Posted By Brett Day

Merv, the law may be the law but at the same time it has to be enforced in accordance with the legal guidelines, one of which is that the siting of the camera van DOES NOT introduce any additional hazards, the layout you describe sounds like it does introduce a hazard, it is also very similar to a camera site that I have reported to the police, the local trafpol attended and closed the site down on safety grounds.

I have done this in total 4 times and every time the attending traffic officer agreed that the site was either dangerously sited, was comitting an offence or both.

Is it any wonder that they command so little respect??

Another gripe I have with cameras is that the money does not go back into road safety, if they are indeed for safety, there is a lot that could be done with the revenue raised.

As for the implication that by sticking to the limit a driver will be safe, according to the DfT most fatalities occour within the posted limit.

November last year I was involved in two accidents on a blind corner, the other drivers were 'cutting' the wrong side of the corner, couldn't see me and hit me. I had seen them and stopped in time. Both were adamant that they were safe drivers as they obeyed the speed limit, the fact they were driving like numpties didn't seem to cross thier minds.

Posted By Mark Gibson
I also received a speeding fine - 36 in a 30, same as you Dean. It was 03.20 in the morning, I had got a good nights sleep, clear road, no water. spray, mist, fog or anything. had already passed the local milkman so knew he wasn't around. past the camera which I go past twice a day!! and FLASH.

As it was a lease car they took 3 months to catch me cause they needed my address and details, they obviously have a different view and have offered me a £60 fine and a speed awareness course instead of 3 points, not bad I thought. They have obviously assessed the risk, time & speed and thought it best to offer a course instead. And that's coming out of the boy racer capital of England (Southend!)

Posted By Gareth W Jones
Mark,

My fine was the same as was the speed I was doing at the time, the law says that the police must inform you within 14 days! I was not aware of this at the time and supsequently paid up and had three points given to me, the time I was notified like yourself was three months after the incident. I mean to stay within the law in the future, but nether the less if I slip up I will be sending it straight back!!!Due to fact that three months after the date I am not aware of who was driving!!!

Posted By Gareth W Jones
Hi Lee,

Sorry dont know were the legislation is written, but I have read it (Twice)"A notice of intended prosecution" must be sent within 14 days. Perhaps someone can help with the relevant area this is written???

Posted By Brett Day

John

"the fact that so many influential voices support them over their speeding habits won't encourage them to rein in on their red-light jumping, dangerous parking, corner-cutting, tail gating and so on. Its about safety climate, I think, and though I hate to say it, its about zero-tolerance,"

These are all things that speed cameras can do nothing about, however, having a proper training and test system in place would reap huge benefits, it would also reduce the number of new drivers as the 'too dumb to think and drive' wouldn't pass, this in turn reduces HMG revenue.

As for Zero tolerance, funnily enough the closest we have to that is in Durham a county WITHOUT an active camera partnership, they have this quaint idea of actually having trained, experienced traffic officers out on the roads catching a multitude of dangerous behaviours, a minor indiscretion gets the proverbial ticking off, others get points, and some have been arrested there and then, not being allowed to carry on for another 14 days.

Perhaps this is why Durham is bucking the accident trend compared to other counties, I live in Essex, the county with the highest number of cameras, one of the most 'profitable' camera partnerships, we have had huge reductions in actual traffic police and road safety has taken huge leaps backwards over the last 10 years.

As for the OP's post I did also try to offer some pointers that could be of use, you know my driving background John and agree that overall standards MUST improve but hammerimg home 'Stick to the limit, you'll be safe' isn't doing that.

We need IMO:

A better standard of training and testing for new drivers

More traffic police presence on the roads and less automated enforcement

The backlog of road engineering, especially those that have safety implications funded and cleared, there are counties where known accident blackspots could be re-engineered and made safe, but no funding has been provided, yet the money can be found for cameras...

Speed limits should be set according to road safety reasons, not people don't like the noise or they think traffic is a bit fast.

At present HMG is not looking at road safety, but is looking at revenue. Change that and we can get things changed.

Posted By John Murgatroyd
I'm so unimpressed.
Anyone spending all their time watching the speedo is certainly not spending much time watching the road.
I have no sympathy with people speeding in 20/30/40 limits, these are in areas with housing and workplaces. I have no interest in the speed camera lobby, because they do not stop accidents, do not stop speeding and do not stop dangerous driving. The simple, and true statistic that the vast majority of accidents occur at speeds lower than the limit in the area they happen, renders the speed camera invalid. However, since the gov has decided to stop allowing the speed camera partnerships to keep the money gained (from 1 April 2007) it is likely that many will just disappear...and those that stay will rapidly cease to be easily seen !
As for higher speed meaning higher pollution. Not so. The internal combustion engine operates inefficiently at lower speeds....and idling through town has got to be the lowest they'll go. Also, most town pollution comes from lorries, buses and building.

