|
What I used to see a lot when driving buses (50mph on single carriageway A and B roads) was crazy, dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. But a few miles further on, I'd be back behind these idiots, stuck in a long queue with no further overtaking possibilities (safe or otherwise). So they'd put their own, and others, safety at risk, literally for nothing.
I find much the same thing now I tend to drive my van at the legal limit fo an LCV on those same roads (also 50mph).
So I also have absolutely zero sympathy for drivers who get done for speeding.
|
|
|
... I found that a long motorway run took only marginally longer than if I'd been doing 70 most of the time. I have to confess that it surprised me.
Before most volunteer activity locked down I drove 40 miles into Wales every couple of weeks - first half on M56, then fairly quiet A road. Traffic conditions - bunches of cyclists, temporary lights - seemed to make little difference to the journey time of 61-63 minutes.
|
|
I've found the long sections of 50 limit on the M1/M6 or M20 while upgrading to Smart M/way make little difference to overall journey times.
In fact I'd say that on both M1 and M6 between their respective junctions 16 and 19 the initial imposition of the limits, as work commenced, improved the traffic flow as the previously endemic concertina braking was almost eliminated.
|
|
As regards speeding fines, I have said it before.Make them eye-wateringly expensive for those who do 80 in a 70 zone and people will learn.
No Insurance, seize and crush the car.
No VED fine 10 times dury due.
No MOT mandatory seizure and release only on a flatbed recovery tor an MOT centre and a fine 10 times the full mot fee plus storage costs.
Reading a bit back about the tiny fines dished out for motoring offences in magistrates court makes me seethe.
Saddly, being soft on these things is not going to change behaviour.
|
As regards speeding fines, I have said it before.Make them eye-wateringly expensive for those who do 80 in a 70 zone and people will learn.
No Insurance, seize and crush the car.
With them in it
No VED fine 10 times dury due.
Plus several lashings of the cat and 9 tails
No MOT mandatory seizure and release only on a flatbed recovery tor an MOT centre and a fine 10 times the full mot fee plus storage costs.
Once again several lashings of the cat and 9 tails
Reading a bit back about the tiny fine dished out for motoring offences in magistrates court makes me seethe.
Saddly, being soft on these things is not going to change behaviour.
|
|
|
As regards speeding fines, I have said it before.Make them eye-wateringly expensive for those who do 80 in a 70 zone and people will learn.
No Insurance, seize and crush the car.
No VED fine 10 times dury due.
No MOT mandatory seizure and release only on a flatbed recovery tor an MOT centre and a fine 10 times the full mot fee plus storage costs.
Reading a bit back about the tiny fines dished out for motoring offences in magistrates court makes me seethe.
Saddly, being soft on these things is not going to change behaviour.
While agreeing with most of these points, I would respectfully submit that the sentences for serious criminal offences seem even more inappropriately soft: violent and repeat serious offenders seldom receive what the man (or woman) in the street would consider adequate time in jail.
As far as speeding fines, I would also suggest that many limits introduced over the last few years seem to be unduly low, which leads drivers to suspect that potential revenue from fines has had more influence than safety concerns.
Did guidance in the past not recommend setting limits at or near the speed at which 90% of traffic normally flowed?
Returning to motoring offenders, the most dangerous are surely the unlicensed teenage lads who drive the 'pool' cars which are un-MOT'd, untaxed, uninsured and belong to no-one.
Confiscation clearly does not affect them, they have no regular income (unless they are dealing drugs, which is not unlikely) so fines are pointless, the worst they need fear is a short term in a young offenders' institution, which many regard as a holiday or badge of status.
- There should be a suitable punishment for these criminals, but the chance of reintroducing the stocks or the pillory seems slim, unfortunately
Edited by galileo on 04/01/2021 at 19:27
|
As regards speeding fines, I have said it before.Make them eye-wateringly expensive for those who do 80 in a 70 zone and people will learn.
No Insurance, seize and crush the car.
No VED fine 10 times dury due.
No MOT mandatory seizure and release only on a flatbed recovery tor an MOT centre and a fine 10 times the full mot fee plus storage costs.
