'Underhand' A127 speed cameras are now working (From Southend Standard)

I wonder how long before those strategically placed control boxes get set on fire or inadvertantly hit by a large vehicle....

Nothing to worry about really, if you do not break the speed limits then you have nothing to worry about.

The argument about "money making" is ridiculous....the idiots that speed are the ones lining the fatcats pockets so they only have themselves to blame...

Down by 60%??? What a load of baloney! Absolute waste of money in the name of "emissions and safety". Looking at that particular stretch of road, I think it would have been far better spending the money on resurfacing. Roll on the local elections when these idiots can be voted out of office.

60% reduction in serious accidents and deaths already. What a result! That is the real story.

However I await a further 112 posts trying to cobble together an argument over why not announcing when and if the camera's are working is a major crime against humanity.

Who cares? The speed limit has changed, break it, get caught and you are nicked. It makes no difference if that is by camera are a pleasant plod in a traffic car.

Get over it before you start typing and wasting your time.

And as for calling them "underhand" if that isn't pandering to the populist vote I don't know what is. A rubbish comment typical of local politicians.

Local Boy you miss the point....the speed limit has been changed, and millions of taxpayers money has been spent on something that upsets the majority of motorists. If you really are a LocalBoy you will have noticed the congestion that this folly is causing. The changes are done in the name of safety, but safety is being compromised by the undemocratic decision of a few tree-hugging councillors. And funded by the poor motorists who fail to see the very poorly signposted restriction.

I always love the articles about the A127/Canvey Way speed cameras. Mainly due to the numpties who write in & go on about 'money grabbing' or 'stealth tax'... they are there to deter people speeding & make the roads safer.
If you are stupid enough to exceed the speed limit (clearly signposted)then you should get fined... for being stupid!
Hopefully we will see decent reports of the reduction of accidents & deaths on these roads however I'm sure the numpties will have something to say on that!!

It has really annoyed me that people have been using the fact that the cameras were not working as an excuse to break what is, after all, the speed limit! A speed limit is just that, whether there are cameras or not. I personally have found the traffic flows a lot better and the new limit and cameras do not bother me in the slightest. If anyone has been caught out because they weren't told the cameras were working they only have themselves to blame for breaking the speed limit in the first place - you can't beat the system.

Hadleigh_Dan wrote:
I always love the articles about the A127/Canvey Way speed cameras. Mainly due to the numpties who write in & go on about 'money grabbing' or 'stealth tax'... they are there to deter people speeding & make the roads safer. If you are stupid enough to exceed the speed limit (clearly signposted)then you should get fined... for being stupid! Hopefully we will see decent reports of the reduction of accidents & deaths on these roads however I'm sure the numpties will have something to say on that!!

Dan - I look forward to the day when you are caught exceeding a speed limit by a small amount. Let's see if you have the same outlook then! And before you say it - EVERYONE at one time of another has exceeded the speed limit, either intentionally or unintentionally. I am all for reducing the number of accidents and deaths on our roads, but not in this way. Since the introduction of the cameras congestion is even worse, cars are more tightly bunched together and people's journey times are being increased needlessly.
Afraid it is people like you who are the numpties, and need a police state to tell you what a safe speed is.

claires wrote:
It has really annoyed me that people have been using the fact that the cameras were not working as an excuse to break what is, after all, the speed limit! A speed limit is just that, whether there are cameras or not. I personally have found the traffic flows a lot better and the new limit and cameras do not bother me in the slightest. If anyone has been caught out because they weren't told the cameras were working they only have themselves to blame for breaking the speed limit in the first place - you can't beat the system.

I beg to differ. If you cant beat the system can you explain to me how the many motorbikes I see buzzing pass people get caught? These camera's are flawed and have created greater hazards than there were in the first place. I am not against keeping to the speed limit I just think this is the wrong way to go about it. I find it ridiculos you have convoys of vehicles sat at 50 yet you have others unable to get caught and breaking the limit. It's a joke!

I think the point has been missed here. Cameras should not replace the police. In the past the police made value judgements - 70mph at 3am on a dry road may be safe - 40mph when there is a thunderstorm may not. Spend the money on visible policing to deter those who speed. Equally the penalties from cameras do not apply to cars which are not correctly registered with the DVLA, a speed camera cannot check insurance and driving documents, unroadworthy vehicles and foreign drivers who speed then then return home.