As for the 14 day limit :http://www.pepipoo.com/NIP.htm

Posted By J Knight
Brett,

Agree that the cameras can't help with the other faults, but the way the 'debate' is conducted in the media does, in my opinion, allow drivers to feel self-righteous whatever they do 'If the government is so wrong about speed why should we listen to them on anything else?' And, for reasons stated, I really can't believe the quoted figures about the percentage of fatalities vs speed.

And its all very well people offering selective quotes from individual police officers, but read the following; 'The biggest single cause of death and injury is excessive speed, with drink and drug driving and the failure to wear seatbelts continuing to be of concern.' (Modern Road Policing - A Manifesto for the Future - ACPO). So the heads of the majority of national police forces evidently think speed is an issue, or even the main issue. Now, we believe them when they tell us that drugs cause burglaries, we believe them when they say gun crime is a serious problem. Why don't we believe them about speed? Because too many people simply think they know best, not necesarily respondents on this forum, but people out there on the road. And if all the research points to speed not being a factor, why do ACPO say it is?

John

Posted By garyh
Here is a point no one seems to have considered, and never seems to cross the minds of some of the "holier than thou" brigade who cliam NEVER to speed.

How do you know that your speedometer is accurate? Just because it says "28" or "39" or whetever speed does not mean it is correct.

How many times do you go past one of these things that display your speed and it is LESS or MORE than your speedo indicates?

(I could question the accuracy and calibration of Gatsos - but I won't).

There is a difference between precision and accuracy which seems to escape some people.

Further to this, I personally know two people, both careful drivers "done" for doing 32 MPH.

This seems to me a pathetic fund raising exercise - surely a warning letter would suffice in these cases.

Before anyone foams at the mouth consider that they both said that their speedo showed 30 or under.

Posted By Merv Newman
For many years now I have driven between 30 and 60 000 kilometers per year on French motorways. Acceptable behaviour was always "+10" ie limit at 130 Km/hr and people drove at 140.

In 2004 the Gendarmes spent 2 000 000 hours in controlling speeds. They sent out 800 000 fines. 400 000 of these fines were eventually paid. (the rest got "lost" in the system)

Since the beginning of 2005 they have installed automatic radars. Go over the speed limit and your number plate is photographed. That goes by satellite to a central computer system which sends you your notice of a fine. If you don't pay up at once that gets doubled every fortnight.

In my current car (Rover 75 (fourpence and a bag of crisps anyone ?)) I have an alarm set at the motorway speed limit. Go over 130 and it starts swearing.

I did about 400 miles to get home yesterday and it didn't say a word.

Look, if you don't obey the rules (speed limits or wearing safety glasses) then you suffer the consequences. Which could be a fine or a nasty accident.

Stay safe and thanks to those who have honestly shared their experiences.

Merv

Posted By garyh
J Knight.

You have ignored my point about people being done for doing 32 when their speedo said "legal".

As for electronic accuracy, there is still a question of how accurate. No instrument is 100% accurate.

I strongly suspect that some Gatso's are not as accurate as their precise readout indicates.
Follow this link http://www.bbc.co.uk/ins...ies7/speed_cameras.shtml

The point is that people are being done for going "apparently" slightly over the speed limit when 1) their speedo may show them as being legal 2) they may actually be legal.

If such incidents just resulted in a warning letter - no problem. Current practice, in my opinion is crude (to the point of stupidity at times) and brings safety, and road safety enforcement into disrepute.

Posted By Eric Taylor
Construction and use requirements and Highway code give a tolerance of 10% at 30 mph? if someone was actually done at 32 mph, I would imagine any half decent lawyer would have got them off. I think being prosecuted for doing 32 mph is most likely urban myth. Something those who are smarting at having been fined for something else like to rant about to make themselves feel better.

I'm sure there is something about hirachy of risk involved here. Why don't you put your hand in the fire? because you know for sure you will get burned. Why do people speed? because they know they are most likely to get off with it. You all know what the rules are, you can all see the signs, if you can't see them or understand them, maybe time to stop driving. Otherwise, if you break the limit imposed, (for whatever reason it is imposed),stop whining please. It was you that did it, it was you that got caught, pay up and don't do it again then you won't have to worry.

Posted By Dave Faragher
Dont speed, it also begs the question what other legislation would you like to see (watered down) health and safety perhaps?

Posted By Hugo
Hi Dean,

I am speaking from the perspective of an advanced driver (fire service emergency fire appliance driving skills).

I do agree to some extent you are well within safe limits to increase your speed or (gain progress on the road) as speeding was a term disallowed during my driver training, when travelling along a known route during the hours of darkness.

Country roads are much easier and safer to drive during darkness as the lights of oncoming vehicles can be seen in advance.

I do disagree the speed limit should be raised for night driving as many young and poorly trained drivers are on the roads at this time.

I have seen the result of many a young adult trying to play Formula 1 on the roads.

