The French Ban SatNavs with Speed Camera Databases!

[nicholab]

I never under stood what the French and other Europeans put up with such stupid laws like letting criminals vote and having to having every your rescue kit in your car.

[pcstru]

The government'd even be making money out of it still, and providing employment with the required expansion at test centres. It'd cause too much uproar though. Much easier to sticky plaster the problem with big yellow boxes.

 

RTA's have reduced over the last 10 years. Since few seem to think that speed cameras are effective, what DO they think is driving down the number of accidents (in all fatal/serious/slight categories)?

 

It's often said that speed cameras are a revenue generating mechanism, raising over £120million a year (2003). Estimates of the cost of road traffic accidents run to around £15 billion. While speeding fines do not directly mitigate accident costs, overall the cost of accidents is far in excess of revenue generated by speed cameras. Fatal accidents require detailed investigation by specialist assessors and out of about ~60 odd factors which can be cited, excess speed (~30%) is by far the most frequent. So even if we just take a portion of the costs of accidents, the revenue raised by speed cameras doesn't seem to cover a fraction of the accidents that are caused by excess speed.

 

So sticky plaster big yellow boxes? Maybe - but perhaps only because there are far too few of them.

[GrumbleDook]

This was about a decade ago now so probably not worth it now tbh (although I could still do with the £60 back)

 

I'm still of the opinion that speed is never a factor, simply the misapplication of speed and poor driving. Speed is sometimes an indicator of poor/aggressive driving, but it is an effect, not necessarily a cause. Once upon a time speed limits were set based on the 85th percentile - that is, the limit was what 85% of people drove at or under when left to their own devices, as that was what the road allowed. Sadly that has been discarded recently for whatever reason; conspiratorially, in order to give an appearance of "doing something" and improve the profitability of speed cameras, but I couldn't say. As a result there's now entire journeys where the speed limits are unnecessarily restricting - Skegness to Boston, for example, has no destricted zones anymore, in a 23 mile journey. Ten years ago it had a number of 40s going through villages and the rest was at the national speed limit, with the journey taking maybe 40 minutes. Now it's over an hour because of an artificial limit. As far as I'm aware, it's not made much difference either - the problem is a poor quality road and bad driver judgement wrt blind corners (somewhat of a Lincolnshire affliction, I fear).

 

Driver education is the only way to properly lower the risks on the roads. Deterrents clearly don't work - how many people do you see talking on mobiles still? - and technical solutions can never properly mitigate human stupidity. A proper driving test, though, that taught driving skills not test-passing skills, followed up with an advanced course and regular re-testing, would do much more than speed cameras ever have.

 

The government'd even be making money out of it still, and providing employment with the required expansion at test centres. It'd cause too much uproar though. Much easier to sticky plaster the problem with big yellow boxes.

 

I have been on interview panel a few years ago where an applicant (who might also have been approached to drive the school minibus) did mention that he had previous driving ban due to speeding offences and had gone through a serious of retraining as a result. His frustration with the stupidity of the ban was obvious but we did have to say that they fact that the ban was complete, that he had done a lot of work to change and had a glowing reference from the local constabulary on the charitable work he was doing around speed awareness course ... that was what we were interested in.

 

Afterwards he did explain though that 9 points had been on the same day, on the same stretch of road and was down to a change in the restrictions that were poorly signed (I've been along the road and would heartily agree) which would now be challenged and the points / fines dropped (as they were on many occasions and the signage has now changed).

 

Some of the decisions do seem very arbitrary but having spoken to a number of police and planners now I know that it tends to be for a variety of reasons ... some of them are down to reducing either the risk of incidents (speed is a factor), the severity of injuries / risk of fatalities (speed is a factor), to attempting to change / shape driving habits (create a sense of needing to be more aware of changes to the road and environment) or due to public requirement (noise / pollution / conservation / etc).

 

There are roads where the risk when driving at speed is not as an important factor as it is on other areas. Examples would be motorways, and we can see from other countries where the limit can be flexible enough so that higher speeds can be used at no increase in risk / incidents. Within the UK factor include reaction speed and distance between vehicles. Let's face it ... people drive too close and that is one of the problems. People then take the motorway driving style and apply it to most other roads ... it is not just Lincolnshire (though the quality of roads there doesn't help). Impatience, arrogance, the divine right to own the road ... you know the sort of thing I am getting at ... these are also problems. Talking with family, friends, police and others in places like Ireland, Australia, parts of France, Germany and Belgium ... they all seem to say there is a more friendly and positive attitude to other drivers ...

