James May On Speed Cameras

[csv8]

April issue of TG magazine..page 35..James lets rip on speed cameras. Not what Bligh or Brumby would agree with. But we do.
"Cameras are for making money and not saving lives, but thats because fines aren't high enough " " You know where fixed speed cameras are, go slowly there, and give it the beans when you are out of harm's way. That is what I do . I do spend a lot of time going fast, and I've had a clean licence since 1998"
Go James !!!!

[Revolver]

Yeah! LOL!!!!!!!

[RRM]

He has some good points.

But by that logic, you could assess the fine you'd get if convicted for fraud, and assess the chance of getting caught, and then on that basis decide that it's perfectly reasonable to defraud someone.

Curious that whenever speed limits / enforcement are discussed, the idea of keeping to the speed limit because it's the right thing to do seldom comes up...

[aussie muscle]

maybe speed cameras should be set for a higher tolerance (say 30km over) and have very high fines. punish those who do the wrong thing.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

maybe speed cameras should be set for a higher tolerance (say 30km over) and have very high fines. punish those who do the wrong thing.

In Victoria we prefer to punish everyone!!!

[snappy]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

maybe speed cameras should be set for a higher tolerance (say 30km over) and have very high fines. punish those who do the wrong thing.

I agree a higher tolerence of 10kph would be preferred . Not because i like to speed thats not at all the issue .
There are often situtions that doing that extra 5-10kph for a short period to get in the lane needed or to overtake or somtimes to get clear of a bad/drunk/tailgater or tired driver . Even somtimes sitting on the speed limit stems the flow of the traffic and by doing this you get stuck were you are and have every one contsantly overtaking you in heavy traffic it make me nervous gives me the feeling im not in control.
Having the low tolerence also make me contrate on not going over the limit that somtimes i put my self in more danger by doing so .
It takes alot of conentration to keep any car within a couple of kph. An at times i need to be conentrating on all the over elements on the road as said before pedestrians,merging cars,trams road signs,traffic lights and then you still need to navigate traffic to make sure your heading to where you need to be . It can be really difficult at times .

Ditch the speed camera put more patrol cars on the road if im sitting on the highway doing 110kph for the a couple of kms by all means fine me but if i do it for a couple of seconds to merge it just stupid and goes against making the roads safer.


An yes james may is a champion

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by RRM

He has some good points.

But by that logic, you could assess the fine you'd get if convicted for fraud, and assess the chance of getting caught, and then on that basis decide that it's perfectly reasonable to defraud someone.

Curious that whenever speed limits / enforcement are discussed, the idea of keeping to the speed limit because it's the right thing to do seldom comes up...

Thats because its not always the right thing to do

The speed limit is often too low for the conditions
The speed limit is often too high for the conditions

A big problem in this country is the way the authorities perpetrate the myth that if everyone blindly stuck to the speed limit, everything would be ok.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by RRM

He has some good points.

But by that logic, you could assess the fine you'd get if convicted for fraud, and assess the chance of getting caught, and then on that basis decide that it's perfectly reasonable to defraud someone.

Curious that whenever speed limits / enforcement are discussed, the idea of keeping to the speed limit because it's the right thing to do seldom comes up...

hmmm...that's a novel idea, but seriously i can't see it catching on.....

[RRM]

[P1]
Even here in NZ we have roads where I could pretty confidently drive at 150km/h without causing a disaster. And oh boy I'd love to. But that's not really the issue, is it?

[P2]
When you go out on the road, you anticipate some general level of safety, don't you? You know what it is, because you've been driving for years and years, and you know roughly how often you see crashes (or are involved in crashes.)

[P3]
Now delete "you" everywhere it occurs in [2] above, and replace with "society" to reflect that the roads belong to all taxpayers, not just car enthusiasts like us.

[P4]
If everyone drives faster, no road is going to become safer than it currently is. The rate of crashes will either stay about the same, or increase; because like it or lump it cars just don't stop as quickly or go around corners as well when the speed is increased. And a bend that affords perfectly adequate visibility at 35km/h might start to feel pretty "blind" at about 50 or 60km/h. (This is not some partisan Ford vs Holden Vs Honda, Michelin vs Kumho debate, this is Newtonian mechanics!)

