Speeding fines

[bacardi]

Well said!

If you believe the hype that speed kills then camera's are a great thing, however if you (Like me) believe inappropriate speed kills then the problem with Speed camera's is that they don't catch drunk or drug fuelled drivers, middle lane hoggers, tailgaters, lorry drivers over their tacho allowance, unroadworthy cars, people without insurance, people who don't indicate etc etc so they are in my eyes a money making excercise, cheaper than policemen...........

 

[AndyMac]

Spot on Matt.
Put as many speed camera's as you want everywhere and you won't reduce accidents, in fact they are likely to go up. This is not just my worthless opinion, it is based on factual reports from the TRRL. Speed Kills is the most misleading tag line I've seen in the governments misinformed strategy to reduce accidents. Of course speed kills, as somebody has to be moving in order to injure themselves or somebody else, but the perception and the knee jerk "safety" camera policy infers that speeding kills, which is not borne out by any of the actual research. For anyone who's actually interested in factual information rather than naive schoolboy opinion, serious accidents where speed was a contributing factor is less than 7% and this figure is skewed as it includes joy riding, police chases etc.
Nobody is going to criticise the placement of speed camera's at accident blackspots, not because they reduce speed necessarily but they do temporarily focus the mind of the driver on the speed, conditions and possible hazards ahead. But to extend this logic to every dual carriageway and especially motorways is just patently misguided.
Speed does not cause accidents on motorways. HGV's and inattention cause accidents on motorways and if everyone drives at 70 on a busy motorway then you've got more vehicles on the motorway at any one time and you'll increase the inattention as drivers slip into a trance because they're not required to really participate in what's going on.
The other issue is the indiscriminatory nature of the speed camera which doesn't take into account the type of vehicle or the conditions. So the HGV doing 60 in heavy traffic in the rain is classed as safe, whereas the car doing 85 on a perfectly clear day & light traffic is not. I know which vehicle will be able to brake safely should something happen up ahead.
Also the latest breed of camera's are all front facing (Truvelo & SPECs) so ignore the biggest victim of death on the roads, the motorbike.
So to say the theory is flawed is a massive understatement, use the technology to get the drunks, druggies, uninsured, unroadworthy & the incompetent off the roads and you'll get support, but to support a policy of penalising every motorist on the off chance you'll catch one that's dangerous is naive beyond belief.

 

[Karcsi]

[ QUOTE ]
lorry drivers over their tacho allowance.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe how many I come across clearly doing more than the 56 mph (90kph, i think) that they are allowed to do. There's not much you can do to stop all that weight in an emergency. And so many of them seem to speed through towns and cities. Do they get a heavier fine if they are caught, as then will do a darn sight more damage if they hit something or someone?

 

[bacardi]

That piece does really scare me, a lorry doing 55 in a 50 will take a whole heap longer to stop than my A3 would but both people will get fined the same!

 

[AndyMac]

Even if they stick to the speed limit they are a liability, which is why all major motorway accidents involve at least one HGV. They may not cause the accident but their later involvement then means a body count and motorway closure.
Get the heavy stuff back on the railways!!

 

[Amchlolor]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if they stick to the speed limit they are a liability, which is why all major motorway accidents involve at least one HGV. They may not cause the accident but their later involvement then means a body count and motorway closure.
Get the heavy stuff back on the railways!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah,then feel free to moan about how long your parts are taking to reach the dealer...

I work in the freight business.
Rail freight is a joke.
It's an option we never,ever,look at because it manages to combine two criteria that should be mutually exclusive.

It's expensive and slow.

 

[h5djr]

It works in some countries, mosty in mainland Europe. All the parts for the dealers arrive by train from German to the central Audi/VW warehouse. The UK gave up on railways for domestic freight long ago.

Accidents caused by HGVs would be much reduced if we were to adopt the same long stretches of 'no overtaking by lorries' system that is used in many other European countries. A lot of accidents are caused by HGVs pulling out to overtake at the last minute and not looking properly and forcing a passing car or van into either the path of another vehicle or the central crash barrier. One such accident a few months ago near here resulted in the death of a mother and her 2 small children and it happened on a straight dual-carriageway with no junctions or other hazards anywhere near. The driver of the HGV is being prosecuded for dangerous driving but I doubt if he will get more that a fine and a few months prison. In my opinion driver like him, if found guilty, should never drive an HGV again.

My brother is an HGV driver and he says he seen quite a number of other HGV drivers actually watching television whilst driving. No doubt the coverage of the World Cup in June/July will probably add to this.

 

[AndyMac]

My point really was that speeding on motorways is condemned because of reaction time & braking distance, two criteria completely overlooked with the average HGV even when obeying the speed limit. Also the criteria seemingly overlooked with OAP drivers.
It seems it's just a lot easier & more lucrative to victimise the average motorway driver whether he/she causes an accident or not. My belief is that anyone who causes an accident should be fined and pointed, not all the drivers who may potentially cause an accident by doing 85mph on an empty motorway.
I can quite happily rear end any number of vehicles doing 70mph and as long as no one's hurt I keep a clean licence, umm that makes sense!

 

[mickey_a6]

Interesting debate..........

I completely agree that speed in itself is not the issue - it is the inappropriate use of speed that causes problems. And much of that is down to poor driver training, ignorance etc. If drivers had to have a far higher level of training and demonstrable skill (that had to be maintained year on year) than that assessed by a short driving test at the age of 17 that does nothing more than ensures you can operate a Nissan Micra in a very restricted set of circumstances, that would have a far bigger impact on road fatalities/injuries than any number of revenue generating speed cameras/white vans.

Also, the thing that really bugs me about this issue is the use of the word "accident". The vast majority of what are called "accidents" are nothing of the sort - they are caused by stupid people doing stupid things with cars - either whilst driving or by not maintaining them properly. We all see it, every day.

 

[AndyMac]

Well according to Insurance companies there is no such thing as an accident, although there is an "act of god" but that isn't covered and surely is a very politically incorrect term to use these days.
"Dear Esure, my car has been destroyed by a plague of locusts and I want some money"

 

[Karcsi]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of accidents are caused by HGVs pulling out to overtake at the last minute and not looking properly and forcing a passing car or van into either the path of another vehicle or the central crash barrier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just happened this evening on the M42 between Junctions 1 and 2 - medium sized lorry and a car pulling a small trailer. Both were against the central reservation. I'm guessing the lorry driver pulled out to overtake after the car had passed but hadn't noticed that the car was towing something. With so many cars on the road, you don't have to be speeding to be involved in an accident - just one momentary loss of concentration is enough.