 

And yes ... re-testing ... please ... as soon as possible ...

[pcstru]

Talking with family, friends, police and others in places like Ireland, Australia, parts of France, Germany and Belgium ... they all seem to say there is a more friendly and positive attitude to other drivers ...

 

And yet, they have a worse record for safety.

 

(p25 of the link)

[SimpleSi]

Just to fully clarify my speeding position - some speed limits have been introduced to crack nuts at a lower cost - e.g reduce whole 3 mile stretch of road to 40MPH because it would be too expensive to properly hightlight/control the junction where incidents take place.

 

This causes drivers frustration as they know the stretch of road they are on doesn't warrant the restriction and therefore end up becoming criminals at times because they are using their brains. (And if new to the areas - get no warning of the incident prone areas.

 

On a personal note (if you remember my daughter was caught doing 55 in a 30 - but 200 metres from the NS sign!) is that she pleaded guilty but stated the above and was treated very reasonably by the magistrates (35 day ban - £50 fine - no points)

 

Si

[Oaktech]

If only there was a way of creating a camera to to quantify and catch "driving like an idiot and taking the pi55" rather than being penalised for just making a mistake.

[sonofsanta]

RTA's have reduced over the last 10 years. Since few seem to think that speed cameras are effective, what DO they think is driving down the number of accidents (in all fatal/serious/slight categories)?

 

Fatal accidents require detailed investigation by specialist assessors and out of about ~60 odd factors which can be cited, excess speed (~30%) is by far the most frequent.

Statistics on road traffic accidents seem hard to come by - the best I've found with a brief Google whilst I waited on a virtual server to be born was on BBC News and whilst they show a fall for the last few years, the first half of that data set shows no improvement - and that's the time period where the speed cameras were put on, so it would seem that the Yellow Boxes didn't make much difference.

 

In all fairness, though, at that point they were Hidden Grey Boxes, so it may be that the decline coincides with Honest Signing and Visible Cameras. I can't remember the timing of that particular policy to verify, though.

 

However, all those accidents where speed was an issue? I warrant that the speed being done was also being done for the previous half-hour by the offender, and the crash didn't happen at that point. The speed itself wasn't the issue; it was the ill-advised choice to be doing that speed at that time, in that particular situation. There are two options for helping there: either blanket the country in intelligent, adaptive speed cameras that adjust to lighting, weather and traffic conditions, or improve driver ability by enforcing better training and better testing and making sure everyone gets the idea that when you're in a car, you're in control of a lethal machine and are holding a metaphorical gun to the head of everyone you drive past, passenger or pedestrian, and you owe it to them and yourself to keep the safety on. As it were.

[GrumbleDook]

And yet, they have a worse record for safety.

 

(p25 of the link)

 

And the argument (from friends in the US) has been that the methods of gathering the stats differ so trying to compare them is flaming stupid. That is why the UN is trying to collectively gather information (including via WHO) to find out what the stats really say. The United Nations and Road Safety

[gshaw]

RTA's have reduced over the last 10 years. Since few seem to think that speed cameras are effective, what DO they think is driving down the number of accidents (in all fatal/serious/slight categories)?

 

Better cars with more focus on safety (pedestrian and passenger) will be a major part of it. Increased number of airbags etc will mean you have a much better chance in a crash than you would've had with say a mid-90's Fiesta compared to the equivalent today...

[Theblacksheep]

RTA's have reduced over the last 10 years. Since few seem to think that speed cameras are effective, what DO they think is driving down the number of accidents (in all fatal/serious/slight categories)?

 

RTAs down since removal of speed cameras:

 

Number of accidents has dropped since Bristol speed cameras switched off | This is Bristol

[chrisredfield93]

IIRC i was told a while back they were going ditch speed cameras on the motoroway and dual carriage ways apprently the new method mentioned was that a camera takes a pic once and then another further on and then calculates between the two distances agaisnt the time to work out if you been speeding or not since they pointed out that people now taking notice where they are and slowing down before reaching them but

 

speed camera databases should be allowed so that you can correct adjust your speed but not abused like

[laserblazer]

Just had a reply from Nissan.

 

Thank you for your e-mail to Nissan on 29/05/12 regarding your sat nav system.

Please be advised that there is currently an update available for your system at Application Number | Navigation System | Map Quest | Cash Advance at Naviation.com. This update will remove all French speed camera POI on your system and ensure your vehicle is compliant with French legislation.