[P3] + [P4] = [C1]
It's not my right, alone, to decide if the 100km/h speed limit is "too low" or not. I have an obligation to observe the speed limits that everyone else observes, out of courtesy to fellow road users who have a (perfectly reasonable) expectation that I will not come skidding into them sideways at 150km/h and wipe out their kid. And why should they have to run the risk of just "trusting me" - because I "know" I'm a "pretty good" driver who can go faster than everyone else?

[P1] + [C1] = [C2]
I like to cautiously put my foot down from time to time. But in doing so I accept the speeding tickets that come with that, and not grizzle that somehow some wrong is being done to me by dirty cops. And I should certainly save it for moments when there are no other cars around at all to be put in harm's way by my bit of fun, be they Cop cars, speed cameras, or my neighbour and his kid.

This kind of thinking is called "duty ethics"... the idea that you should think about doing the right thing, rather than doing as much (or as little) as you can get away with.


[ / Thread-jack ]

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Thats because its not always the right thing to do

The speed limit is often too low for the conditions
The speed limit is often too high for the conditions

A big problem in this country is the way the authorities perpetrate the myth that if everyone blindly stuck to the speed limit, everything would be ok.

Not sure how much of a MYTH that really is...

In a perfect world, if nobody could speed in the posted zone (car was restricted to speedlimit via the cars onboard computer)... Then there would be a LOT less accidents on our road...

What do you believe the single most influential factor is of a major accident/fatality??
Speed?? Fatigue?? Alcohol?? Drugs?? Experiece?? Mechanical Failure?? Weather Conditions?? Time of day??

I would say Speed would be the largest determining factor in 80% of accidents... (based on no statistics what-so-ever)...

It wouldn't be the only thing... but it does play a major part...

[ebxr8240]

I would say a collision or impact would be the cause...
The speed just magnifies the impact..

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

I would say a collision or impact would be the cause...
The speed just magnifies the impact..

The Collision or impact is the result, not the cause of the accident...
but thank you for your very humourous attempt EBXR...

[GK]

I agree with Snappy. Our concentration should be on the road conditions and being in full control of the car, not on the speedo, worrying that you'll get pinged.

Increase the tolerance and the fine. Good idea! That way, people are fined for being a fair way over the limit. It's pretty hard to argue and complain under such conditions.

A copper I know said that it's the way they were trained at the Academy. They were told to fine people when they were 15kms or so over the limit, that way they could drop the speed to 10 kmph over, still give the fine and make the point, whilst actually getting thanked by the driver.

It was a strategy that was good for the road toll, the public coffers and for Police/civilian relations.

GK

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by loftie

Not sure how much of a MYTH that really is...

In a perfect world, if nobody could speed in the posted zone (car was restricted to speedlimit via the cars onboard computer)... Then there would be a LOT less accidents on our road...

What do you believe the single most influential factor is of a major accident/fatality??
Speed?? Fatigue?? Alcohol?? Drugs?? Experiece?? Mechanical Failure?? Weather Conditions?? Time of day??

I would say Speed would be the largest determining factor in 80% of accidents... (based on no statistics what-so-ever)...

It wouldn't be the only thing... but it does play a major part...

I think its very much a myth.
I agree excessive speed would be the largest factor in accidents, but thats excessive speed for the conditions - which is often below the actual speed limit. If you hit a bend on a 100kmh road in the wet at 90kmh that could be excessive speed for the conditions and result in an accident, even though you weren't speeding by the legal definition of the term.

I'd argue that in your perfect world where absolutely no one speeds, the road toll would remain pretty much the same, maybe even rise.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I think its very much a myth.
I'd argue that in your perfect world where absolutely no one speeds, the road toll would remain pretty much the same, maybe even rise.

On what do you base that?? (I do appreciate that we're talking hypotheticals of course... just wondering how you came to that)

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by GK

I agree with Snappy. Our concentration should be on the road conditions and being in full control of the car, not on the speedo, worrying that you'll get pinged.

I've had this problem where I've nearly rear ended someone because the exact time I've glanced down at the speedo to make sure I'm not speeding is always when the traffic comes to an abrupt halt, luckily Dad was in the car with me to shout something.

Its probably just me, I really suck at multi tasking.

[paule11]

Originally Posted by loftie

Not sure how much of a MYTH that really is...

In a perfect world, if nobody could speed in the posted zone (car was restricted to speedlimit via the cars onboard computer)... Then there would be a LOT less accidents on our road...

