Could speed cameras save cyclist lives?

"Whether or not you like it the safest speed is the speed at which 85% of drivers would proceed at if there were no limit"

I like your logic, can we apply it to bike shopping. I reckon 85% of us on here would pay £100 for a Cervelo S5 Dura Ace, make it happen people!

Average speed cameras could work but doesn't appear to have prevented total dickishness up the Cat and Fiddle. The sun was shining on Sunday and we were passed by every tool on 2 or 4 wheels at way beyond the limit and spotted a fair few parked up looking at their watches near the top. One Audi driver even beeped at a responsible (yes we found one) driver who amazingly didn't think it was a great idea to pass crossing double white lines on a sharp blind bend on the brow of a hill...

To be fair, if the cameras are used properly then they can be very effective. Devon have installed them on major roads with cross roads. Just before the junction is a speed camera warning sign, prominently displayed with plenty of time to slow down or check your speed before you pass the very visible camera.

Now that’s intelligent use of cameras for road safety and if you get done at one of these, then it’s obvious that you are not intelligent enough to hold a driving license.

I quite like the idea in France where on some roads, just before the junction is a speed limit reduction just to cover the junction, again in my opinion an intelligent use of speed limits.

Whether or not you like it the safest speed is the speed at which 85% of drivers would proceed at if there were no limit.

As well as my 4 bikes I have a 1200cc motorbike and a 5.7 litre V8 car.

Funnily enough they are all equally capable of sticking to the speed limit, and do so.

Both the car and motorbike can of course get there quicker and more effectively than the bikes, but who cares if your car can go at 140mph, I've done that on a track and its much more fun than doing it where they have pedestrians, cyclists and street furniture to hit.

anyone who 'struggles to keep below 30mph' should not be driving.

may as well lock up those Jay walkers as well 

If the average motorist is breaking the law with impunity then gouge, gouge and gouge some more.

I have a little doubt about the accuracy comparing camera spots with random spots on the road without camera. Since cameras are placed primarily on roads that has a history of accidents (at least in my country) you are comparing roads that prior had accidents with random parts of the road. I can not really imagine how that would affect the figures, but I woudn't be so sure that the 30% figure is accurate. Apart from that, interesting article, and I'm sure cameras have some benefits.

Ok, so first, hands up - I haven't read the study, but the description in the article makes me wonder if they have forgotten about regression toward the mean? (See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457509000979 )

Speed cameras are installed at areas where there have been an abnormally high number of serious accidents right? So you would expect the number of accidents to be lower in the years following than in the year or years leading up to the installation of the cameras. It may have nothing to do with the cameras, just that if you monitor the number of accidents at a location where accidents have randomly "spiked", they will be lower after the "spike" than during it.

Again, I haven't read it, so I don't know whether this is actually an explanation of what they observe.

I am totally in favour of getting rid of humps, chicanes, etc, and replacing with average speed limit cameras. There is a long and heavily used road near me with a 30mph limit and no significant turnings for nearly 900m, and yet when I suggested that an average speed limit camera should be used rather than traffic calming measures, when the council proposed removing chicanes and putting in speed cushions (hello cutting-in motorists!) I received the following total nonsense from the local councillor: "I will take forward the point about an average speed camera but this would be complementary to other measures.  Given the length of this arterial road, we are obliged to have some physical measures in places to reduce traffic speeds." So... long arterial roads oblige highways authorities to put in physical measures to reduce traffic speeds? Humps on the motorway anyone?! 

I live by one of the roads into London that has had averahe speed cameras on it for a year now (A316). It has made a big differece and makes it more pleasant using that road now.

We need far more average speed cameras as people do obey them far more.

Average speed are good, but only really appicable where you've got a stretch without junctions- in town it's often racing between lights that's an issue, and average speed won't capture that,

Speed cameras are not the answer, they are displayed on sat navs and signed to let motorists know they are coming up. Motorists slow to the speed limit then accelerate again. 

The answer is average speed cameras. It means over that stretch of road you have to stick to the limit otherwise your knackered. You can have them over a massive distance quite easily which slows everyone down. 

They are also cheaper to install and run than the traditional yellow box speed camera. 

They even warn mororists of camera locations on the radio over here (Hamburg). I reckon that should be illegal & there should be more covert cameras. To the point where motorists are left with no option but to (shock, horror) OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT or receive a hefty fine.

In Avon and Somerset the accident rates dropped by 25% when the speed cameras were switched off, but of course never mind the facts.
When you look at the siting of some of them it is obvious they are there to get funds, e.g, On a dual carriageway with massive central barrier, with separate pedestrian paths and no crossings or traffic lights near, and no accident record at that location.
They only catch the non locals, the locals slow down pass the camera and speed up again.
If they really wanted to reduce the accident rates at those spots they need to make sure the drivers know there is a camera, so they can slow down. At one time they were painted yellow and black but I guess the cash declined so now they are just yellow and don’t particularly stand out. It’s no good finings someone after an accident where personal injury is involved, they need to stop the injuries in the first place, but that would need some money spent on engineering effort to solve the problems.

The tech exists to fit vehicles with speed limiters that are accurate to exact locations of speed limit changes, even in dense street networks. TfL are fitting it to the buses they control- it really is good enough to work in London, with tall buildings. It does need an absolutely accurate and up to date map of the limits, of course.

They should, really be rolling it out as requirment for all Black Cabs and Private Hire. They should make it mandatory for vehicles used by any departmnent of Mayor of London/GLA and for the Boroughs. It would seem sensible to make it part of the CLOCS requirements.

With london leading the way, every other local authority should follow suit. Every vehicle that they control or licence in some way should be speed limited.

The tech and the maps should be available publicy. Insurers could give a discount for vehicles fitted.

Obviously, this doesn't deal with all bad driving. It doesn't even deal with all excessive speed, as weather is important, not to mention the idiotic concept of a National Speed Limit that applies to all unrestricted roads. But it would be a good step

But I thought that speed cameras were just an eevil money making tool to steal money from the hard-pressed motorists...? You mean they actually serve a real and useful purpose? Why did nobody say this before??

... as do other countries, especially Finland. £10k+ fines over here, please... https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the...

Or rather than a fine, or a ridiculous speed awareness course, how about a ban, say a month for your first speed offence, 3 months for your second, a year for your third?   With car crushing and maybe tagged curfews for those not abiding by the ban?

I understand the French base the fine on income too.

Some dual roads, which i avoid  as much as possible but have to cross on my commute with 40 m/h speed limits are used like motorways with people driving at ridiculous speeds. speed cameras would have my vote.

Especially as

 there is no longer a visible police deterrent.

Any income generated is not generated by the cameras but rather by those who either:

a)  choose to significantly exceed the speed limit in spite of cameras being there or

b) choose to significantly exceed the speed limit whilst not even being sufficiently aware to notice the cameras are there

Either way the income is generated by those ignoring the speed limits. They make a choice and pay the consequence - seems reasonable enough to me.

They only generate income from those who are stupid enough to blatently break the law, as they are set well above the limit for that particular road, where there are websites and satnavs telling them about their placement, when they have been told by big signs that there are speed cameras, where the speed cameras are painted bright yellow and where there are callibration lines painted on the road.

I think there should be more of them.