[Guest Guest]

Afterwards he did explain though that 9 points had been on the same day, on the same stretch of road and was down to a change in the restrictions that were poorly signed (I've been along the road and would heartily agree) which would now be challenged and the points / fines dropped (as they were on many occasions and the signage has now changed).

 

That one is a favourite of our council.

 

40mph road enters a roundabout. "National speedlimit" signpost. Exit roundabout onto national speedlimit road.

 

They reduced the national speedlimit road down to 40mph. Now the sensible thing to do would be either put up a 40mph signpost, a "speed limit changed" sign, or both. What they actually did was just remove the national speedlimit sign therefore making this entirely different road, separated by a roundabout, also a 40mph. For the next few months the cops sat in the layby raking in the cash/points. No one, and I mean no one knew it had changed until they were told about it. You'd have to be bloody observant to notice a sigpost had been removed!

[pcstru]

Better cars with more focus on safety (pedestrian and passenger) will be a major part of it. Increased number of airbags etc will mean you have a much better chance in a crash than you would've had with say a mid-90's Fiesta compared to the equivalent today...

 

If that were true, then there might be a disparity between the categories fatal/serious/minor. They have all fallen. Also, airbags, crumple zones etc have been around for quite a while. Car safety has certainly been improving but over the last 10 years that surely can't account for the huge drop.

[pcstru]

And the argument (from friends in the US) has been that the methods of gathering the stats differ so trying to compare them is flaming stupid.

The stats I pointed out were deaths per million registered drivers. While the 'methods' of gathering the data might be different, most countries are reasonably conscientious about recording both deaths and the number of licensed drivers. A blanket description of 'flaming stupid' to a reasonably qualified metric is ... flaming stupid (IMO).

[Arthur]

I've always wondered why cars don't have an extra instrument in the dash that knows the limit of each road...

Already been invented (in a sense). The Nissan GT-R will automatically disable its speed limiter when the GPS system detects that you have arrived at a race track. On public roads it is limited to 112 mph, but on the track you can drive it at upto 200mph.

 

If all cars had GPS I imagine it would be quite easy to implement. However, considering that electric windows, aircon and MFSWs are not standard features on all new cars, I am not holding out much hope.

[pcstru]

However, all those accidents where speed was an issue? I warrant that the speed being done was also being done for the previous half-hour by the offender, and the crash didn't happen at that point. The speed itself wasn't the issue; it was the ill-advised choice to be doing that speed at that time, in that particular situation.

 

So ... it wasn't that they were going too fast per se, it was just they were going too fast when they had a crash. Yea .... I see... So, it's really the fault that they *decided* to have a crash. What we need is ... err ... no crash signs, not speed limit signs. Hmmm...

[GrumbleDook]

The stats I pointed out were deaths per million registered drivers. While the 'methods' of gathering the data might be different, most countries are reasonably conscientious about recording both deaths and the number of licensed drivers. A blanket description of 'flaming stupid' to a reasonably qualified metric is ... flaming stupid (IMO).

 

In some states in US the death of registered drivers is not always recorded as vehicle related if due to drugs, gun crime, certain medical conditions ... or car chases involving police. Not all Counties report accurately to State level and not all States are consistent when reporting at Federal level. Similar inconsistencies in Oz, apparently, on collating figures.

 

We have similar issues with collectively reporting stats in other areas due to the different ways things are recorded by different Constabularies ... which is why you get accusations about massaging figures on violent crime, theft, etc.

[pcstru]

In some states in US the death of registered drivers is not always recorded as vehicle related if due to drugs, gun crime, certain medical conditions ... or car chases involving police. Not all Counties report accurately to State level and not all States are consistent when reporting at Federal level. Similar inconsistencies in Oz, apparently, on collating figures.

Thanks for the clarification, that's interesting. I can see why someone who is shot dead and then crashes isn't counted. However, it seems that all these things are likely to skew figures down (less deaths attributed to RTA), so the USA is likely to come off even worse than they already show if they were more methodical. I'd struggle to think that the IRTAD working group wasn't aware of the issue (and infact they source data from a number of different sources (page 28)), specifically cross referencing police reported data against hospital data. However, I have to admit I'm a little surprised that there is no quantification of error anywhere in the figures - that's ... unscientific.

 

We have similar issues with collectively reporting stats in other areas due to the different ways things are recorded by different Constabularies ... which is why you get accusations about massaging figures on violent crime, theft, etc.

 

True, but collection of RTA stats is quite methodical in the UK.

