I'm with Lud on this, though I do think that a 7 day ban is the best option - it shouldn't cause him that much inconvenience, but will hopefully get the message over that he needs to slow down! Incidentally, one option to this constant speeding thing is to get a slower car - if you like large cars, then get one witha small engine that can't go fast!
Incidentally Lud, with reference to an earler post, what on earth is a "Good" drunk driver... physical impossibility, I'd have said!
|
Incidentally one option to this constant speeding thing is to get a slower car - if you like large cars then get one witha small engine that can't go fast!
I can't see this working, I think all cars will do over 80mph (and most over 100mph) which means you can still get fined on any road.
|
>> get one witha small engine that can't go fast! >> I can't see this working I think all cars will do over 80mph (and most over 100mph)
Thats not the point - the lower powered cars tend to be geared differently and are often easier to keep at constant low speeds than their higher powered bretheren - overall top speed in this case is irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
When I started driving in the mid/late '70s speeding was a way of life. Everyone, or at least most, did it regularly. If you were caught it was seen as your own fault for not spotting the rozzers before they saw you. Didn't alter the fact that I got stopped a few times over the years though.
My worst incident was some 20 years ago when I was pulled in 3 figures on a motorway. It went to court and I was fortunate enough to escape with points and a fine. In many respects I think that was a turning point for me in that I think I realised then how close I had come to messing up my life by incurring a ban.
It was difficult at first to change my way of driving. It felt quite unnatural for a while. I think the OP realises he's between a rock and a hard place and we could perhaps be more useful in trying to help him to learn the techniques for protecting his licence in the future rather than castigating him for events gone by.
Many drivers could have found themselves in a similar situation by the luck of the draw. Encouraging future avoidance of that situation is surely the best advice we can offer ?
"Let he who is without sin......."
|
|
|
what on earth is a "Good" drunk driver... physical impossibility I'd have said!
I should have said: better a drunk good driver than a sober bad one.
|
I should have said: better a drunk good driver than a sober bad one.
Frightening.
|
Frightening.
There is much to fear in this life. But I don't fear sharing the road with competent drivers who may be over the alcohol limit. I fear the lethal wallies, mainly sober no doubt, who I see driving dangerously whenever I go out.
|
Lud: "I fear the lethal wallies mainly sober no doubt who I see driving dangerously whenever I go out."
Then we disagree profoundly. You used the term "drunk" as opposed to "over the legal alcohol limit" which implies they are not fit to be behind the wheel of a vehicle, motor or otherwise.
|
Ah. Then I have misrepresented myself. I thought what was meant was 'drunk under the definition applied in the road traffic act'. Of course a person drunk enough to have seriously impaired reflexes, physical control and judgement - feel free to choose your own vulgar expression for the condition - should not be driving.
I sometimes find myself following certain sorts of well-heeled London mimser and thinking: he's completely ripped. But I know from long experience that there are people who drive like that when they are sober. Lots of them. They outnumber seriously drunk drivers what? Ten to one? A hundred? A thousand?
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anyone here who hasn't broken the limit accidentally 3 times? There's 9 points
But by 20mph? Cameras and Police will rarely catch you for doing just a few mph over the limit, and many cameras are set at at least 10mph over the limit.
There are also some reasons why I don't get caught by cameras (or police).
1. They are brightly coloured boxes (or brightly coloured vans) at the side of the road, with white lines in the road, and information signs before them. I make sure I look at my speedometer when I see a camera.
2. They are usually in accident black spots. Where the cameras are I would often feel unsafe if my speed went much above the limit.
If you do have trouble with seeing cameras or understanding the reasons for them being on a particular road then it may be worth doing an advanced driving course with an organisation such as the IAM or RoSPA.
|
|
Not all speed cameras require white lines painted on the road and the requirement for cameras to be brightly coloured was removed earlier in the year.
|
|
|
But by 20mph?
Very easy if you think the limit is 50 but it's really 30 (as in the OP).
Edited by Bill Payer on 04/10/2008 at 11:14
|
|
Someone driving an average of 200 miles a day is quite likely to suffer from tiredness, especially at the end of a long day. The answer is to cut the mileage, stop for a rest before the brain shuts down, and before something more material than a speed camera is encountered!
|
sq
This thought occurred to me too, and I have a good deal of sympathy for OP if he is forced by his employer to drive such distances. Plainly he hasn't been able to maintain the awareness of the road and conditions sufficiently to enable him to know when he is speeding - and I'm pretty sure I would be the same.
Edited by Pugugly on 04/10/2008 at 13:39
|
|
|
|
Don't risk your licence in North Wales then! Speed camera hidden in a parked horse trailer this year!
|
|
They wouldn't catch me no matter how fast the horse was.
|
|
|
|
>> Is there anyone here who hasn't broken the limit accidentally 3 times? There's 9 points >> But by 20mph? Cameras and Police will rarely catch you for doing just a few mph over the limit and many cameras are set at at least 10mph over the limit.
In this particular case I think the OP was 18 mph over but we have no idea of the circumstances of his other 3 convictions. In our area you will be get 3 points and a good fine for doing 35mph in a 30 area - for certain.
In a quaint and unusual fashion the local newspaper has a "Sheriffs Court" section and I've seen 33 mph get points and a fine. We have no cameras in our area but do have lots of police hiding in side roads with handhelds.
