Speed Cameras

[me jane 0]

I think speed cameras can be a good idea. They work well in the UK (at least they do in my hometown). They tend to be put up in danger hot spots where there have been a lot of accidents or where children have been knocked down and are often requested by local residents. All the cameras have film in them, everyone knows someone who has been caught, so they do make people slow down and reduce the number of serious accidents. We don't have them on the motorways (at least I haven't seen them) where there are generally no pedestrians.

 

They don't seem to have much use in Japan though - they only seem to be on the highways, often don't have film in them and don't stop the bosozoku (or anyone else) running red lights in the cities.

[indosnm 0]

They're on normal roads too here, Me Jane.

I like the fact that there are warning signs before each camera, alerting you to slow down. When we do highway runs in unfamiliar territory the passenger is always the designated "spotter"!

I have been caught once by a camera at night, and damn the pics are clear!

[bobby12 0]

In the UK they dont show u the pics. I think they do stop you speeding, and you do get a fair warning to slow down.

 

What I dont like are areas that are 50 zones when it is clearly safe to do 70 or 80. everyone does about 60, 65 there and from time to time you get busted for it if you are one of the unlucky ones the cops choose to stop. They should just make the limit more reasonable then people would respect it. Its like traffic lights in Japan, the delay between red and green is so long that noone ever stops when the light has just turned red. This is really dangerous for pedestrians.

[soubriquet 0]

Speed cameras, like bike helmets, do nothing to promote road safety. They are simply a tax. You have to pay the taxes to pay the pensions of the tax parasites.

[indosnm 0]

OZ is bad now, they used to have a 7km allowance, now it's 3km! Revenue raising to the max and people spend so much time watching their godd damn speed that they have accidents.

[me jane 0]

 Quote:

Originally posted by soubriquet:
Speed cameras, like bike helmets, do nothing to promote road safety. They are simply a tax. You have to pay the taxes to pay the pensions of the tax parasites.

I don't think that's always the case. It depends on the position of the speed camera and the reason for it. Speed cameras do make people slow down and slower speeds are less likely to seriously injure or kill. Having a speed camera outside the entrance to a children's playground on an area of a busy road with a history of accidents will reduce the number of accidents. On the other hand having one on a straight, wide & quiet piece of motorway probably won't.

[soubriquet 0]

I agree that they could be usefully employed in critical areas, but I've never seen that. In Perth they are invariably sited on wide and open roads where it is perfectly safe to travel at higher than the posted limit.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a speed freak, and have a very good driving record. I just don't believe the safety bullshit.

[lin 0]

I read in the UK that some roads are soon going to be 20mph limit (from a previous 30mph limit). There's such a thing as too slow.

[Fossil 0]

We have speed cameras here in WA but the road toll is still just as high. In fact this year we are well up on fatalities.

The cameras are often in high traffic, high temptation areas. Not near schools or shopping centres.

The revenue raising is so blatant that the govt dosnt make much effort to disguise it anymore. I think if they were used properly multinovas can reduce accidents but like most govt initiatives it is more about appearance than effect.

 

soubriquet; "Speed cameras, like bike helmets, do nothing to promote road safety."

Do you advocate the abolishion of seatbelts TOO?

[soubriquet 0]

"Do you advocate the abolishion of seatbelts TOO?"

 

No I don't. I always wear my belt, and I insist my passengers do too. The injury statistics clearly demonstrate the value of belts.

 

I should have phrased my earlier comment a little more carefully. I'm sure if you are racing or powering around at high speed, they offer useful protection. You may have access to a larger data set than me, but when WA introduced compulsory bike helmets, there was no statistical difference in head injuries. There was a drop in the number of cyclists though.

 

If you simply want to trundle down to the deli for milk, or cruise along the foreshore, then I don't believe they are neccessary. It is always hard to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risk, but I don't believe the available evidence supports government meddling in this case.

[bushpig 0]

I'm with you on the bike helmet one Soub.

[snobee 0]

Always a bit of controversy surrounding the issue of compulsory helmet wearing. Statistics are trotted out and squeezed by opponents and proponents. I wore one in Oz for years and I've never worn one here. So what's my line?

 

Well a couple of years back a great young kid (10 yrs) a student of mine was knocked off her bike while riding at a very slow speed. Head grazed/hit the gutter.

 

Ambulance, 1 month coma in hospital, 3 months full recovery (we hope). Sooo Lucky!!!

 

No one will ever convince me that a helmet would not have helped her. Accredited Bike Helmets are designed to work best in such situations. They are not bomb protectors.

 

As long as my daughter rides she'll be wearing a helmet.

[soubriquet 0]

I certainly agree that if you're going to fall on your head, then a helmet is better than no helmet. My boys used to wear theirs, and I always wore mine with them. But, in 50 years of falling off bikes, I've never hit my head.

 

The problem is that if we allow compulsory protection against hazards on arguable safety grounds, where will it end? Skiing off piste? Powder snow? Between the trees? Back country? All our winter fun activities in the mountains are hazardous. I slide much faster on skis than I ride my bike, but my head protection is a beanie. If I skied in the trees, I'd wear a helmet. I think I'm better qualified to make these decisions than politicians and beaurocrats.