[sonofsanta]

So ... it wasn't that they were going too fast per se, it was just they were going too fast when they had a crash. Yea .... I see... So, it's really the fault that they *decided* to have a crash. What we need is ... err ... no crash signs, not speed limit signs. Hmmm...

 

It's not that they were going too fast, per se, it's that they were going too fast for that particular situation, that particular moment and set of circumstances. If the crash happened at 80mph on a 60mph road, they probably habitually drive at 80mph down that road, and don't normally have a crash. The speed itself wasn't the cause of the crash; it's that it was inadvisable in those specific sets of circumstances, and the inability of the driver to identify that they should slow down because it's raining/dusk/heavy traffic/blind junction/etc.

 

So yes, speed is a factor, but speed itself is not a danger, it's the circumstances under which it occurs. And traffic cameras are a blunt force instrument that cannot discriminate when it is and isn't appropriate.

 

IIRC i was told a while back they were going ditch speed cameras on the motoroway and dual carriage ways apprently the new method mentioned was that a camera takes a pic once and then another further on and then calculates between the two distances agaisnt the time to work out if you been speeding or not

 

Nottinghamshire love these average speed cameras, they've had them for years. The old A46 between Newark and Nottingham was more or less covered by them. In all fairness, they do make you pay a lot more attention to your speed. If only they stopped people sticking to your back bumper because they've not realised those cameras are about and you're not going to speed up no matter how close they get to your rear windshield

[Gatt]

SatNavs - Useful for when you get lost or are in an unfamiliar place.. But then again so is a Road Atlas

 

(wait's for the "You can't use a Road Atlas when driving" cries..)

 

True, you can't (well if you are seriously stupid and you have a death wish then you can...)

 

However.. The same can also be said for SatNavs... They should be programmed before you start your journey. If you don't know where you are then you should pull over and consult the SatNav (personally I'd use a Road Atlas as well..)

 

It is there to aide people in navigating unfamiliar roads - and shouldn't be relied upon to tell you when to turn or what speed you need to be doing - that's why we are behind the wheel..

 

Yes I have a SatNav app on my phone -Before I set off, I program it with my destination, double check the route with an Atlas or Google Maps (along with print out of the route) When I get in the car, I put my phone on a shelf in my car and leave it alone with the SatNav running and the directions on the seat beside me.

I then concentrate on my driving paying attention to these strange things called Road Signs that tell me what speed I can do, and where I am going..

 

In the event I am not sure where I am, I find a safe location to pull over and check my SatNav and printouts

 

I just wish other people did the same! - I constantly see them fiddling with their SatNav and not watching what they are doing (had one prat this morning who nearly ended up inside an HGV!!)

 

/rant

[sonofsanta]

I just wish other people did the same! - I constantly see them fiddling with their SatNav and not watching what they are doing (had one prat this morning who nearly ended up inside an HGV!!)

 

It's a fair point actually - not the pulling over everytime you need to check it, because if I'm in a three lane one way system approaching a roundabout in a city I don't know, I just want to be able to glance at my GPS and know where I'm going - but given that all satnavs can tell the speed, you think they'd lock out any interaction when they can sense the car moving, beyond a big volume up/down area (say, entire right half of the screen to go louder, entire left half quieter).

 

Even if I know more or less where I'm going by the road signs, sometimes it's useful to have the GPS up still as a map. I know it's all that's got me through some heavy fog on a winding Lincolnshire B road before. But then, I've wasted the majority of my life playing computer games so I expect a mini map all the time now

[Gatt]

Sorry should've been clearer - I only mean pull over if it involves anything other than a quick glance (like when checking a mirror) or a couple of taps (like changing the radio or heater settings)

But I have seen people trying to program the damned thing whilst doing 70mph (I only know this as I was behind them and could see them tapping away whilst looking at a bit of paper!)

Needless to say I increased my gap and changed lane when I got the chance..

[Andrew_C]

The French are going to enforce Mway speeds using toll booths. You buy a ticket at Le Harve and arrive too soon at the Paris exit... "That will be €1000 please m'suir"

[Heebeejeebee]

The AA site recommends contacting the car manufacturer for advice if you have a fitted satnav. I've sent Nissan an email, so it will be iteresting to see if I get a reply.

 

I can turn off speed camera notifications in my Nissan Qashqai (Tekna) but is that enough to satisfiy the requirement? I'm travelling through France at the weekend so it's of interest.

 

Just noticed the previous post about the AA saying it's enough

 

HBJB

Edited May 30, 2012 by Heebeejeebee