I stopped looking at both the speeding threads.
(a) They get too long and time consuming to look at.
(b) Like you, the anti-car lot were taking over, so I left them to it.
Martin
|
If I got bored arguing with NoWheels in the Speed Camera thread, then God help you poor souls!
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
Today neither speeding thread is anywhere to be seen on the first or second page and so I ask the question are we Tax Cameraed out?
I suspect that this issue will go on the same sort of cycle as the introduction of the breathylser a few decades ago:
1) It's an outrage, how dare they!
2) Now they've done it to me, I'm furious!
3) We should all unite to stop it
4) Let's all yell together
5) Yelling is getting boring and I got other things to do
6) OK, I don't really like it at all, but I think they have a point
7) You know, I don't drink when I'm driving and I still enjoy myself
8) We probably need more enforcement of this
9) It's an outrage that folks drink and drive, how dare they!
10) When folks get caught, boiling in oil is too good for them
|
We're on 5 now and I don't think we'll ever get past it.
--
Adam
|
Share Adam's point about where we are but think we are progressing onto 6.
What's the point in a "tax" that the observant and careful can opt out of?
|
Brompton,
As a Tax Advisor I can answer that, it doesn't matter if people can opt out of it as long as large numbers don't (example Inheritance Tax) through inaction of ignorance but if too many people do then you change the rules (example Stamp Duty, now Stamp Duty Land Tax). Young Gordon will demonstrate these principles tomorrow.
So:
1. The emphasis has shifted to mobile Tax Cameras as every ones pretty much worked out where the fixed cameras are.
2. Outlaw detectors.
3. Arbitarily change speed limits for no apparent reason.
|
|
4 Require more proof of identity and ownership to get a numberplate than a passport!
|
|
|
|
Brunstrom has just done a large U turn and finally admitted that cameras are doing nothing for road safety. I think a lot of the cameras will disappear within the next year. The SCPs are also being told they can't take on more staff. Hopefully this will mean proper road safety and policing will be concentrated on. The high profile cases of dodgy mobile guns has also added to the perception that anything other than a proper copper with a vascar is a useless method of speed enforcement anyway.
If ACPO have half a brain they'll knock Mr Brunstrom off his perch and replace him with Paul Garvin.
teabelly
|
I think a lot of the cameras will disappear within the next year. The SCPs are also being told they can't take on more staff. Hopefully this will mean proper road safety and policing will be concentrated on.
I wouldn't put so much trust in the Sunday Mirror's reporting, but if you are right, about cameras going, you are mistaken about the effects -- removing the cameras won't free up a penny to pay for more traffic cops.
|
|
|
|
Tick ... tick ... ah, someone has compared speeding to drink driving. No surprise there, then!
There is a difference. Drinking is a digital issue - you have drunk, or you have not. We can validly discuss whether it is right to drive after drinking at all, or not. The current law has a threshold, but this is low enough that it reflects a time after drinking rather than an amount of drinking.
Speed is analogue; to use a road you have to make progress at some speed or other. The question is what the limit should be, how it should be set, and with what severity it should be enforced.
In short, none of us have to drink and drive, but all of us have to move at a speed. Thus, the argument is different and I do not believe that the parallel holds. Hence Adam is right.
|
I don't think anyone could put forward the argument better at all.
Patently comes out with a lot of good points but I don't think I could agree with one more so than I do here.
It is so tempting to put my own thoughts here but I know that would only serve to let this degenerate into another "one of those" threads and get moved.
--
Adam
|
|
Adam, think it has become a speed camera thread, oh well...
|
They haven't given up on them in Essex.
Just announced - a whole new batch on the A12 around Kelvedon.
|
|
|
|
Patently, you are right, of course that no-one has to drink to use a car but that some speed is necessary.
But while that semantic point might say something about setting appropriate penalties, it doesn't alter the fact that both are areas where there is widespread law-breaking unless the rules are enforced, and that the law-breaking increases dangers.
Hardly anyone argues any more that drink-driving is a good idea, let alone that it shouldn't be prosecuted. But we are still in the stage where some folks are keen to argue some combination of speed limits are bad/speed limits are only OK if I don't have to go slower than I would be going anyway/whatever the limit, how dare anyone enforce it.