No I have never had a point on the license. No I don't go out with the intention of speeding. But I'm not so smug to think that at sometime I've never exceeded the limit by 3mph. And here that would get me points - if the police happened to be hiding in the side road, behind a hedge etc at the time.
|
"the OP was 18 mph over "
Yes he was, but before condemning him too much perhaps we ought to go back to the original post where he states
"I was doing 48 in a 30 zone but as the road is mainly 50 with stretches of 30 this is possible though I cannot honestly remember seeing a sign or a speed camera"
In other words, he thought he was actually within the limit.
In the same way, I had sympathy for my son when he was done for 33mph on a 30 limit dual carriageway in Nottingham - he had his "beeper" (?) set for 30 but must have drifted over and been caught by a specs camera before he re-adjusted. This particular road going out of Nottingham (A610) has limits of 30, 40, 50 and 70 with no apparent reason for the changes.
|
So the OP, who should be pretty good at driving given the miles they cover, is unable to spot speed limit signs. Thats more of a worry in itself than the actual speeding.
I have travelled many miles in my short life inc doing it as a profession yet changing speed limits have never been remotely difficult to understand if you are paying attention.
I dont agree with many limits but I make sure I know what they are because I value my license and drive accordingly. If in this case the sign was obscured AND there were no repeater signs then fair enough, but it seems unlikely.
I was driving down a 20 mph stretch today, more than a mile of near straight road and a queue of cars behind me, but I stuck to it anyway because while 30 would be the more sensible limit, some dimwit has ordered it to be changed and my luck would be a cop just round the corner waggling a finger at me.
I may come across as a mimser, but Im really not, I just value my license and as such, stick to the rules. Personally, id like overhead signs for speed limits so you cant miss them ( illuminated at night like the variable limit signs on M25 ), some rethinking on certain limits and with some being raised and harsher penalties for breaking urban limits.
I say kudos to the OP for agreeing it wasnt a good thing, that is far more than most speeders ever do. I honestly dont think people would be anywhere near as opposed to the speeding if it was at 100 mph early on a sunday morning on the M40 for e.g.
Do Specs really do you for just 3 mph over the limit now? That would be a higher indicated speed in the car though wouldnt it?
|
"Do Specs really do you for just 3 mph over the limit now? That would be a higher indicated speed in the car though wouldnt it? "
Well, thats what it said on son's "summons" or whatever it is called these days (NIP?)
My Berlingo is spot on 30 at indicated 30 according to my satnav, and only indicates 72 at 70. Son's car is a C2 so maybe that is as accurate. And on a dual carriageway perhaps 30 was unexpected- I don't know.
As for not noticing 30 mph signs, there are so many signs these days ...... on a nearby dual carriageway in the distance from the start of the 300 metre (? - you know, those 3 , 2, 1 diagonal striped things) signs to a roundabout there are 19 different signs - all apparently of equal importance. Sometimes we are a bit overloaded with signs so the important ones are hidden by totally irrelevant ones.
I sometimes wonder whether the people caught by speed cameras are those who are unfamiliar with an area or the "dangerous drivers".
I am often overtaken by speedsters going into our local town at 60-70 mph when the signs say 30 mph ..... but they know there aren't any speed cameras there .... but I stick to the posted limit. Oddly, it is a dual carriageway on which 70 mph is "safe" - no houses alongside, pedestrians, cyclists etc (good footpath and cycle track).
Anyway,
like you, I am not a mimser but stick to the rules (I hope - unless I miss a sign !!!!)
|
Earlier posts about regularly driving 1000 and 2000(!!) miles a week leave me aghast. I consider myself a "typical" company car driver: I have an area slightly larger than Scotland to cover and I am away from home four days a week, with overnight stays every other week. A lot of my work can be done by Wireless Internet and mobile phone use, which can be done safely and comfortably from home or from a rest area or, at a pinch, a café.
My average speed over the past week from fillup to fillup, according to the trip computer, was around 35 mph - a mileage of 1000 or 2000 would equate to between 28.5 and 57 hours of driving per week, which is frankly insane. Clocking up points on my licence would be the least of my worries with a working schedule like that.
Would company car driving/self employed drivers in the backroom strenuously object to the compulsory fitting of tachographs? Put another way, would any HGV and PSV drivers nowadays like to get rid of their tachographs?
|
Certainly not.
As it is I am allowed to start work at 3am and finish at 6PM on 3 days of the week. Can you imagine what I would be expected to do without one?
As an HGV driver I can only drive for 56 hours per week but that has to be compensated for with extra rest the next week, to average 45 hours driving per week over a fortnight.
Well done you!
Pat
|
|
|
|
I use this bit if the A610 on a regular basis, assuming you are talking about the bit from the city centre to M1 J26. I don't recall any illogical speed limits on the road, IIRC it gradually increases as you get further out of town, where are the bits that cause issues?
The SPECS cameras are blindingly obvious, they are the big cameras across the road painted bright yellow. It is also obvious that there are issues, from the way that all the other traffic slows down.
Never heard of anyone being done on this stretch of road for anything under 37.
|
I'm not massively familiar with the road myself, but it always strikes me as odd that there is a 40mph speed limit on a stretch of dual carriageway which has no junctions /pedestrian crossings/houses adjacent but it is NSL where there is a road junction and pub exit entrance. The aforementioned 40 mph limit becomes NSL for the roundabout at the A610/M1 junction but 40 again immediately afterwards where the road passes between 2 wooded embankments, then 50 on the stretch down towards IKEA. Presumeably, one is allowed to do up to 70 round the roundabout but only 40 either side. This is hardly "gradually increases as you get further out of town".
Anyway, it appears that I am not the only one who thinks that the limits are odd and confusing
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/461176...m
"Experts from the Institute of Advanced Motorists have condemned speed limits on a busy road as "too confusing".
