Drive the M4?

[DR]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...565657,00.html

THE last haven where drivers can creep over the speed limit is being invaded by cameras.

From tomorrow one of Britain’s busiest motorways will be monitored in the first attempt to enforce the 70mph limit.

Until now police have struck only when motorists drive well over the limit on motorways. With their central barriers, gentle curves and grade separated junctions, motorways are considered to be far safer than any other road.

Shortly after midday tomorrow, drivers on the M4 in Wiltshire, between junctions 14 and 18, will face a £60 fine and three penalty points for speeding by as little as 9mph.

Cameras in marked vans will be operated from bridges over the motorway. Police and civilian operators will use laser guns on vehicles when they come within a kilometre of the bridges. Under the rules governing mobile cameras, the vans must be visible from 100 metres. But most drivers will be caught long before they come within that range.

More than half of all cars on motorways exceed the speed limit and a fifth travel at more than 80mph. Existing patrols tend to book only motorists who exceed 85mph.

Last night motoring groups accused the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership of seeking to raise revenue without offering any evidence that safety would be improved.

Motorways are five times safer per mile driven than the average road and eight times safer than urban A roads. There were 9 crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres on motorways in 2003, compared with 76 on urban A roads. Most of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras are on A roads. On motorways they usually enforce only temporary speed limits during roadworks. The southwest section of the M25 has cameras on gantries to enforce the lower speed limit in operation during congested periods.

Under Department for Transport rules, camera partnerships can deploy mobile cameras only on stretches where there have been at least two collisions resulting in death or serious injuries per kilometre in the previous three years.

The Wiltshire partnership, which includes the police and the county council, will argue tomorrow that the casualty rate on the M4 is higher than on the average motorway and meets the level required by the department. There were 18 deaths, 69 serious injuries and 641 slight injuries between junctions 15 and 17 between 2001 and 2004.

Signs on the M4 and approach roads will alert drivers that they are entering a speed-trap area but they will not know where the vans will be parked. A spokeswoman for the partnership said that motorists who slow down for the yellow Gatso cameras before speeding up again would be caught by the M4 cameras: “People aren’t supposed to slow down just because they have seen a camera. They are supposed to slow down because it’s the law.” She said that the trigger speed for the cameras could be as low as 79mph and “could change from day to day”. The exact speed will remain confidential to prevent drivers from setting their cruise controls just below it.

The RAC Foundation accused the partnership of using irrelevant crash statistics to justify deploying cameras. Edmund King, its director, said that the casualty problem on the M4 was caused largely by people driving too close to the vehicle in front, stopping on the hard shoulder, overtaking without checking mirrors and failing to slow down for fog.

[Byatt]

One wonders why the tories haven't grabbed on this opportunity to shout a policy of "no speed cameras!!".

Should I ever drive the M4, I shall watch my step. Cheers.

[tiggerai]

That seriously sucks.

[Firelord]

FFS! What is with these money grabbing <insert expletive> that just spout that speed kills and that speed cameras are the answer...

Wrong... Its the inappropriate use of speed that kills and bad driving habits... They should concentrate on getting people to drive better ie use those little flashy things called indicators, look before pulling out, stop middle lane hogging, stop tail gateing and stop planks with BMWs from driving like rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish as if its their god given right!

[Spud1]

Nothing wrong with the cameras, if you dont speed then you dont have to worry about them in the slightest. If you do..then your breaking the law and deserve everything you get.

The cameras are there for a good reason - to enforce the LAW and to help to save lives - that extra split second of thinking time you get from driving at 70mph rather than 90mph could be the difference between life and death for someone...

As for why the tories havnt shouted no speed cameras - they dont need to, labour have done a good enough job of fouling up the country that only the chavs they stand for will vote for them now

[Firelord]

Speed cameras are not the answer... Traffic police are the answer. Labour spends too much on "road safety" (ahem cash points) but yet they don't spend enough on the thing that should enforce that law; the police.

There are many contributing factors to road accidents from time of day to weather to road conditions to the physical conditions of the road but Labour just seems interested in sorting out speeders and not dangerous drivers...