It amazes me that people think its underhand because they wernt told the cameras went live. It shouldnt matter if the cameras are live ir not. The speed limit is 50mph for most of it, so therefore you should travel at a speed upto 50mph. You speed, you get caught, you get fined. And yes I do have a speeding endorsment.

modorator wrote:
I think the point has been missed here. Cameras should not replace the police. In the past the police made value judgements - 70mph at 3am on a dry road may be safe - 40mph when there is a thunderstorm may not. Spend the money on visible policing to deter those who speed. Equally the penalties from cameras do not apply to cars which are not correctly registered with the DVLA, a speed camera cannot check insurance and driving documents, unroadworthy vehicles and foreign drivers who speed then then return home.

Spot on.

I think it is lovely that we seem to have lost most of the weavers since the new cameras were put up. That in itself should save a few lives. Regarding the delays the speed limits are supposed to cause, I agree. It has added at least 3 minutes to my journey to work! I really can't see much difference between the congestion that used to be caused by weavers and the regulated speed now being driven.

To be honest, I couldnt care less if the cameras were 'live' when they first went up. My only qualm is getting on and off the A127 and how dangerous I find it now. Trying to change from the inside lane to move across towards a junction is very difficult and have seen many near misses purely because of the sheer volume of traffic. I also find it extremely hard trying to pull out of junctions onto the A127. Their are just no breaks in traffic as everyone is doing one speed and trying to change lanes or enter/leave the carriageway is as I have said, at times very dangerous. Anyone else notice this?

Just take off your front number plate and you can go as fast as you like, just like the bikers do. The chances of getting pulled over by the police are virtually nil and even if they do, it's only a £30 fine and a telling-off. Much better than points and a £60 fine.

liseinga wrote:
I think it is lovely that we seem to have lost most of the weavers since the new cameras were put up. That in itself should save a few lives. Regarding the delays the speed limits are supposed to cause, I agree. It has added at least 3 minutes to my journey to work! I really can't see much difference between the congestion that used to be caused by weavers and the regulated speed now being driven.

What A127 do you drive on then?? From what I've seen (and I use the road at least twice a day) there are more "weavers" than ever! Plus they rarely use indicators either.

These cameras have also highlighted a more worry fact in that loads of drivers don't seem to know what the national speed limit sign is or means. Everyday I get stuck behind "motorists" (I use the term lightly) in lane 2 doing 50mph when the national speed limit applies and they wont move out the way for love nor money! These cameras seem to have brought about a complete disregard for lane discipline; you should only be in lane 2 if you are overtaking a slower moving vehicle in lane 1. When said "motorists" are sticking religiously to 50mph in the nation speed limit zones it's almost encouraging other drivers to undertake/weave in order to make use of the increased speed limit.

As for the underhandedness of not being informed the cameras are working and the holier than thou "if you don't speed you wont get caught" brigade, regardless of whether they're working or not, when the road is empty it take more concentration to keep to 50MPH and IMO that's concentation that would be better spent on the road and other road users!

Hey Resident3, Basildon.... I am proud to say that I have been driving 20-odd years & have a clean licence. Very proud of it & want to keep it that way. Speed limits are there for a reason!!

By the way, I travel through that stretch of the A127 twice a day & often at weekends, I haven't noticed any more congestion than before the cameras. There are still delays at Rayleigh Weir, Basildon industrial estate... nothing to do with the cameras!!

Just buy a car with cruise control and set it to 50mph then you will be able to drift along with no fear of exceeding the speed limit. Not practical? Well half the posts on this topic here and previously seem to indicate that you can't change lanes/merge/leave as everyone travels at a constant 50mph so you can't have it both ways.

As a less tongue in cheek aside, I don't particularly care for the reduced speed limit but the cameras and limit are not exactly new and the fact they are now (allegedly) working is immaterial so why are we still harping on about them?

resident3 wrote:
Local Boy you miss the point....the speed limit has been changed, and millions of taxpayers money has been spent on something that upsets the majority of motorists. If you really are a LocalBoy you will have noticed the congestion that this folly is causing. The changes are done in the name of safety, but safety is being compromised by the undemocratic decision of a few tree-hugging councillors. And funded by the poor motorists who fail to see the very poorly signposted restriction.

Resident3, what a load of rubbish, whether you travel at 70mph or 50mph, the same amount of traffic is still there, so congestion does not go up, infact the slower speeds should allow traffic light cycles to clear more traffic, as you are not catching the tail back so quickly.

I think the reason you and so many others are so upset is, because you are one of the many who use the A127 as your personal race track in the morning and evening commute, doing speeds I suspect as high as 90 to 100mph, putting other road users like myself at risk, because of your dangerous childish driving.

I dont really see how a speed camera can upset any law abiding motorist, travelling at the correct speed, so I can only come to the conclusion, you like to drive dangerously.

