CATSEYES FOR SPEED TRAPS
Catseyes are set to become speed traps after Britain's top traffic officer revealed plans to hide tiny cameras in the reflective road studs.

Richard Brunstrom, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, says the Catseyes cameras will help trap persistent speeding motorists.

The new cameras will sit inside the Catseyes and when a speeding car races over the device, it will break an infrared beam triggering the camera to snap the number plate.

Mr Brunstrom says the new devices are needed to help control Britain's "lawless" roads and motorways.

"Its all about bringing road policing into core police work," he says.

By law, speed cameras have to be clearly visible but the new plans could go against government guidelines.

Road safety groups have criticised the plan as a secret money-making scheme.

A spokesman for the AA said the public would see the Catseyes cameras as a "devious" ploy to raise money and the RAC complained Mr Brunstrom was using "Big Brother tactics" to police UK traffic.

Malaysia already uses similar technology where the cameras can instantly check if your car is taxed and insured.

If they do that, i think i'll be keeping a hammer in the car.

If i see any, i guess it'll be 'hammer time'!

Excellent idea! I'm all for it...

FAR easier to "blind" than current devices! :evil:

its just another cash cow for the goverment this is big brother gone mad :D

One thing I can never understand....

Why all the animosity towards sped cameras? They are not 'traps' out to catch you all out. They are there to stop unlawful speeding! Do you all have the same hatred of burgler alarms (damn them for stopping us from breaking in if we want to!)

Why do drivers seem to think that a 30 limit means, ooh, 40-45 and curses to anyone who tries to stop them speeding?

pity they don't put as much effort into catching murderers, rapists and paedophiles eh?

too easy to target the motorist...

Ah...the age old "We are being victimised" arguement.

Simple fact...if a camera could catch a murderer, then they would use it. Unfortunately you cannot place a camera in a 'murder hotspot' as you don't know where it will take place.

Speeding hotspots are known, and so cameras can be placed there. Sad to say, but speeding IS a crime.

What about cameras in shops to catch thieving? Are they a problem too (if only they would put as much effort into catching murderers etc as they do for someone stealing a Mars bar)

Should we allow all minor crimes to drop, just so that we can track down the major criminals?

In addition - just been told this by a motorist - a speed camera is there to PREVENT you becoming a murderer.

As Internetowl says...
And they're an easy, automated way of milking the cash-cow that the motorist is seen as.

Here's the solution...

Don't break the law by speeding...you won't need to pay a thing. What a bizarre concept!

Originally posted by Beakerzoid
Here's the solution...

Don't break the law by speeding...you won't need to pay a thing. What a bizarre concept!

It must be lovely to be perfect Beakerzoid :thumbsup:

Yeah...it's great.

But on that matter - what is the need to speed? Is it the whole "rules are there to be broken" idea? I really can't get my head around why people feel that they need to push the dial that little bit farther.

Where will the cash come from to fit all these new camera's inside the cats eyes?

Originally posted by Beakerzoid
Yeah...it's great.

But on that matter - what is the need to speed? Is it the whole "rules are there to be broken" idea? I really can't get my head around why people feel that they need to push the dial that little bit farther.

Here's a crazy thought. If 85% of the voting population are ignoring a law, maybe it's the law that's wrong and not the people.

Wow...what an idea! Lets increase the speed limits...it's not like a hit from a car at 30 can kill is it....lets move it to 40...make sure that it can!

Originally posted by Beakerzoid
...Sad to say, but speeding IS a crime....

...In addition - just been told this by a motorist - a speed camera is there to PREVENT you becoming a murderer.
Yes, it IS a crime, in that it's against the law but it's a crime that an immense number of people commit every single day...

Although the law says that it's a crime, a large percentage of the population evidently don't consider that it is, doesn't this indicate that quite possibly, the law may need to be amended to some extent?

And in what way is a speed camera there to prevent me becoming a murderer?

Originally posted by LellyBee
Where will the cash come from to fit all these new camera's inside the cats eyes?
I'll give you two guesses!

It prevents you becoming a murderer by getting you to cut your speed down to what the limit is for that stretch of road, thus minimising the possibility that your big metal vehicle instantly mashes the pedestrian/cyclist you could hit when they pass in front of you, or you lose control momentarily.

The reasons for the limits are to minimise the damage the vehicle can do in event of an accident. If the law was adjusted to allow 40 in 30 zones, and so on, then the whole point of the speed limits would be lost. Just because people are ignoring it doesn't make it justifiable (although where the magic 85% came from I don't know).

