Safe Speed Forums

Precisely! And that's exactly what the camera culture encourages. Note that in each case the argument is proposed (and apparently accepted) that the driver was driving safely because they were complying with the speed limit, yet in each case they managed to hit a pedestrian. Now what does that tell you about speed limits as a measure of driving safety?


Actually that's not true at all! I would agree that the faster you strike them the more chance the pedestrian has of dying, but that has more to do with how you react than how fast you were travelling to start with. It's just as well, or the roads would be littered with mown down pedestrians!

Eeh Bah Gum! It's Chumpion!

Is thah tryin' to teach an owd medico dog new tricks?

Accident happened right in front of the scamera - and the whole ****** point per Aunty Mary is that :

"Cameras prevent accidents and slow down traffic!

And the pedestrians in each case could have been said to have been "liable" as one was drunk and partially sighted and simply j-walked into the path of the car, and the other stepped off the kerb without looking into path of oncoming vehicle!

Neither case was actually speeding, the camera did ensure this - but it could not prevent the accident from occurring either!

No-one disputes the fact that speed, and particularly inappropriately high speed, affects outcome - but death and serious injury can occur at speeds as low as 5-10mph - dependent upon where the victim is struck - and his/her genreal health at time of accident.

A case in point:

At least once a week I drive to the village of Grange over Sands, as it has an excellent new swimming pool (and some would say little else, but lets not go there... ).

Anyway, in their infinite wisdom, our local friendly Scammers have marked out a bay in the town centre for their talivan to perch on. This is handily close to a zebra crossing which joins two narrow pavements (about 3 foot wide on one side) with shops either side. When a few grockles are milling about the appropriate speed for this hazard doesn't even register on my speedo - I reckon not much more than about 5mph is safe, as people can emerge from the shop and be onto the crossing in the blink of an eye.

That this is considered a useful place to deploy a speed camera never ceases to amaze me. What exactly is the camera contributing, apart from distracting people who really need to be paying the closest possible attention to the road at that spot?

I don't know enough about the Daily Mail reported case (I'll ask), but let's deal with the Flint one. We're reading about coroners procedings and the Police have decided to take no action against the driver. Surely then there's no evidence available of the driver's "inadequacy". If the police have no such evidence, I simply don't understand what you can possibly base your interpretation on.

Spell it out for me please.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Any chance of a scan of that one? Anyone?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Argh! Driving through Grange is indeed an extremely traumatic experience! There are always people trying to park in impossibly small spaces in the main street, so smallish queues of traffic ALWAYS build up. Then there is a pedestrian crossing right at the bottom of a steep hill, and on either side of this steep hill there are shops with narrow pavements. At the top of the hill is a mini roundabout (the 'painted on' sort), the rules of which everyone disobeys. And the whole place is littered with old people! And they try and catch speeders in the middle of that lot? Anyone doing more than the speed limit there needs their brain checked..

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Interesting points. On safe roads like motorways there is plenty of scope for
checking the the speedo and it's easy to maintain a steady pace. Yet this is also the
safest place to exceed the limit. On dangerous roads, such as a twisty village centre
full of blind corners, it is essential to choose and control speed carefully. Yet that
speed may vary widely over a few metres, and we are cannot know precisely what it
is, numerically, at every point since there are few opportunities for speedo checking.

It almost seems ironic ... but also presents a dilemma for the cameraman: If I put my
shiny new toy on a modern, engineered road it will soon pay for itself, annoy many,
and probably have no effect on safety. Stick it in the village and I can punish (though not
necessarily change the behaviour of) some genuinely dangerous drivers, but risk distracting
the majority at the worst possible time; an effect compounded by the inevitable limit
reduction when the camera fails to earn its keep.

It is bizzare to suggest that any driver, no matter how experianced is alway able to feel what speed they are doing.

When we fisrt pull of the drive in the morning yes maybe. When you get on a dual or motorway yes for a while.

The problems arise when we come off the dual/motorway, we are used to a differant speed. Suddenly that 30 MPH feels too slow compared to how it felt in the morning.

It is a naive view to think that drivers can feel their speed all the time. It is a foolish view to make drivers spend so much time looking at their speedo to avoid being taxed. Less time looking at the road will always increase the risk of missing a potential hazard.

Accidents can only increase, as we put more and more distractions Like gatso around our roads. The reduction in speed limits have increased congestion as our journey times are increased, thus increasing our risk of accidents.

_________________
Steve