Notts County Council has defended the decision to put four different speed limits within three miles on the A610. "
There are alsso another 98,000 "confused " people
"The Observer - Sunday 26 October 2003
That'll be three points - and £1,500
For motorists on the A610 outside Nottingham, there is a hazard lurking at the side of the carriageway.
In just three years, speed cameras have caught more than 98,000 drivers for speeding on a two-mile stretch, one of the highest success rates in the country."
The speed limit varies from 30mph to 70mph between Nuthall and Giltbrook on the outskirts of Nottingham."
As for "The SPECS cameras are blindingly obvious", yes they are and hence why my son had his "beeper warning" set at 30mph.
On the other hand the ABD says
"A610 Nottingham B Pair of SPECS digital cameras - Into Nottingham, first camera is BEFORE any warning signs, and speed limit is not well posted
A610 Nottingham B Pair of SPECS digital cameras - Heading out of Nottingham, camera is hidden behind trees round left hand bend outside row of shops"
"Never heard of anyone being done on this stretch of road for anything under 37."
Oh well, believe it or believe it not - your choice - and I am not trying to say my son was innocent - he got nicked, paid the fine and got the points.
See
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=46...8
Phil
|
Your son has my sympathy. I know he broke the limit, but he is hardly a speed freak.
Recently at work I heard that the daughter of a colleague was knocked down, and the driver got out of the car, looked at the child sprawled on the road, exclaimed "what a horrible mess", got back in the car and drove off. She was okay, but lost several teeth. Her father has photographed every matching car driving past the house at the same time of day, shown the photos to his daughter, and has identified a car driven by someone who looks like the culprit. But the police refuse to act. And yet a colleague was recently done for a minor speeding offence on a dual carriageway. Two other colleagues have recently been done for exceeding 20mph in a small town area, where as far as I am concerned the 20mph limit is absurd.
|
|
This must be one of the longest threads on here, a most emotive subject today. Anyone posting on here lost a loved one on the roads?? In all the different media that this subject is discussed, I've yet to see a published letter from the family of a deceased road user. Unsurprising, since it doesn't make good reading. Isn't it the case that we all like to think we can exercise good judgement, even if that includes exceeding the speed limit? Maybe we can - most of the time. But I suggest that with 3500 deaths on the roads a few years ago, the British driver has 'blown it'. Those deaths and all the injuries are incredibly expensive to the nation and something had to be done. There is no perfect system, hence the blanket enforcement, with little leeway. And yes, seems to be some revenue gathering. But even in the case of revenue gathering cameras, the law is the law. If we disagree with the camera, presumably we disagree with the limit on that road? Petitioning the local authority or our MP would be one way forward to canvass local opinion and seek to amend the limit. back to our poor friend with 9 points: Sympathy for him, and I hope he doesn't lose his employment but whilst 9 points and a summons is clearly focusing his mind, that focus would perhaps have been better utilised at the time of acquiring 6 points. At least the UK system is in steps in respect of speeding offences, effectively 3 warnings before the ban. Have to agree with other users here - seek professional representation by a solicitor specialising in road traffic matters but remember there are no guarantees. Alternatively, and perhaps a somewhat unpopular view: Walk in, state that you won't waste the court's time, get your cheque book out and offer to pay the fine on the day - book a holiday with the fee you would have paid the solicitor and ride out the hopefully short ban.
|
|
Woodster: If it was only loonies such as the ABD that criticised the current focus on speed cameras, then I might agree with you. But even respected bodies such as the RAC, and an ex-head of the Met Police Traffic Division have expressed disquiet at current trends. I would also argue that your arguments - speed camera = safe - are too simplistic, but that is a long discussion, often aired here, and often heated.
|
Of course speed cameras are safe - they are inanimate objects which have an entirely predictable reaction to the world around them. Human reaction to them might be unsafe on occasion, but thats down to the human element.
Cars are not unsafe either. In all these circumstances, it is drivers who make roads unsafe. They simply try to blame it on something else to justify how they drive.
|
|
Leif: Where in my post does it say: 'speed camera=safe'?? I said that we have been given a blanket response (by Government, incidentally) and alluded to the fact that administering some sort of variable system to take account of traffic conditions/time of day/whatever else, is not practicable. Didn't say I thought it brought about safety, but did say that we certainly did not have safety at 3500 deaths p.a. I note that you provide a simplistic response to several points in my post, perhaps you could share your opinion on all my points, but please extend me the courtesy of reading that which I wrote! No offence intended!
|
Leif: Where in my post does it say: 'speed camera=safe'?? I said that we have been given a blanket response (by Government incidentally) and alluded to the fact that administering some sort of variable system to take account of traffic conditions/time of day/whatever else is not practicable. Didn't say I thought it brought about safety but did say that we certainly did not have safety at 3500 deaths p.a. I note that you provide a simplistic response to several points in my post perhaps you could share your opinion on all my points but please extend me the courtesy of reading that which I wrote! No offence intended!
Firstly, I read your post, and commented on it. I found your post simplistic in that you first used scare tactics - i.e. refer to a relative of someone killed on the road - and then elided into a discussion of driving within speed limits, the assumption being that breaking a speed limit = dangerous, and consequently speed camera = safe. At least that is how it read to me. It might surprise you to know that some of those who express concern at the current use of speed cameras are not 'speedsters' to use the somewhat insulting term chosen by NowWheels. The question is whether or not speed cameras are a) effective and b) desirable. My belief is that the answer to both points is "sometimes".
