Radarman

Para los que hablan engles hay un articulo hoy en el Daily Telegraph: "The case for speed cameras destroyed in a flash" (el argumento para radares destruido in un flash). Dice el articulo que datos OFICIALES muestran que solo 5% de los accidentes se deben a exceso de velocidad!!!!!! Enviarlo a la DGT, gobierno etc etc....

Y me han dicho amigos que en Holanda empiezan a desmontar los radares.....

El articulo

"A review of the Government's speed cameras policy was demanded yesterday after official statistics showed that only five per cent of crashes are caused by drivers breaking the speed limit.

Drivers who let their attention wander cause more than six times as many accidents.

Campaigners seized on the figures and demanded: "In that case, why are there so many cameras?"

Paul Smith, of Safe Speed, which has led the campaign, said the Government's case for continuing to install cameras had been destroyed.

"Even those statistics are flawed, because they could include a joy-rider who is going at 100mph and no camera will ever stop him," he said. "They are spinning like tops to justify the camera programme."

Motoring groups called for a broader approach to road safety and a revaluation of the £95 million camera project.

Edmund King, the chief executive of the RAC Foundation, said: "The figures suggest that all drivers need to concentrate more on the road rather than on their phones, passengers, music, food, drinks, navigation systems and the clutter of signs."

Chris Grayling, the Tories' transport spokesman, called for greater use of police patrol cars, rather than cameras, to deal with the menace of "rogue drivers".

There are more than 5,400 camera sites in England and Wales, which raised £113 million in fines in 2004-5.

The Department of Transport insisted that, while driver error accounted for 66 per cent of accidents, motorists going too fast for the conditions, irrespective of the speed limit, accounted for 29 per cent of crashes.

The analysis rekindled the speed camera argument and raised questions over whether the Government would meet the road safety targets it had set itself. The figures showed that the number of people killed on the roads last year fell to 3,201, one per cent fewer than in the previous year. The 28,954 people seriously injured represented a seven per cent fall on 2004. The Government has said it wants the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads to be reduced to 40 per cent of the 1994-8 average by 2010.

Its figures, based on information sent to the Government by police forces, show that the tally has dropped by 33 per cent.

But analysis of hospital data sent to the Department of Health painted a very different picture, suggesting that the drop in the number of deaths had been minimal.

A study of the figures in the British Medical Journal said the gap between police and hospital data indicated that the Government was unlikely to meet its casualty reduction targets.

"It is hard to ascertain why there should be such a wide divergence in these figures," said one of the authors of the article, Mike Gill, professor of public health at Surrey University.

"There are two main contenders for the discrepancy in my view. First, there is an unintended effect of drink-drive legislation.

"While one cannot avoid police intervention when there is a fatality, when somebody is hurt it may be tempting to shuffle people off to casualty and keep schtum.

"Also, dedicated traffic patrols have been reduced and therefore there is less likely to be police intervention in all cases."

However, Prof Gill was reluctant to suggest that the study undercut the case for speed cameras.

"We don't know what the figures would have been otherwise," he said.

Andrew Howard, of the AA Motoring Trust, supported the Government's analysis and the speed camera programme. "Human beings make mistakes," he said. "So the only thing that can be done is to mitigate their impact and that means slowing the car down."

m. gracias!!!! Que interessante este foro. Estoy muy de acuerdo que los accidentes son mas por despistes y falta de responsabilidad/educacion en caratera que por ir a 180 en la R4 cuando no hay nadie........Pero claro es mucho mas facil controlar la velocidad que a alguien que da marcha atras en una autopista despues de pasar una salida o a el tipico que cambia de caril mil veces o al antisocial que pasa toda la cola en una salida para meterse justo al final y todos tenemos que frenar etc.....He tenido 1 accidente en 10 anos porque un loco freno de golpe para hacer un cambio de direccion donde prohibido y el coche detras mio no pudo parar.....claro el culpable se fui corriendo

Pero todavia no entiendo como funciona en la practica. Entiendo que el radar no saca fotos hasta 132kmh. Pero si voy a 155kmh y me cazan, la foto va mostrar 155kmh verdad (algo menos por el error del velocimetro)? Con la ley en la mano son >30kmh demas que serian 3 puntos....

O la velocidad que pone la foto son los reales menos el margen que "regalan"???? O la dgt nu cumple la ley y con una foto de 150kmh solo te quitan 2 puntos????? Que lio???

justo esto estoy diciendo: ESTA TABLA "NUEVA" TAMPOCO VALE!!!!!! He vista la multa: falta MUY grave y el iba a 123kmh donde esta permitido 80kmh......La tabla dice falta grave.....

si comprobado de nuevo....limite 80!!! Se que una de las tablas esta obsoleta pera la otra tambien da solo grave 3 puntos

si lo entiendo pero hemos visto tablas en este foro que dan limites differentes

http://www.todoradares.com/foro/showthread.php?t=2011&highlight=133

http://www.todoradares.com/foro/showthread.php?t=1164

pues un amigo acaba de recibir aviso de multa: 123kmh donde esta permitido 80kmh.....mirando las tablas en el foro seria falta grave y 3 puntos. El aviso dice falta MUY grave.....entonces no dejan margen de error????? O la sensibilidad es solo para poner desde donde (p.e 132 en autopistas) empiezan hacer fotos y despues no vale???? Si es asi las tablas que circulan por aqui estan mal!!! CUIDADO

un amigo acaba de recibir aviso de multa: 123kmh donde esta permitido 80kmh.....mirando las tablas en el foro seria falta grave y 3 puntos. El aviso dice falta MUY grave.....entonces no dejan margen de error????? O la sensibilidad es solo para poner desde donde (p.e 131 en autopistas) empiezan hacer fotos y despues no vale???? Si es asi las tablas que circulan por aqui estan mal!!! CUIDADO

Me aclarais 2 dudas por favor:

Entiendo leyendo el foro que te pueden enviar el aviso de multa meses (hasto 12 meses) despues de la infraccion, verdad? Pues con los puntos va ser una p.tada ! Sigues conduciendo tan feliz pensando que te quedan muchos puntes y meses despues te enteras que te han cogido ya 3 veces y estas a borde de bancarota (puntos me refiero)! Funcciona asi????? Me parece increible.....

Si no dices quien ha sido el conductor que pasa? Solo pagas la multa de entre 300-1500Eu como he visto por aqui? Pero me suena haber leido que entonces el propietario del vehiculo es el responsable de la infraccion y ademas de la multa de no identifacar tambien le cae la multa/puntos de la infraccion. Correcto o no?

Gracias

Gracias

1 pregunta.....siempre te para el 2do coche en un control movil? Y que pasa con los autovelox montado en un coche? Despues te paran tambien o simplemente te envien la multa a casa? La pregunta realmente es: sabes en el instante que te han sacado foto con un movil?

Gracias