What do you believe the single most influential factor is of a major accident/fatality??
Speed?? Fatigue?? Alcohol?? Drugs?? Experiece?? Mechanical Failure?? Weather Conditions?? Time of day??

I would say Speed would be the largest determining factor in 80% of accidents... (based on no statistics what-so-ever)...

It wouldn't be the only thing... but it does play a major part...

Did a defensive driving course a few weeks ago and speed was down low on the cause of deaths . I wil have to ask some of the other guys but I think road conditions fatigue alcohol were way higher as causes.

There are probably more accidents below 50kph rearending other drivers at redlights in the major cities of Australia then high speed accidents on the highways

[ebxr8240]

Originally Posted by loftie

The Collision or impact is the result, not the cause of the accident...
but thank you for your very humorous attempt EBXR...

Aha...
Thanks for seeing it as humorous.. That's what it was intended and in print doesn't always come out that way...
The reason for death would be the impact.. Or possibly the heart stopped beating ??? Lol...

I have driven in many countries.. Most the countries with good road statistics are tough on silly dangerous driving rather than just speed...
Even in the U.K I have been doing over 20 mph over the limit with patrol car beside me.. safe distance from car in front etc.. No trouble...
The Vauxhal Corsa was fairly much at it's limit ...

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by RRM

He has some good points.

But by that logic, you could assess the fine you'd get if convicted for fraud, and assess the chance of getting caught, and then on that basis decide that it's perfectly reasonable to defraud someone.

Curious that whenever speed limits / enforcement are discussed, the idea of keeping to the speed limit because it's the right thing to do seldom comes up...

Yeah, valid point RRM. That said, I think you'll find that most people are frustrated with the fact that there is not give and take from governments. If they were to give higher speed limits on good quality roads in areas where there are large distances to cover then I think many of the complaints would disappear.

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by RRM

[P4]
If everyone drives faster, no road is going to become safer than it currently is. The rate of crashes will either stay about the same, or increase; because like it or lump it cars just don't stop as quickly or go around corners as well when the speed is increased. And a bend that affords perfectly adequate visibility at 35km/h might start to feel pretty "blind" at about 50 or 60km/h. (This is not some partisan Ford vs Holden Vs Honda, Michelin vs Kumho debate, this is Newtonian mechanics!)

In my personal opinion, you're 95% correct. Being in New Zealand you don't have to cover large distances so fatigue is not a big issue. Here in Oz, there is genuine merit to having 130km/h speed limits. Having done trips up an down the east coast of Australia, that extra 20km/h average speed can cut 2 or more hours off of the time you're on the road. And those couple of hours are the hours when you are most tired and likely to have an accident.

Credit where it is due, you do make some good points though RRM.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Sapper

In my personal opinion, you're 95% correct. Being in New Zealand you don't have to cover large distances so fatigue is not a big issue.

Been to NZ lately, from the Bay of Islands to Wellington is about 16 hours driving, and that is just the North Island, I know, I have done it.

[Sapper]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Been to NZ lately, from the Bay of Islands to Wellington is about 16 hours driving, and that is just the North Island, I know, I have done it.

Hmmm.... debating the size of New Zealand was not the point I was making. Maybe it would have been better for me to word the post differently.

[388cube_edxr8]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Aha...
Thanks for seeing it as humorous.. That's what it was intended and in print doesn't always come out that way...
The reason for death would be the impact.. Or possibly the heart stopped beating ??? Lol...

I have driven in many countries.. Most the countries with good road statistics are tough on silly dangerous driving rather than just speed...
Even in the U.K I have been doing over 20 mph over the limit with patrol car beside me.. safe distance from car in front etc.. No trouble...
The Vauxhal Corsa was fairly much at it's limit ...

Yeah but the piddly little 1.6L Diesel Astra Plodmobiles couldn't catch a bus in a carpark.

They probably didn't even try to pull you up because they were fairly at the limit too.

[Falcon_Crazy]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I think its very much a myth.
I agree excessive speed would be the largest factor in accidents, but thats excessive speed for the conditions - which is often below the actual speed limit. If you hit a bend on a 100kmh road in the wet at 90kmh that could be excessive speed for the conditions and result in an accident, even though you weren't speeding by the legal definition of the term.
.

This is true. In fact, it is how governments claim "speeding" is the major cause of deaths. They actually have re-defined speeding from its sctual literal meaning. "Speeding" apparently includes if your speed, even if BELOW the posted limit, was deemed excessive to conditions.

