The statistics proved it
tinyurl.com/83xqsf
|
No, no, no. You misunderstand, there was a statistical glitch in the period measured (or some other such cobblers).
I have never understood why motorways (statistically the sfest of all roads) need speed cameras (that were originally supposed to be erected only at accident black-spots).
Unless of course to tax drivers.
|
|
No statistic can prove that a camera increases casualties as a speed camera is an inanimate object. Unless it falls over of someone walking by, the only people who cause casualties to go up or down are drivers.
|
|
Mmm, blame the camera when its the motorists at fault.... Reading the story it seems that there is a 50 limit there because it is an accident blackspot but drivers are ignoring the limit, hence the introduction of the camera... then when they ignore the limit and then slow down too quickly because of the camera and then speed up and cause an accident its the camera's fault... err, I don't think so...
|
|
"They" will see this as justification for putting in a specs average speed system.
Edited by Bill Payer on 05/01/2009 at 18:54
|
I've always been against Gatso type things because they can cause panic and on some roads where the limit if you could accidently go over the speed limit and get fined but with the average speed system I am sure there will be plenty of repeater signs so you would be pretty dumb to accidently get done for speeding.
There is also another element to speeding, reduced speed is also good for the environment surely doing 70 uses less than fuel 90?
I don't fully agree that speed cameras cause accidents, they bring out the worst in bad drivers which can cause accidents.
Edited by Rattle on 05/01/2009 at 19:03
|
But the cause is still bad driving, not the camera...
TBH I don't know the junction, so can't comment on the signage... perhaps someone who does could comment?
|
Being a pedant, but...
Definition of an accident (from www.thefreedictionary.com)-
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm.
So, if something repeatedly occurs at a locus, it is not unexpected, and hence is not an accident.
tt
|
It is expected that people who speed will worry about speed cameras. The accident is when the idiot is unable to control their car - this can happen whether there is a camera or not and is due to their driving.
Since not every car crashes having gone past a speed camera, you simply cannot blame the camera. Ive had far more near misses with people breaking the limit past the end of my road than I have passing speed cameras.
|
|
The ones that get me are when you are driving in a 40 limit at 40 and come across a camera and the guy in front suddenly slows down to 30! Really aware of what's goping on around them, aren't they!
|
Yeah ive always wondered about that. I can only think that either they feel victimised by cameras so do what kids do when they get told to do something and go to extremes or that if they crawl past the camera, it absolves them for the speeding between cameras.
I did 25mph past a 40 camera the other day following some twit - clearly they thought it was a 30 and hadnt noticed the signs ( which are big enough for me to see without my glasses on ). I actually moved near the curb so the car behind me could see it wasnt me holding them up and the then backed off my bumper!
|
|
I think people become so obsessed with the camera everything else around them including that 90 year woman about to step out becomes invisible.
|
|
My theory is that they are just totally unaware what the speed limit is, therefore slow down to the slowest possible speed where they are not likely to get done... 30mph... quite honestly, Rattle, I don't think thats the case that they are obsessed with the cameras... if they were then they wouldn't slow down at the last minute... they are just dopy characters who haven't a clue whats going on around them, which probably explains their lack of vision for the pedestrian as well!
|
|
A case of tailgating I'd guess. Following drivers are responsible for keeping a safe distance! Any number of reasons why the first car might slow.
|
|
read of a case in the usa where someone was driving a ferrari on the freeway when a redneck overtook him in a truck and slammed on, causing the ferrari to hit him up the rear. On paper the ferrari's fault. The truck driver got out and said, that's right, (twelve letter word), that's right. Moral - in america, drive american.
|
The logic here is bizarre.
It is alleged the camera causes accidents because it prompts drastic behaviour from drivers and those behind them.
But if you were driving within the limit the camera would not bother you. And if you were the correct distance behind the car in front you wouldnt hit it either,if it slows ( not stops) suddenly.
It's really strange the convoluted arguments people come up with to justify their own law-breaking, often while arguing for no tolerance of law-breaking by others.
|
If you're on a road you don't know and spot a camera what do you do? I usually check my speedo and try to think if I'm doing the right speed. I'd think while I'm doing this I'm not in full control, does that make me a dangerous driver? What happens if the car in front suddenly stops or soneone walks out into the road?
I know what you're thinking but I have no points on my license and haven't had an accident in a good few years.
Edited by Honestjohn on 09/01/2009 at 19:50
|
But even then, Steve, you shouldn't end up embeded in the car in front, you should be following at a distance which allows you to take avoiding action should they do anything silly like slam their anchors on... Lets be realistic about this, the OP related to "speed cameras" but they could quite easily be substituted by words "small child running into road", "large animal" or "cyclist" all of which could cause the car in front of you to brake heavily...
It all comes back to the old adverts they used to do "Keep Your Distance!", but how many of us actually do that ALL the time?!
Edited by b308 on 09/01/2009 at 10:12
|
|
That sort of thing I can deal with (the usual here is cars pulling out after waiting for you to get closer...) it's just that moment of "oh carp, it's a camera - am I speeding?" panic.
|
|
I know what you mean, but TBH if you are late seeing one then its all rather academic....
|
|
So, if something repeatedly occurs at a locus, it is not unexpected, and hence is not an accident.
Perhaps it's time to pay for a dictionary! Chambers (1998) offers
'anything that happens; an unforeseen or unexpected event; a chance; a mishap;' and a couple of others that don't apply here.
The speed camera didn't cause the accident HJ describes; it was a combination of one driver following too close to another, who was either unaware of the vehicle behind or put fear of points above safety. Either way - simple bad driving.
|
|
|
|