Time wrote:

resident3 wrote: Local Boy you miss the point....the speed limit has been changed, and millions of taxpayers money has been spent on something that upsets the majority of motorists. If you really are a LocalBoy you will have noticed the congestion that this folly is causing. The changes are done in the name of safety, but safety is being compromised by the undemocratic decision of a few tree-hugging councillors. And funded by the poor motorists who fail to see the very poorly signposted restriction.

Resident3, what a load of rubbish, whether you travel at 70mph or 50mph, the same amount of traffic is still there, so congestion does not go up, infact the slower speeds should allow traffic light cycles to clear more traffic, as you are not catching the tail back so quickly. I think the reason you and so many others are so upset is, because you are one of the many who use the A127 as your personal race track in the morning and evening commute, doing speeds I suspect as high as 90 to 100mph, putting other road users like myself at risk, because of your dangerous childish driving. I dont really see how a speed camera can upset any law abiding motorist, travelling at the correct speed, so I can only come to the conclusion, you like to drive dangerously.

In your last paragraph you make a fundamental wrong judgement..... Driving in excess of the speed limit does not necessarily mean you are driving dangerously.

Many people cannot grasp the concept of speeding and inappropriate speed, for instance:

85MPH on the A127 at 3am is speeding, however it is not particularly inappropriate if the conditions are clear and there are few other road users around.

Conversely, sticking to a 30MPH limit going past a school at kicking out time is not speeding but could well be completely inappropriate. A little off topic but something to think about.... Take a standard length bus (double decker but the height isn't important here.....) you are travelling at 30MPH and are withing the given speed limit. As you get along side the bus a child steps out from the front of it. In the time it takes you to get on the brake pedal you are already in line with the front of the bus..... Were you speeding? No. Would you have hit the child if they froze to the spot, probably.

My point is that rather than having this obsession that speed it ALWAYS to blame when there's an accident, we should be looking at other reasons why accidents happen, providing better driver training and have more traffic police correcting bad drivers.

I totally agree with the above post. Speeding and Dangerous driving do not go hand in hand. I've seen people in the 50mph limit weaving between those who decide to stick at 40mph, leaving millimetres between cars.

You can also take into account road conditions - in the wet, a car can still aquaplane at the speed limit for example.

I don't like the 50mph limit along the A127. Personally, i think they should have put the cameras in, kept it at 70mph and seen if that worked first.

By the way, i went to the Fortune of War this morning, and the queue! It's funny, but when they took the GATSO cameras out this traffic blackspot flowed free at half 7 in the morning. Now though, with people braking suddenly etc.... Why oh why don't they just straighten it out?

It's a bit unnerving when you come to a lorry doing slightly less than 50mph.

When it comes to overtaking it, I usually get stuck in the lorry's blindspot, which is an awful place to be, as I can't pick up enough speed to get past it.
I'd rather be in front of a lorry than not being able to see past it's big bum!

I have to agree as well that it can be a bit hairy bleeding on and off the A127, but I find that SLOWING DOWN FURTHER and joining at 40mph helps with that problem.
LET'S FACE IT - NO ONE ALREADY ON THE A127 IS GOING TO SLOW DOWN AND LET YOU IN.

I constantly do 80 ;-)
No point in moaning about it!

so the camera's are working at last, we think... do we know for sure, like everything that we are told we have to take it or leave it. But the fact is there is an amazing belief that safe speed is set by a number, as already pointed out above, driving above the limit when no one else is around is not dangerous but driving at 30 past the school is not speeding the law says but in reality is driving to fast!

So why are these camera's installed? For safety? If this was the case then the 50 zone would have started before the Dick Turpin pub southend bound not just after it!!

My last thought for now.. when are we going to see the figures for how many are caught speeding and by how much? I suspect we will never see this information because I would put money on the fact most people would be just a few mph over the limit

Time wrote:

resident3 wrote: Local Boy you miss the point....the speed limit has been changed, and millions of taxpayers money has been spent on something that upsets the majority of motorists. If you really are a LocalBoy you will have noticed the congestion that this folly is causing. The changes are done in the name of safety, but safety is being compromised by the undemocratic decision of a few tree-hugging councillors. And funded by the poor motorists who fail to see the very poorly signposted restriction.

Resident3, what a load of rubbish, whether you travel at 70mph or 50mph, the same amount of traffic is still there, so congestion does not go up, infact the slower speeds should allow traffic light cycles to clear more traffic, as you are not catching the tail back so quickly. I think the reason you and so many others are so upset is, because you are one of the many who use the A127 as your personal race track in the morning and evening commute, doing speeds I suspect as high as 90 to 100mph, putting other road users like myself at risk, because of your dangerous childish driving. I dont really see how a speed camera can upset any law abiding motorist, travelling at the correct speed, so I can only come to the conclusion, you like to drive dangerously.