Beakerzoid... You're believing the hype that "Speed Kills"... It doesn't... Bad driving, poorly maintained vehicles, careless pedestrians, etc. result in deaths... speed, in itself, doesn't kill.

Admittedly a vehicle hitting a person at 40mph does considerably more damage than one moving at 30mph... In the same way that the damage would be less at 20 or 10 mph... At what point do pedestians and cyclists become safe? ... Would you have a guy with a red flag walk in front of all vehicles on the road?

Sooner or later, one of the red-flag wavers is bound to be run over by a cyclist... then what? ;)

I don't see why all the anger & hatred towards having speed cameras...If you want rid of them, then don't speed...they won't make any money....they take down the cameras as the Govt. can't afford their upkeep.

If people actually thought rationally instead of like the muppets most speeding motorists are, Huffing and puffing and sticking their chests out like neanderthals ' I'm not slowing down for anyone, it's my vehicle and its upto me how I drive...sod everyone else....'

they'd see it's easy.

People today are so over-stressed and ' gotta get there faster..gotta do it faster...gotta...faster...gotta...faster....'

Your all going to die anyway, so why rush getting there?

People managed to do alot less than 30 mph, say 100 years ago, and the world still merrily went on round.

I do agree that the police should be using there time and our money to fight crime rather than line the governments pockets...but again as I say, if you don't speed, you don't pay.....its not that difficult to work out is it?

Sadly throughout the past 40 years or so various Govt's have sold off/closed down any industry we had, so the only way they can reap any money from the nation is to tax/fine us....and what have we shown to love more than anything else?

Our freedom!

They tried to get us to use Public Transport.....nah.

So they've realised they can get lots of dough out of motorists, because we won't give it up.

It's like the police force right...they reckon they don't want anymore crime...but then where would they be?

The Govt say they want less traffic on the roads..no speeding motorists...but then where would they be? Where would they get any revenue from then?


You've just got to beat them at their own game....

Imagine what would happen if everyone decided not to use any transport for say...a week....or a month

Not in a loud, protesting, banners flying way. Just simply didn't use any transport whatsoever.

Didn't go into work because they didn't use transport...

Did nothing but stay at home.

What do you think the Govt would be saying then?

My apologies for understanding the physics of an object travelling at 30 mph hitting a smaller object, and the resulting forces applied to both parties. The perils of applied mathmatics!

Yes, a lot of the time bad driving, etc is a factor in the accident...but how do you limit the damage? How do you catch "bad drivers"? What is a "bad driver"? If we could catch all the morons who insist on talking on their mobile whilst driving, they I'd be for that. Or the people who are too busy chatting to their mates in the back seat to pay attention. However, these are harder to police...so the form of bad driving that can be detected is speeding...hence the cameras.

If you were hit at 40mph, you probably wouldn't die. Sod the kids then...raise the limits...I'm alright Jack. A bit crippled, but alive anyway.

If the limits were raised...do you think that would stop the problem? Or maybe people would look to push it that bit further again? I know of drivers that push 65 on a 40 zone! Heck..may as well apply motorway rulings to all roads at that rate! Rulings are there for a reason, breaking them is no justification for changing them.


As for cyclists running the red flag waver over...don't even start me off on the subject of bloody cyclists!!!! ;)

I agree with using these to check on peoples insurance and test and stuff but not for speeding- its ridiculous!!!!

Sooner i leave this country- the better!

Would you (the people who think speed cameras are just out to get them and make money), rather be hit by a car travelling at 30 mph or 40 mph :confused: hmm, which is it to be?:confused:

Speed limits are there for a reason, most (blatently) speeding drivers are not concerned about safety, just whether they get caught. I'm all for putting the element of doubt in whether there's a speed camera around, or not.

When I learnt to drive, I was taught to do so according to the road conditions, this was long before speed-cams were introduced.

I still do so, I drive slowly past schools at chucking-out times, etc., I'm wary of suicidal pedestians stepping into the road without looking or suddenly running out from behind a bus, we all know the hazards that we need to watch out for...

I don't drive at excessive speeds, I'm not in a great rush to get anywhere, least of all the local A&E but quite frequently I exceed the speed limit, usually by only 5-10mph... Which is enough to get me a £60 fine and 3 points if caught by a speed-cam.

If caught doing this by a copper, the odds are that, assuming that they even bothered to pull me, they'd take into consideration the circumstances... and providing that I wasn't causing danger, I'd probably get off with a warning. If I'd been driving recklessly, with no regard for other road-users, then I'd be prosecuted and deserve it, I've no argument with that.

