i know Paul Smith can go on a bit and some of his aticles are particularly 'in depth' but what he says makes an enormous amount of sense to me
can't see the 'powers that be' taking a great deal of notice, because they've got used to the revenues coming in.........unless the 'real govt' (Europe) insists on it, but they seem to have 'camera creep' now as well.
or maybe the voting public will do something about it, which would be even better
|
Duly signed; but I wish there were more of us.
|
|
Surely the best thing to do would be to stick to speed limits for a couple of weeks? That would really mess up the Scamera Partnerships business case when the revenue stopped cascading in!
|
|
|
|
Too broad in scope for me - I would argue against many uses of cameras but there are places and situations where they work and are the best way to reduce dangerous driving.
I would add that I have twice been the victim of such cameras - Whilst I feel that the penalty was harsh for the offence committed if I'm honest I have to admit that I was exceeding a clearly posted limit in both cases. I would also say that having incurred a six point penalty in as many weeks (after over thirty years of accident and conviction free driving) did cause me to re-examine and change my driving style and so, I have to admit, that speed cameras do work.
|
|
I'm in two minds. The average speed cameras on the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge have made a massive difference to the traffic flow when I've been on it recently. However, I do have an issue with scamera vans and cameras at sites where they are purely there to raise revenue. Correctly sited cameras (such as at clearly defined blackspots and outside schools etc), I would still not have an issue with.
|
>>The average speed cameras on the A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridgehave made a massive difference to the traffic flow when I've been on it recently.
You are joking, it's 2 lanes of continuous congestion! The muppets cause problems who don't realise that National DC speed limit is 70mph NOT 60! Then one of the hundreds of lorries that use it pull out & everyone brakes to 56.00001MPH. That road is the nearest I've come to an accident everytime I use it.
|
You are joking it's 2 lanes of continuous congestion! The muppets cause problems who don't realise that National DC speed limit is 70mph NOT 60! Then one of the hundreds of lorries that use it pull out & everyone brakes to 56.00001MPH. That road is the nearest I've come to an accident everytime I use it.
Compared to what it used to be, braking to 56.0000001MPH is better than braking to a standstill for the fixed speed cameras. At least the traffic keeps moving.
|
|
|
|
did cause me to re-examine and change my driving style and so I have to admit that speed cameras do work.
I got caught (bowling along at 85 on a motorway standard dual carriageway) and it did change my driving style too - I now drive the same road dead on 70. So you could say it worked in my case.
However I don't believe I'm any safer than I was before, as I don't believe 85 was dangerous in that setting, and it's a road where many people do 85 anyway so I'm probably more dangerous by just getting in people's way.
I especially tend to stick rigidly to speed limits now in areas that I'm not familiar with - much to the annoyance of local traffic that is prevented from travelling at its natural speed.
|
|
If we stick to the limits, they just reduce them by 10mph.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes they work if the target is to make people stick to the limit, but more importantly do they work if the target is making the road safer and reducing accidents? Very much up for debate, and personally I do not believe they do.
|
The main people who want to get rid of the cameras are the ones who are afraid of being caught.
Stick to driving within the legal speed limits and save lives, if we all did that then cameras wouldn't be an issue.
Pity there aren't more speed cameras, that way they may actually catch the idiots who drive at 90mph past our local school, it's a 30mph zone.
Having read yet another newspaper article of another road death the only thing I'd vote for is more speed cameras to catch and hopefully ban the speeders.
|
Pity there aren't more speed cameras that way they may actually catch the idiots who drive at 90mph past our local school it's a 30mph zone.
Trouble is, the cameras are everywhere except where they are actually required. Even if they were to be sited along a school road, they should only be working when the school is open.
Another name added to the petition.
|
Interesting - i agree with putting Gatso's or even average speed cameras in towns and especially near schools. I'm all for that, i'm actually more for average speed cameras as it stops rage and tailgating. I do disagree with too much speed in areas with a lot of people or children. But i highly disagree with policemen wasting their time sitting in camera vans on country roads, a roads and b roads.
|
|
|
Trouble is the cameras are everywhere except where they are actually required. Even if they were to be sited along a school road they should only be working when the school is open.
Agreed - I used to live near a school where the limit was 30 usually, but 20 when there were likely to be children about ie before/after school and lunchtime. There were flashing signs around the school informing people of the 20 limit, which the school themselves could turn on and off as appropriate. The next logical step to this would be enforcement but only during times when the limit was 20.
Someone recently suggested to me that speed cameras, particularly motorway/dual carriageway ones, should be turned off at night on the assumption that there really is little harm in doing 90 down the M1 at 4 in the morning when there will be hardly anyone there. I realise there aren't many cameras actually on the motorway but plenty on dual carriageways, and you may take the view that if this is done you'd actually have to stop all speed enforcement (police cars too) on the motorway at night anyway so presence of cameras is not relevant. What are people's opinions on this?
|
|
|
>> Pity there aren't more speed cameras that way they may actually catch the idiots who >> drive at 90mph past our local school it's a 30mph zone.