What a muppet you are!
"Southoftheriver" says it all. No, I do not speed, but even a muppet like you should realise that if you have a line of cars doing 70mph, and the first one brakes to 50mph, then each subsequent car has to brake a little harder. It is a phenomenon experienced a lot on motorways. Oh, perhaps you are not allowed on motorways yet, as you seem so inexperienced you probably have L plates at the moment. Speed itself is not dangerous, but inappropriate speed can be. And please don't make so many "assumptions". You make yourself look foolish!

Speed does not always cause accidents.

However speed is the major contributor to death, disfigurement and injury to innocent 3rd parties when accidents occur.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that reducing speed will reduce the number of casualties.

Further more at lower speeds the less talented of road users have longer to recover from their mistakes. Therefore fewer accidents.

However those of you who are anti speed restrictions and enforcement don't ever make mistakes do you?

I am a white van man, i drive for a living, i travel up and down the A127 3/4 times a day and i am in favour of the cameras, i use to believe if i died on the road it would be on the A127 But now... what a nice road it is, all the pressure to get there has gone.
There are still the Aholes who think they can slow down at the cameras who will learn the hard way!
Give us more Cameras slow the hectic pace of life.

Sad to see so many obvious village idiots here, who clearly don't have a clue how to drive. As for setting cruise control on a road like the A127, it's simply astounding! Lets get one thing straight bozos...Speed Kills, it's a fact....they're NOT talking about people doing 10mph to 2000mph... and not having an accident. It doesn't matter what speed you are doing UNLESS you have an accident or an incident. Then it is deadly, the faster you are travelling the worse it becomes. For not understanding that alone you jerks should lose your licence! Maybe we should have a roadside IQ test, that would eliminate most of the bozos here.

The point about having to slow down from 70mph to 50mph on motorways, is all part of knowing how to drive. Road speeds go up and down according to traffic conditions, and if you find yourself unable to interpret road conditions, do us all a favour and give up driving! It's actually idiots like you who are endangering all our lives on the roads. We should not just be giving you plonkers speeding tickets, we should be giving you a short, sharp shock in prison where you can watch the clock at your leisure without putting the rest of us at risk.

Any Jack**** who finds itself ramming it's anchors on due to traffic ahead, is not paying attention. For that you should lose your licence, a licence you clearly dont deserve. In fact it would seem most you you dont even have a licence! No one could pass you as qualified for anyhting but a pedal car, even then it would be dubious!

If the speeders are in such fear of driving *normally* they should take a few lessons.

No wonder this country is going to the dogs.

i myself have been in a car accident recently in high road hockley, that wasnt my fault its not always about the speed you do but the way you drive and the reaction time. but in some case speed can affect the way an accident happens and the damages/injuries it can cause. im 50/50 on these average speed cameras

Colleen G wrote:
Sad to see so many obvious village idiots here, who clearly don't have a clue how to drive. As for setting cruise control on a road like the A127, it's simply astounding! Lets get one thing straight bozos...Speed Kills, it's a fact....they're NOT talking about people doing 10mph to 2000mph... and not having an accident. It doesn't matter what speed you are doing UNLESS you have an accident or an incident. Then it is deadly, the faster you are travelling the worse it becomes. For not understanding that alone you jerks should lose your licence! Maybe we should have a roadside IQ test, that would eliminate most of the bozos here. The point about having to slow down from 70mph to 50mph on motorways, is all part of knowing how to drive. Road speeds go up and down according to traffic conditions, and if you find yourself unable to interpret road conditions, do us all a favour and give up driving! It's actually idiots like you who are endangering all our lives on the roads. We should not just be giving you plonkers speeding tickets, we should be giving you a short, sharp shock in prison where you can watch the clock at your leisure without putting the rest of us at risk. Any Jack**** who finds itself ramming it's anchors on due to traffic ahead, is not paying attention. For that you should lose your licence, a licence you clearly dont deserve. In fact it would seem most you you dont even have a licence! No one could pass you as qualified for anyhting but a pedal car, even then it would be dubious! If the speeders are in such fear of driving *normally* they should take a few lessons. No wonder this country is going to the dogs.

Talk about shoot yourself in the foot. If your wishes were granted, and roadside IQ tests were introduced, I suspect you would be one of the first to be banned. Speed in itself is never the sole cause of an accident!! Period. Inappropriate speed is very often the cause. If we can get back to the original argument (about the cameras), then why not reduce the speed limit on the A127 to 30mph?? Or even 10mph!!?? Then the statisticians will be having a field day with their meaningless statistics, being able to point out that accidents have been reduced even further.