Speed-cams have no capability of judging a drivers' actions in this way, as I've said, they're an automated device to milk the cash-cow that is the motorist.

The issue of bad driving isn't being addressed. Speed is implicated in only a minority of accidents, so, this is either taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut or merely a cash raising exercise. You decide which. I fail to see how driving down an empty Motorway at 3am doing 80mph is endagering anyones life, whilst driving within the speed limit, mobile in one hand and lippy in the other clearly is. The difference? One gets caught on camera, the other one doesn't. Don't lets delude ourselves........motorists are public enemy no.1.........easy targets for petty bureaucrats to justify their sad little existence's via.

Originally posted by hatter
Would you (the people who think speed cameras are just out to get them and make money), rather be hit by a car travelling at 30 mph or 40 mph :confused: hmm, which is it to be?:confused:

Speed limits are there for a reason, most (blatently) speeding drivers are not concerned about safety, just whether they get caught. I'm all for putting the element of doubt in whether there's a speed camera around, or not.

I'd rather take care when crossing the road.

The fact is that speed cameras do not in any way reduce fatalities, which is what the supporters here seem to be basing the argument on.
In fact all applications for new speed cameras were suspended recently because of this very fact. In the areas where the most speed cameras have been introduced, road deaths have increased the most, coincidence? I don't think so.

About time someone was actively trying to track and stop those without MOT's, Insurance, tax, etc...

Bit strange though that chances are they aren't registered anywhere so the address will "bounce" and you don't have the car or the driver in the dock...

As for the speeding thing... well I agree with the 30 mile an hour limit purely and simply because it really is there for a reason.. Anyone stupid enough to be driving at 40 miles an hour in residential areas deserves to be the pedestrian they hit... It would be more than appropriate to make the punishment fit the crime in that instance.


On the motorways though I disagree and frankly I find the whole "National speed limit" on country roads equally as ludicrous but the in the opposite direction..

The speed should fit the situation, the weather and the driver ability...

Snake Pass for example is a windy road and you get morons driving at 60 miles an hour round bends that have no visibility beyond 30 yards... If someone is round that bend and stopped (broken down, indicating to turn into a drive, etc...) then that's it, game over.. Ok, so it's "legal" to drive that speed but it's irresponsible and were the positions reversed you'd be pretty unhappy in the .5 seconds before you died.


Motorways on the other hand are generally gradual bends, plenty of viewing distance ahead and really all it requires is for some common sense, bit of courtesy and 80 miles an hour is more than reasonable..

Unfortunately the reality is that you get some moron tailgating, others whipsawing across lanes just to get 30 yards ahead, others sitting in middle lanes just so they don't have to "bother" with lane changes... and those thinking that 120 miles an hour is fine in heavy traffic...


I guess bottom line, you have to draw the line somewhere but I really do wish that someone would prosecute dangerous driving irrespective of speed limits instead of just going for the easy option...

Originally posted by emperor_ming
If they do that, i think i'll be keeping a hammer in the car.

If i see any, i guess it'll be 'hammer time'!
Jeezus, this thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62917) was closed down because there was a whiff of people possibly condoning lawbreaking, here we have a thread where vandalism is blatantly condoned, as is breaking speed limits. Quick, mods, do something!

Originally posted by Internetowl
pity they don't put as much effort into catching murderers, rapists and paedophiles eh?

too easy to target the motorist...
There are about 100 times as many people killed by cars as there are murdered, so get a sense of proportion: this proposal is likely to save far more lives than installing "murder cameras" (whatever they might be) will.

Plus I'm sure "they" do put a lot more effort into catching murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Installing and monitoring a camera takes very little effort, in fact it can all be done largely without the involvement of the police, thus freeing them up for, err catching murderers, rapists and paedophiles.

:loopy:

Originally posted by DanSumption
There are about 100 times as many people killed by cars as there are murdered, so get a sense of proportion: this proposal is likely to save far more lives than installing "murder cameras" (whatever they might be) will.

Plus I'm sure "they" do put a lot more effort into catching murderers, rapists and paedophiles. Installing and monitoring a camera takes very little effort, in fact it can all be done largely without the involvement of the police, thus freeing them up for, err catching murderers, rapists and paedophiles.

:loopy:

the proposal is unlikely to save any lives, see previous evidence on speed cameras increasing road fatalities.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the proposal is unlikely to save any lives, see previous evidence on speed cameras increasing road fatalities.
Crap!

Of course speed cameras increase road fatalities, I would have thought that's bloody obvious. A big yellow thing which you might only see at the last second and have to drive slow past - cue lots of sudden braking and an increase in accidents.