Thirty years ago, very similar comments were made about drink-driving laws.
There is a difference. Drinking is a digital issue - you have drunk, or you have not. We can validly discuss whether it is right to drive after drinking at all, or not. The current law has a threshold, but this is low enough that it reflects a time after drinking rather than an amount of drinking.
Actually, as your explanation sets out, drinking is also an analogue issue.
Most people are probably safe to drink a half-point of ale and hop straight into their car, but there comes a point at which you are over the limit.
The limuts have been revised several times, vary from country to country -- and there is an ongoing argument about whether they should be lowered further.
But the blood-alcohol limit is enfocred pretty rigorously, and in a binary manner. Under the limit = no problem, over it by a small amount and you're going to say bye-bye driving license.
|
>>Most people are probably safe to drink a half-point of ale and hop straight into their car<<
Is this an intentional pun?
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
>>Most people are probably safe to drink a half-point of ale and hop straight into their car<< Is this an intentional pun?
I wish I could say yes, but it was accidental. Thanks for pointing it out :)
|
|
|
|
rather proving my frequently stated point that arguments about cameras and enforcement are pointless, irrelevant, ineffectual and usually downright wrong.
It is a law (speed limit) it should be enforced. People arguing about whether or not a law should apply to them is ridiculous. And aside from being ridiculous is never going to be openly supported by a majority of people.
Now, arguing as to whether or not the limit is appropriate, now that makes sense.
Our issue is not that limits are enforced. Our issue, or at least it should be, is that the limit is set inappropriately.
We should have the right speed limit, set by a reasonable and objective set of standards and then enforce it - by cameras, traffic police and whatever else is needed.
I wish people would also understand it is a limit. Not a comulsory target. Although there will still be those of limited ability to are unable to drive at a specific speed (people who complain that they have to look at the speedo so much that they are unsafe) - they should just aim to drive under the limit by whatever margin their incompetence makes neccessary.
By the way, do people really believe that the removal of speed cameras will release thousands of policeman who have been taken from their cars/beats to monitor cameras and pursue tickets
Also, since people constantly focus on revenue generation, tax, scam ,whatever - then where do you think the money is going to come from to replace this lost revenue ? Or do you think that govenrments and police forces will just spend less ?
|
Anyway, to return to the topic of the thread, there is a good reason why we don't discuss this any more.
We've tried all the arguments, neither side has convinced the other, and both sides are bored witless. Sadly, that doesn't make NoWheels right.
I shall just remember today as the day when NoWheels said that I was right and be satisfied with that ;-)
|
I think getting rid of speed cameras and safety partnerships could end up being a bad thing (for drivers).
I live in Cheshire and I've been caught twice in 18 mths by the Police (not Partnership) using hand held radar. Trouble is, the Police are much more sneaky and hide whereas the Partnerships are supposed to be out in the open.
By the same token, I can't understand people damaging Gatso's - if you don't see a great big orange box then you probably shouldn't be driving. If all the Gatso's disappear, we'll end up with a lot more mobile units in their place.
|
They're not all great big orange boxes and a lot of them are still obscured.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
If all the Gatso's disappear, we'll end up with a lot more mobile units in their place.
And since it's much more expensive to have a bloke standing beside a van holding a speed-detector thingy than to stick it on top of a pole, we'll also see pressure for fines to be increased to cover the cost.
|
>Today neither speeding thread is anywhere to be seen on the first or second page
For which the Lord be praised. Halleuia>
So why is this rubbish not in one of those threads Mods??
Happy Motoring within the posted limits and no worries at all
Phil I
|
|
|
Yes, and speeding (in a legal sense) is also a digital issue: you are either exceeding the speed limit, or you are not.
|
You're not necessarily dangerous when you're over the limit though. I would say you are when you're drunk.