Truley excessive speed accounts for less than 10% of deaths...but those accos are normally the biggies, which make great headlines.

If more people drove to prevailing conditions, the safer roads would be (And take a rest and not booze/dug drive). If you cannot drive a car without a speedo, id question how you can have a licence...

[Trevor 57]

And who is James May anyway in the big scheme of things, an over-paid pommy journalist who gets paid far too much to be controversial.

[388cube_edxr8]

James May is an underpaid genius.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by loftie

On what do you base that?? (I do appreciate that we're talking hypotheticals of course... just wondering how you came to that)

Well to say the toll would go up is admittedly a bit of a stretch, but not impossible if fatigue is considered.
But I'd bet the toll wouldn't go down. Simply due to the fact that very few fatalities are caused by speeding drivers - speeding as in driving above the speed limit. Excessive speed for the conditions is a completely different thing, and comes back to inability of the driver to determine a safe speed and/or to control the car. That’s why the speed factor is so prevalent in the statistics - but its important to realise the driver wasn't necessarily above the limit.

Nothing good can come from blind faith in speed limits. Drivers need the ability to determine a safe speed for the conditions. We're currently being brainwashed into believing that if we drive under the limit, we're safe. Obviously this is just not true.

[z80]

The reason speed is becoming a dominant feature of injury mitigation is because cars are badly built.

They now rely on stupid design philosophies based purely on passing govt compliance scrutiny.

They always go for putting 8 airbags in a car. Great, that will preserve your facial complexion, but your arms and legs will be crushed, your spine will be snapped in 6 places and your wheelchair will be waiting with your lifetime nurse to feed and defacate you because the cabin ripped apart and threw you out into oncoming traffic at 80 km/h....

Airbags are great up to 56km/h, after that we need structure and mass to survive.


Add mass though and we see the true cost of motoring in fuel economy terms because the engines are absolute crap.


Any drovers' dog can make a car with a 4/5/6 Litre engine appear economical by reducing mass (safety).

But lets see some real engine breakthroughs that are not based on simply making the car lighter and lighter by reducing the amount of metal in the passenger cell.


Then we will not have to worry about an ever reducing speed limit, because if you think you are safe above 80km/h in any aussie built car then you need a visit to sims metal.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by z80

The reason speed is becoming a dominant feature of injury mitigation is because cars are badly built.

They now rely on stupid design philosophies based purely on passing govt compliance scrutiny.

They always go for putting 8 airbags in a car. Great, that will preserve your facial complexion, but your arms and legs will be crushed, your spine will be snapped in 6 places and your wheelchair will be waiting with your lifetime nurse to feed and defacate you because the cabin ripped apart and threw you out into oncoming traffic at 80 km/h....

Airbags are great up to 56km/h, after that we need structure and mass to survive.


Add mass though and we see the true cost of motoring in fuel economy terms because the engines are absolute crap.


Any drovers' dog can make a car with a 4/5/6 Litre engine appear economical by reducing mass (safety).

But lets see some real engine breakthroughs that are not based on simply making the car lighter and lighter by reducing the amount of metal in the passenger cell.


Then we will not have to worry about an ever reducing speed limit, because if you think you are safe above 80km/h in any aussie built car then you need a visit to sims metal.

Hmmmm right....

take a look at this if you havn't already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uOYKP-SYeE

I'll take a new car in any crash, any day.

[mrbaxr6t]

I feel that if cars were electronically limited to the speedlimit for the area then people that were in a hurry would accelerate at wot to the limit every time they were stopped by lights or the like, and would refuse to slowdown keeping the average speed up and reducing the travel time - now I feel this will increase accidents because you will have people accelerating as hard as possible in congested traffic areas and intersections (where people also use pedestrian crossings to cross the road) I feel speed limiting cars is not the answer.

I also believe this debate has been raging for as long as there has been speed cameras some people believe it is a removal of their freedoms to be pinged so harshly financially for exceeding the speedlimit whilst those who choose to go slow bemoan the authorities because of all the cars traveling at a high rate of speed. They (the authorities) are then placed in a situation where they attempt to please everybody because that wins elections and you can't please everybody so you wind up aggrevating the community as a whole or in part no matter what you try to do to please them.

Don't think I am defending their actions I can concede that it is very difficult to please the entire motoring community when you have such extremes at either end of it.