Sick of Speeding Cars!

[Joffey]

Very late to the thread but I just came across a Speederbot account on Twitter.
It sources the average speed of mobile phones in an area that you set, and then will tweet every time a phone is detected going faster than the speed you select.

Might help your case as it'll show if speeding is an issue on that road ?

Sounds interesting! Cheers!

 

[mjr]

Very true, but it doesn't make the claim that they're 'safety cameras' any less dishonest.

No, but it does highlight that calling them "money spinners" is misleading.

We should have both traffic police and speed cameras. And red light and yellow box and crossing cameras. Motorists on average will take liberties away from walkers, cyclists and residents whenever not deterred.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

No, but it does highlight that calling them "money spinners" is misleading.

We should have both traffic police and speed cameras. And red light and yellow box and crossing cameras. Motorists on average will take liberties away from walkers, cyclists and residents whenever not deterred.

I disagree. They're put in places where it could be argued that the speed limit isn't correct anyway, such as the slip road I mentioned. They don't seem to be in places that are accident blackspots, so safety camera is by far a bigger misnomer than cash cow or money spinner.

They get more news because those sort of traffic infringements are easier to 'Police' than the many that are committed by walkers and cyclists, which skews perceptions.

If they were successful at reducing speeding, they'd be self defeating, as they wouldn't raise the revenue required to operate them.

 

[Joffey]

I disagree. They're put in places where it could be argued that the speed limit isn't correct anyway, such as the slip road I mentioned. They don't seem to be in places that are accident blackspots, so safety camera is by far a bigger misnomer than cash cow or money spinner.

They get more news because those sort of traffic infringements are easier to 'Police' than the many that are committed by walkers and cyclists, which skews perceptions.

If they were successful at reducing speeding, they'd be self defeating, as they wouldn't raise the revenue required to operate them.

If people didn't commit offences it wouldn't matter where they placed the cameras.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

If people didn't commit offences it wouldn't matter where they placed the cameras.

Way to go in ignoring most of what I put, just to push a very narrow agenda.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

During consultation stage we told them the single chicane would not do much. We said the only thing to slow cars would be speed bumps. Only the fear of damaging their speeding car would keep people to under the limit and only if there's a few along the road, proven right there.

I personally think this is a misnomer, the people who speed rarely care about their cars, so they won't slow down unless they are so severe they cause damage to the 99% of the law abiding drivers.

There are 2 quite close to where we live they are so severe anything over 10mph is going to cause damage, the only way to get over them with a horse trailer or caravan is to straggle the humps so the jockey wheel goes between them.

There's been at least 3 accidents I know of where a car has suddenly braked from 30 to 10 when they have seen how severe they are only to be rear ended, okay the following drivers fault, but not a very good safety measure that causes accidents.

Don't get me wrong I'm against speeding I bring it up at the Parish Council meeting most months but I don't think humps are the answer.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

They get more news because those sort of traffic infringements are easier to 'Police' than the many that are committed by walkers

What are the many traffic infringements being made by walkers and what’s your evidence?

 

[Joffey]

Way to go in ignoring most of what I put, just to push a very narrow agenda.

My agenda?

 

[cougie uk]

I personally think this is a misnomer, the people who speed rarely care about their cars, so they won't slow down unless they are so severe they cause damage to the 99% of the law abiding drivers.

There are 2 quite close to where we live they are so severe anything over 10mph is going to cause damage, the only way to get over them with a horse trailer or caravan is to straggle the humps so the jockey wheel goes between them.

There's been at least 3 accidents I know of where a car has suddenly braked from 30 to 10 when they have seen how severe they are only to be rear ended, okay the following drivers fault, but not a very good safety measure that causes accidents.

Don't get me wrong I'm against speeding I bring it up at the Parish Council meeting most months but I don't think humps are the answer.

I think the vast majority of people do care about their cars - and there's plenty of very flashy and expensive cars that speed.

With technology these days speed cameras must pay for themselves in no time.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I think the vast majority of people do care about their cars - and there's plenty of very flashy and expensive cars that speed.

