Speed Camera Info

[kip]

Was playing around looking at different routes using my favourite route finding website

www.mappy.com

and notice that they have added speed camera locations to the directions they give you!!

Very useful!

Unfortunately it still doesn't recognise the new A16 south of Rouen - not so useful!!!

[Deimos]

Michelin online mapping also shows where the fixed speed cameras are (http://www.viamichelin.com/viamichelin/gbr/tpl/hme/MaHomePage.htm)

Ian

[Brilec]

[quote user="kip"]

Was playing around looking at different routes using my favourite route finding website

www.mappy.com

and notice that they have added speed camera locations to the directions they give you!!

Very useful!

Unfortunately it still doesn't recognise the new A16 south of Rouen - not so useful!!!

[/quote]

Are you sure you don't mean the new A28 south of Rouen? Just asked for a route from Rouen to Alencon, and it used the A28, no problem.

[Quillan]

If you have a GPS there is a download going around that contains the locations of fixed cameras that can be uploaded to your GPS and are shown as POI's. You just tell your GPS to show POI's on the route and select the minimum distance from rout, usually 1km. This started out as a free list and you should not pay for it although some people do sell it.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Alternatively, one can, of course, simply obey the speed limits. I find

that this is a low-cost and trouble-free way in which to deal with the

scourge. Driving more slowly generally improves fuel economy, so one

can save a few pennies, feel smug about reducing  one's

environmental impact and (for the "below average ability" drivers among

us - and I include myself in this group) reduce the risk of killing

another road user. Winning all round, I'd say.

[Quillan]

[quote user="jond"]Alternatively, one can, of course, simply obey the speed limits. I find that this is a low-cost and trouble-free way in which to deal with the scourge. Driving more slowly generally improves fuel economy, so one can save a few pennies, feel smug about reducing  one's environmental impact and (for the "below average ability" drivers among us - and I include myself in this group) reduce the risk of killing another road user. Winning all round, I'd say.
[/quote]

Whilst I agree with speed cameras in areas such as schools etc and in built up areas I see no need for them on motorways in fact I would like to see the speed limits removed on motorways. I was reading somewhere that since the introduction of speed limits on German motorways the accident rate has increased. The object of having a car is to get you from A to B as quickly and as safely as possible, that’s why we have them. Perhaps a better way to treat drivers is three accidents and you are out. By that I mean if you have more than three accidents that are your fault you loose your licence for life. Anyone who causes three accidents is clearly incompetent. That should be a even bigger deterrent than speeding cameras on motorways.

[Will]

In terms of ratios of numbers of accidents for the number of vehicles, motorways are probably much safer than roads in towns or rural lanes. It is the severity, and consequences of the accidents that increase with higher speeds, in particular the differential between high and low speeds which was a big problem on the German autobahnen.

Putting cameras, and speed limits, in places where there have been a lot of accidents, and publicising the location of the cameras, has certainly had the desired effect of reducing accidents. It doesn't unfortunately do anything about idiotic driving elsewhere (which usually involves more than just speeding, though speed is often one factor) - the gendarmes with their mobile controles have to deal with that.

Although I agree in principle with what jond says, it isn't always evident what the speed limit is. There is a notorious speed camera near Caen on a stretch of motorway-type road that could, by appearances and comparison with neighbouring roads, have a 110 or 90km/h limit. I believe it is actually 70km - if you miss the sign as you enter the stretch, easily done as it can be hidden by lorries etc, you would never guess.

[Quillan]

A report from the Road Research Laboratory (Bracknel UK) that was leaked gave an insight in to why the cameras have been so well publicised. Basically they call it the speed and brake syndrome. This is where people speed and then break hard as they approach the speed camera, usually within a few metres. This behaviour causes accidents especially if the person in front can see the camera or knows exactly where the camera is and the person behind does not. So buy publicising the locations it gave those following behind an idea of where to expect to find people breaking hard and thus avoid accidents and not to make it fairer for drivers as a favour.

 

Speed cameras in urban areas and town centres do work in the UK. They are clearly advertised and are normally near black spots or schools. In general people are driving slower in these areas so their braking is not so fierce when they see a camera. Putting them on dual carriageways and motorways is however dangerous. A good example of this was where the A11 joined the north circular in the UK. People drive at excessive speed and those that know where the camera is brake hard and because it’s on a junction of two roads flowing in to each other they turn in to terrible accidents. Likewise the A13 dual carriageway also had more accidents caused by this form of driving after the cameras were installed.