Hidden speed cameras, on the other hand, will reduce fatalities because drivers will have to stick to the limits at all times, not just when they see a blur of yellow out of the corner of their eye.

Originally posted by DanSumption


Hidden speed cameras, on the other hand, will reduce fatalities because drivers will have to stick to the limits at all times, not just when they see a blur of yellow out of the corner of their eye.

Prove it?

Originally posted by cloudybay
Prove it?
I don't have to, time will prove me right.

But if you really want me to do the brainwork for you, here we go...

Person A usually drives at 40mph, but slows down to 30 when he sees a speed camera. One day he has an accident and... oops... there's no speed camera around. He kills the person he hits. Regardless of whose fault the accident was, how it happened, whatever, his speed at the time of the accident contributed to the accident's severity.

The government installs hidden speed cameras. If person A continues to drive like he did before, he will fairly rapidly lose his license. So he sticks to 30, just to be on the safe side. He has a similar accident. The person he hits just breaks their leg.

There, not really that hard to work out, is it?

Originally posted by DanSumption
I don't have to, time will prove me right.

But if you really want me to do the brainwork for you, here we go...

Person A usually drives at 40mph, but slows down to 30 when he sees a speed camera. One day he has an accident and... oops... there's no speed camera around. He kills the person he hits. Regardless of whose fault the accident was, how it happened, whatever, his speed at the time of the accident contributed to the accident's severity.

The government installs hidden speed cameras. If person A continues to drive like he did before, he will fairly rapidly lose his license. So he sticks to 30, just to be on the safe side. He has a similar accident. The person he hits just breaks their leg.

There, not really that hard to work out, is it?

I wish i was sniffing what you are obviously sniffing.............and the 80% of accidents not caused by speed? Your solution?

Found these research statistics for y'all

Useful statistics

Attitudes to speeding

84% of people disapprove of speeding yet 69% do it.
Over 70% of drivers in one study admitted to speeding (Stradling) and in other studies (Webster & Wells) the figure was 85%.
TNS Survey results show what we really think of our other half's driving - and many of us are scared and angered when our partners speed.
The study reveals that among passengers over 60% believe that driving too fast increases the chances that their partner will crash. And emotions run high:
24% have felt angered by their significant other's speeding, which they think is 'irresponsible and stupid'.
20% are scared, and concerned that they and the driver could be killed or injured.
14% worried about the safety of other road users.
25% admit to pressing on an imaginary foot brake.
Only 1% wanted their partners to drive faster.
Key statistics

You are more likely to kill a pedestrian driving at 40mph than 30mph.
Specifically, if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 20 mph, the pedestrian has a 95% chance of survival.
If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child).
General

Every driver can make a difference just by slowing down a few miles per hour and observing speed limits.
Excessive speed is a contributory factor in over 1,000 deaths and over 38,000 injuries every year.
You are not as safe as you thought - in 2004 car users made up 52% of all road traffic fatalities in Great Britain.
On average, nearly 9 people die every day on Britain's roads.
Two out of three crashes where people are killed or injured happen on roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less.
Just over half (53%) of drivers break the 30mph speed limit. (Vehicle Speeds Great Britain).
The law of physics dictate that the higher the speed at impact, the more energy must be rapidly absorbed by hard metal, soft flesh and brittle bone.

Originally posted by cloudybay
I wish i was sniffing what you are obviously sniffing.............and the 80% of accidents not caused by speed? Your solution?
I wish I was sniffing whatever you're sniffing. Cyclone said:
the proposal is unlikely to save any lives
20% = 0??? Since when?

So 20% of people, i.e. over 600 people per year, aren't really worth saving? Well, who gives a toss about murderers then?

Besides which, I'm not talking about accidents caused by speed, I'm talking about accidents in which speed contributes to death/injuries, which is likely to be more than 20%.

Hidden cameras will probably justy increase the amount of cars that are incorrectly registered. If it's not in your name you can't get fined.

More stats

Deaths and injuries on the road

3,508 people were killed in road accidents in 2003
33,707 were seriously injured
253,392 were slightly injured

Speeding

Speeding is not just inconsiderate driving - it contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,000 deaths that occur on Britain's roads each year


Contributes to around 3000 out of 3508 (from same statistics site, and same page - so direct relevance)

A fair tad more than 20%

Originally posted by DanSumption

So 20% of people, i.e. over 600 people per year, aren't really worth saving? Well, who gives a toss about murderers then?

Besides which, I'm not talking about accidents caused by speed, I'm talking about accidents in which speed contributes to death/injuries, which is likely to be more than 20%.