"I note that you provide a simplistic response to several points in my post,"
I cannot comment unless you indicate which statements you consider simplistic. However, I did not write much in my response, and the points were simply facts. It is a fact that respected bodies have voiced concern at the current emphasis on speed cameras over other measures. And it is a fact that an ex-head of the Met Traffic Division was on R4 expressing some unease at the spread of speed cameras, whilst acknowledging that they can sometimes be beneficial.
I speak as someone who tries to drive within speed limits - motorways excepted - and I have in the past found myself almost getting tickets due to poorly indicated speed limits.
Incidentally, the fact that some police forces have targets to reach, and staff are forced to ticket people for minor offences does not exactly add confidence in our lords and masters.
|
In all the different media that this subject is discussed I've yet to see a published letter from the family of a deceased road user.
Unhappy reading though it may be, I don't see how that would inform the debate. Unless you think there are some people who are yet to agree that the safety of all road users is important. Maybe there are a few of them, but they're easily identified and ignored aren't they?
Isn't it the case that we all like to think we can exercise good judgement even if that includes exceeding the speed limit? Maybe we can - most of the time.
And when our judgement is in error, there are laws against driving dangerously that can be used to punish us. What is somewhat anomolous are the laws that punish us when our judgement was not in error.
something had to be done.
If you're suggesting there's been an amount of "Something Must Be Done" syndrome - Something must be done, this is Something, therefore we must do It - you may well be right. That's not a good thing though.
If we disagree with the camera presumably we disagree with the limit on that road?
Perhaps. But much more importantly we might disagree with the approach to policing that the camera embodies. We might prefer to be policed by intelligent entities that know more about what we are trying to do than we do, and who can constructively discuss our mistakes and help with the continuing development of our skills at the same time as punishing us.
Petitioning the local authority or our MP would be one way forward to canvass local opinion and seek to amend the limit.
Unless you happen to live in an area populated entirely by experienced, expert drivers, the fact that local opinion is allowed to play a part in the decision is a huge part of the problem.
|
We might prefer to be policed by intelligent entities that know more about what we are trying to do than we do, and who can constructively discuss our mistakes and help with the continuing development of our skills at the same time as punishing us.
I'm sure that most people would much prefer that. But it costs a lot of money.
Replacing one camera with uniformed officers requires four or five officers to give round-the-clock coverage, and that's going to cost about £200,000 a year. Multiply that by the 6,000 speed cameras in operation, and you're looking at well over a billion pounds a year.
I'm sure we can all agree that there are many areas of govt spending we'd like to see trimmed to free up the cash to do that, but the problem is it's much harder to get agreement on any particular cut. And even if we did trim a billion from elsewhere in public sector budget, is this really the best way to use it?
A billion would build about 10,000 new homes each year, or double the budget available to insulate homes (thereby alleviating some fuel poverty and reducing C02 emissions) ... or it would put tens of thousands of extra police officers on the beat to make our streets safer. You can make your own list of priorities for how to spend a billion, but I'd be astonished if there was even a remote chance of getting anything near a political consensus to use the money to provide cosy chats for drivers who are unwilling ease off on the accelerator enough to get their speed below the posted limits.
Cameras are unsubtle system, making no allowance for circumstances. But despite their crudeness and their huge intrusion on privacy, they remain by far the most cost-effective way of policing the endemic problem of speeding. If someone has a better solution, I'm sure there would be plenty of support for it, but I haven't seen any such proposal.
|
I'm sure that most people would much prefer that. But it costs a lot of money. If someone has a better solution I'm sure there would be plenty of support for it but I haven't seen any such proposal.
Interesting viewpoint. I'm waiting for the first pro-camera MP or road safety charity to publically acknowledge that cameras are a very bad solution but they don't know of a better one.
|
Interesting viewpoint. I'm waiting for the first pro-camera MP or road safety charity to publically acknowledge that cameras are a very bad solution but they don't know of a better one.
Please don't put words in my mouth: I didn't say that they are a bad solution, just that they are flawed. Most things in life are flawed, and similarly most public policy is a matter of trade-offs between various possibilities. Cameras are unstuble, allowing for little discretion, but they are a lot cheaper to the public purse than any alternative.
|
Please don't put words in my mouth:
I apologise. I said "very bad". You said "their crudeness and their huge intrusion on privacy". It is, of course, entirely a matter of opinion whether those two are at all the same.
Cameras are unstuble allowing for little discretion but they are a lot cheaper to the public purse than any alternative.
If cost is the reason they are preferred over traffic police officers, and the trade-off is less discretion, it would be nice to hear both the pros and cons of that compromise acknowledged a little more by those who promote it.
Much is touted about the reduction in accidents brought about by cameras. Rarely if ever have I heard a camera evangelist estimate the increase in the number of drivers who have suffered punishment without first having their driving assessed for safety. That sort of one-sided spin is disingenuous. It does nothing to persuade those still in need of persuasion that cameras are the right compromise, and amongst those given to speculating on conspiracy theories may even fuel the perception that cameras are there for a different reason entirely.
|
NowWheels: "Replacing one camera with uniformed officers requires four or five officers to give round-the-clock coverage, and that's going to cost about £200,000 a year. Multiply that by the 6,000 speed cameras in operation, and you're looking at well over a billion pounds a year."
That would be a pretty stupid thing to do, and is unrealistic. In practice many speed cameras are ineffective (official figures prove it), and others are of limited use. Official research has shown that the "regression to the mean" argument does indeed significantly distort the official figures of suppose accident reduction due to cameras.
