If you consider that most indepandant research shows that 5% of accidants are caused by speeding it is hard to understand how speed cameras have reduced accidants by 50% or more

The whole debate on speed and cameras can easily have flaws if the bigger picture is not looked at.

Any statistics and studies done are only as good as the information put in or the angle looked at in the first instance.

To state, for example, speed was a factor in a particular death may well be factually correct...but...if the driver was rip roaring drunk...or was high on drugs...or habitually drove exceptionally badly to a 'dangerous driving' level ...or neglected his vehicle to a very high degree...and this included speed (and some people do all of these at once)...then simply saying speed caused that accident is not wholly accurate, speed had a part to play certainly, but maybe a small part in the big scheme of things.

The next driver who 'speeds' may well be otherwise wholly law abiding, takes pride in driving otherwise correctly, maintains his car well, doesn't drink drive and never touches drugs etc,etc.

If you look at the stats on people driving with no insurance and their propensity to have accidents, then there's a hint there at what i'm saying i.e. the lawless are usually (not always) the ones causing the real problems...yet Mr and Mrs Average are constantly hassled by cameras...(the true lawless don't worry about that, they don't register their cars).

The Govt must take responsibility for this. The ridiculous over simplification of the 'speed kills' propoganda has got people literally believing it. Of course speed can kill, that's glaringly obvious...it's speed at an inappropriate time/place that does people in..and that's where the vitriol should be aimed at.

...and 'no' before anyone tries to misquote me...i'm not after a 'free for all' on speed.

"one of those `Road Kings` comes through at 100mph."

Well they shoudn't be, should they.

Well if you support the case then have the cameras at say 50mph during working hours and then "tweaked" to 70mph at all other times. Then the traffic will be moving at the legal limit and not at 100mph if they are just switched off.

I still haven't seen anyone post here or "anywhere" else that has received an actual fine for excess speed through sets of SPECS cameras. Can someone prove these things actually work. I see so many vehicles exceeding the speed limits through these cameras which leads me to believe they are a bluff.

Edited by Ben 10 on 05/06/2010 at 18:40

I seem to remember the traffic speed info is coming from GPS enabled mobile phones, in cars - logged into Google maps..

I might be wrong about that though.

Cheddar - the one thing a 50 limit DOESN'T do is add to congestion. The maximum capacity of a motorway is when traffic flows at 18 mph.

An interesting perspective but perhaps misleading? This technical definition of capacity doesn't necessarily provide a measure of congestion - chugging along a motorway at 18 mph I would tend to think it must be a bit congested. The broader argument that fixing a speed limit of 50 mph is beneficial for traffic flow on a busy motorway seems to me a rather different one, based on modelling of driver behaviour.

What is woodster on about? Ex pat? Where did he get that foolish prattle from? If I was ex pat how would I have personally experienced the nonsensical 50 limit retention on the finished section of M1, and how would I have witnessed the crash in the contra flow lane of the M3? Nitpicking my column, my observations and my opinions is a bit like criticising Jeremy Clarkson. I freely acknowledge JC is the biggest and the best and the richest. But I have also achieved my own modest measure of success by doing things my way instead of taking orders from people like woodster. I'm not a politician. The whole point is not to try to please everyone. It's to upset the stuffed shirts, the pompous and the rule abiders. And sometimes (by advocating left foot braking) to save the lives of their wives. That's what gets readership.

HJ

HJ, The way I read it, Woodster was referring to himself as an ex-pat. Certainly thats how it reads gramatically.....

I'm not sure who is more guilty of the "foolish prattle" as you put it....