I would say, I blame the roads services / design and maintenance for many road vehicle deaths. A large proportion of deaths in my experience are due to collision with trees planted along road verges or direct contact with oncoming traffic- (why do we drive into the path of other traffic with a line of paint for protection)?

The police, at the level you experienced are carrying out a re-active function, not their fault but its a fact.

Some police forces need to take a close look at their safe systems of work concerning driver training and pursuits.

Fire appliance drivers, as in other roles within the service, must weigh up the outcomes of their actions, ie saving a life. Police service drivers must also carry out the same assessment.

Slow down..

Posted By iainf
yeah merv

but if you looking at the birds, you ain't watchin the road. SAFETY HAZARD!!!! lol

iain

Posted By Sean Fraser
"As for the person who has never exceeded a speed limit: I feel a lot safer just knowing that your eyes are permanently glued to the speed meter in your car. I would rather you spent more time looking for kids and cyclists. But what the hell !"

Common fallacy - knowing your speed must mean you are always looking at the speedo! Is that the same as every time you change gear, you must be looking at the lever?

John, I am qualified as an advanced driver and I practice the principles every day, which means I analyse my driving after every journey and work out where I could have done better (and I still make mistakes in approach and action that need further improvement - experience). The credo is continual observation in order to make maximum safe progress within the law. Once you know what speed is what, you find you can look very occasionally at the speedometer and be assured that it will be at the right side of the posted limit, and appropriate for the conditions. Look forward, look to distance, look to sides, look behind. Practice. Look at speedo occasionally. By constantly looking around and occasionally checking your speed you will identify potential hazards way in advance and take appropriate action so they do not become a danger to you. Risk management.

That's the difference between driving and steering. It's called skill.

Posted By Dean Stevens

Thanks to all that have contributed to this post so far. I really didn't think it would gage that much interest but the debate has been good, honest and open.

I notice that some constabularies are offering a safety awareness course instead of the 3 point penalty on your driving license, Surely that cannot be fair, if someone from one part of the country gets caught they get their license marked yet if your in another part of the country you can go along to the safety awareness day and come out with a clean license still.

I would like to see this safety awareness course rolled out nationally, but if you get caught say within a year of attending it i think you should receive a minimum of 6 points.

I think refresher tests should be introduced for all drivers, this would involve a re-test every 3-5 years that also takes into account health condition etc, i don't want to sound ageist here but i think that anyone over the age of 60 should be retested annually or every two years, I'm sorry but in my 10 years of driving some of the worst driving i have seen has come from the elderly.

Anyone on this thread that says that they have never broken the speed limit in their life is a liar I'm afraid. IMPOSSIBLE.

Passed another speed camera this morning, a mobile one, 08:55a.m located close to school and hospital, officer in hi viz stood at side of road with laser gun, now that's more like it.
And YES i was driving within the limit.

Many Thanks

Posted By Jeepster
Sorry to add, but there are four points to make.

1. If you were caught you were evidently not aware of your speed compared to the immediate speed restriction, that is unacceptable for a competent alert driver.

2. The time is irrelevant, schools have after school clubs, shows, dances, etc. that can all have unpredictable finish times. The later the time, the risks changes you are more likely to have wildlife about, foxes, deer, dogs even in inner cities that can unpredictably contribute to vehicle accidents.

3. As per www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk It is 30 for a reason....at 40 there is an 80% chance of death, and at 30 there is an 80% chance of survival. No driver wants to live with guilt so drive aware and drive safe.

4. If you want to drive fast and safely join a motor club, where it can be managed in a safer environment.

Hope this helps
Cheers

Posted By Merv Newman
Going a bit sideways, in addition to the many positive comments about respecting the limits or taking your lumps.

We used to operate a "buddy drive" system.

once a year, when visiting a client the salesman drives with his direct boss as a passenger. Just before the meeting they stop for a coffee and the boss critiques the driving techniques of the salesman.

On the return trip the boss drives and, just before they get to the office they stop for a coffee. The salesman critiques the driving of his boss.

Open and honest. Nothing written down.

Please note that the word "critique" is not the same as 'criticises"

"Safest Fleet of the year" award

But then, just to complete the annecdote, within 12 months the head office safety manager was killed in a motoring accident.

Ron, sadly missed. A great squash player.

Merv

Posted By Kevin Maguire
My personal view on speed limit's is they are there for good reason althought i do tend to drift over the speed limit on occasion's but i keep myself in check.

It's my view that Safety Camera's, are badly named they dont increase road safety they do however slow the speed of motorist's down untill that last white line is crossed and then speed up again, If slowing down the traffic for a Specific amount of time is the goal i believe Flowers by the road side would do alot better job.

Posted By Ian Mitchell
Yes, the average speed cameras really are effective. They are very popular on motorways where there are temporary roadworks (i.e. 40mph limits) in force. The knowledge that you cannot just brake hard when you see the yellow boxes means that everybody stays to bang on 40! As somebody who has reponsibility for streetworks guys this is a good example of a SAFETY camera rather than a revenue creator.