Point taken Dan, but what are we to do about the vast majority of accidents where speed is not implicated?

Originally posted by cloudybay
Point taken Dan, but what are we to do about the vast majority of accidents where speed is not implicated?
I don't know, although I would imagine that other measures (e.g. better tracking of insurance & MOTs) plus freeing up police from having to deal with speeding offences will go some way.

Of course, I also dispute whether it is "the vast majority of accidents" where speed is not implicated. As I said, your 20% is the tip of the iceberg, and Beakerzoid's figures imply that speed contributes to the severity of the majority of very severe accidents (wow, bit of a tongue-twister that!)

All of which is largely irrelevant. The fact that a measure is not 100% effective is not a good reason to oppose it. If we all said "if you can't do everything then don't bother doing anything" then the human race would never have evolved far beyond amorphous jellies. In my opinion, saving 600 lives a year is a hell of a lot better than saving no lives.

Originally posted by Beakerzoid
Speeding

Speeding is not just inconsiderate driving - it contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,000 deaths that occur on Britain's roads each year


Contributes to around 3000 out of 3508 (from same statistics site, and same page - so direct relevance)

A fair tad more than 20%

Bearing in mind the zeal behind the "Speed Kills" lobby... I smell a rat!

The full section that Beakerzoid extracted the above from is:

Speeding

Speeding is not just inconsiderate driving - it contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,000 deaths that occur on Britain's roads each year
More than two thirds of all accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured happen on roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less
At 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as you are at 30mph

These statements of 'fact' can VERY easily be misinterpreted...
(speeding)"contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,000 deaths that occur on Britain's roads each year" is NOT the same as saying that excessive speed was a contributory factor in them. It is saying that deaths and injuries caused by speeding contributed towards the total, as did falling asleep at the wheel, drunk driving, etc.

In addition, as the figures given are 'for each year' i.e. an approximate average figure, there is NO direct relevance to the figures from the same page that you quote, Beakerzoid, which are for 2003 alone.

Likewise, the second statements above doesn't specifically state that speeding is the cause... The entire subsection is intentionally worded to condemn speeding, rather than give a honest account of the true results of speeding, in terms of accident statistics.

I'm not accusing you of 'cooking the books' Beakerzoid, the site itself is very suspect indeed to my mind, it may well be designed to mislead in some instances, certainly it appears to be in the extract quoted above.

Site is here (http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/statistics.htm) btw.

Heres the thing;

I dont condone speeding.... I know it can lead to accidents etc and if you get caught by a fixed camera or a bobby with a radar gun, so be it.

What i do object to is having to drive around with my eyes glued to the speedometer in case i get landed with a fine that i cant afford to pay, or the loss of my licence

Yes, they may encourage people to drive within the speed limits but who here thinks that spending all day with your eyes away from the road is a good idea?

Whos ultimately going to pay for these to be installed and the disruption that it will cause? No doubt it will get added to our council tax - and what about replacements? How long can they be expected to last with 40 tonne lorries driving over them

What happens if your giving birth and need to get to the hospital or if some1 is dying and you need to put your foot down to get to where they are or what happens if there is an emergencey at your house. How annoying having to go 30 miles an hour when you know you need to put your foot down. Bet they don't think of things like that,

In a true emergency, the police are generally understanding... Speed-cams are not!

Originally posted by emperor_ming

What i do object to is having to drive around with my eyes glued to the speedometer in case i get landed with a fine that i cant afford to pay, or the loss of my licence

Yes, they may encourage people to drive within the speed limits but who here thinks that spending all day with your eyes away from the road is a good idea?



Far more dangerous than doing 3 miles over the speed limit. No doubt if you had an accident whilst doing so, you would get shafted for careless/dangerous driving.

Originally posted by Pseudonym
These statements of 'fact' can VERY easily be misinterpreted...
(speeding)"contributes to the 36,000 serious injuries and 3,000 deaths that occur on Britain's roads each year" is NOT the same as saying that excessive speed was a contributory factor in them. It is saying that deaths and injuries caused by speeding contributed towards the total, as did falling asleep at the wheel, drunk driving, etc.
What if they drove drunk over the speed limit? The cause of the accident would be listed as drunk driving, but the fact that it was over the speed limit would contribute to the severity.

I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I think that what it's not very relevant. As I said before, regardless of whether accidents are caused by speeding, the speed of the vehicle contributes to the severity of the accident; very few accidents are caused by speeding alone, very many accidents are made worse by speeding.

