New speed cameras trap Southwark motorists from space

[RosieH]

Then LB, I suspect you are in the minority

[ruffers]

The article could be nominated for many awards for misleading headline.

If I read it right average speed cameras can be located by GPS, no motorists are tracked from space at all?

And whoever said it is right about "The motorist" being taxed or whatever. I am "the motorist", and "the homeowner", and the "hard working family" etc etc as well. Not forgetting "the drinker". But I stopped being "the smoker".

[Huguenot]

I'm not sure it's another surveillance system is it? It's just a creative use of an existing public service.

I don't think 'average speed' penalties can possibly work in an urban environment, urban speed problems are usually localised on rat-runs.

Unilke some posters, I don't think that the people running this scheme are too stupid to realise this. I think they're probably testing the technology, and doing a bit of due-diligence.

[HAL9000]

An overview of the key issue is available here: Police-enforced ANPR in the UK

[Huguenot]

My advice is to find a large hat and a comfortable cloak.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

The bottom line is that cars kill thousands of people every year in the UK.

Fast cars kill the most.

Cars need to be slowed down to stop people being killed.

Current speed cameras do not make cars slow down, except just in front of the speed camera.

Another method is needed.

Average speed cameras are another method.

Banning cars altogether in cities or fitting speed restrictors are other methods I'd prefer.

[brum]

I agree with that, Impetuous. Liking the car ban idea (except for mine, of course - just think, all the road to myself!).

[Loz]

ImpetuousVrouw:

Fast cars kill the most.

Fairly meaningless statement. What is a 'fast car'? The fastest cars can be found on motorways, where deaths are lowest. Or do you mean BWM/Mercs/Porche, in which case that seems wrong as there are much, much less of them. And sounds more like the politics of envy.

Cars need to be slowed down to stop people being killed.

To what speed? Where? Do we lower the motorway speed (which actually could be increased to 80mph)? Or in residential areas only?

Current speed cameras do not make cars slow down, except just in front of the speed camera.

Agreed. But you assume that the purpose of the speed cameras is to slow people down...

Another method is needed. Average speed cameras are another method.

I rather like average speed cameras. It removes the ability for some dodgy practices (or the "why are so many speed cameras positioned at the bottom of hills" question) and they do slow traffic down, as anyone who has been through motorway roadworks that use them will agree.

Banning cars altogether in cities or fitting speed restrictors are other methods I'd prefer.

Agreed, to an extent. But it's gonna take some politicians with bigger cojones that has ever been seen in this country before. You have to provide an alternative before you ban cars, so that means a huge investment in public transport (which is not coping at the moment) and revamping the cities to be more bicycle orientated (like Holland).

Speed restrictors would need to be GPS based (unless you want the whole country to travel at 20 mph), which would be expensive to set up and take years. Or, again, take a brave government that would enact legislation to make them mandatory in, say, two years and force people to cough up for installation. Interestingly, this would lead to the current speed trap infrastructure to be dismantled (as there would be no money to pay for it), so the people who disabled their systems by blocking the GPS reception would be less likely to be caught.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Didn't want to clutter my post up with explanations but seeing as you asked:

Fast cars was meant to mean any cars driven fast.

And where they kill people most is obviously in places with more people, so yes, residential areas, although motorways are not really safe because so many people drive over the speed limit and up the arse of the car in front.

[Loz]

But what is 'too fast'? Assuming 'too fast' means 'exceeding the speed limit' (as it is the only type detected by speed cameras), then according to a Department of Transport report covering 2005:

Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a contributory factor in 5 per cent of all accidents. However, the factor became more significant with the severity of the accident. It was reported as contributory factor in 12 per cent of fatal accidents and these accidents accounted for 14 per cent of all fatalities.

So a huge majority of fatal accidents are not caused by cars exceeding the speed limit, so therefore the statement "fast cars kill the most" is not correct. This is not an argument for abandoning speed detection, just that it is not the outstanding factor that you may think. The concentration of road safety resources on speeding (as it is easy to detect and pays for itself) has meant that trying to tackle the other causes of accidents has suffered. For instance, 'going too fast for conditions' causes a similar amount of accidents/deaths, but no speed camera will detect this issue, whereas a policeman on patrol will. But most of these have been replace by automatic detection systems, because it looks like it is 'doing something' and does make good headlines.

[ImpetuousVrouw]

Ok. You got me on that one.

[skidmarks]

Loz

I think you?re missing one important point. As the speed increases the severity of an accident increases. You rightly say that motorways are relatively safe owing to the low levels of accidents per kilometre travelled but when there is a crash on the motorway it is usually more severe than a road with a lower speed limit.

The statement you quote saying that speed was the contributory factor in a low percentage of accidents I think you?re using out of context. The contributory section of the Stats19 form allows the reporting officer to give their opinion on what caused the accident and in my experience the reporting officer only ticks the excessive speed box in single vehicle collisions. If you take the example of a car pulling out of a t-junction into the path of another car, it is more likely that the officer will say the cause of the accident was the failure of the driver to look properly, they will not recorded that the accident was made worse and more severe by the fact the other vehicle was speeding. A speed camera at this imaginary location may reduce the speed of approaching vehicle giving drivers more time to make their turning manoeuvre and if accident does occur it may only be slight in severity or even the unrecorded ?damage only? type accident.

The contributory factor section of the accident reporting system has been jumped upon by anti-speed camera lobby. Speed cameras will reduce the speed of vehicles which will in turn reduce the severity of an accident if they occur.

[HAL9000]

Some intractable problems with speed-averaging networks:

A speeding vehicle that does not enter or leave the local speed-averaging network will not be detected.

A speeding vehicle that enters and leaves the network by the same gateway will not be detected.

A speeding vehicle whose journey begins and ends within adjacent networks will not be detected.

A speeding vehicle whose driver stops to buy a bag of crisps may not be detected.

[Huguenot]

Despite being an anti-car monster, I agree with HAL9000. There is fundamentally no point to an average speed penalty in a built up area.

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Despite being an anti-car monster, I agree with

> HAL9000.

...REWIND...."I agree with HAL9000"...

Anyone else hear that?

Huguenot, this is indeed a very historical moment!:))

*places thermometer under Huguenot's tongue*