Photo radar

[driveangry]

Majority of the time speeders don't really bother me either, there is 2 3 area's that do: School Zones/play grounds & Construction Zones add another street racing &/or highway racing (damn fools).

I agree completely.

[Smurf]

Here is another interesting excerpt from the paper I quoted above.

Compared with conventional ASC consisting of two camera boxes at a distance of around 10 km
from each other, calculations show that average speed cameras are significantly more effective,
with a reduction of the driving speed and an associated reduction in injury costs that is up to
three times as great.

For this test at least it does answer the question "does speed cause accident", apparently it does.

The point of reduced injury reminds me of my past. We convinced the last large corporation that I worked for that money spent on safety and safety equipment was worth every penny. They actually kept very close track of it and due to reduction in injuries, reduction in equipment damage, down time etc. the safety department had one of the highest percentage incomes based on money spent verses money saved. If this experiment showed a three times reduction in injury costs it could actually pay for itself.

Speeders bother me because they are dangerous to me and everyone else along with the costs to us all as pointed out above. I have read numerous reports in the past on the cost of accidents and I'm sure there are lots to be found on google. Why should I/we pay for someone elses foolishness. Just think of your car insurance costs alone.

[Smurf]

Another excerpt from the paper I quoted above. Note I could not get the chart to copy. If you wish to see it, it is on page 43 of the report. If the part I highlighted in red is any indication of the results we could expect in high risk areas it would most certainly be worthwhile.

Exactly the type of reason speeding bothers me.

6.1 Relationship between a change in speed and changes
in the accident rate and degree of injury
A before-and-after-analysis of the effect of measures on accidents requires follow-up and measurement
over many years. Accidents should be registered over a period of at least three to four
years. Calculating the expected change in the number of accidents and injuries based on the socalled
”power model” may be a preliminary alternative to such a procedure (Elvik, 2009). This is
a well-recognised model that documents the relationship between the changes in driving speed
and changes in the number of accidents and injuries by means of meta-analysis of a number of
studies. This model can be used to calculate the expected traffic safety effect of all types of measures
where the working mechanism is related to changes in the driving speed.
Figure 6.1 shows the power model in its general form.
Figure 6.1 Relationship between a change in the driving speed and changes in the accident rate and injuries. Power Model (ref.).
The model shows how a percentage change in speed results in a percentage change in the accident
rate and injuries. The figure shows, for example, that a 10% reduction in driving speed results in a
20% reduction in the number of accidents and a reduction in the number of deaths by up to 40%.

[MAPearce]

Everyone's speed limit should be based upon their accident history. For every 10 years of accident-free you get to drive another 10km/h faster (on 80km/h+ roads only). If you get in an accident, you are set back 10km/h to a minimum of 20km/h under the limit.

Photoradar is great because you could always see the vans a mile away. I drive a lot slower now because they use cops instead of those obvious vans.

I've always thought that the cops should have put photo radar in Chevettes and Pintos....

Imagine the loot they'd make !

Who'd ever NOT think it was just another broken down beater on the side of a hyway ??

[twobits]

And every one of you that has posted pro for photo radar has yet to answer the simple question......"Where will the line be drawn between what is acceptable video surveillance with punishment vetted instantly?" For lord's sake, can one of you please think and consider the implications of instantaneous punishment based on a pixel capture!!
To be clear, I am not against video or picture surveillance. I actually think it is valuable supporting evidence against those that commit crimes. What I cannot accept is a friggen camera being judge, jury, and determiner of punishment.

So belly up to the bar smurf and others.......and instead of deflection......tell us what prevents, if things like photo radar become universally accepted, big brother from applying video surveillance to vet instant punishment for any other victim less crime?

[Glacier]

For this test at least it does answer the question "does speed cause accident", apparently it does.

Back when trains were coming out that could drive at the break neck speed of 15 mph, some old grandmas were stating that God did not intend for humans to travel at such a high rate of speed. Now it seems they were right. Making all highway speed limits half of what they hard today would surely reduce the carnage by at least 50%. I think the Coq. would be an exception, and we could maybe keep it at 70 km/h.

[Dizzy1]

For this test at least it does answer the question "does speed cause accident", apparently it does.

Of course it does, because unless 2 objects are standing perfectly still, "speed" will always be a factor. Now, dangerous driving is something completely different, driving a vehicle past its limits, or your limits or the roads limits is going to end up in an accident. Yet driving a vehicle well within in your limits, the vehicles limits and road limits, even though you are going faster than what a sign tells you, the chances of an accident are no higher than doing what the sign tells you you are supposed to do.

People really need to understand the difference between "speeding" and "dangerous driving" ... they are 2 very different things.

[Dizzy1]

Speeders bother me because they are dangerous to me and everyone else along with the costs to us all as pointed out above. I have read numerous reports in the past on the cost of accidents and I'm sure there are lots to be found on google. Why should I/we pay for someone elses foolishness. Just think of your car insurance costs alone.

Speeders don't bother me ... simply because we all speed, yourself included.

Now, dangerous drivers and under educated drivers and just plane selfish attitudes on the roadway is what bothers me. With these idiots on the road, speed is not nearly as dangerous as is their attitude, over confidence, their "interpretation" of a law or dangerously modified vehicles. Once we finally start to accept that this is the problem on our roadways, then and only then will we see a reduction in accidents. After that, we can focus more on certain rules of the road.

