m4 protest day
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,979
Likes: 0
From: North Yorks
I am helping to organise this protest, so consider me a little biased. However;
In Wiltshire traffic patrols have dropped to a level where there are only AT MOST 2 traffic cars on patrol at any time in the entire county. Traffic patrols cover all kinds of poor driving and can also be on the scene immediately to give first aid and prevent further injury. Despite the reduction in traffic patrols 'clear up rates' have risen, so the Police Authority see no reason to increase them again.
The Wiltshire camera partnership have increased in number from 2 in 2003 to over 30 currently, are having brand new offices built in Corsham, all funded by speeding fines, they are becoming larger and larger and have no public accountability as to what they spend their money on, despite taking money from what would normally go into the public purse. They are paying trained policemen overtime to sit in the vans, these policemen would rather sit in a van pinging speeders all day than do their overtime on the beat, so guess who loses out - we do, the Wiltshire council tax payers who pay for a police service.
The protest is not about speeding, it's about the misappropriation of resources, away from real policing and into 'easy target' speeding offences and the proliferation of cameras at the expense of other forms of law enforcement. Putting cameras on a motorway, where the accident rates are lower than any other class of road in the country is nothing more than an exercise in revenue generation.
The accidents used to justify speed camera placement in this case have very little to do with speed - mainly speed-limited lorries and tired drivers, but preventing this kind of accident costs, rather than raises money.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with a group of people wanting to speed down a stretch of motorway, it is to do with the people we pay to serve our best interests not doing the job they are paid to do. It is about unelected, unaccountable quangos making money by turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals yet offering no incentive for them to not make the same mistake again.
If speed cameras did their job, Jo would not have been on this board worrying about her licence a couple of weeks ago, since she would have 'learned her lesson' first time round and would have made a judgement that 80mph+ was not an appropriate speed to drive at on the M25. Knowing Jo's driving, I would consider her a good driver, and not deserving of a fine, so what contribution to road safety did the cameras provide?
Reducing speed might reduce the severity of an accident (though reducing from 80 to 70 is unlikely to make much of a difference), but the aim of road safety should be to avoid the accidents in the first place - speed cameras do little or nothing to further this ideal.
In Wiltshire traffic patrols have dropped to a level where there are only AT MOST 2 traffic cars on patrol at any time in the entire county. Traffic patrols cover all kinds of poor driving and can also be on the scene immediately to give first aid and prevent further injury. Despite the reduction in traffic patrols 'clear up rates' have risen, so the Police Authority see no reason to increase them again.
The Wiltshire camera partnership have increased in number from 2 in 2003 to over 30 currently, are having brand new offices built in Corsham, all funded by speeding fines, they are becoming larger and larger and have no public accountability as to what they spend their money on, despite taking money from what would normally go into the public purse. They are paying trained policemen overtime to sit in the vans, these policemen would rather sit in a van pinging speeders all day than do their overtime on the beat, so guess who loses out - we do, the Wiltshire council tax payers who pay for a police service.
The protest is not about speeding, it's about the misappropriation of resources, away from real policing and into 'easy target' speeding offences and the proliferation of cameras at the expense of other forms of law enforcement. Putting cameras on a motorway, where the accident rates are lower than any other class of road in the country is nothing more than an exercise in revenue generation.
The accidents used to justify speed camera placement in this case have very little to do with speed - mainly speed-limited lorries and tired drivers, but preventing this kind of accident costs, rather than raises money.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with a group of people wanting to speed down a stretch of motorway, it is to do with the people we pay to serve our best interests not doing the job they are paid to do. It is about unelected, unaccountable quangos making money by turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals yet offering no incentive for them to not make the same mistake again.
If speed cameras did their job, Jo would not have been on this board worrying about her licence a couple of weeks ago, since she would have 'learned her lesson' first time round and would have made a judgement that 80mph+ was not an appropriate speed to drive at on the M25. Knowing Jo's driving, I would consider her a good driver, and not deserving of a fine, so what contribution to road safety did the cameras provide?
Reducing speed might reduce the severity of an accident (though reducing from 80 to 70 is unlikely to make much of a difference), but the aim of road safety should be to avoid the accidents in the first place - speed cameras do little or nothing to further this ideal.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,979
Likes: 0
From: North Yorks
I'm joint organising the Membury end, meet at 10.00am, and drive (legally and only once) to Leigh Delamere.
A similar convoy will go in the opposite direction.