Sadly those of us who are capable of driving safely and considerately at 30/50/60/70mph are penalised because of the divs who have no concept of the law or order, or why there are rules! It has nothing to do with statistics. It's all to do with trying to protect society from gormless people like you!

Colleen G wrote:
Sadly those of us who are capable of driving safely and considerately at 30/50/60/70mph are penalised because of the divs who have no concept of the law or order, or why there are rules! It has nothing to do with statistics. It's all to do with trying to protect society from gormless people like you!

But it is to do with the statistics, the safety people are all about getting the point over how the things put in place are saving a extra life or 2, but it still remains that poor driving is a bigger problem than we are led to beleive
-tailgating
-driving to fast for conditions
-drink/drug related
-driving without due care and attention.
excessive speed is a problem, driving above the limit that was set in the 60's if the road is clear is not the problem.

So somebody tell me, how many people are caught and how far over the limit they are..?

You can't..? no surprise there then

resident3 wrote:

Time wrote:

resident3 wrote: Local Boy you miss the point....the speed limit has been changed, and millions of taxpayers money has been spent on something that upsets the majority of motorists. If you really are a LocalBoy you will have noticed the congestion that this folly is causing. The changes are done in the name of safety, but safety is being compromised by the undemocratic decision of a few tree-hugging councillors. And funded by the poor motorists who fail to see the very poorly signposted restriction.

Resident3, what a load of rubbish, whether you travel at 70mph or 50mph, the same amount of traffic is still there, so congestion does not go up, infact the slower speeds should allow traffic light cycles to clear more traffic, as you are not catching the tail back so quickly. I think the reason you and so many others are so upset is, because you are one of the many who use the A127 as your personal race track in the morning and evening commute, doing speeds I suspect as high as 90 to 100mph, putting other road users like myself at risk, because of your dangerous childish driving. I dont really see how a speed camera can upset any law abiding motorist, travelling at the correct speed, so I can only come to the conclusion, you like to drive dangerously.

What a muppet you are!
"Southoftheriver" says it all. No, I do not speed, but even a muppet like you should realise that if you have a line of cars doing 70mph, and the first one brakes to 50mph, then each subsequent car has to brake a little harder. It is a phenomenon experienced a lot on motorways. Oh, perhaps you are not allowed on motorways yet, as you seem so inexperienced you probably have L plates at the moment. Speed itself is not dangerous, but inappropriate speed can be. And please don't make so many "assumptions". You make yourself look foolish!

Oh yes I forgot, the great british public must not slow down until they have too.

Anyone looking further then the bonnet of the car knows now the limit is 50, so I do not understand why all these cars are slaming there brakes on. Its not a race to the line.

Excess Speed kills more people on the UK roads then any other form of Road danager. So dont you dare lecture me on the need for a faster speed, or keeping the current speed. I have attended some of the most horrifc fatal crashes on the A127, where speeds of 70mph has been the factor. Speed kills, people do not know how to drive, and they dont pay attention to what is going on in front of them. The camera's cause people to think about what they are doing, instead of racing the next car coming off the junction.

After all the A127 is a very safe road, no one ever dies on it do they?

Motorways, ever seen what happens to the family hatch when a lorry hits it, at the very low speed of 50mph? I have! Sort of looks like a leaky milk bottle lid.

You have taken the same stupid, low skill driving test as 95% of the populas has, which shows you can doodle around town at 30mph and do a few little slighty more complex moves, it does not make you qualified to drive at what ever speed you want on the roads, 70mph pushes most motorists skills.

Of course if people did pay attention, I wouldnt have been knocked over in my highviz jacket, only to be greeted with the words "oh im so sorry I didnt see you".

But hey im just an advanced driver.

Time, South of the river - are you police or ambulance?

I have to agree about the 70mph pushing people skills, after the test showing you can drive at 30 then released to the mad world of the motorway. I am sure you have seen many drivers that due many crazy strange things making us wonder how they got the licence in the first place!

I still ride along there at 80 ;-))

Slip the blood to me bud :-))))

Southoftheriver - You cannot have it both ways. Either you are saying that speed kills or inattentive driving can kill. As you quite rightly point out, if people are not paying attention, speed is not a factor! Cars are lethal weapons, and wherever cars are in abundance, crashes will occur and unfortunately some of them will have fatal consequences. Well done for taking and passing your advance driving test - but please don't think it makes you superior to any particular driver who has not taken the test. I am glad you agree with me that speed in itself does not kill - as you quite rightly say lorry travelling at "the very low speed of 50mph" can have terrible consequences IF THE DRIVER IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION! So tell me the cause of this accident?