--
Adam
|
|
You're not necessarily dangerous when you're over the drink drive limit either, just more likely to cause/be involved in an accident. And the more you drink the more likely it gets, which is the same with speeding according to the insurers. In both cases though you are "over the limit" and that's all the breathalyser/speed camera can measure.
|
Article over at www.edp24.co.uk re a speed camera wrongly flashing people, then no one verfying the road markings and seeing the cars were actually doing the correct speed. Tickets sent out and many people worried.
|
I've just seen a lovely quip re the link between speed and accidents.
"Just think about your last accident. Now, if you'd driven that journey at twice the speed, you'd have got home before the accident happened!"
:-D
|
:-D
You realise of course you've opened up another aspect to that Patently? My money's on NW pointing it out.
:-)
--
Adam
|
"Just think about your last accident. Now, if you'd driven that journey at twice the speed, you'd have got home before the accident happened!"
Tut tut, Patently - not fast enough.
If you drive faster than the speed of light, you get home before you set out, leaving no time at all for the accident to happen.
But maybe your strange Teutonic car can't go that fast? ;-)
|
|
>>You're not necessarily dangerous when you're over the drink drive limit either<<
Ok - fair point. Answer me this though. Would you rather share a road with someone who's speeding, or someone who is over the drink drive limit?
As Mark says - there's no point arguing abotu whether speeding is more/less/as dangerous as drink driving/murder/genocide as it's been done to death. The quarrel has now shifted over to the limits and whether they're suitable for that type of raod. The fact that they're monitoring the speed on these roads only serves to compound the issue.
--
Adam
|
Ok - fair point. Answer me this though. Would you rather share a road with someone who's speeding, or someone who is over the drink drive limit?
Adam, you were asking Patently, but forgive me please for giving one answer to this.
I had this dilemma in a rather different way, years ago -- getting a lift home from the pub in the days when the cops just waited outside to have a friendly talk to everyone while they came out, and didn't stop them driving if they could still walk unaided.
I had a choice between a driver who had several pints down the hatch, and one who was probably just under the limit.
Mr Several-pints knew he was pushing it, and would drive very slowly; but Mr Near-The-Limit always drove very fast. So I reckoned I was safer with Mr Several-pints, because at least if we hit anything we'd be going slowly enough not to do ourselves much mischief. So we had a brief chat with the cop, apologised for not having had the chance to buy him a drink, and crawled home on rural roads at 20mph in the Several-pints-mobile.
Which driver would you have chosen?
|
Unfair! Both were drunk...well both had consumed alcohol. Let's say Mr Drive Fast hadn't drunk anything? Of course you'd choose him.
Forgive me, but your reasoning is quite ridiculous to the point that if I'd have said it, you'd have been in no rush to highlight my error ;-)
Without saying it explicity, Mr Several-pints was drunk - if not over the limit (which I'm sure he was) drunk enough to know he was pushing it. So your argument is that whilst he was drunk...or drunker, the fact he was going slow would save you. Ha. Junctions? Spatial awareness? Pedestrians? How do his slower reactions cope with these?
The fact is, one was drunk, one wasn't. I'll be perfectly honest, much as you'd like it to, I think the fact one drives fast is neither here nor there.
--
Adam
|
Forgive me, but your reasoning is quite ridiculous to the point that if I'd have said it, you'd have been in no rush to highlight my error ;-)
Actually, you've missed the big flaw in my scenario -- that Mr Friendly-Plod should left the lot of us to walk home after stopping both drivers (Mr Several-Pints for his blood-alcohol reading, and Mr Drive-Fast for exceeding the village speed limit).
Patently came close with his take-a-taxi answer, except that in that village, there was no taxi. It was choice of walking 4 miles, or taking a lift from a dodgy driver ... and the best choice for me would have been not to go out drinking unless I knew I'd have a safe driver to get me home.
Without saying it explicity, Mr Several-pints was drunk - if not over the limit (which I'm sure he was) drunk enough to know he was pushing it. So your argument is that whilst he was drunk...or drunker, the fact he was going slow would save you. Ha. Junctions? Spatial awareness? Pedestrians? How do his slower reactions cope with these?
In each case, the driver would travel further than safe before reacting -- Mr Several-pints 'cos he was drunk, and Mr Near-The-Limit 'cos his speed was excessive. I made my choice cos at least Mr Several-pints would slow down or stop we told him to.