That's it really, it's just a leisurely drive through the cameras
. The Daily Express has a bit in it today, Radio 4 mentioned it this morning and of course the local press are all over it. We expect the TV and national press to be there to witness it (pre-election protests seem to be news for some reason).
A similar convoy will go in the opposite direction.
That's it really, it's just a leisurely drive through the cameras
. The Daily Express has a bit in it today, Radio 4 mentioned it this morning and of course the local press are all over it. We expect the TV and national press to be there to witness it (pre-election protests seem to be news for some reason).
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 7
"The protest is not about speeding, it's about the misappropriation of resources, away from real policing and into 'easy target' speeding offences and the proliferation of cameras at the expense of other forms of law enforcement. Putting cameras on a motorway, where the accident rates are lower than any other class of road in the country is nothing more than an exercise in revenue generation."
Although its not "PC" these days (I personally think "PC attitudes" have alot to answer for but that's another story), I think Germany has the right idea with some of their Autobahns. There is no mandatory speed limit but an advisory one. Thus, there has to be no debate about the safety of travelling at a certain speed. If its proven you were travelling over the advisory limit resulting in an accident then you are in trouble. But, on a clear roda in good conditions you can balst along at whatever speed you like even safer than over here becuase you don't have to keep looking over your shoulder for the taxman collecting more revenue!
I would join your protest but I'm on holiday that week (in Germany actually
).
Although its not "PC" these days (I personally think "PC attitudes" have alot to answer for but that's another story), I think Germany has the right idea with some of their Autobahns. There is no mandatory speed limit but an advisory one. Thus, there has to be no debate about the safety of travelling at a certain speed. If its proven you were travelling over the advisory limit resulting in an accident then you are in trouble. But, on a clear roda in good conditions you can balst along at whatever speed you like even safer than over here becuase you don't have to keep looking over your shoulder for the taxman collecting more revenue!
I would join your protest but I'm on holiday that week (in Germany actually
).
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Originally Posted by lovegroova,Apr 20 2005, 09:44 AM
Joining dreamer in playing DA here: One thing the ABD seem to forget into all their research in to the causes of accidents, is that higher speeds make accidents worse. Jump off a 5ft wall, and then try the same off a 50ft wall, to see what I mean!!!
Given the widely held view in this thread on the low standards of driving from most people out there, it seems to me that reducing speeds is a pretty good way of reducing casualties on the roads. Stop the numpties from driving too fast.
As I posted in the other thread relating to this, along that 40 mile section of M4, it takes 7 minutes longer to drive it at 70, than it does at 90. (27 mins at 90, 30 mins at 80, and 34 mins at 70). Hardly a bind really.
Given the widely held view in this thread on the low standards of driving from most people out there, it seems to me that reducing speeds is a pretty good way of reducing casualties on the roads. Stop the numpties from driving too fast.
As I posted in the other thread relating to this, along that 40 mile section of M4, it takes 7 minutes longer to drive it at 70, than it does at 90. (27 mins at 90, 30 mins at 80, and 34 mins at 70). Hardly a bind really.
It's confusing F=1/2MV^2 with a statistical average.
EG - what about that reckless train driver who was doing 100mph and couldn't stop on a stright bit of track when that pratt parked his Land Rover on a railway line. I don't see GATSOs for trains, or the enforcement of a 70mph speed limit.
There is also the question of mass in the above equation - it's not just the speed that is multiplied! Work out the force involved at a given speed between a 1000kg TVR and a 2000Kg Cayenne!
On that stretch of the M4, a short sliproed has been implicated in accidents - it's most likely why it is speed limited wagons that are usually involved. A classic case of limited speed being dangerous.
Sorry, but the more deeply one looks into this, the more one questions the point of speed limits, although at a first simplistic glance, they seem so obviously a good idea.
Former Moderator
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 24,771
Likes: 311
From: Stanmore
Originally Posted by Nick Graves,Apr 20 2005, 11:44 AM
Classical statistical error!
It's confusing F=1/2MV^2 with a statistical average.
EG - what about that reckless train driver who was doing 100mph and couldn't stop on a stright bit of track when that pratt parked his Land Rover on a railway line. I don't see GATSOs for trains, or the enforcement of a 70mph speed limit.
There is also the question of mass in the above equation - it's not just the speed that is multiplied! Work out the force involved at a given speed between a 1000kg TVR and a 2000Kg Cayenne!