My final comment (promise!) about the relationship between speed and accidents.

Please read the following statement issued by the Department for Transport.


"Failure by drivers to look properly is the single biggest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents in the UK, a new Government report revealed this week".

"In the first report of its kind, the Department for Transport (DfT) also highlighted how "some kind of driver or rider error or reaction" resulted in five out of six accidents. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35% of road deaths".

"Covering most accidents that took place in 2005, the report said that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents, and going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 10% of accidents".

Southoftheriver - please make sure your facts are correct before declaring (so pompously) your authority.

resident3 wrote:
My final comment (promise!) about the relationship between speed and accidents.

Please read the following statement issued by the Department for Transport.


"Failure by drivers to look properly is the single biggest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents in the UK, a new Government report revealed this week".

"In the first report of its kind, the Department for Transport (DfT) also highlighted how "some kind of driver or rider error or reaction" resulted in five out of six accidents. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35% of road deaths".

"Covering most accidents that took place in 2005, the report said that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents, and going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 10% of accidents".

Southoftheriver - please make sure your facts are correct before declaring (so pompously) your authority.

I don't get what you don't understand.

Your argument is fatally flawed, accidents are rarely caused by speed, they are caused by errors of judgment or lack of attention.

In fact the term "accident" is a misnomer as it implies that there is no fault, there is usually always fault but for some reason our society rarely punishes the error, it is written off as an "accident".

Speed is what cause the death and injury that happens with these so called "accidents".

Your focus on the causes of the incidents rather than the consequences is the red herring argument always put forward by the road lobby.

The fact is accidents don't always kill, I tripped on the step yesterday and am not dead, but the speed that the accident occurs at can kill.

I didn't trip at 90 mph!

Sorry for breaking my promise, but your comments are ridiculous!
"I tripped on the step yesterday..."
Was it accidental? Or "incidental"? Or were you just not paying attention?

resident3 wrote:
Sorry for breaking my promise, but your comments are ridiculous!
"I tripped on the step yesterday..."
Was it accidental? Or "incidental"? Or were you just not paying attention?

No need to apologise.

Shame you have missed the point again.

My trip, incident or accident yesterday was at a speed where I managed to recover.

It was also at a speed that would not have caused me serious injury if I had fallen.

Now this next bit may be a challenge for you but let's go with it anyway.

Extrapolate what we learned from my trip yesterday to the crazy world of motoring and you may be able to work out the following.

Crashes (let's call them that shall we?) occur for many reasons one of which is excessive speed.

Injury death and destruction are caused by the crashes. The higher the speed the higher the risk of serious injury or death.

I use this road on a daily basis. The changes to the speed limit has resulted in less congestion, less bunching of traffic and a far safer drive during busy periods. That is my observation and the initial factual evidence seems to back this up.

Your particular prejudice is clearly displayed all through your posts.

Yours is a political argument not a road safety argument.

I don't care if our local politicians have p****d off a few motorists and people like you. Every day I have to contend with motorists who make mistakes and some who drive in a deliberately dangerous manner. If the only way to limit the carnage that this minority of people cause is to inconvenience the rest of us by slowing us down then so be it.

I'd prefer to arrive at my destination 5 minutes later than in a box.

Yes I agree that most accidents are NOT accidents and as such we should prosecute on willful neglect. Some idiots are killing and maiming people and calling them *accidents* when in reality it should be manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. Whether the village idiot knew he was doing it or not, should not make any difference. Stupidity is no defence in law. In fact the sort of intentional stupidity we see here alone should constitute a crime. As I said before, an aptitude/attitude test would soon see these dorks failing their tests. 3 strikes for speeding should make a statutory prison sentence. Even then I still doubt they would ever *get it*, but at least it would get them off our roads for a while.

The councillor, Ms Waite is not on thsi planet: "“I don’t condone speeding, but the purpose of the cameras is to encourage people to travel at the right speed, not to pick up law breakers. It’s a tad underhand.” "
The cameras are on yellow poles, the cameras are bright yellow, there are signs every where for cameras and speed limits. The cameras only work as a deterrent because there is a chance of prosecution.
You know what the speed limits are; stick below them like you did on your test, no problem.
There is no need to tell folk when cameras are on. WHat do you think the problem is with not telling people they were on? Have they been upset because they didn't know they would be caught when they deliberately ignored the limit in the knowledge that the cameras were off? Just goes to show how ignorant and stupid some people are...they will be running for council office soon as they seem to have the wit of Ms Waite.