Reading a bit back about the tiny fines dished out for motoring offences in magistrates court makes me seethe.
Saddly, being soft on these things is not going to change behaviour.
While agreeing with most of these points, I would respectfully submit that the sentences for serious criminal offences seem even more inappropriately soft: violent and repeat serious offenders seldom receive what the man (or woman) in the street would consider adequate time in jail.
As far as speeding fines, I would also suggest that many limits introduced over the last few years seem to be unduly low, which leads drivers to suspect that potential revenue from fines has had more influence than safety concerns.
Did guidance in the past not recommend setting limits at or near the speed at which 90% of traffic normally flowed?
Returning to motoring offenders, the most dangerous are surely the unlicensed teenage lads who drive the 'pool' cars which are un-MOT'd, untaxed, uninsured and belong to no-one.
Confiscation clearly does not affect them, they have no regular income (unless they are dealing drugs, which is not unlikely) so fines are pointless, the worst they need fear is a short term in a young offenders' institution, which many regard as a holiday or badge of status.
- There should be a suitable punishment for these criminals, but the chance of reintroducing the stocks or the pillory seems slim, unfortunately
Elect me for PM and I promise to sort these issues out. I'd bring in military service for under 25s a punishment along with the birch and for serious offences I ll bring in an old navy punishment calld hot shooting where you were tide to a cannon and it was fired until red hot (ouch)
|
|
|
Did guidance in the past not recommend setting limits at or near the speed at which 90% of traffic normally flowed?
No - it's 80% used to determine speed limits by engineers - politicians then pick a number out of thin air!
|
I do think of it as a tax, and one I have avoided to date.
There are two taxes I have avoided to date.
The first is paying speeding and other motoring fines. Its simple enough, drive within the law.
The second is the National Lottery or as I prefer to call it "the idiot tax". Amazes me how many pensioners who have a habit of complaining about the amount of Pension they get spend large sums on tickets every week. Its a tax I have avoided by never (and I mean NEVER) buying a lottery ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If I had chosen to travel at 85 mph those 30 miles would have taken 21 minutes a saving of 5 minutes...."
Good point Skidpan, and one that so many people don't seem to realise. And the 5 min difference would be even less if the 30 miles included braking when in sight of a speed camera.
Fortunately I discovered this truth painlessly, at a young age,. when running in my first new car in 1971. In those days one was advised not to exceed 50 mph for the first 500 miles, and I found that a long motorway run took only marginally longer than if I'd been doing 70 most of the time. I have to confess that it surprised me.
I bet it saved you a few bob on fuel though. When I had to endure the 50mph speed limit (exetnsive long term road works) on large swathes of the M4 and M5 a couple of years ago whilst going to/coming from my West Country holiday, my car's mpg went up 2-3 (more than usual) over the fortnight.
Admittedly the journey did take me an extra 30-45 mins each way, and if I made the journey along those roads regularly and on normal weekdays, I probably wouldn't appreciate it so much.
|
|
Well it appears that I am being spurious and getting castigated for regarding the majority of speeding fines as an extra motoring tax. Well spurious means basically untrue and seeing as it is my own humble and genuinely held opinion I resent the implication that I would spread an untruth for the sake of supporting my argument.
I have history with the people who operate these 'safety' cameras and the mobile ones are usually sited on busy and fast sections of road, not necessarily dangerous section of road. trying to get them to site more often in urban areas proves an impossible task. Which suggest strongly to me that they site cameras where they get the most 'collars' rather than where they do the most good. hence my view of the money gathering.
Now if this opinion really upsets two prominent forum members, then maybe it's time for me to take a break from the forum. If honestly held opinion, with supportable evidence as to why it is held causes any offence then a break is sorely needed. Until some time in the future chaps I bid you farewell and you now have a clear run at the forum without offensive opinion getting in your way.
Cheers Concrete
|
Now if this opinion really upsets two prominent forum members, then maybe it's time for me to take a break from the forum.