And it's still just nit-picking. Whatever the percentage of deaths are directly attributable to speeding, they are still unnecessary deaths, and even if the percentage is tiny I am certain that it represents a greater number of people than are murdered each year.

Originally posted by emperor_ming
What i do object to is having to drive around with my eyes glued to the speedometer in case i get landed with a fine that i cant afford to pay, or the loss of my licence

Yes, they may encourage people to drive within the speed limits but who here thinks that spending all day with your eyes away from the road is a good idea?

Whos ultimately going to pay for these to be installed and the disruption that it will cause? No doubt it will get added to our council tax - and what about replacements? How long can they be expected to last with 40 tonne lorries driving over them
If you're that bad at judging speed then I suggest you drive at 20mph until you improve, no chance of getting a fine and points then. Alternatively, buy a car with cruise control.

I imagine the speed cameras will be paid for by speeding fines. You can't really have it both ways: one minute these things are a stealth tax, the next they are a drain on the public purse :loopy:

Originally posted by clairerob
What happens if your giving birth and need to get to the hospital or if some1 is dying and you need to put your foot down to get to where they are or what happens if there is an emergencey at your house. How annoying having to go 30 miles an hour when you know you need to put your foot down. Bet they don't think of things like that,
After you've had your third baby, and are only 3 points away from losing your license, then perhaps you should consider a home birth for the fourth?

Even with a speed camera fine you can contest it and have your case heard in front of a judge. I think you will find that if it was truly a life or death situation, the judge would be understanding.

the police list speed as a major contributor to something like <2% of all accidents and as a minor contributor to 10 - 15 %.

I've provided these figures before.

Being hidden won't stop the cameras being plotted on gps, and so won't make any difference as gps detectors become cheaper and more common.
So road fatalities will go up rather than down.

I can't argue with the fact that speed alters the severity of the accident. But if it's such a minor reason for the cause of the accident why do we insist on treating the symptom rather than the disease.

Originally posted by DanSumption
If you're that bad at judging speed then I suggest you drive at 20mph until you improve, no chance of getting a fine and points then. Alternatively, buy a car with cruise control.

I imagine the speed cameras will be paid for by speeding fines. You can't really have it both ways: one minute these things are a stealth tax, the next they are a drain on the public purse :loopy:

What you on? I challenge anyone here to be able to judge your speed within the 3 - 4 mph grace that a speed camera would allow.

Perhaps Robocop could achieve such a feat, but frankly i would rather give the majority of my attention to looking out for children running into the road than trying to drive at exactly the speed limit.

Being rude does not help get your point across.......

Originally posted by DanSumption

And it's still just nit-picking. Whatever the percentage of deaths are directly attributable to speeding, they are still unnecessary deaths, and even if the percentage is tiny I am certain that it represents a greater number of people than are murdered each year.

Proof that speed cameras don't work then? Even if we all lived in your Utopian speed-free society, people would still get killed on the roads, but to our credit, we have the safest roads in Europe. Dishing out speeding fines for minor transgressions is failing to see the bigger picture and addressing the major issue of bad driving on our roads.

Originally posted by DanSumption
...very few accidents are caused by speeding alone, very many accidents are made worse by speeding...
Glad to see that we agree on the first part of your statement...

As for the second part I would have thought that it was safe to say that virtually ALL accidents are made worse by speeding... The solution then being a blanket 5mph speed limit? No? Not practical? Exactly... So before we condemn drivers outright for speeding and make it as anti-social a habit as drink-driving (which the powers-that-be would LOVE to see happen), let's look at how many accidents are a direct result of speeding, eh?

BTW I'm talking about going slightly over the limit, not 20-30mph over it... that would be dangerous/reckless driving and rightly deserve a high penalty.

<typical_road_user>

When driving along, my attention is not on the road, it's not on other road users or looking out for possible dangers, no, it's looking out for speed cameras.

</typical_road_user>

Originally posted by emperor_ming
What you on? I challenge anyone here to be able to judge your speed within the 3 - 4 mph grace that a speed camera would allow.
There is no law against driving under the speed limit, if you can't judge a 3-4mph difference then make sure you drive at what feels like 5mph below the speed limit (incidentally, you are not allowed 3-4mph grace, the advised leeway is 10%+2mph, which is 5mph in a 30mph limit). Once you get a bit better at judging your speed, you can push the needle a little closer to 30.