In practice the correct comparison is the current situation and what we had before. Speed cameras mean that police staff are tied up with looking after them, or with manning 'tallyvans' and radar guns. And we have seen a reduction in the number of traffic cops. So that is the real cost. Plus we all know that the real maniacs slow for cameras, then speed up afterwards. And speed cameras are always in revenue generating areas, and never in residential areas, which are the most dangerous, simply because they do not generate enough revenue.
If I saw sensible 30mph limits in residential and town centres (not the usually stupid 20mph ones) and cops with radar guns set to 35mph+, then I might be sympathetic.
Oh and the fact that speed is a causal factor in a small proportion of road accidents ...
|
If I saw sensible 30mph limits in residential and town centres (not the usually stupid 20mph ones) and cops with radar guns set to 35mph+ then I might be sympathetic.
So you would like to be able to drive a 35mph in what are currently 20mph zones? That certainly clarifies things.
Not for the first time, many of the objections to cameras seem to have less to do with the method of enforcement than with not wanting to drive more slowly. I'm sure you know the well-publicised data on the effects of hitting someone at 20, 30, 35 and 40, so I won't repeat it, but it's a pity that some drivers apparently place such a low priority on the safety of non-vehicular road-users.
|
What a pity the laws against slander are so lax in this country. For the implication that people who don't want to dawdle around on the roads getting in the way and obstructing traffic flow are callous or indifferent to the safety of 'non-vehicular road users' is surely slander.
Similarly, what is the point of harping on about the effects of hitting a pedestrian at one speed or another? Most drivers on seeing a pedestrian staggering into their path will brake sharply or take evasive action, so the speed they were driving at when they first saw the drunken fool will no longer apply. What is it that leads people constantly to fantasize about cars colliding violently with pedestrians?
Suppose a car collides with a pedestrian at the sort of urban speed mimsers think is safe (say 10mph), and continues at that speed because the driver has fallen asleep. Either it will drive over and crush the pedestrian or sweep him or her aside. The same things are generally true at 20 and 30 mph.
I am afraid those very down on speed are trying to deal with their own destructive, sadistic side, their fear (or secret wish) that they may hurt or kill others during a momentary lapse of their iron self-control, by disciplining others. Not a thing that ever works really. Just gets up people's noses.
Edited by Lud on 07/10/2008 at 16:23
|
>>Similarly, what is the point of harping on about the effects of hitting a pedestrian at one speed or another?<<
Because one speed does more damage than another.
>>so the speed they were driving at when they first saw the drunken fool will no longer apply.<<
So if it doesnt apply, you would be happy for an 80 mph limit past schools at 8am then? If of course speed doesnt really apply when avoiding/hitting pedestrians.
>>For the implication that people who don't want to dawdle around on the roads getting in the way and obstructing traffic flow are callous or indifferent to the safety of 'non-vehicular road users' is surely slander. <<
The only reason traffic flow is obstructed by people obeying the law is because those who dont catch them up via their illegal action. If you wanna break the law, you cant expect the word to revolve around you.
>>Suppose a car collides with a pedestrian at the sort of urban speed mimsers think is safe (say 10mph), and continues at that speed because the driver has fallen asleep <<
Nobody has said 10 mph, the pro speed limit people are pushing for obey a 30 limit as you well know and clearly it threatens your sefl esteem to an extent that you exaggerate. How many cases of people falling asleep at 10 mph have you statistics for? One suspects none.
Just another willful speeder making a poor attempt at justifying why the law shouldnt apply to them. I do hope we get to see such people on TV trying to put their arguements across to a cop when they get pulled over.
|
Just another willful speeder making a poor attempt at justifying why the law shouldnt apply to them.
I don't think that silly laws shouldn't apply to me. I think that they shouldn't apply to anybody.
I do hope we get to see such people on TV trying to put their arguements across to a cop when they get pulled over.
I doubt there's much argument to be had. For a start, I expect most police officers would agree that silly laws should not apply to anybody, although like the rest of us they will all have their own opinions about which, if any, of the laws in this country are actually silly. But I doubt you'd find many who'd be prepared to stand up on duty, in uniform, on TV and debate those opinions with a member of the public.
|
>>I don't think that silly laws shouldn't apply to me. I think that they shouldn't apply to anybody.<<
Nor do I, but that doesnt mean I will break them. I think that a burglar is taking their chances if they enter your home and get shot, tough luck, shouldnt have been there in first place. But the law says you should show them around and make them a cuppa and hope they dont fall over anything lest they sue. Of course the law is silly, but get it changed - wilfully breaking it is a sign of criminality not someone with a passionate belief that there needs to be change.
Besides, urban speed limits cant be generalised as silly, some are wrong and some are right. There are those here who would break the limit whatever it was because they work to the principle that the law is an optional extra in life when they are behind the wheel ( and perhaps in other areas in life ).
|
Besides urban speed limits cant be generalised as silly some are wrong and some are right.
I hope I haven't suggested any such generalisation.
There are those here who would break the limit whatever it was because they work to the principle that the law is an optional extra in life when they are behind the wheel ( and perhaps in other areas in life ).
There are some of those in the wider world but I don't think we have many of them here. Rest assured, if any assurance be needed, that I am not one of them. I am simply one of those who feel that there are rather more important things to look at than the speedometer when it comes to not killing people with my car.
|
Yes I was exaggerating stu. I don't think the laws shouldn't apply to me. I don't object to people obeying speed limits.