[snobee 0]

S'briquet - yeah I agree with your genral points - where will the legislation end and what are the qualifications of the legislators?

 

However rules are made for the multitude, which includes those who can act/think responsibly and who don't need to be patronised by such.

 

But shit happens.

 

No amount of protection would have saved my "out for a stroll" friend from having her ankle/shin broken when hit from behind by a kuso-gakki riding a bicycle while listening to his mp3 AND texting at the same time. But some damn strictly enforced rules about such behaviour would certainly bring a smile to my face.

I'm not an advocate for the draconian, but there are lots of people out there who are in Noddy Land who are incapable of making a safe decision.

 

Penalize 'em I say. And we'll just have to live with the accompanying impingements upon us responsible ones - unfortunately.

[Fossil 0]

Actually I thought you meant motorbike helmets.

Didnt mean to open such a can of wrigglys.

But now it is I think on balance the health benifits of wearing helmets is resulting in the detrimental effects of poorer fitness in our children and youths. Simply because it has put yet another barrier between them and exercise. This is going to result in a heavier cost in terms of increased health care.

Incidently Ive worked in ED and I have seen the result of biking head injuries.

Despite that experience I feel that life will always entail risk and trying too hard too mitigate that risk through legislation can result in a poorer quality of life for the majority.

[soubriquet 0]

I had surmised you were in that area fossil which, is why I'd be open to persuasion if I could see some robust statistics supporting the safety case.

 

The reason I feel strongly about "safety" legislation, is that it is a creeping disease. Once legislation has been enacted, it is almost never repealed. Little by little our freedoms and responsibilities are being eroded by government's need to be seen to be "doing something". After all, everyone is "pro-safety" aren't they?

 

My brother works in the building industry as a "snagger". That is he has all the trades, and follows the "tradesmen" about, fixing up their shoddy workmanship and stuff-ups. He can use a 14" high portable platform, but not a ladder. If he needs to get higher, then he has to have scaffolding erected. That needs a scaffolder, with a ticket, and an inspection. Just to change a bulb. He's not allowed to change a tap washer. That needs a plumber, with a ticket. The extra costs are paid by the customer. That's you.

 

There's a beaurocracy paid to dream up and introduce this stuff, and there's a second layer paid to enforce it. Their pay comes out of your taxes. When they retire, You will be paying their pensions too. At what point does appropriate safety legislation become nannying, stripping us of our responsibilities, and by definition, turning us all back into children?

[soubriquet 0]

It's worth considering what kind of behaviour is proscribed by the law. Drowning witches, burning blacks; these types of traditional activities need to be stopped by law.

 

It seems that having an opinion is also illegal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/04/nprescott04.xml

"councillors who have been elected specifically to fight a particular issue have fallen foul of the rules and found themselves told they cannot speak or vote on it.

 

The controversy centres on the Standards Board for England, which was launched by Mr Prescott in 2001. The Deputy Prime Minister claimed that the new body would help to ensure high ethical standards in local government.

 

The board handles complaints about councillors' behaviour and is supported by a network of ethical standards officers, who are each paid £61,000 a year. Each authority also has its own monitoring officers who advise councillors on their conduct.

 

In 2003-04 the board handled more than 3,500 allegations and launched 1,105 investigations. Sanctions were imposed on more than 200 councillors who were judged to have breached the code of conduct.

 

The report's authors - Owen Paterson, the shadow transport minister, and Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister - said they were shocked by the scale of the chaos the Deputy Prime Minister had created.

 

There is particular concern about the board's belief that councillors should not be allowed to debate a subject if they have already made up their minds on the issue — the crime of "predetermination."

 

Councillors on South Cambridgeshire district council, for instance, were warned that they should not "pronounce on a park-and-ride scheme if they drove a car", says the report, A Question of Standards.

 

The report adds that the councillors were also told "they might be disqualified from discussing the siting of a mobile phone mast if they themselves used a mobile phone"."

 

Note that the government servants are being paid £61,000 pa, and will be drawing pensions at tax payers expense. That is, you are paying them to tell you what you cannot do. This is the epitome of self serving bullshit. These parasites answer to no-one. When the bullshit self serving parasites decide that mountains are dangerous, they'll be off-limits. Not in my lifetime, but in yours, for sure.

 

"I once was what you are. What I am, you will be"

[BagOfCrisps 24]

 Quote:

said they were shocked by the scale of the chaos the Deputy Prime Minister had created

I bet they don't even know his name

(Does anyone?)

[charlotte 0]

New speeding signs flash your licence plate number as well:

 

The latest piece of kit to be tested out during roadworks is a radar-assisted speeding sign that not only flashes when it detects a speeding car, but also displays the license plate number of said car. Yeah, scary. Apparently the public shame (or swift realization that it could also be an automated ticket-writer) that the sign dishes out to speeding motorists is having some effect, with 50% of drivers slowing down once they see their number is up.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/05/smart-speeding-sign-flashes-your-license-plate-number/

[grungy-gonads 54]

I had noticed the ones that flashed up the speed you were going at if you were over the limit but not heard of ones flashing up the reg number.

 

(I wouldn't know if it was me either, don't know my reg number offhand )