Besides which, if you are in a situation where you are having to be extra vigilant for children, e.g. a residential street with parked cars, then your speed should really be closer to 20mph anyway and you shouldn't have any worries about accidentally straying over the limit.
Originally posted by emperor_ming
Being rude does not help get your point across.......
No. Neither does being stupid.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Being hidden won't stop the cameras being plotted on gps, and so won't make any difference as gps detectors become cheaper and more common.
So road fatalities will go up rather than down.
The cameras won't be plotted on GPS until the plotters know where they are, and as cats eye cameras also become cheaper and more common then they will be in too many places, or be added to too quickly, for GPS to keep up with them.

Or will we reach a situation where your GPS says to you "slow down before the 3rd cat's eye. OK, now you can speed up for another 7 cats eyes, then slow down again..."

I have 3 points for speeding, when people find this out they laugh because i am a slow driver but i was just unlucky that one day i was doing 7 mph over the limit. (The road isn't an accident black spot there are no schools/houses etc).

What im getting at is, why should i be fined and treated the same as someone who drives round at 15-20 mph over the limit on busy/built up roads?

There should be a tier system and points/fines should be allocated accordingly, ie

5-8 mph over = £40 fine
9-15mph over = £60 fine + 1 point
16 + mph over = £60 fine + 3 points

This is more is much more fair system and would still earn the government their cash.

I agree with you, there should definitely be a tiered system, and I think something similar is under consideration.

I also have 3 points for a similar offence, and have had two other speeding tickets in recent years in situations where a police officer would have let me off without a second thought. But, as they say in Italy, che sera sera. I have adapted my driving as a result, and actually sticking to 30mph is not as hard as I'd expected (except for the queues of impatient motorists which sometimes build up behind me). It doesn't even seem to take me any longer to get where I am going, and I certainly arrive there less stressed.

From introspection on my own gut feelings, it seems to me that many people are opposed to speed cameras because of blind self-interest. Certainly my experience of this and other threads is that people will grasp onto the smallest of straws if they think it bolsters their argument a little, and yet ignore the reality that cars are deadly weapons (the biggest killer of under 16-year olds in this country) and a little humility is sometimes appropriate.

Damn! must press "edit" not "quote" :blush:

Originally posted by DanSumption
I also have 3 points for a similar offence, and have had two other speeding tickets in recent years in situations where a police officer would have let me off without a second thought. But, as they say in Italy, che sera sera. I have adapted my driving as a result, and actually sticking to 30mph is not as hard as I'd expected (except for the queues of impatient motorists which sometimes build up behind me). It doesn't even seem to take me any longer to get where I am going, and I certainly arrive there less stressed.

From introspection on my own gut feelings, it seems to me that many people are opposed to speed cameras because of blind self-interest. Certainly my experience of this and other threads is that people will grasp onto the smallest of straws if they think it bolsters their argument a little, and yet ignore the reality that cars are deadly weapons (the biggest killer of under 16-year olds in this country) and a little humility is sometimes appropriate.

There we go then. Dan has obviously achieved perfection in his quest to be a none speeding driver. I just hope that one day i can attain similarly high standards. How's that for humility Dan?

Originally posted by cloudybay
There we go then. Dan has obviously achieved perfection in his quest to be a none speeding driver. I just hope that one day i can attain similarly high standards. How's that for humility Dan?
Cool ;)

Does anyone know (or have any idea) how many accidents on motorways are directly caused by speeding?

Does speeding on motorways (say driving at 85 mph) make a massive difference to your chances of having an accident / killing someone if you do?

I only ask because I can see why speeding in built up areas / 30mph zones is dangerous, but think that motorways (where cats eyes are usually found) is a different issue altogether.

70 mph is usually ignored and does seem a little slow imho...

Originally posted by DanSumption
I don't have to, time will prove me right.

But if you really want me to do the brainwork for you, here we go...

Person A usually drives at 40mph, but slows down to 30 when he sees a speed camera. One day he has an accident and... oops... there's no speed camera around. He kills the person he hits. Regardless of whose fault the accident was, how it happened, whatever, his speed at the time of the accident contributed to the accident's severity.

The government installs hidden speed cameras. If person A continues to drive like he did before, he will fairly rapidly lose his license. So he sticks to 30, just to be on the safe side. He has a similar accident. The person he hits just breaks their leg.

There, not really that hard to work out, is it?

Thats very black and white I'm afraid.

If you got hit at 25mph by a Land Rover, it would cause more damage then a smaller 'lighter' car for example.

Also depends on the person you hit, kids, elderly, young, etc etc.

The biggest problem is bad driving....

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Thats very black and white I'm afraid.

If you got hit at 25mph by a Land Rover, it would cause more damage then a smaller 'lighter' car for example.