Concrete, I don't see any need for you to get on a high horse and offer to depart. You seem to be in favour of speed cameras but claim they could be put in better places to improve safety. On that basis you do not seem to object on principle to taxing the careless motorist, so I'm not clear about your true viewpoint ?
|
|
|
|
"Now if this opinion really upsets two prominent forum members, then maybe it's time for me to take a break from the forum."
I'm sure it hasn't upset them, Concrete: part of the point of a forum is that people can voice their opinions, and naturally disagree, without this ever needing to become personal.
I can personally see some logic in siting speed cameras where drivers are most likely to break the limit: but I would absolutely defend your right to disagree with that. So please stay with us and feel free to say what you think. Your views will always be respected.
|
|
We have a speeding problem in our village. Many parts have no pavement; the area outside the school includesa bind exit from a side road. There is general agreement that children (and others - adults, horses, dogs on leads) are at risk. We have a 30mph limit with repeaters so there's no excuse for not knowing, or not understanding the street light rule for speed limits. These drivers are simply unsafe and illegal - the first is more important of course, but they can only be persuaded by the second point.
The camera van comes round every three weeks or so for a session; unfortunately there's only one spot where it can be sited and therefore although it catches some people, it can't catch those who are speeding dangerously on the other roads.There haven't been sufficient KSI collisions to justify fixed cameras - it's not good waiting for someone to be hurt in order to get the cameras installed.
We're all frustrated, as are the road safety police officers. There's a move for community speedwatch, but of course that has no teeth so we fear it won't deter the dangerous drivers.
|
|
|
|
Well there is good news from Wales regarding the 50mph limits on sections of the M4 through Newport and Port Talbot. These were introduced in an attempt to reduce pollution levels and motorists speeding though these areas are being sent advisory letters and not fined.
|
|
|
"Now if this opinion really upsets two prominent forum members, then maybe it's time for me to take a break from the forum."
I'm sure it hasn't upset them, Concrete: part of the point of a forum is that people can voice their opinions, and naturally disagree, without this ever needing to become personal.
I can personally see some logic in siting speed cameras where drivers are most likely to break the limit: but I would absolutely defend your right to disagree with that. So please stay with us and feel free to say what you think. Your views will always be respected.
I thought that the law said that speed cameras (at least fixed ones) could only be sited where there were more than X number of serious accidents in Y time that excess speed was a significant factor.
Not sure about mobile locations regularly used, though it would seem logical that they too should go in locations. Whether they are - in both circumstances, is another matter, given most of the decisions are made behind closed doors and how difficult it is to find out reliable data about accidents etc from the authorities.
I remember two being sited in my parents' town - one where the never was a serious accident - at least never reported in the local rag, which always did report serious accidents, whilst the other had one serious (fatal) accident, but that was caused by an OAP getting confused on a double roundabout, going the wrong way and smashing into oncoming traffic/railings on the other side, not speed.
Meanwhile, several accident blackspots in my area (that regularly have serious accidents per year) have zero speed cameras installed, despite both roads being known for cars and mototbikes speeding. Very strange. Admitedly one road is one that Plod use (or at least officially used to) as a road for their pursuit driving teaching.
|
Meanwhile, several accident blackspots in my area (that regularly have serious accidents per year) have zero speed cameras installed, despite both roads being known for cars and mototbikes speeding. Very strange. Admitedly one road is one that Plod use (or at least officially used to) as a road for their pursuit driving teaching.
If there was lots of speeding on that road then why would they not put in a camera if they are their to raise revenue and you have stated?
|
|
|
|
|
Well it appears that I am being spurious and getting castigated for regarding the majority of speeding fines as an extra motoring tax. Well spurious means basically untrue and seeing as it is my own humble and genuinely held opinion I resent the implication that I would spread an untruth for the sake of supporting my argument.
To be clear I am not remotely upset by your opinion and would defend your right to express it. This place would be pointless if we couldn't debate.
I disagree with the theory that speed cameras are sited with view to maximising revenue rather than safety. I don't think it holds water and I doubt the net revenue from fines would cover even a small policy initiative, never mind impact on the national debt.