LocalBoy wrote:

resident3 wrote: My final comment (promise!) about the relationship between speed and accidents. Please read the following statement issued by the Department for Transport. "Failure by drivers to look properly is the single biggest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents in the UK, a new Government report revealed this week". "In the first report of its kind, the Department for Transport (DfT) also highlighted how "some kind of driver or rider error or reaction" resulted in five out of six accidents. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35% of road deaths". "Covering most accidents that took place in 2005, the report said that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents, and going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 10% of accidents". Southoftheriver - please make sure your facts are correct before declaring (so pompously) your authority.

I don't get what you don't understand. Your argument is fatally flawed, accidents are rarely caused by speed, they are caused by errors of judgment or lack of attention. In fact the term "accident" is a misnomer as it implies that there is no fault, there is usually always fault but for some reason our society rarely punishes the error, it is written off as an "accident". Speed is what cause the death and injury that happens with these so called "accidents". Your focus on the causes of the incidents rather than the consequences is the red herring argument always put forward by the road lobby. The fact is accidents don't always kill, I tripped on the step yesterday and am not dead, but the speed that the accident occurs at can kill. I didn't trip at 90 mph!

Local Boy
"Your focus on the causes of the incidents rather than the consequences is the red herring argument always put forward by the road lobby. "
You are exactly right in this respect and have seen the fact that blows the anti-speed enforcement lobby out of the water.
It is something their selfish and witless campaign either denies or they are too stupid to spot that.

What an absolute load of twaddle!!
Localboy - you admit your trip was caused by inattentiveness. Would you have been killed if you were travelling at 50mph? Or 70mph? I guess so. But if you had been attentive you would not have tripped at all, and chances are that if you were travelling at a higher speed you would have been more attentive to your own welfare. Unless you are advocating we make a speed limit of "walking-speed" on the A127, your argument is lost by your own admission. If you had a point to make I am sure I would see it. The sarcasm I can do without. I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who is clearly unarmed!

resident3 wrote:
What an absolute load of twaddle!!
Localboy - you admit your trip was caused by inattentiveness. Would you have been killed if you were travelling at 50mph? Or 70mph? I guess so. But if you had been attentive you would not have tripped at all, and chances are that if you were travelling at a higher speed you would have been more attentive to your own welfare. Unless you are advocating we make a speed limit of "walking-speed" on the A127, your argument is lost by your own admission. If you had a point to make I am sure I would see it. The sarcasm I can do without. I refuse to have a battle of wits with someone who is clearly unarmed!

"battle of wits?"

So you think that the safety of me and other road users is just a topic for you to practice your keyboard warrior debating skills?

Now I understand the base for your puerile arguments.

Like many who defend their so called rights do what the hell they like on the roads, your arguments are based on the premise that everyone can and should be a "perfect driver" and if they are nobody gets hurt.

Unfortunately many of us live in the real world where life isn't perfect and neither are all drivers.

Inattentiveness is a human attribute, so bad news old chap, we all suffer from it, even you.

You are clearly a person who has never seen or suffered the consequences of the stupid speeds that many drive at in this country. I hope you don't have to either.

Now take your academic arguments back to the virtual world you clearly think you live in. The rest of us will live in the real world.

LocalBoy – aka Muppet – the “battle of wits” remark was a response to your sarcasm, and I suggest that if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. What the hell is a “keyboard warrior”? Someone who has the temerity to disagree with you via the internet?
Secondly, my arguments are clearly not “puerile”. I have backed my argument with facts released by the Department of Transport.
Thirdly, the assumptions you make are not only false, but sound like a desperate attempt to refute facts.
I have seen the result of many accidents, some fatal. I probably drive more miles in a day than most people do in a week. So,when you say “clearly a person who has never seen or suffered the consequences bla bla bla bla ..... “ CLEARLY it is you are wrong - again.
If you take the trouble to read the thread from the beginning (getting help with the long words), you will see that my argument is against the false premise that these cameras have been installed in the interests of “safety and emissions”. No referendum was taken, and a hell of a lot of taxpayers money has been wasted by a few councillors who will be “here today and gone tomorrow”
I try to adhere to all speed limits, and I adjust my speed according to road and traffic conditions.
I do not need Councillor Cockhead telling me what speed I am limited to, especially if he is using my money to fund his ridiculous police-state idealism.
Now do one.

resident3 or should we call you Rodney from now on?

You really are intollerent of anyone who holds a different view to you aren't you. "Now do one"?

As stated earlier your pathetic arguments are cobbled together to support your political views.

Road safety is secondary to the likes of you.