Also depends on the person you hit, kids, elderly, young, etc etc.

The biggest problem is bad driving....
Not at all black & white, I admit there are many shades of grey, but a Land Rover doing 35mph will do more damage than a Land Rover doing 25mph, and a Fiat Panda doing 35mph will do more damage than a Fiat Panda doing 25mph.

Or are you suggesting that we outlaw Land Rovers? And I thought I was the one accused of being draconian.

I'm as bigger supporter of a "bad driving camera" as I am of a speed camera. Unfortunately, the former doesn't exist while the latter does.

As I said only recently "people will grasp onto the smallest of straws if they think it bolsters their argument a little". If 2000 people are killed annually because of bad driving, why the hell should that stop anyone from trying to save the 600 a year who are killed by speeding motorists?

To put it another way, why are there people campaigning to try and prevent cancer? Don't they know that heart disease causes more deaths than cancer :rant:

As you can see, your "argument" is just piffle :loopy:

As I have said on other threads, I think drivers should try to keep within the speed limit. Maybe it should be flexible upto a couple of MPH as some drivers admit to being unable to keep to it. (Or should those drivers be forced to resit their test?)

I think the worst thing about speed cameras is that they have to be in the open. That means that people know where they are and slow down accordingly, but then go on to drive at ridiculously dangerous speeds where they know there are no cameras.

I think they should be kept high profile in accident high-spots, but should be allowed anywhere else to be hidden. That way, if you break the law you may suffer the consequences.

Originally posted by DanSumption
If 2000 people are killed annually because of bad driving, why the hell should that stop anyone from trying to save the 600 a year who are killed by speeding motorists?

To put it another way, why are there people campaigning to try and prevent cancer? Don't they know that heart disease causes more deaths than cancer :rant:

As you can see, your "argument" is just piffle :loopy:

Your argument sure is Dan. You can't quote a minority in one argument and then a majority in another. Bad driving causes the majority of accidents, not doing 3 miles over the speed limit. A fixed penalty notice sent two weeks later, saves nobody. The only way you may have an impact on speeding drivers is to pull them there and then.

Originally posted by cloudybay
A fixed penalty notice sent two weeks later, saves nobody. The only way you may have an impact on speeding drivers is to pull them there and then.
Hmm, yes. And by the same argument, prison is no disincentive to murder, we need some kind of summary justice instead, Judge Dredd style.

We are humans, not goldfish, we have minds and memories and ought to be credited with the ability to modify our behaviour in line with its consequences. And if nothing else, four fixed penalty notices puts persistent speeders off the road, so in the long run they'll become a safer place.

And for the millionth and last time, I'm not talking about speeding causing accidents. I'm talking about the outcome of accidents, however they are caused.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Hmm, yes. And by the same argument, prison is no disincentive to murder, we need some kind of summary justice instead, Judge Dredd style.

We are humans, not goldfish, we have minds and memories and ought to be credited with the ability to modify our behaviour in line with its consequences. And if nothing else, four fixed penalty notices puts persistent speeders off the road, so in the long run they'll become a safer place.

And for the millionth and last time, I'm not talking about speeding causing accidents. I'm talking about the outcome of accidents, however they are caused.

you're actually right there, the removal of the death penalty made absolutely no difference to the rates of murder, nor have any changes in sentencing. So it would appear that most things, as detterants, fail miserably.

Why is it that the majority of speed cameras are placed in locations where they will snap the most drivers, rather than those where they will do the most good??? Riddle me that one dan.

I'm really surprised that we're on page 5 of this discussion, yet nobody has yet raised the following point about collisions at different speeds:

Despite what the adverts say, a car which has been travelling at 40mph in a 30 limit will NOT be almost certain to kill anyone it hits. Reason: chances are the driver will have seen the person and hit the brakes. Therefore the speed of collision is more likely to be between 10 and 20mph.

I do actually disagree with speeding in built-up areas (although I get very irritated about Penistone Road and similar roads where I feel limits have been set inappropriately). But I appreciate that just because someone is doing 40 in a 30, doesn't mean they're going to kill someone if they run them over.

But I don't think speed cameras should be set on motorways, for several reasons. Firstly, there are no pedestrians on motorways. Secondly, speed cameras on motorways discriminate against car drivers. A car driving at 80mph is FAR safer than an HGV driving at 70. Yet the HGV will not be caught on camera.

For those of you travelling thru South East, possibly on route to Dover or Channel Tunnel, be warned they are installing Speed cameras that record your speed over a defined distance on the M20 and M2. Not that I encourage speeding, just safe driving