I used the word spurious in the sense that your argument was not genuine and real, but in the sense of mistaken and contra-factual; I never intended to imply (still less that you should infer) dishonesty.
As I outlined in my previous post my own county, Northants, had a reputation as speed camera alley but I'd struggle to identify one that did not deal with a real and present hazard. The county has chosen to deal with urban offending by mobile cameras. They're regular sights near schools and on Broad Street/Horsemarket which is a sort of inner ring road. Plenty of other places that I travel, for example the A53 between Newcastle u L and Leek where roadside cameras in the 30/40 limits are ten a penny.
|
|
I disagree with the theory that speed cameras are sited with view to maximising revenue rather than safety. I don't think it holds water and I doubt the net revenue from fines would cover even a small policy initiative, never mind impact on the national debt.
Well around here we are plagued with mobile camera vans and the sneaky way these operate only suggests they are nothing but revenue earners They are often parked illegally on grass verges and positioned so you can only spot them at the last possible moment. The whole speeding policy is another mini industry employing the spotters, the administrators and don't forget the Speed awareness courses with all their personnel. If it was about safety you could not off load your 3 points to go on a course
|
Well around here we are plagued with mobile camera vans and the sneaky way these operate only suggests they are nothing but revenue earners They are often parked illegally on grass verges and positioned so you can only spot them at the last possible moment.
If motorists and speed detectors (human or otherwise) are regarded as players in a game of cops and robbers - as some seem to think - I don't see why a bit of sneakiness is out of order. Cameras are bright yellow. Surely large signs saying WARNING - SPEED CAMERA AHEAD might look a bit silly? If drivers are aware enough to spot unannounced speed traps at a fair distance, surely they should be able to spot speed-limit signs and obey them (tho I do feel that limits change rather too frequently for comfort in some places).
|
|
|
|
Well it appears that I am being spurious and getting castigated for regarding the majority of speeding fines as an extra motoring tax. Well spurious means basically untrue and seeing as it is my own humble and genuinely held opinion I resent the implication that I would spread an untruth for the sake of supporting my argument.
To be clear I am not remotely upset by your opinion and would defend your right to express it. This place would be pointless if we couldn't debate.
I disagree with the theory that speed cameras are sited with view to maximising revenue rather than safety. I don't think it holds water and I doubt the net revenue from fines would cover even a small policy initiative, never mind impact on the national debt.
I used the word spurious in the sense that your argument was not genuine and real, but in the sense of mistaken and contra-factual; I never intended to imply (still less that you should infer) dishonesty.
As I outlined in my previous post my own county, Northants, had a reputation as speed camera alley but I'd struggle to identify one that did not deal with a real and present hazard. The county has chosen to deal with urban offending by mobile cameras. They're regular sights near schools and on Broad Street/Horsemarket which is a sort of inner ring road. Plenty of other places that I travel, for example the A53 between Newcastle u L and Leek where roadside cameras in the 30/40 limits are ten a penny.
Sorry Brompt, but I wholeheartedly disagree that many camera sites are not revenue-raisers. As you can see from my examples (I can give many more), they are located at sites that are busy, not dangerous, this maximising revenue. Several well-known locations on certain motorways regularly make £000ks or even £Ms per year, and yet I don't recall such areas previous being accident blackspots.
I'm sure some, perhaps even the majority are sited at accident blackspots, but many in my experience are not, with many making no difference to the accident rate in the area. In my view, the Gatso type instantaneous speed cameras are worthless - and sometimes downright dangerous as they encourage locals to speed up to them, then brake heavily (which I've seen a LOT), whereas people new to the area won't realise this is going to happen, which could itself cause an accident.
If cameras are to be installed to keep vehicles to a safe speed (if they are accident blackspots), then I believe that average speed cameras are far better.
|
|
<< As you can see from my examples (I can give many more), they are located at sites that are busy, not dangerous, this maximising revenue. Several well-known locations on certain motorways regularly make £000ks or even £Ms per year, and yet I don't recall such areas previous being accident blackspots. >>
I don't see much harm in cameras being revenue earners. That follows logically from the assumption that being caught speeding may result in a fine, itself based on the assumption that naughty drivers dislike being hit in the wallet.