I know lots of people that are crap drivers at under 70mph and had more accidents than those that drive slightly over the limit on motorways.

Its not speed that kills its the inappropriate use of speed that kills ie doing 70mph in dense fog is more dangerous than doing 80mph on a clear day...

[Zedmeister]

Why am I not suprised...

More revenue generation for the Scamera partnership.

When large groups of people start thinking a law is unreasonable, then they start loosing respect for the law - a dangerous precedent...

[Spud1]

Speed cameras are not the answer... Traffic police are the answer. Labour spends too much on "road safety" (ahem cash points) but yet they don't spend enough on the thing that should enforce that law; the police.

There are many contributing factors to road accidents from time of day to weather to road conditions to the physical conditions of the road but Labour just seems interested in sorting out speeders and not dangerous drivers...

I know lots of people that are crap drivers at under 70mph and had more accidents than those that drive slightly over the limit on motorways.

Its not speed that kills its the inappropriate use of speed that kills ie doing 70mph in dense fog is more dangerous than doing 80mph on a clear day...

Totally irrelavent, its breaking a law and putting people at risk, therefore its wrong...anything that helps to stop people breaking a law and putting others lives at risks is a good thing...you cant argue against it..

Yes more money should go to the traffic police thats true, but the idea is not to catch people breaking the law, its to prevent them from breaking it in the first place - if people think that there are cameras round every corner then they wont speed will they?

If you have nothing to hide then why should you be worried about them??

[Stoo]

http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_truth.htm

http://www.abd.org.uk/gatsos.htm

Most of the arguments have already been covered..

[Spud1]

still missing the point here methinks...

That link isnt much use either, its blatently written by people who are against the cameras, not objective in the slightest

It doesnt matter what other nations do or dont do, they will have totally different road networks and probably different types of drivers too. So you can't compare.

Granted, more deaths are caused by BAD driving on the roads than people driving over the speed limit - but then thats BAD driving isnt it? If you were on your test and drove at 40mph in a 30mph zone it would be bad driving and you would fail for sure.

So reducing your speed makes you a better driver - it also gives you more time to think, to react, to concentrate. So you get home 5 mins later, does it really matter THAT much?

Theres gotta be someone else on these forums that has enough common sense to recognise the good these cameras can do...

edit*

quote from the 2nd link
'Q. Isn't it wrong to break the law, and shouldn't those who do so be punished?

A. The ABD believes that laws are necessary but that they should be fair to all and serve a clear purpose. Enforcement to the letter of regulations which large numbers of responsible citizens regard as unreasonable and pointless can only lead to widespread disregard for the whole system of law and is a significant factor in the breakdown in standards of honesty in the Western world. '

great answer to that question there 'large numbers of responsible citizens regard as unreasonable and pointless'

so if lots of ppl think that some speed limits are pointless and therefore they can ignore the law about them, does that mean that the large numbers of drug users, murderers, thieves who also think that the law is pointless can just go on and break them?

[yamangman]

I'm all for speed cameras, but on dual carriageways and motorways, speed cameras aren't going to save lives, they will make a hell of a lot money though as the sheer volume of people who speed safely.

[Allen]

Theres gotta be someone else on these forums that has enough common sense to recognise the good these cameras can do...

I think we're a dying breed. The amount of outrage against speed camera's shocks me, just how bad is our society these days where people think it's their right to break the law just because they think the "conditions are right". Say that when you have an accident on a clear day with no rain and little traffic, killing either a passenger of your car or a driver or passenger in another car because you were travelling too fast to react in time to a situation that can come out of literally nowhere.

sheer volume of people who speed safely

There is NO such thing as speeding safely. I don't care what anyone says about statistics and other crap. If you're bombing along at 90 and someone else doing 65-70 has an incident causing them to swerve into your lane, what's the chances of you avoiding them? Probably zero. Lower your speed to 70 and you're doing the same speed as them and the same situation will be totally different.

Accidents can happen at low speed, accidents can happen at high speed. Accidents are mainly not a direct cause of speed, but common sense should tell you that travelling at a lower speed is safer and will give you more time to react to situations and possibly evade accidents.