On that stretch of the M4, a short sliproed has been implicated in accidents - it's most likely why it is speed limited wagons that are usually involved. A classic case of limited speed being dangerous.
Sorry, but the more deeply one looks into this, the more one questions the point of speed limits, although at a first simplistic glance, they seem so obviously a good idea.
It's confusing F=1/2MV^2 with a statistical average.
EG - what about that reckless train driver who was doing 100mph and couldn't stop on a stright bit of track when that pratt parked his Land Rover on a railway line. I don't see GATSOs for trains, or the enforcement of a 70mph speed limit.
There is also the question of mass in the above equation - it's not just the speed that is multiplied! Work out the force involved at a given speed between a 1000kg TVR and a 2000Kg Cayenne!
On that stretch of the M4, a short sliproed has been implicated in accidents - it's most likely why it is speed limited wagons that are usually involved. A classic case of limited speed being dangerous.
Sorry, but the more deeply one looks into this, the more one questions the point of speed limits, although at a first simplistic glance, they seem so obviously a good idea.
On the recent Tube TV programme they showed train speeds being monitored by a guy with a radar gun. Presumably the same applies to mainline train operators, or at least trains are fitted with a device similar to tachos on lorries?The 1/2 kmv^2 equation.
A 2000kg Cayenne has F of 4.9 whatevers, or WE (used as I have mixed KG with mph!) at 70mph.
A 1000kg TVR has F of 2.45 WE at 70mph.
At 80mph, the WE gigures are 6.4 for the Cayenne and 3.2 for the TVR and increase of 31% - that's a lot more energy to be dissipated, whatever the vehicle. Having said all that, this applies more to non-motorway accidents where pedestrians are involved. On the motorway, I guess it makes little difference overall.
Add to that the extra milliseconds slower speeds give to muppets to avoid accidents, and non-muppets to avoid muppets. Speed limits seem a good idea, unless you have shown the intelligence and good taste to drive an S2000, in which case you should be exempt. If you're big enough a berk to buy a Cayenne, you should be banned from driving it on taste grounds alone!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 39,548
Likes: 11
From: City Of London / Knebworth
Originally Posted by MarkB,Apr 20 2005, 09:07 AM
Reducing speed might reduce the severity of an accident (though reducing from 80 to 70 is unlikely to make much of a difference), but the aim of road safety should be to avoid the accidents in the first place - speed cameras do little or nothing to further this ideal.
I listened to a London police commissioner on the radio a while back admit that this was a problem in London ........ but did not keep any statistics on the numbers of accidents caused in this way (surprise, surprise)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 17,572
Likes: 1
From: Wakefield, West Yorks.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The laws are all ar$e about face.
Why on earth are we concerned about how dangerous a vehicle travelling at speed is going to be to a pedestrian? Why not just keep the bloody pedestrians off the road?
Currently the roads are a public right of way and people walking have more rights to the road than people in cars. I say this is bloody silly and the law should be changed. I vote for jaywalking laws to be introduced.
Why bother making new cars safer to run people over with
when it makes more sense to remove the chance that the person would be there in the first place. It's just common sense. Is it just me that can see this? 
I would guess that 90% of car vs pedestrian incidents are the fault of the pedestrian not paying enough attention or making a mistake somewhere along the line.
Every day I see a number of people casually strolling across the road not even bothering to look round or move quicker to get out of the way of on coming traffic because "the car has seen me and will slow down". That's a big bloody assumption. In fact, it's TWO big bloody assumptions.
Ok, It probably doesn't apply here, but I love wheeling it out.
It's a pet hate of mine.
Why on earth are we concerned about how dangerous a vehicle travelling at speed is going to be to a pedestrian? Why not just keep the bloody pedestrians off the road?
Currently the roads are a public right of way and people walking have more rights to the road than people in cars. I say this is bloody silly and the law should be changed. I vote for jaywalking laws to be introduced.
Why bother making new cars safer to run people over with
when it makes more sense to remove the chance that the person would be there in the first place. It's just common sense. Is it just me that can see this? I would guess that 90% of car vs pedestrian incidents are the fault of the pedestrian not paying enough attention or making a mistake somewhere along the line.
Every day I see a number of people casually strolling across the road not even bothering to look round or move quicker to get out of the way of on coming traffic because "the car has seen me and will slow down". That's a big bloody assumption. In fact, it's TWO big bloody assumptions.
Ok, It probably doesn't apply here, but I love wheeling it out.
It's a pet hate of mine.