Many accident blackspots are marked as such, and some of them may be due to poor sighting - which as some have said here, they find 'sneaky'. Cameras on straighter roads with better visibility are less sneaky, but become 'revenue earners'. There will always be a reason to object to them.
|
|
Alright chaps, maybe I am being a little over sensitive in taking a literal translation of comments. My views are honestly held and based on relevant information or first hand experience. I still maintain my position on this but obviously some disagree. I have never been bothered by disagreement previously, it's all part of the process of opinion sharing and discussion. Often my view is altered by some post on this forum from people whose opinion I respect. But the use of language is important and on this occasion I felt that the counter opinion was simply laughing at and dismissing my views, or worse accusing them of being ingenuous or based on some conspiracy theory. Not so at all. Disagree by all means but there are ways and means of doing so. I do find this forum has some unique opinion and information to impart and in the main arguments are well put and countered which is how it should be. After 50 years in the construction industry I not unfamiliar with debate and argument, but on a certain level. Luckily that is mostly what we find here.
Thanks for the input and comments so far and I will be joining in as usual.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Great news Concrete. We'd have missed you.
|
Great news Concrete. We'd have missed you.
On the news that Concrete is staying with us where is GordonBennett? I must have missd his departure?
|
|
I have a feeling that GB may have got fed up with some of the right-wing versus left-wing stuff that occupied some of us not too long ago.
|
If cameras are to be installed to keep vehicles to a safe speed (if they are accident blackspots), then I believe that average speed cameras are far better.
You have got to be joking, see my earlier post. Most drivers seem to have no idea what "average" means.
|
If cameras are to be installed to keep vehicles to a safe speed (if they are accident blackspots), then I believe that average speed cameras are far better.
You have got to be joking, see my earlier post. Most drivers seem to have no idea what "average" means.
Maybe an awareness campaign is in order, and perhaps questions on cameras should always be in the driving test? You're right than a good number of people don't understand the difference, but in my view, if they don't understand what 'average' means, they don't serve a licence - not exactly rocket science.
|
|
<< As you can see from my examples (I can give many more), they are located at sites that are busy, not dangerous, this maximising revenue. Several well-known locations on certain motorways regularly make £000ks or even £Ms per year, and yet I don't recall such areas previous being accident blackspots. >>
I don't see much harm in cameras being revenue earners. That follows logically from the assumption that being caught speeding may result in a fine, itself based on the assumption that naughty drivers dislike being hit in the wallet.
The whole point is to deter speeding at accident blackspots where excess speed is a major factor in many of the serious accidents, not a way to fleece motorists on busy roads where there aren't many speed-rated accidents.
This especially of concern when actual blackspots (e.g. those I mentioned before local to me) never get any cameras or road improvements to reduce accident rates - and why - because they aren't anywhere near as busy, so won't catch all those doing 2 or 3 mph over the 'limit', whereas down the road, they do.
There's just no consistency, especially when limits are lowered because a few 'residents' (normally chums of the local councillor wanting it) write in 'demanding' they be lowered, and lo and behold a camera goes in, despite no accidents.
I've heard on more than one occasion the reason for asking to lower the limit is because residents are frustrated that they can't turn out of their drive onto the road and have to wait until there's a sufficienctly large gap to do so. The council wins because the money spent on the revised roadsigns gets repaid and vastly more once the speed camer goes up.
|
|
Where does the idea come from that speed limits need only be complied with where it would be unsafe to exceed them or where there are cameras? As far as I can remember, the statute does not make compliance conditional.
It is a fairly straightforward law. The limit is x mph and if you exceed x mph you commit an offence. The way to get it changed is to lobby your MP (or your local councillor for those imposed locally)
|
Where does the idea come from that speed limits need only be complied with where it would be unsafe to exceed them or where there are cameras? As far as I can remember, the statute does not make compliance conditional.