With technology these days speed cameras must pay for themselves in no time.

The point I was trying to make very badly clearly is that a good proportion of the speeders don't care about their cars, quite often because they are not theirs, either a company car or owned by the lease company. Speed humps I feel penailse the law abiding driver more than those that speed, I'd like to see stricter penalties imposed, walking towards the school to pick my granddaughter up a car went through one of these speed check units. 58mph it registered this, is less than 400 metres from the school, I'd be happy to see that driver lose their license immediately.

 

[cougie uk]

The point I was trying to make very badly clearly is that a good proportion of the speeders don't care about their cars, quite often because they are not theirs, either a company car or owned by the lease company. Speed humps I feel penailse the law abiding driver more than those that speed, I'd like to see stricter penalties imposed, walking towards the school to pick my granddaughter up a car went through one of these speed check units. 58mph it registered this, is less than 400 metres from the school, I'd be happy to see that driver lose their license immediately.

That's outrageous. Should lose their licence and freedom for that.

Traffic round schools are awful with the amount of kids being picked up by cars anyway. Good on you for walking - lot of lazy people out there - even with fuel prices through the roof.

Pretty sure that you still need to look after lease cars ? I know you have to pay an excess for extra mileage over that agreed so you must pay more if it's missing a wing or something.

 

[matticus]

Pretty sure that you still need to look after lease cars ? I know you have to pay an excess for extra mileage over that agreed so you must pay more if it's missing a wing or something.

Maybe, but you ain't gonna care how often the shocks need replacing, or the tyres, brake-pads etc ...

[I've always wondered if the suspensions parts makers are bribing the folks who plan "speed-calming" devices ... ]

 

[mjr]

I disagree. They're put in places where it could be argued that the speed limit isn't correct anyway, such as the slip road I mentioned. They don't seem to be in places that are accident blackspots, so safety camera is by far a bigger misnomer than cash cow or money spinner.

That is probably a problem in your local area. The nearest one to me has been placed on an accident hotspot (a staggered crossroads) when local residents (including me) feel it would be better sited on the approach to it because that's where people speed, arriving at the hotspot unable to stop within what they can see to be clear - as is common, with many drivers now seemingly driving so fast that they can only stop within what they can't see to be obstructed yet.

They get more news because those sort of traffic infringements are easier to 'Police' than the many that are committed by walkers and cyclists, which skews perceptions.

It would be very easy to sit on any major cycle commuting route just after sunset and catch people for lack of lights, "chipped" e-bike motors and defective brakes, and create a big local newspaper splash for doing so, but it would have almost no effect on road casualty rates.

As for walkers, I struggle to think what "traffic infringements" they can commit apart from obstructing traffic which is very rare outside protests.

The reason why motorists are policed more is that they kill and injure more. Even then, policing is not proportionate to harm or offending.

If they were successful at reducing speeding, they'd be self defeating, as they wouldn't raise the revenue required to operate them.

I think we pay a five-figure revenue sum to fund Norfolk camera operations, as well as the five-figure installation capital cost. Again, maybe this varies by area and some areas aren't willing to fund hotspot cameras. I can see why revenue-neutral cameras would be troublesome.

 

[mjr]

Maybe, but you ain't gonna care how often the shocks need replacing, or the tyres, brake-pads etc ...

[I've always wondered if the suspensions parts makers are bribing the folks who plan "speed-calming" devices ... ]

There is a standard design now (since 2008 I think) for speed humps which are "sinusoidal" which are almost untroubling to bicycles, minor to motorists passing at the recommended speed and sickening for fast motorists. I only remember encountering them in Cambridgeshire so far, though. On my last drive in Northamptonshire, taking a speed hump at between 5 and 10mph caused a part to fall off my car! I think it was £40 to cut the rest of it off and put a new one on... you may be on to something!

 

[matticus]

Our Sainsburys car-park has some reeeeeeally fearsome humps. You have to think quite carefully when riding over them, and there is always a scraping noise somewhere from a car being "coerced" over one of the things! Presumably private land, so much less stringent regs.