I just hate everyone crawling inefficiently and inelegantly around below them.
|
So you would like to be able to drive a 35mph in what are currently 20mph zones? That certainly clarifies things.
That is not what I said. Some 20mph zones make sense. Many don't. And many 30mph and 40mph zones can turn into 20mph zones due to conditions etc.
And why does it clarify things?
Not for the first time many of the objections to cameras seem to have less to do with the method of enforcement than with not wanting to drive more slowly. I'm sure you know the well-publicised data on the effects of hitting someone at 20 30 35 and 40 so I won't repeat it but it's a pity that some drivers apparently place such a low priority on the safety of non-vehicular road-users.
That is too crass for words. I see you are getting into silly emotive nonsense. I would rather a driver did not hit a person at any speed. I think you have to put forward more grown up arguments than a simple if you hit someone at 40mph you will kill them". If I hit someone on the head with a hammer I will kill them. So?
Some objections to the current policy:
1) Those who drive at excess speed are often skilled at slowing for speed cameras.
2) Speed cameras are often placed in high revenue earning locations.
3) Speed cameras can be placed in a location after fatalities that resulted from an accident where the vehicle was travelling at LESS than the speed limit and was not at all speed related.
4) Speed cameras are hardly if ever placed in residential roads which are more dangerous.
5) Speed cameras never prevent people hurtling round blind bends at excess speed.
6) Most 20mph limits are not enforced, rendering them pointless anyway.
7) I used to live in a 20mph area, and very dangerous driving was the norm. I also saw police cars hurtling down the road at what might have been excessiv speeds (even allowing for their 'need' for speed). In fact I nearly drove into the side of a police car which had 'crashed' a red light.
8) Speed cameras are totally ineffective for people with false plates and/or an unregistered car. These are the people who are MOST likely to have serious accidents.
9) Lastly, speed is NOT a causative factor in the majority of accidents.
IMO the current obsession with speed cameras is dangerous because it focusses on one issue at the expense of others. And it potentially alienates the public because of the revenue generation aspect.
|
That is not what I said. Some 20mph zones make sense. Many don't. And many 30mph and 40mph zones can turn into 20mph zones due to conditions etc.
I'm afraid it is what you said. You want 20mph zones made into 30s, and the limit not enforced below at least 35mph.
And why does it clarify things?
Because if your main concern is that the limits are too low, then any concerns about the method of enforcement ring rather hollow.
That is too crass for words. I see you are getting into silly emotive nonsense. I would rather a driver did not hit a person at any speed. I think you have to put forward more grown up arguments than a simple if you hit someone at 40mph you will kill them". If I hit someone on the head with a hammer I will kill them. So?
For someone who accuses others of being crass and emotive, that's a really lousy analogy, Leif. There's no acceptable reason for anyone to be waving a hammer near your head, but in an urban area, cars and pedestrians legitimately share roadspace and cross each others paths. The faster the cars are going, the less time each party has to get out of each others way , and the more severe the injuries when an impact occurs.
That's why it's so important to slow vehicles in urban areas.
Some objections to the current policy: 1) Those who drive at excess speed are often skilled at slowing for speed cameras.
Indeed. That's why average-speed cameras are much more effective.
2) Speed cameras are often placed in high revenue earning locations.
This is a catch-22 argument. By definition, any camera which catches a speedster will raise revenue from the fine. So the more effective a camera is at catching speedsters, the more its critics label it as a revenue trap.
3) Speed cameras can be placed in a location after fatalities that resulted from an accident where the vehicle was travelling at LESS than the speed limit and was not at all speed related.
If accidents are occurring there, controlling speed will limit their severity.
4) Speed cameras are hardly if ever placed in residential roads which are more dangerous.
True, but that's largely a function of cost. On residential roads, speed bumps are much more cost-effective, but many backroomers complain bitterly about them too ... because the bumps mean that they have to slow down!!!!! (shock, horror, the injustice of it etc)
5) Speed cameras never prevent people hurtling round blind bends at excess speed.
I know some that are placed on bends, but cameras are not designed to tackle every form of bad driving. Don't knock a solution just because it's not 100% effective.
6) Most 20mph limits are not enforced rendering them pointless anyway.
They'd be much better if enforced (though I can hear the howls from the backroom speedsters if they were), but that doesn't make them useless. Many drivers do slow for 20mph zones, and it's better to have some vehicles slowed than none.
7) I used to live in a 20mph area and very dangerous driving was the norm.
Sadly, that doesn't surprise me. Clearly needs more enforcement (whether by policing or by technology) an/or traffic calming measures.
8) Speed cameras are totally ineffective for people with false plates and/or an unregistered car. These are the people who are MOST likely to have serious accidents.
Indeed, that's one of their limitations. There are other measures in place to clamp down on the false plates/unreg brigade (with some success), which will help to reduce that problem.
9) Lastly speed is NOT a causative factor in the majority of accidents.
It's a contributory factor in a significant proportion of accidents, which makes it a problem.
IMO the current obsession with speed cameras is dangerous because it focusses on one issue at the expense of others.
That's not a reason for getting rid of cameras, it's a reason for redeploying the traffic cops who have been taken off the roads. The cameras are paid for by the speedsters, so their arrival didn't cause the departure of the police; that was a separate (and very stupid) policy decision, partly as a consequence of management-by-targets.
|
Leif>> That is not what I said. Some 20mph zones make sense. Many don't. And many30mph and 40mph zones can turn into 20mph zones due to conditions etc.
NW>>I'm afraid it is what you said. You want 20mph zones made into 30s, and the limit
>>not enforced below at least 35mph.