As stated earlier and supported by your posts you clearly consider yourself the virtual perfect driver.

I live in the real world, you really should try it some day.

You have yet to give me any FACTS to support your argument, and until you do, your argument is without foundation, remains YOUR opinion, and (like you) devoid of any factual content.
I have never said I was the perfect driver, and if you read the thread you will see that my argument is against the undemocratric imposition of the restriction. As regards my "political views", I oppose any dictatorship or undemocratic process. It is what the "Real world" thrives on. And as I said, if you can't take it DON'T DISH IT OUT!

resident3. You present your views well. But good grief man, get a grip: "Now do one"?

Where have you come from, the primary school playground?

Re the whole speed thing, meh. People will always drive like idiots, some fast, some slow. The general lower speed limit seems to be a positive thing on that stretch of the A127... but that's my observation from driving at various times of the day / week -- I don't use the road regularly or at rush hour, so couldn't comment there.

What I DO know is that stupid fscking morons overtake on the inside regardless of speed.

oh stop you lot please!!!

The fact is the driving standard in the UK is very poor, which means the government has no choice but to take sledgehammer to walnut approach to safety - cant drive slow down.

Now how many of us have been overtaken on the inside..? most I expect, but then look around you next time you are on one of these roads and you will notice more people in the over taking lane than on the inside. Then at the front of the queue you find someone doing less than the limit totally unaware of whats going on around them (safey camera's will fix that one wont it)

Now speed limits, yes we all need them like it or not, but when the limits are set back in the 60's it worries me that the standard is getting worse!

So, the A127 camera's.. why are they there? Safety? yeah right, if this was safety based why is the 50 zone started Southend bound just after the Dick Turpin pub? reduce congestion? then why not a 50 zone the whole lenght? based on my journey last night evening rush hour when it was stop start it dont work anyway.

And the next time you have an RTA because you leave little space between you and the car in front not the safe 2 second rule I will be driving past you smiling!!

Have a nice weekend all..

whinge whinge whinge. New speed limit? GET OVER IT, DEAL WITH IT, MOVE ON.

the.transporter wrote:
Time, South of the river - are you police or ambulance?

I have to agree about the 70mph pushing people skills, after the test showing you can drive at 30 then released to the mad world of the motorway. I am sure you have seen many drivers that due many crazy strange things making us wonder how they got the licence in the first place!

Been both, but now im police. Yes I wonder everyday what box people get the licences from.

resident3 wrote:
My final comment (promise!) about the relationship between speed and accidents.

Please read the following statement issued by the Department for Transport.


"Failure by drivers to look properly is the single biggest contributory factor when it comes to road accidents in the UK, a new Government report revealed this week".

"In the first report of its kind, the Department for Transport (DfT) also highlighted how "some kind of driver or rider error or reaction" resulted in five out of six accidents. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 35% of road deaths".

"Covering most accidents that took place in 2005, the report said that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor in only 5% of accidents, and going too fast for the conditions was a contributory factor in 10% of accidents".

Southoftheriver - please make sure your facts are correct before declaring (so pompously) your authority.

I must say I havent been to many fatal car accidents which involved loss of control at low speeds resulting in death.

15% of accidents were reported, speed as a factor in the accident. But 35% of road deaths were because of drivers loss of control.

In a 30 zone, if I knocked you over at 5mph after lossing control 9 times out of 10 you get up, if I knocked you over at 40mph after lossing control you got a 1 in 10 chance of getting up, now tho I got a few more issues cause I have continued hitting things.

Its amazingly hard to have a serious loss of control at low speeds on the road, the report does not cover all road accidents with in 2005.

All it tells me is that 5% of all RTC reported in 2005 around town, the driver was going to fast, 10% were going to fast for the weather conditions.

What it does not show is the level of deaths on main A road trunk roots.

How do you think 2 teenagers in a Fiesta in a 40zone manage to loss control of the car, jump a crash barrier and hit a bridge? Thropebay C1 loss of control into a group of teenagers (SPEED)?

Government reports are part fiction part fantasy so dont put to much faith in it.

But what do I know its only what I do for a living!

In a school we ask children to walk in the corridor rather than run. Speed is highly relevant to the severity of outcome when two objects collide - elementary physics.

Only a moron would suggest that a reduction of accidents is a meaningless statistic as I read above "Then the statisticians will be having a field day with their meaningless statistics, being able to point out that accidents have been reduced even further."

When someone loses a loved one through a tragic road accident this is not a meaningless statistic, and neither is the prevention of such a tragedy.

We all need to slow down and be more considerate.I welcome the cameras for the outcomes they produce even if this was not entirely the intenion of those who operate them.