ADUK Archive

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/18/speed_cameras/

Refreshing or not?

He even questioned speeding's contribution to traffic accidents. “I know that speed has been part of the reason for many road traffic accidents, but not the sole reason for them. The growth of speed cameras has been so great that the public are concerned."

BRAKE will just love that

According to this Telegraph report, councils have already begun cutting back on speed cameras and preparing to withdraw from camera partnerships.

BRAKE are already spitting feathers:

Julie Townsend, of the road safety charity Brake, added: “It is shocking to hear the new minister making such dismissive comments about speed cameras, which research proves are highly effective in preventing deaths and injuries.

“Every year Brake is contacted by scores of communities crying out for measures like speed cameras to protect local people and enable them to use roads without fear of speeding traffic.”

I wonder what research that is

PeterE wrote:BRAKE are already spitting feathers:

“Every year Brake is contacted by scores of communities crying out for measures like speed cameras to protect local people and enable them to use roads without fear of speeding traffic.”

Yeah I saw that nonsense quote (my emphasis). If that's the problem they're worried about, I don't know why they don't just propose a speed limit on all roads everywhere of 250mph. Then there'd be no speeding traffic to fear.

Or is it perhaps a little more complicated than that?

Idiots.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: "This is a shocking warning. Britain should rightly be proud of the fall over many years in the number of people who have died on the nation's roads.

As far as I can make out from Government figures from the early 1990s when speed cameras were introduced, the death rates on our roads plateaud at or around the 3000 mark, after a steady decline in the years prior to the introduction of speed cameras, and only showed a significant decrease again in 2008. As vehicle safety has increased significantly over the past 20 or so years with the introduction of crumple zones, stronger occupant cages (I don't know the correct term), ABS, ESP, air bags, seat belt pre-tensioners etc. the survival rate is probably considerably higher than it was prior to these improvements.

fungus wrote:As vehicle safety has increased significantly over the past 20 or so years with the introduction of crumple zones, stronger occupant cages (I don't know the correct term), ABS, ESP, air bags, seat belt pre-tensioners etc.

All of the above are good examples of automotive safety technology, but they are all about protecting the occupants of the vehicle. One of the factors that I think is glaringly noticeable by its absence in any discussion about road safety is the distinction between the concept of putting yourself at risk versus to the concept of putting other people at risk. To my mind, they are completely different.

I have never quite understood why all the focus of the advances in safety technology is always about the driver - the person who is already largely in command of their own destiny anyway. I am much more interested in safety features designed to protect other people from my mistakes than those designed to protect me from my own mistakes.

GJD wrote:I am much more interested in safety features designed to protect other people from my mistakes than those designed to protect me from my own mistakes.

You could reasonably argue that ABS and ESP are designed to do both.

The NCAP pedestrian safety rating is designed to assist those outside of the vehicle.

The design of the front of vehicles to scoop and crumple the addition of more plastic parts on the front of vehicles and the almost total disappearance of bullbars and roo'bars have all contributed to pedestrian safety.

The improvement in braking through all round discs, ABS and the various traction control systems have all added to the reduction in stopping distance in one way or another.