It is a fairly straightforward law. The limit is x mph and if you exceed x mph you commit an offence. The way to get it changed is to lobby your MP (or your local councillor for those imposed locally)
Good luck with that, when has a councillor or MP taken any notice of constituents unless an election is due and dozens or hundreds submit a petition?
|
|
Wouldn't it be great if our Government assigned as much importance and effort to stopping the Dinghy invaders, as the do to detect people driving three mph over the speed limit . Especially given that Motorways are statistically the safest class of road in the country. Given that the Dinghy people are apparently travelling with virtual impunity and even a Border Farce taxi service from the middle of the channel. Just saying its a curious set of priorities our Government has.
|
Wouldn't it be great if our Government assigned as much importance and effort to stopping the Dinghy invaders, as the do to detect people driving three mph over the speed limit .
I think that's comparing apples and bowling balls. Stopping desperate people in flimsy boats isn't easy; indeed nigh on impossible. They're using boats because the pandemic has reduced lorry traffic plus the smugglers charge less for a boat.
The answer of course is to create a system where we can consider their asylum applications while they remain in a safe place. Demand for smuggling much reduced and with fewer to watch it's easier to stop them at the French end.
But of course that doesn't play well with the tabloids.
|
|
|
<< The whole point is to deter speeding at accident blackspots where excess speed is a major factor in many of the serious accidents, not a way to fleece motorists on busy roads where there aren't many speed-rated accidents. >>
I disagree - the 'whole point' is to try to persuade motorists to adopt a safe maximum speed, which some won't do without persuasion. I accept that blackspots may be the best place to start, but not the only ones.
<< There's just no consistency, >>
Now I would tend to agree there. Arbitrary limits have mushroomed all over the place so it's much harder to notice and obey them all. The A5104 in north Wales is now almost completely limited to 50 (with average-speed cameras) from Chester to Corwen, and it is never 'busy' though there can be groups of cyclists. I believe the official reason is to reduce pollution, but the road is almost totally rural. I think the main target is keen bikers, but it can't be a big earner as the traffic levels are low.
|
Good luck with that, when has a councillor or MP taken any notice of constituents unless an election is due and dozens or hundreds submit a petition?
Indeed. And even if they did take notice, there is hardly likely to be a consensus to increase speed limits anyway.
I'm just intrigued with the theme here that cameras should only be installed where there are safety issues. The idea of speed limits is that they should be complied with universally. Speeding is not a conditional offence - conditional on the view of the driver as to what is safe and what is not. Smart motorways make provision for variable limits as conditions vary, with the variation being made by a system that has full view of all the information, not just a momentary view taken by individual drivers. Since the speed limits should be complied with everywhere it is appropriate that speed detection measures can be installed anywhere. If not, it's rather like saying it is OK to burgle somebody's house provided there are no police officers in the vicinity.
|
|
The road where we now live has been a mecca for accidents for years and in the 4 years we have lived here its got no better.
3 years ago we had a meeting was arranged by some locals with the local councillor. county councillor, highways and police. Highways sent a representative and the police did not bother. After people who had suffered written off cars caused by out of control idiots had given their stories it was agreed to organise speed surveys on the 3 roads that form the triangle used for racing to ascertain what the issue was, the outcome was an illuminated speed display was installed just up form us. Its done nothing. 2 weeks ago a chap down the road suffered his 3rd written off vehicle 2 of which were in 2020. His house has off street parking for one car (his wife uses that) but that means his and his sons are on the road but its never been the sons (yet).
There have been injuries, one young lad was trapped in his Corsa (no surprise there) when he hit the safety fence and careered across into a parked van. The impact ripped the engine form the Corsa that then set fire to the van but luckily for the young lad the Corsa did not ignite, it could have been a very different story. One accident involved 2 cars that were racing and the result was those 2 written off, a wall flattened, a telegraph pole snapped off and 2 parked cars written off. 200 yards away we heard the bang but from the windows you could see nothing, blame the Leylandi down the road. Only found out the next day.