It is *not* what Leif said. There is a "usually" in there. That said, I am struggling to think of one 20 mph zone that makes sense. Virtually the entirety of Southwark - save for TFL-maintained roads is heading to be 20mph. Bonkers.
Personally, I think 20 mph zones should *all* be abolished. Equally I think that 30mph zones should be enforced more strictly - 33mph is fine. Enforce it at 35, and then you are making the limit 35 - so why do that?
|
Personally I think 20 mph zones should *all* be abolished.
Are there any? Isn't the urban limit 30? Aren't all those 20 signs just damn cheek by local council jobsworths sucking up to faffing voters?
|
Are there any? Isn't the urban limit 30? Aren't all those 20 signs just damn cheek by local council jobsworths sucking up to faffing voters?
No, they are legally kosher. The Sec of state has delegated to local authorities the power to set 20mph limits in certain circumstances.
From para 73 of DfT Circular 01/2006 (see tinyurl.com/4nvfpf ):Since July 1999, the Road Traffic Regulation Act (Amendment) Order 1999 (SI 1999 No. 1608) has given traffic authorities the powers to introduce both 20 mph speed limits and 20 mph zones without obtaining the consent of the Secretary of State. Details of the relevant amendments to legislation can be found in Circular Roads 05/99 (DETR, 1999).
Edited by NowWheels on 08/10/2008 at 02:12
|
Thanks NW, but without the specific endorsement of the secretary of state, the decisions of these power-crazed clerks are a matter of total indifference to a respectable citizen.
They may impress the very young and culturally challenged though.
|
Mapmaker: "It is *not* what Leif said. "
Thankyou. It is indeed not what I said. In some part of Luton there are single file roads with parked cars either side. There is a 20mph limit, and only a fool would do more than 20mph. Similarly, in a city centre, near shops, with lots of pedestrians wandering about, a 20mph limit is more than appropriate. But I see roads with wide pavements and good visibility with 20mph limits. Now my guess is that the people who drive at 40mph and greater are the ones that have the accidents. No doubt they will continue to have accidents, and the powers that be will decide that a 20mph limit is too fast.
|
I'm afraid it is what you said.
No it isn't. See my other post.
The faster the cars are going the less time each party has to get out of each others way and the more severe the injuries when an impact occurs. That's why it's so important to slow vehicles in urban areas.
The reason that is a crass argument is because it gets you nowhere. The logical extreme is to have cars stationary to reduce accidents to zero.
That's why average-speed cameras are much more effective.
In some respects I prefer these. But the speed limit must be CLEARLY marked and reasonable and all too often that is not the case leading one to question the motives.
I can think of many roads near Luton where the limit is absurdly low for 100m and then when the road becomes dangerous, the limit goes to 60mph, where I would not even do 40mph. That sort of thing creates contempt.
This is a catch-22 argument. By definition any camera which catches a speedster will raise revenue from the fine. So the more effective a camera is at catching speedsters the more its critics label it as a revenue trap.
Not it isn't. Speed cameras on motorways are big revenue earners, and yet motorways are the safest roads. Clearly these cameras ARE primarily a revenue generator.
>> 3) Speed cameras can be placed in a location after fatalities that resulted from an >> accident where the vehicle was travelling at LESS than the speed limit and was not >> at all speed related. If accidents are occurring there controlling speed will limit their severity.
Re-read what I wrote. If the person who kills a pedestrian is travelling at or below the limit, how will the camera reduce the severity?
>> 4) Speed cameras are hardly if ever placed in residential roads which are more dangerous. True but that's largely a function of cost.
Which is why they have a reputation as revenue earners. When they put up railings, they do so for safety reasons. But cameras raise revenue. In practice there is the suspicion that the camera is part of an empire, paid for by us.
>> 5) Speed cameras never prevent people hurtling round blind bends at excess speed. I know some that are placed on bends but cameras are not designed to tackle every form of bad driving.
They are not allowed to be placed on corners.
>> 6) Most 20mph limits are not enforced rendering them pointless anyway. They'd be much better if enforced (though I can hear the howls from the backroom speedsters if they were) but that doesn't make them useless. Many drivers do slow for 20mph zones and it's better to have some vehicles slowed than none.
Sadly many are inapproriate which generates contempt.
>> 7) I used to live in a 20mph area and very dangerous driving was the norm. Sadly that doesn't surprise me. Clearly needs more enforcement (whether by policing or by technology) an/or traffic calming measures.
But there is no enforcement. I am referring to current policy.
>> 8) Speed cameras are totally ineffective for people with false plates and/or an unregistered car.
Indeed that's one of their limitations.
And by using cameras rather than police you remove the ability to stop these people. Many crooks are stopped by traffic police on routine pulls.
>> 9) Lastly speed is NOT a causative factor in the majority of accidents. It's a contributory factor in a significant proportion of accidents which makes it a problem.
No, it isn't. It's quite a small proportion. There are far more important causes.
That's not a reason for getting rid of cameras it's a reason for redeploying the traffic cops who have been taken off the roads. The cameras are paid for by the speedsters so their arrival didn't cause the departure of the police; that was a separate (and very stupid) policy decision partly as a consequence of management-by-targets.
The cameras take police away from other duties.
|
I'm sure you know the well-publicised data on the effects of hitting someone at 20 30 35 and 40
The data is well-publicised. Unfortuantely the way it is presented does the argument no favours. There is usually an implicit assumption that if the traffic is flowing at x mph, the pedestrian is hit at x mph. I suspect that in many collisions with pedestrians, the driver brakes before the collision. The piece of information that is always conspicuous by its absence is the correlation between general traffic speed and collision speed. Is it positive (faster traffic generally means faster collisions)? Negative (faster traffic generally means slower collisions)? Or near zero (collision speed is largely independent of traffic speed)?
