''a menace on the road in the commute''? Really? You mean the thin, light things that cause no congestion? Silly me - I thought it was the 5 seat + cages each with one person in busy texting away who might be causing some congestion. Still Charlton Life really is an education sometimes.
We were not discussing congestion but speeding. So, yeah, you know, those things that weave in and out between the traffic going through the tunnel and in the queues either side.
''a menace on the road in the commute''? Really? You mean the thin, light things that cause no congestion? Silly me - I thought it was the 5 seat + cages each with one person in busy texting away who might be causing some congestion. Still Charlton Life really is an education sometimes.
We were not discussing congestion but speeding. So, yeah, you know, those things that weave in and out between the traffic going through the tunnel and in the queues either side.
As a motorcyclist who uses that route regularly, I am not too happy about your comments.
While I accept that there are a few riders who filter at excessive speed I find the fact that you tar every biker with the same brush offensive. How would you like it if I suggested every car driver was guilty of texting, smoking weed and changing lanes without looking in their mirrors?
The standard of driving in London in recent years has become appalling and, as someone who does filter, albeit with care, I am in a better position to notice the amount of people texting or making calls while driving and also get to smell the amount of cars whose drivers are smoking skunk weed. Are you saying that these people are not a danger?
Have you bothered to check in the above cases whether the motorcyclists involved were at fault or not? I seriously doubt it, if you had checked you would have seen that the last accident you list happened at 1230pm, hardly rush hour!
While I am not naive enough to think that bikers aren't at fault for many of the accidents they have, a significant number are also caused by inattentive car/ lorry drivers.
I think you also need to realise that if they all decided to stop riding to work and got in their cars London WOULD come to a rush hour standstill very quickly, I wonder how you'd feel about motorcyclists then?
Please think before you make such sweeping generalisations.
This is always an interesting one. I used to drive from Crayford to Blackwall every day for my commute and the number of maniacal motorcyclists was amazing. When you are all sat it stationary or crawling traffic there's no way people should be riding as fast as they do between vehicles. I'm not saying there are some massively bad drivers out there but there is a disproportionate number of accidents involving or caused by motorcyclists for the percentage of them on the road - that's undeniable and I believe that's the point being made here.
My father in law is a motorcyclist (and a bellend but that's another story) and he used to regularly boast about "going for a run" and "hitting 140". There is just no way in the world that's sensible. I know it's an isolated case but he's definitely not alone
''a menace on the road in the commute''? Really? You mean the thin, light things that cause no congestion? Silly me - I thought it was the 5 seat + cages each with one person in busy texting away who might be causing some congestion. Still Charlton Life really is an education sometimes.
We were not discussing congestion but speeding. So, yeah, you know, those things that weave in and out between the traffic going through the tunnel and in the queues either side.
As a motorcyclist who uses that route regularly, I am not too happy about your comments.
While I accept that there are a few riders who filter at excessive speed I find the fact that you tar every biker with the same brush offensive. How would you like it if I suggested every car driver was guilty of texting, smoking weed and changing lanes without looking in their mirrors?
The standard of driving in London in recent years has become appalling and, as someone who does filter, albeit with care, I am in a better position to notice the amount of people texting or making calls while driving and also get to smell the amount of cars whose drivers are smoking skunk weed. Are you saying that these people are not a danger?
Have you bothered to check in the above cases whether the motorcyclists involved were at fault or not? I seriously doubt it, if you had checked you would have seen that the last accident you list happened at 1230pm, hardly rush hour!
While I am not naive enough to think that bikers aren't at fault for many of the accidents they have, a significant number are also caused by inattentive car/ lorry drivers.
I think you also need to realise that if they all decided to stop riding to work and got in their cars London WOULD come to a rush hour standstill very quickly, I wonder how you'd feel about motorcyclists then?
Please think before you make such sweeping generalisations.
I have no argument with anything that you say about car drivers - many are completely hopeless - particularly in South London. BUT that's all the more reason for bikers to be extra careful and many are not. My point was originally linked to the likely adverse effect of taking away the risk of speeding for bikers while more effectively slowing down car drivers and then a reposte to someone who seemed to think we were talking about congestion. Anyway, in my opinion, replacing Gatsos with SPECs It is a recipe for disaster, it is not a sweeping generalisation. Here's the thing: Bikers make up 0.9% of the traffic but they represent 21% of KSI casualties on Britain’s roads. It is, therefore, surely bonkers to do something that will only tend to lead to there being a further disparity between the speeds of bikes and other vehicles.
One more thing: if you're a biker going with the general flow of bikers, you won't see many of them. If you're in a car, like
I use that stretch of the A2 regularly and have never seen motorcyclists doing anything dangerous. Mind you, I'm normally either texting or skinning up.
Really don't want to go into as I cant prove anything but there are at least 4/5 hidden cameras, the one in particular near Eltham tunnel causes a crash on average (and a guess) once a month, generally bikers with coaches for some reason, also there is one near blackfen turn off hidden behind trees, also the one Kent bound near Hall Place is hidden behind trees.