The fact is, one was drunk, one wasn't. I'll be perfectly honest, much as you'd like it to, I think the fact one drives fast is neither here nor there.
Both were unsafe. Different sorts of unsafe, but both were at risk of not not stopping before hitting something.
|
>>Both were unsafe. Different sorts of unsafe, but both were at risk of not not stopping before hitting something.<<
By George I think you've got it!!! I would agree with the latter of that statement certainly. I never missed the big flaw of your agrument - I merely overlooked it;-)
>>In each case, the driver would travel further than safe before reacting -- Mr Several-pints 'cos he was drunk, and Mr Near-The-Limit 'cos his speed was excessive. I made my choice cos at least Mr Several-pints would slow down or stop we told him to.<<
Well firstly, that's your definition of safe which is questionable. Mr Several-Pi...you know what? Let's call him Mr Drunk. Mr Drunk would slow down or stop when you told him to? Hmm. Someone jumps out - "Stop Mr Drunk" - slurred movements, bang, brake.
Come on.
--
Adam
|
Mr Drunk would slow down or stop when you told him to? Hmm. Someone jumps out - "Stop Mr Drunk" - slurred movements, bang, brake.
If he was going fast enough, definitely. But at the speeds he was going, Mr Drunk had more time to brake before the bang. He still shouldn't have breen driving, tho, just as Mr Nearly-Drunk shouldn't have been driving.
|
Patently came close with his take-a-taxi answer, except that in that village, there was no taxi.
Go to a different pub then.
|
>> in that village, there was no taxi. Go to a different pub then.
Nearest pub with a taxi was probably 40 miles away. The best answer was no to go out drinking, which has what has happened in that area since drink-driving laws started being enforced properly.
|
The best answer was no to go out drinking, which has what has happened in that area since drink-driving laws started being enforced properly.
You guessed my next post, then.... ;-)
|
|
Even for a speeding thread this is getting daft.
|
Not in time for you to have your problem though? As you said - the best option was not to go out drinking.
You're quite happy to hang people for speeding but equally happy to get in a car willingly; preferably in fact with a drunk driver at the wheel - knowing long before the event you were going to be faced with this issue.
I mean all this in the nicest possible way of course ;-)
--
Adam
|
You're quite happy to hang people for speeding but equally happy to get in a car willingly; preferably in fact with a drunk driver at the wheel - knowing long before the event you were going to be faced with this issue.
Not quite -- I was happy to do that. Being older* and wiser**, I wouldn't be at all happy to do that now. But then nowadays I don't drink at all, so the situation wouldn't arise.
But I'd better not say any more on this, or else Mark's silly-ometer will explode!
* a lot older
** a little wiser
|
Agreed. But it did need an airing!
--
Adam
|
Sorry NoWheels, but that is an easy choice: option 3, a taxi.
And next time, I'd think twice about how good is a friend who would drive me home in either state.
|
|
|
|
Yes, and speeding (in a legal sense) is also a digital issue: you are either exceeding the speed limit, or you are not.
Yes, speeding is a digital issue. Speed, however, is analogue.
The risk lies in excessive speed. Ideally, this would correlate perfectly with speeding, but sadly it does not always. In some areas a legal speed is excessive. In others, a speed that is not excessive is nevertheless illegal.
If the correlation were not so poor, then there might be more respect for the limits. That could do far more to limit excessive speed than an increase in enforcement.
I still find it frightening that so many cannot see the distinction between speed, speeding, and excessive speed. They are three wholly different concepts.
|
>>I still find it frightening that so many cannot see the distinction between speed, speeding, and excessive speed. They are three wholly different concepts.<<
That's why I purposely omitted the speed or in fact the blood alcohol level in my post. Both are breaking the law. I know who I'd rather be sharing the road with.
--
Adam
|
|
We know when we are breaking the speed limit(not necessarily speeding), we have an instrument to tell us. There is, as far as I am aware, no way to tell me, or anyone else how near the drink/drive limit we are. Is this fair?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