We know who one notable speeder is, the owner of a Range Rover Sport SVC and an Audi RS3. He loves to hear the engines and uses maximum acceleration from the corner to his house. Currently its up for sale, hopefully he will move far far away.
We would love speed cameras but they will not install them.
|
We would love speed cameras but they will not install them.
Would traffic calming be a better solution?
Probably cheaper as well.
|
We would love speed cameras but they will not install them.
Would traffic calming be a better solution?
Probably cheaper as well.
The road is one of the prime routes into town from the M1. Before the bypass was built back in about 1990 it was designated as an A road. No roads of this type locally have traffic calming and from a purely selfish viewpoint with the Caterham it could cause me issues.
Some years ago I worked in education and outside one of our sites we had issues with cars collecting students parking in such a way that they blocked visibility for residents exiting nearby estate roads and we were asked to look into ways to prevent accidents, so far there had been none. The site manager was asked to write to the highways department regarding placing additional double yellows but the reply he received stated that since there had been no fatalities there was nothing they could do. A few weeks later one of the cars dropping a student off crashed into a council refuse lorry and you can guess which won. No injuries but the council still did nothing. 20 or so years on still no action but the premises are now a private facility so possibly less parking issues.
Edited by skidpan on 08/01/2021 at 11:47
|
|
Wouldn't it be great if our Government assigned as much importance and effort to stopping the Dinghy invaders, as the do to detect people driving three mph over the speed limit . Especially given that Motorways are statistically the safest class of road in the country. Given that the Dinghy people are apparently travelling with virtual impunity and even a Border Farce taxi service from the middle of the channel. Just saying its a curious set of priorities our Government has.
In the interest of the dingy invaders it would have been more constructive for the EU to have made it clear that all these illegals were sent straight back to the continent .Now were are out may be such an agreement could be considered. It must be really hard for people in open boats this weather.
The gov has again tightened the covid immigration regulations so any evasion of these is not desirable.
There are some 1million people in the UK not on the radar so how will these people flag up when it comes to the vaccination programme
|
In the interest of the dingy invaders it would have been more constructive for the EU to have made it clear that all these illegals were sent straight back to the continent .Now were are out may be such an agreement could be considered. It must be really hard for people in open boats this weather.
If they claim Asylum they're Asylum Seekers not 'illegals'. If Asylum is granted they're refugees. Only if its not granted and they fail to leave do they become illegals. Returning them under the 'Dublin Convention' was a possibility while we were in.
Now we're out they're solely our problem.
Still we're now sovereign coastal state, own money borders and fish eh.....
|
|
<< If they claim Asylum they're Asylum Seekers not 'illegals'. If Asylum is granted they're refugees. >>
If they intend to claim asylum they should arrive by legal routes instead of paying huge amounts to people smugglers who often tell them to lose their passports. I know we should welcome immigrants of all kinds, but there has to be a way to prevent a continuous small-scale invasion.
[ how have we got here from speed fines on Mways ??? ]
Edited by Andrew-T on 08/01/2021 at 15:46
|
If they intend to claim asylum they should arrive by legal routes instead of paying huge amounts to people smugglers who often tell them to lose their passports.
There are no legal routes, that's why they end up in the hands of smugglers.
|
|
Back in the 70's and 80's we lived about 2 miles form an inland customs post. Containers came into the country sealed and were opened. One day they had a surprise, when they opened a container from the middle east a number of men jumped out and ran off evading security (whatever they had back then). Didn't get far, police picked them up at the end of our street, pretty obvious in full middle eastern dress on a cold winters day.
|
|
Meanwhile back at the thread!! Middleman and Galileo have highlighted my point about cameras. If they are not about revenue gathering (alright I wont call it a tax any longer!!) then why are the authorities so against any suggestions from concerned citizens as to where a camera may be effective in their area? I have tried this route and it is impossible. You get passed from pillar to post and no one will give you an answer to a simple question. Why are they so resistant? Is it because they would look foolish in not having thought of it first? Who cares?