Really don't want to go into as I cant prove anything but there are at least 4/5 hidden cameras, the one in particular near Eltham tunnel causes a crash on average (and a guess) once a month, generally bikers with coaches for some reason, also there is one near blackfen turn off hidden behind trees, also the one Kent bound near Hall Place is hidden behind trees.
Could it be that the drivers are to blame? Maybe not keeping within the speed limit then braking excessively?
Seems pretty clear to me. There are speed cameras on the M25. Shame that the FOI Act is so pathetically misused so often - that little exercise probably cost the taxpayer about 200 quid.
Seems pretty clear to me. There are speed cameras on the M25. Shame that the FOI Act is so pathetically misused so often - that little exercise probably cost the taxpayer about 200 quid.
Or two motorists doing 74 mph on an empty, dry, four lane motorway.
Seems pretty clear to me. There are speed cameras on the M25. Shame that the FOI Act is so pathetically misused so often - that little exercise probably cost the taxpayer about 200 quid.
Or two motorists doing 74 mph on an empty, dry, four lane motorway.
Seems pretty clear to me. There are speed cameras on the M25. Shame that the FOI Act is so pathetically misused so often - that little exercise probably cost the taxpayer about 200 quid.
Or two motorists doing 74 mph on an empty, dry, four lane motorway.
If you can drive at 74 you can drive at 65-70. Not saying that I never go over 70 but I've never a point on my licence. Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer. You've just got to be careful where you do 120.
Seems pretty clear to me. There are speed cameras on the M25. Shame that the FOI Act is so pathetically misused so often - that little exercise probably cost the taxpayer about 200 quid.
Or two motorists doing 74 mph on an empty, dry, four lane motorway.
If you can drive at 74 you can drive at 65-70. Not saying that I never go over 70 but I've never a point on my licence. Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer. You've just got to be careful where you do 120.
I think making money is the deciding factor of many speed camera locations.
Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer.
In 2000, according to Home Office figures, just under 600,000 motorists were caught speeding by cameras in England and Wales. In 2007 that figure had shot up to 1.8 million, which, at £60 a pop, represented an annual income of more than £100 million.
I'd say making money is at least partially a motivation!
Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer.
In 2000, according to Home Office figures, just under 600,000 motorists were caught speeding by cameras in England and Wales. In 2007 that figure had shot up to 1.8 million, which, at £60 a pop, represented an annual income of more than £100 million.
I'd say making money is at least partially a motivation!
Its just a stealth tax, no more no less, its naive to think anything else. The government don't give a toss if we all crash n burn, if they did then limiters would be fitted to all cars. With all the camera warnings before the camera sites, if a camera takes one picture then its reason for being there is not working.
Seems pretty clear to me. There are speed cameras on the M25. Shame that the FOI Act is so pathetically misused so often - that little exercise probably cost the taxpayer about 200 quid.
Or two motorists doing 74 mph on an empty, dry, four lane motorway.
If you can drive at 74 you can drive at 65-70. Not saying that I never go over 70 but I've never a point on my licence. Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer. You've just got to be careful where you do 120.
Their A2 speed camera positions on that stretch have probably killed more people than they've saved.
That stretch was a death trap before they put the cameras in. Don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan of them (cameras, not deaths) (although I'm not a fan of deaths either) - but lost count of the number of accidents at the Black Prince before they arrived.
Further down near Westhorne Avenue it seems bikers get killed with fair regularity even now.
How about people just don't speed instead? Then you've got nothing to worry about.
If only that were true:
Here's an extract from the Dept. of Transport's most recent report on the matter:
"Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 42 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2011. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.
For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed; Pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 59 per cent of accidents, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities.
Over 60 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which included failing to look properly, loss of control and sudden braking), reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident."
So, there you have it, speed cameras are really only there to collect money because speeding is not, of itself, a major contributory factor in accidents. There's also a bit in the report about "excess speed" as a contributory factor which pumps up the stats. BUT this includes the important "going too fast for the conditions" bit which means poor road condition, bends, fog, snow, rain, etc, etc. Usually the police determine that the speed was excessive but still less than the speed limit, so cameras don't help.
They are really only a deterrent if you can see them and if all motorists, including bike riders, can be caught by them. Otherwise they just make things worse. Here's how it works: a road has a fairly average accident rate, it doesn't have cameras. Suddenly, still within statistical standard deviation, there's a couple of bad smashes. Cameras are put in. The accident rate returns to normal (as it would have done anyway) but the police and the scamera partnerships hail the cameras as a success. It's called "regression to the mean" Read more here if you are interested. safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
If the Govt were truly concerned for our safety, then I suppose it would be homes not roads that were monitored by cameras as they are far more dangerous environments than a car according to ROSPA statistics.
Doubt theres much difference safety wise between 70-80 and there was talk of upping it to the latter, modern braking systems etc. The real big jump in safety is apparently between 20-30 and thats about pedestrian injury, if I recall according to a speed awareness course I went on.
Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer.
In 2000, according to Home Office figures, just under 600,000 motorists were caught speeding by cameras in England and Wales. In 2007 that figure had shot up to 1.8 million, which, at £60 a pop, represented an annual income of more than £100 million.
I'd say making money is at least partially a motivation!
Its just a stealth tax, no more no less, its naive to think anything else. The government don't give a toss if we all crash n burn, if they did then limiters would be fitted to all cars. With all the camera warnings before the camera sites, if a camera takes one picture then its reason for being there is not working.
OK then, its a stealth tax, one that I and most of the population have never paid.
Comments
But as you brought up congestion - this wouldn't have helped london24.com/news/transport/blackwall_tunnel_re_opens_after_motorcycle_crash_1_3370148
Or this one at Kidbrook recently (RIP) sevenoakschronicle.co.uk/Friends-pay-tribute-Sevenoaks-motorcyclist-died/story-21000173-detail/story.html
Or this one: newsshopper.co.uk/news/11193847.Police_appeal_for_witnesses_after_motorbike_crash_on_A2_near_Dartford/?ref=mac
I could go on but I probably already have.
thanks for educating me.
As a motorcyclist who uses that route regularly, I am not too happy about your comments.
While I accept that there are a few riders who filter at excessive speed I find the fact that you tar every biker with the same brush offensive. How would you like it if I suggested every car driver was guilty of texting, smoking weed and changing lanes without looking in their mirrors?
The standard of driving in London in recent years has become appalling and, as someone who does filter, albeit with care, I am in a better position to notice the amount of people texting or making calls while driving and also get to smell the amount of cars whose drivers are smoking skunk weed. Are you saying that these people are not a danger?
Have you bothered to check in the above cases whether the motorcyclists involved were at fault or not? I seriously doubt it, if you had checked you would have seen that the last accident you list happened at 1230pm, hardly rush hour!
While I am not naive enough to think that bikers aren't at fault for many of the accidents they have, a significant number are also caused by inattentive car/ lorry drivers.
I think you also need to realise that if they all decided to stop riding to work and got in their cars London WOULD come to a rush hour standstill very quickly, I wonder how you'd feel about motorcyclists then?
Please think before you make such sweeping generalisations.
My father in law is a motorcyclist (and a bellend but that's another story) and he used to regularly boast about "going for a run" and "hitting 140". There is just no way in the world that's sensible. I know it's an isolated case but he's definitely not alone
Here's the thing: Bikers make up 0.9% of the traffic but they represent 21% of KSI casualties on Britain’s roads. It is, therefore, surely bonkers to do something that will only tend to lead to there being a further disparity between the speeds of bikes and other vehicles.
One more thing: if you're a biker going with the general flow of bikers, you won't see many of them. If you're in a car, like , and stuck in a slow moving queue you get plenty of opportunity to see bikers taking silly risks every minute or so.
I live on the A2, I know they are there, but can see how these things happen if they are not visible.
Well we're not telling you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322907/M25_Speed_Cameras.pdf
;-)
Not saying that I never go over 70 but I've never a point on my licence. Cameras are not there for making money, they are used to make the roads safer.
You've just got to be careful where you do 120.
I'd say making money is at least partially a motivation!
With all the camera warnings before the camera sites, if a camera takes one picture then its reason for being there is not working.
Further down near Westhorne Avenue it seems bikers get killed with fair regularity even now.
Here's an extract from the Dept. of Transport's most recent report on the matter:
"Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and
was reported in 42 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2011. Four of the
five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or
reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of
control, which was involved in 34 per cent of fatal accidents.
For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed; Pedestrian failed to look
properly was reported in 59 per cent of accidents, and pedestrian careless, reckless or
in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these
accidents involved 14 per cent of fatalities.
Over 60 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or
reaction (which included failing to look properly, loss of control and sudden braking),
reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident."
So, there you have it, speed cameras are really only there to collect money because speeding is not, of itself, a major contributory factor in accidents. There's also a bit in the report about "excess speed" as a contributory factor which pumps up the stats. BUT this includes the important "going too fast for the conditions" bit which means poor road condition, bends, fog, snow, rain, etc, etc. Usually the police determine that the speed was excessive but still less than the speed limit, so cameras don't help.
They are really only a deterrent if you can see them and if all motorists, including bike riders, can be caught by them. Otherwise they just make things worse. Here's how it works: a road has a fairly average accident rate, it doesn't have cameras. Suddenly, still within statistical standard deviation, there's a couple of bad smashes. Cameras are put in. The accident rate returns to normal (as it would have done anyway) but the police and the scamera partnerships hail the cameras as a success. It's called "regression to the mean" Read more here if you are interested. safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
If the Govt were truly concerned for our safety, then I suppose it would be homes not roads that were monitored by cameras as they are far more dangerous environments than a car according to ROSPA statistics.