Within a bounded speed range for the general traffic flow, any of these could be true. I can imagine an argument for each that sounds reasonable on the face of it. But without the research (I've never seen any research to answer this question but it might be out there) we don't know. Without knowing that the correlation is positive, the data you refer to is not particularly compelling.
|
The data is well-publicised. Unfortuantely the way it is presented does the argument no favours. There is usually an implicit assumption that if the traffic is flowing at x mph the pedestrian is hit at x mph.
In some cases, the driver can brake before impact, but in others there is no warning.
I have only witnessed one actual collision between a person and a car, when a man absent-mindedly walked out in front of a parked van, and the car didn't see him coming. Splat.
The driver was understandably devastated, because he had no chance to touch his brakes before the impact, but if he hadn't been going so much faster than the 30mph limit the pedestrian might not have been so mangled and man's car might not have been so badly bent (Ford Orion, the A-pillar bent in by about 18inches).
That's the way cities work; the only friend of mine who hit a pedestrian did so in similar circumstances. People have to cross roads, and don't always choose the best places, so accidents of this sort happen ... and that's why actual speeds are very relevant to injury rates.
I'm sure that there are many such accidents where the driver does have time to brake, but in cases where there is no warning of impact, the speeding driver seriously magnifies the injury to the pedestrian.
There's no rocket science in figuring this out, and it's depressing to see drivers so keen to dismiss the data as "not particularly compelling." If the same risks applied to car drivers, I think it would appear a lot more compelling.
|
|
|
In the same way I had sympathy for my son when he was done for 33mph on a 30 limit dual carriageway in Nottingham - he had his "beeper" (?) set for 30 ..........
I'm not familiar with the beepers to which you refer, but I assume that on that occasion it beeped when your son reached 30 but he wasn't paying attention. There's no point in having the beeper if it's going to get ignored.
|
"I assume that on that occasion it beeped when your son reached 30 but he wasn't paying attention. There's no point in having the beeper if it's going to get ignored. "
Oh dear, let's jump to conclusions. My son is suddenly someone who is careful enough to set "the speed warning beeper" but then "wasn't paying attention" and stupid enough to set his beeper and then ignore it.
By coincidence he called in "at home" last night so I asked him about the speeding ticket and he said that at the time as a newcomer to Nottingham he had realised there was a limit, wasn't sure immediately whether it was 30 or 40, set his beeper for 30, heard his beeper go, slowed, but was "done". He said - "must have strayed over to 33 before slowing, must have been at the camera, got done - won't happen again"
He has been driving for 13 years - one speeding ticket, he drives about 20k per year. Daughter is same - commutes 50 miles each way every day, one parking ticket in 12 years. I've been driving 43 years, one ticket (in 1970ish doing 50mph downhill at 3am on a dual carriageway in a truck limited to 40), wife been driving 40 years never a ticket for anything.
So, before you start implying that we drive "without paying attention" and "ignore" warning bleepers - just have a think - maybe you could PM me to find out whether this "ticket" was one of many or just a one-off.
Regards
Phil
Oops, forgot the on the spot fine I got in Austria once - 50 schillings I think (about £2) in 1974 - again going downhill in a minibus limited to 62kph - I must be an habitual law-breaker - done for going over snails pace twice in 43 years.
|
....... maybe you could PM me to find out whether this "ticket" was one of many or just a one-off.
I'm not that interested. Chill out, PhilW. There's no sense in raising your blood pressure over it.
|
|
Leif: you make very valid points with which it is difficult to argue but I responded to one of your posts further up the page and you've rather discourteously (does that describe your driving??!!) ignored me....
|
.. and you've rather discourteously (does that describe your driving??!!)
Are you trying to be offensive?
|
|
Sorry mate,
I thought you were getting a bit het up over it!! Perhaps I wasn't paying attention - maybe I should just ignore it!!
Several smileys!!!
Phil
|
That was in response to L'Escasgot not you Lief/woodster
Phil
|
Leif, in asking whether I'm trying to be offensive you beg the response: 'What if I am?' The answer, incidentally is no. I'm trying to get you to realise that you have wrongly quoted me in one of your posts and therefore I conclude that you havn't read it properly, or you choose to discredit me by misquoting me. I made a number of points that you appear to have ignored, or perhaps you agree with me?
I think these forums can become rather like the Editors column if responses are not discussed. The term 'forum' suggests an airing of views and this is likely to lead to discussion. Common courtesy suggests we take account of others views and discuss. I credit you with very valid opinion, and for this reason I seek your responses to my points, as you clearly have clarity of thought and expression. I wouldn't bother trying to engage you if I thought your opinion worthless. Looking forward to your further opinion.
|
|
Hello Woodster. Firstly just because someone does not reply within an hour, or even a day, does not mean they will not reply. I have a day job, and that limits the time I can spend on outside activities. I was meaning to respond. Secondly, I did read your post, and replied on the basis of what I understood you to have said. If that was wrong, okay, put the record straight, and no harm is done. I did not quote you, but simply paraphrased what I thought your views were. I certainly have no desire to misrepresent you, so if you think that is the case, apologies.
|
O.K all - had a couple of complaints now about the way this thread has de-generated. Is there anything left to be said now or can we let it rest ??
It wandered off its topic before the war sometime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
