting to see the AA's stance, which is ironic seeing they were first formed to protect motorists from the the first speed limit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 02:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
whynot wrote:
If so many drivers are still exceeding the speed limit and accident rates are going down then surely this shows that speed is not the main cause of accidents, which we all know from the Government's own statistics.

.

Strange - we have an unbiased whynot on 34 posts wondering why speed is not the "instant killer " and Greenshed " on nearly 400 ( problematic posts) trying to smokescreen prioblems .Don't his say something about Green whatever he is .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
botach wrote:
whynot wrote:
If so many drivers are still exceeding the speed limit and accident rates are going down then surely this shows that speed is not the main cause of accidents, which we all know from the Government's own statistics.

.

Strange - we have an unbiased whynot on 34 posts wondering why speed is not the "instant killer " and Greenshed " on nearly 400 ( problematic posts) trying to smokescreen prioblems .Don't his say something about Green whatever he is .

Oh dear, I'm on the run.
One unsupported and speculative sentence and we have the answer or is it you are only accepting what you want to hear? I do believe you are only accepting supportive statements whereas others may be "problematic".
So many drivers are exceeding the speed limit but are there as many exceeding it as there was 10 years or 5 years ago? Perhaps not, measurements indicate not as well as the published figures.
Are some cameras in positions that are likely to detect more offences than others? Yes there is.
Do some cameras get activated more than others? Yes they do.
If some cameras are activated more than others does their rate of detection differ from those that are activated less? Not always.
Why are some cameras activated more than others? Various reasons.

So do you really have the word of the prophet? I'll tell you whynot; because you only read and accept what you want and are still prepared to make up most of what you write.

I make no smoke, I just challenge your comfortable, inaccurate and insignificant opinion. Keep it up, more silly conclusions like yours make you come over as even sillier than you really are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:07 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Nice one Confucius! :clap: I particularly like:

GreenShed wrote:
Do some cameras get activated more than others? Yes they do.
Why are some cameras activated more than others? Various reasons.


Profound or what?! :roll:

So, are you going to illuminate us and answer my earlier question????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Oh dear, I'm on the run.

...

I make no smoke, I just challenge your comfortable, inaccurate and insignificant opinion. Keep it up, more silly conclusions like yours make you come over as even sillier than you really are.

Ohh, let me play.

To build on my earlier list:

The thing I find most telling about you is your continued inability to adequately respond to the more simple direct questions asked of you, I choose to read into that; some recently from just me:

here (this thread)
here (how I got an NIP cancelled without going to court. Read on!!)
here and here (lidar - the 'expert witless' Frank Garrett dropping himself in it)
here (Question about specs)
here (Average speed cameras installed in neighbourhoods)
here (Enforcement thresholds) - this is a good one (the fatality gap),
here (Night cameras plan to catch Cumbria's bad drivers),
here (SPECS3),
here (Time thieves),
here (Cameras 'do not reduce crashes'),
here (Accidents up after red light cameras installed in LA),
here (Speedos),
here (Who should be offered a SAC?),
here ("Fatals Down")

Your response to all of those was:
:tumbleweed:

We've not got you 'on the run' at all have we! :lol:


Who are you Greenshed? We have the right to know if your efforts are to your advantage if those efforts can or has affected cases/policy.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.597s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]