50% increase in deaths planned for M4

[Davidc]

On the local news last night. Wiltshire is closing down the speed cameras on the M4.

When they were introduced the death rate dropped by 1/3.

The death rate is predicted to rise to where it was - a 50% rise.

The world has gone mad.

 

[Dave Davenport]

They might as well put a big sign up saying 'go as fast as you like, we're not bothered'.

 

[mcshroom]

Ah but at least the poor persecuted motorists will no longer be put upon!

 

[MartinC]

Now that the "war on the motorist" has apparently ended when will motorists stop killing and injuring people?

 

[Bollo]

This was on the cards the moment the Tories won (and yes I know what I mean!). Some of the more extreme motoring groups, including our chums at Safespeed and the ABD, had been lobbying quite hard before the election. Add to that the usual reactionary b0llocks from the Wail and Express reinforcing the dominant majority's misplaced sense of persecution and its a cheap vote winner.

The bit I find amusing is that the schemes are being discontinued because their budget has been cut. But I thought "they only put them up to generate revenue", so surely the councils will be losing money by dismantling them? Could this mean that they weren't a tax on motorists after all, but actually there to improve safety? That the Wail and Express have been feeding us fibs?

 

[zimzum42]

The fine money went onto a central pot, so the government got the benefit of the cash, not the local authorities

The local authorities were given funding to put them up

This funding has stopped


Perhaps they could get the rozzers out on traffic duty rather than having them eating donuts and pulling people for having a spliff

 

[summerdays]

The bit I find amusing is that the schemes are being discontinued because their budget has been cut. But I thought "they only put them up to generate revenue", so surely the councils will be losing money by dismantling them?

Not the councils

The fine money went onto a central pot, so the government got the benefit of the cash, not the local authorities

The local authorities were given funding to put them up

This funding has stopped

That's the bit I really don't understand - as it didn't go into a local transport/safety budget - which I wish it did, but instead went into the government coffers ... haven't they just shot themselves in the foot in this time of economic tightening of the belt?

 

[zimzum42]

Hopefully it's just one part of a move to stop us becoming comprehensively a surveillance state

As for motorways, I'de prefer to see more marked cars out on the motorways, and get to see them using those little ramps at the side of the motorway that are always empty...

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

I remember reading a couple of years ago that roadside speed displays had a better deterrent effect than cameras. I'm sure it was a TRL document.

I've never been a fan of the phrase 'at camera sites' whenever accident statistics are given. Always made me wonder what the benefits are elsewhere.

I'd have preferred 'average speed' enforcement cameras, so you protect an entire road and not just the bit with the timing marks. It brought some sanity to the Stocksbridge bypass, which I use regularly.

But then I'm one of the pious few. I can control my right foot, show courtesy and give plenty of room. So the cameras never bother me. Even though I do own a BMW!

 

[Globalti]

The accident reduction statistic is always presented wrapped in the standard web of lies and half truths. Sure, there was probably a massive reduction in accidents within 100 yards of the speed cameras but as far as I can see all those cameras did was penalise drivers whose observation was so crap that they failed to spot the big reflective yellow box on a stalk. As a driver who likes to make reasonable progress I am very much more fearful of average speed cameras and random Police patrols or "Safety Partnership" vans; the only two speeding fines I have received in 36 accident-free driving years have been at the hands of real live Police officers.

 

[zimzum42]

Same here, only ever been done by a proper copper with a speed gun...

A camera will catch a perfectly decent driver doing 56mph in a 50 zone, but won't do anything to catch a complete muppet who is all over the place at 49mph. Which is more dangerous?

 

[Tim Bennet.]

A camera will catch a perfectly decent driver doing 56mph in a 50 zone

No it won't. They're set to speed limit plus 10% plus 2mph. So 58+mph to trigger it.
I think this margin is quite generous.

 

[zimzum42]

ok, 58mph, whatever, that wasn't the point...

 

[theclaud]

ok, 58mph, whatever, that wasn't the point...

You wanted muppets caught. If you're doing 58+ in a 50 zone, you are a muppet. Everybody's happy.

 

[zimzum42]

Yes, you catch someone out, but you miss an opportunity to get someone who is potentially more dangerous off the road.

Driving round the country, it's been obvious for years now that there are fewer police cars out on traffic duty. I assume you've seen those police camer action shows. Traffic patrols do wonders, catching uninsured and untaxed drivers, drug dealers, thieves, drunk drivers, etc etc