[Smurf]

I have already addressed your points Dizzy1. Do I have to do it again?

How do you actually know your limits, the road limits or the limits of your vehicle till you go over one or the other? Saying you are driving within those limits is like a person that say they are fine to drive after 6 beer. Might be okay if everything goes right might not. The faster you go the less reaction time you or someone else on the road has to react to a problem. Depending on where you are, a child jumping on the road, an animal coming out, another driver doing something because they don't realize how fast you are coming. Drivers expect cars to come at a reasonable, similar speed and when someone changes that it creates problems. Many times it is not whether you can handle the speed you are driving but the problems you are causing around you.Yes speed and dangerous driving are very different things but they are both very dangerous. Why do you think most countries around the world concentrate so much on speeding. I'll let you figure that one out.

Yes there are many other dangerous driving activities out there but why does that mean we should ignore speeding when most statistics and experts around the world show and feel it is so dangerous. Things like photo radar and a new one to me speed averaging are easy ways to control speeding. They also leave enforcement more time to worry about the other things you are talking about. Correct one serious problem and work more on others. How can that possibly be a bad thing. Why should we not do anything we can to correct bad driving.

[the truth]

speeding= is dangerous driving

[Smurf]

Twobits wrote:

And every one of you that has posted pro for photo radar has yet to answer the simple question......"Where will the line be drawn between what is acceptable video surveillance with punishment vetted instantly?" For lord's sake, can one of you please think and consider the implications of instantaneous punishment based on a pixel capture!!
To be clear, I am not against video or picture surveillance. I actually think it is valuable supporting evidence against those that commit crimes. What I cannot accept is a friggen camera being judge, jury, and determiner of punishment.

So belly up to the bar smurf and others.......and instead of deflection......tell us what prevents, if things like photo radar become universally accepted, big brother from applying video surveillance to vet instant punishment for any other victim less crime?

I do not worry in the least about where the line will be drawn. I don't feel there is any danger with photo radar. If and when I feel something is not acceptable I will worry about and complain about it. I do not see any implications what so ever. I am a lot more worried about the internet, Facebook for instance is extremely bad. Tracking you by your cellphone, GPS, etc. just as bad but people just accept them. Till I see it as a danger I will run with something that I feel is for the good of the general public.

With the number of people that are killed every day by speed related accidents I don't see how you could possibly say it is a victimless crime. Do you also consider impaired driving a victimless crime. Even if someone just speeds around a corner, looses control, crashes and kills themselves it is not victimless. Think of family, friends, parentless children, responders who are all affected by that accident, sometimes seriously affected. Can you even imagine picking up the lifeless bodies of some children killed because of an accident caused by speeding. I have responded to some serious accidents and it is no fun. And yes many of them were speed related, most in fact where I was located. Too fast on dirt roads was a main one. Too fast on corners. You can call it dangerous driving or whatever you want, but in reality it was too much speed that caused the accidents.

[Dizzy1]

speeding= is dangerous driving

Speeding = 1kmh over the limit? 5kmh? 10kmh? 20kmh?

Speeding = posted speed limit which is artificially created low for no apparent reason is "dangerous"?

[Dizzy1]

I have already addressed your points Dizzy1. Do I have to do it again?

How do you actually know your limits, the road limits or the limits of your vehicle till you go over one or the other? Saying you are driving within those limits is like a person that say they are fine to drive after 6 beer. Might be okay if everything goes right might not. The faster you go the less reaction time you or someone else on the road has to react to a problem. Depending on where you are, a child jumping on the road, an animal coming out, another driver doing something because they don't realize how fast you are coming. Drivers expect cars to come at a reasonable, similar speed and when someone changes that it creates problems. Many times it is not whether you can handle the speed you are driving but the problems you are causing around you.Yes speed and dangerous driving are very different things but they are both very dangerous. Why do you think most countries around the world concentrate so much on speeding. I'll let you figure that one out.

Yes there are many other dangerous driving activities out there but why does that mean we should ignore speeding when most statistics and experts around the world show and feel it is so dangerous. Things like photo radar and a new one to me speed averaging are easy ways to control speeding. They also leave enforcement more time to worry about the other things you are talking about. Correct one serious problem and work more on others. How can that possibly be a bad thing. Why should we not do anything we can to correct bad driving.

I'm not asking you to repeat your points. You have yours and I have mine

[Smurf]

Very sorry Dizzy1, I believe I directed an reply to you that should have been directed to Two bits.

You are definitely right in that we both and rightly so have our own opinions.

I also agree that technically speeding is 1 KM over. But I don't think anyone here is actually talking about 1km over when they are talking about speeding. In my mind I would say 5 km over is for sure speeding. Tough if someone's speedometer is out, it is their responsibility to know their vehicle. Where peoples lives are concerned I don't think there are good enough excuses.

I do have trouble with someone being against something that will make our roads safer. It is not perfect but it is an improvement, a step in the right direction.

[GordonH]

Looking at speed limit signs it says maximum at the top, but I guess they should reword that to say roughly X km/h +/? 15 or 20 km/h.

lol