 

A recently retired police commissioner interviewed on TV (BBC2) stated that with the data he had access to that in most cases speed cameras were ineffectual or actually caused accidents. The only ones he knew worked were in urban areas or at know black spots.

 

There are lots of myths about cameras, do they really work or not? I am only repeating what others have said. One thing is that overall fatal accidents have dropped as a general trend (although they did go up in 2002 by 8% in the UK but followed a downward trend thereafter) although we don’t see figures about these that are permanently invalided. Could it also be down to the fact that cars are designed better now and have better protection from those both inside and out? Cars brake quicker, shorter and more controlled now than they ever did, even high end super cars (new DB9 actual breaks in half the distance quoted in the Highway Code) are actually safer. Could it be that as older cars are scrapped the more high tech ones are finding themselves in the hands of people who buy cheap second-hand cars so this better safety technology is filtering down? I think that the downward trend in accidents is not just speed cameras, which I think contribute a very small amount only  but is more impacted by technology, more older (mature) drivers and many other factors.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Quillan"]

 

One thing is that overall fatal accidents have dropped as a general trend (although they did go up in 2002 by 8% in the UK

but followed a downward trend thereafter) although we don’t see figures

about these that are permanently invalided. Could it also be down to

the fact that cars are designed better now and have better protection

from those both inside and out? Cars brake quicker, shorter and more

controlled now than they ever did, even high end super cars (new DB9

actual breaks in half the distance quoted in the Highway Code) are

actually safer. 

[/quote]

Any idea as to whether or how the numbers of pedestrians / cyclists

killed versus those in cars has changed? Genuine question. The

documentry I watched a few weeks ago (Les Ailes & Les Racines)

implied that, at France at least, the carnage had shifted in favour of

the better-protected car user to the detriment of the others.

[Quillan]

I have to say I don't honestly know. Part of the new EU rules have made car makers design their cars to cause less damage to pedestrians if they are hit. My new(ish) car has a special spoiler on the front to try and stop the car from running over pedestrians. It's designed to make them go over the top and has flexible bumper and wings to lessen the impact, I have no intentions of trying it out. I have to say it made me laugh a bit (I know it's no laughing matter really) I just thought of the testing "Well Bob we have this new test all we want you to do is just walk down that road there to see what happens, it won't hurt ........honest".

[KathyC]

Although you might like there to be no speed limits on motorways, the fact is that they exist. You could just as well say that you think it should be allowed to take things from shops without paying and you have this wonderful gizmo that allows you to get away with doing so. I don't mean to imply that you are dishonest, I am simply making an analogy. Speed limits are the law and it applies to everyone. Evading laws can never be a recommended.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[:)]

Could I be in charge of naming the "volunteers"?

It may not be a laughing matter, but what the heck.

[Quillan]

[quote user="KathyC"]Although you might like there to be no speed limits on motorways, the fact is that they exist. You could just as well say that you think it should be allowed to take things from shops without paying and you have this wonderful gizmo that allows you to get away with doing so. I don't mean to imply that you are dishonest, I am simply making an analogy. Speed limits are the law and it applies to everyone. Evading laws can never be a recommended.[/quote]

Well I am not saying it's right to break the law either, I’m just saying what I think. As for breaking the speed limit well I doubt very much if there is any person on this forum that drives a car who has never speeded at some time in their life, be it intentionally or unintentionally. The devices that detect speed cameras, either passive (GPS) or active (detectors)  are not sold to allow you to speed. They are, as the manufacturers claim, a device that reminds you that you are in a controlled area. If it was thought that they enticed people to speed they would be banned. In France the active ones are but the GPS ones are not.

Are you aware that in your analogy you actually made a interesting comment but were perhaps unaware. The tagging of items in shops in the UK are to prevent you from forgetting to pay when you exit the shop with the item, not to stop you from stealing. Stupid you might think but it happens, in the eyes of the law, to be true. So there is a gizmo to protect you from being stopped for accidentally stealing from a shop. That’s why they are inside the shop and by law must be at least 1M inside. In fact there is a legal precedent for having them at the actual entrance which says it's illegal as you can only be prosecuted if you actually exit the shop i.e. are on the outside of the door. You have to have the opportunity to turn, go back and pay.

PS. I'm not a shop lifter either.

[Brilec]

[quote user="jond"][:)]

Could I be in charge of naming the "volunteers"?

It may not be a laughing matter, but what the heck.

[/quote]

I have a little list, I have a little list, of solicitors and estate agents who never would be missed, they never would be missed.

With due respect to W S Gilbert.