[Spud1]

I know i'm going on alot on this thread, but its important

Speed safely? Thats still breaking the law. If you break the law expect punishment..Its safe to pirate software but does that mean that ppl should do it? Its safe to do many illegal things but that doesnt give us the right to go ahead and do them...

[Skii]

The problem I have is simply this - speed cameras don't stop speeding, they are just a convenient way of raising a lot of money from unsuspecting people. They don't catch people who tailgate, undertake, cut-up, drive agressively, and drive in a dangerous manner to other road users. They are expensive, and in the majority of areas installed in areas where accidents don't happen.
They capitalise on the simple human error of not watching your speed carefully enough, and can be found in very crafty locations ie where the speed limit changes from 40 to 30 and on dual carriageways out of the way of pedestrians and opposite flowing traffic.
For the dreadful crime of allowing your speed to creep 7 mph over the limit you are given points and a fine and a rise in your already ridiculously high insurance premium for the next 5 years. You get less punishment for GBH.

Don't speed ? It isn't quite that simple because in many cases cameras are placed in locations specifically designed to catch you out, I can think of one instance quite recently where one was placed over the brow of a hill in the south of England where a dual carriageway ends and a 40mph limit starts with very little warning.

Everyone who has driven a car has sped at one time or another.

Everyone.

It is simply an impossible thing to prevent because we are human and we make mistakes, and this is simply a way of financially capitalising on those mistakes.
So, everyone who has driven a car has exceeded the speed limit it some point in their lives, and therefore everyone a car has committed a crime, so everyone gets 3 points and a fine (backdated of course)

See where this is going ?

Where was the speed camera when an idiot in a Saab tried to run me off the road the other evening for no reason what-so-ever? , or the van that was driving too close to me and drove into the back of me when I had to brake suddenly ? It was sitting waiting for some poor bugger on his way home from a product demo in Edinburgh who was doing 48 in a 40 on a clear road.

Gotcha - you danger to our roads.

[Byatt]

The cameras are there for a good reason - to enforce the LAW and to help to save lives - that extra split second of thinking time you get from driving at 70mph rather than 90mph could be the difference between life and death for someone.

Iterating this argument results in a speed limit of 0 mph. The real question is where to draw the line to balance risk/speed.

There is NO such thing as speeding safely. I don't care what anyone says about statistics and other crap. If you're bombing along at 90 and someone else doing 65-70 has an incident causing them to swerve into your lane, what's the chances of you avoiding them? Probably zero. Lower your speed to 70 and you're doing the same speed as them and the same situation will be totally different.

By this reasoning there should also be a minimum speed of 50 on motorways, in case people pull into the outside lane at 50 as you travel at 70, as it is the difference in speed (and the complete and utter incompetence of the driver pulling out to judge speed in a wing mirror) that is causing the risk of collision. Admittedly if a collision occurs at higher speed the more serious it will be, but any collision above 70 is going to be bloody dangerous.

You don't need to use fallacious arguments to back up your position here - if you're pro regulation (i.e you believe that 70 is the ideal safety/speed tradeoff) and you think lawbreakers deserve punishment, just say it. Be aware that you are going to have a hard time proving this "cameras increase safety" thing though...

[Spud1]

Byatt yes your right about one thing there - the motorways should have a minimum speed, couldnt agree more

and we already do have a balance between risk/speed - the current speed limits. For our roads taking into account their width and busyness the current speed limits work...

Skii - cameras do reduce speeding in locations where there are cameras; and where it doesnt work, those people are punished for breaking the law..

however you dress it up speeding is still breaking the law and deserves to be punished. Yes we all make mistakes and hover say between 30 and 35mph, but thats why cameras are generlaly set at least 9mph over the speed limit. Theres a large difference between 30 and 40mph.

Your right about osme of the positionings of the cameras though, they can be put in stupid places that are blatantly just there to make cash, but the majority are there for a good reason.

Your other comments about dangerous driving arent really relavent as that isnt what the cameras are there to stop Although we do need some method to solve that problem - the police cant be there 24/7