Or is it, as I suspect, that the majority of camera sitings are about revenue under the guise of safety? I find it all so frustrating and am suspicious of the motives behind this scheme. The old maxim 'you can't fight city hall' springs to mind. Being so resistant to suggestion and quite secretive in their methods only breeds suspicion. If these people told me the grass was green I would go outside and check. A cynical view maybe but born from bitter experience.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
If they were revenue collectors the council/Police would be minting it by installing them where the local residents requested. Eventually the local racers would have got the message and slow down or loose their licences. But we did not want simple speed cameras, they needed to be average speed ones. All people do with speed cameras is slow down when they see them whereas the average speed cameras at least keep most within the limit over the distance. There is of course the people who do not understand the word average and treat them like stand alone cameras. If they are that stupid they deserve to get caught.
|
Middleman and Galileo have highlighted my point about cameras. If they are not about revenue gathering then why are the authorities so against any suggestions from concerned citizens ?
I'm still trying to work out the basis of your difficulty, Concrete. If you are happy with cameras in principle, and happy that offenders get fined in principle, what is wrong with 'revenue gathering' which automatically results ? Or is it a dislike of public servants and what they do (or don't do) ?
|
|
Andrew, it is not the public servants who are ordered to carry out current policy. If approached they obfuscate and never answer a direct question. Cameras have a role to play as do fines in the effort to reduce the incidences of speeding. But the siting of the cameras should be where they do the most good and not where they collect the most money. Having tried and failed to get the mobile cameras to operate in the area I used to live in I have bitter experience of dealing with officialdom which is secretive and reluctant to respond. The road where I used to live became a 'rat run' when other restrictions were imposed on major routes nearby. I wanted cameras to make motorists aware they were speeding through a residential area with lots of pedestrian traffic and a school nearby. Of course I never even got close to getting anywhere. Why should they bother about our area when there are easy pickings on the routes into town? It all just smacked of a policy to gather money instead of safety first. I spoke to one honest public servant who said off the record that sites are chosen by a committee in secret. Also that when they deployed cameras in urban areas such as ours the local taxi drivers alert everyone and they catch no one. As taxis were some of worst offenders this presents a problem of course. But still no reason not to try, in the name of safety. What conclusion would you draw given the same experience?
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Where cameras are sited is a matter of public record. They can only be sited where there is evidence of speeding (a percentage of drivers breaking the limit by a set amount, not a village boy racer who just drives like an idiot) and a history of accidents resulting in death or serious injury.
There is no secrecy where they will be deployed as locations are published every day.
|
But the siting of the cameras should be where they do the most good and not where they collect the most money.
As it may be difficult to determine correctly where cameras might 'do the most good' I don't see why both these objectives should not be met, possibly as they are now.
<< The road where I used to live became a 'rat run' when other restrictions were imposed on major routes nearby. >>
Which shows that humans - who dislike risking fines - react to a changed situation as you might expect them to. Some perhaps because their satnavs learn where the cameras are. The authorities caused the problem in the streets you mention, so should try to cure it; the taxi drivers are imitating the AA & RAC patrols who used to warn members in the (very) old days of hidden speed traps. As far as that goes, I don't object much to 'hidden' cameras - drivers slow down, one way or another, preferably free of charge.
|
Middleman and Galileo have highlighted my point about cameras. If they are not about revenue gathering then why are the authorities so against any suggestions from concerned citizens ?
If you have had any experience of councils, you will know that they don't like being told what to do, and they are not open to suggestions however sensible. That's why the country is full of characterless dumps.
|
We would love speed cameras but they will not install them.
Would traffic calming be a better solution?
Probably cheaper as well.
Speedhumps certainly aren't cheaper, if you include the extra fuel used because vehicles slow/accelerate and often in lower gear, plus the damage caused to the road and surrounding buildings by HGVs going over the speed humps. The extra fuel usage issue is similar for the 'priority' road furniture.
If cameras are digital and they can be either wirless or easily connected to wires under the street, then they should be reasonably cost effective if used properly and ethically.
|
|
Not sure whether this is the latest guidance - see Appendix A, you need at least 3 KSI collisions per km before a fixed camera is deployed
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upload...f
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