We have the same problem outside our school on a rural B road.
I hate speed cameras and the way they are used in the UK, but in this situation, a speed camera would be a justified and worthwhile installation.
As for those $%^&*£rs who sit in their vans on motorway bridges, I hope they all rot in hell, or at least find something worthwhile to do with themselves.
Anyway why is the speed limit on UK motorways only 112 KPH when it is 130 KPH+ on most of the continent ?
|
|
|
|
The main people who want to get rid of the cameras are the ones who are afraid of being caught.
driving within the legal speed limits and save lives if we all didthat then cameras wouldn't be an issue..aren't more speed cameras that way they may actually catch the idiots who drive at 90mph past our local school it's a 30mph zone.
That's such complete tosh I'm almost at a loss where to start.
Firstly there is no proof that speed cameras or slavish obedience of 'legal limits' save lifes.
Secondly I don't believe anyone drives past your local school in a 30mph zone at 90mph except perhaps the odd police car.
Your comments are utter garbage, ill thought out, unproveable and based in some sort of alternate reality I'm glad I'm not a part of.
|
|
im at a loss for words for mike torques input on this fred fred so have nothing meaningfull to add
|
Never mind MT who is being provocative.
Someone sai that they now get in the way of local traffic because they don't know where the cameras are.
I find local traffic a pretty good indicator of what speed you can get away with.
I do agree with one thing MTR said: that those who want to get rid of cameras are afraid of being clocked by them.
Speaking as one of those very people.
|
|
|
|
SNIP - {Don't mind me, I'm just removing some of the quoted replied to post, ONCE MORE! - DD}
Having read yet another newspaper article of another road death the only thing I'd vote for is more speed cameras to catch and hopefully ban the speeders.
no idea if your post was somewhat 'tongue in cheek', but just in case it wasn't...the resources should be spent on preventing poor driving, particularly poor driving that causes accidents and ultimately death
speeding on its' own doesn't necessarily equate to poor driving
increasingly it has been lumped together with other more serious things like drink/driving in an attempt to make it automatically unacceptable
the dim and unaware have gone along with this, but need to open their eyes.... there are many other things that need to be concentrated on first
speeding can be dangerous, in fact it can be exceptionally dangerous.......but at other times it is not........that is the reality...........to think otherwise is 'head in sand'
|
How's this for a suggestion.
If everybody stuck to the speed limits for a few weeks, the road safety partnerships wouldn't catch anybody speeding so their source of revenue would dry up and they would have zero return on investment.
Would this be the end of speed cameras if they caught nobody?
|
Would this be the end of speed cameras if they caught nobody?
No it wouldn't. They'd be able to outsit us on the countless milli0ons they've already filched out of our cars' carburettors and our children's mouths. They know we'll crack first and start feeding them again like the leeches they are. You can only stop the blood circulating for so long.
|
|
|
The cameras are not wrong - they catch people breaking the law. Its some of the limits that are wrong. So the problem is the people who set the limits not the method by which law breakers are caught.
Cameras dont ordinarily snap you unless you break the law, so if you dont want to be caught, slow down.
If you want the limits changed, you do all you can to make your voice heard and if you still cant change it, so be it, thats the world we live in - try moving if you cannot accept it.
I personally would like to see average speed cameras on all major routes if they had sensible limits set or even better, variable, varied by someone with half a brain.
It does get so boring hearing people complain about an inanimate object that just does what its asked to do. Thing is, very few of those people who complain about cameras will actually do ANYTHING about getting the limits changed, just sit on their bar stool and whinge.
Personally, I think there are bigger problems in the world than sticking to a speed limit.
|
!Personally, I think there are bigger problems in the world than sticking to a speed limit.!
Totally agree. By and large limits in this country are reasonable. and do not in fact have much impact on overall journey times. There are some roads where i think the limit could safely be increased and certainly some roads have too many changes in limit and I have attmpted to make my voice heard on a number of occasions A more consistant approach to speed limits would be good but at the end of the day we have to adhere to whatever the legal limit is. I do find it tiresome reading posts justifying breaking the law because the poster does not happen to agree with it. That way lies chaos
|
|
|
The problem is that many limits are set so that it takes a concious effort NOT to exceed them, because your driving skills and awareness are telling you that (to quote a local example) this dual carriageway should be a 40mph limit and not 30mph.
That 30mph dual carriageway near my home is a prime example of an incorrect limit for the type and conditions of the road. And yes, it has a speed camera. I find myself having to conciously control my speed, which makes it more difficult to pay attention to the road ahead.
|
The problem is that many limits are set so that it takes a concious effort NOT to exceed them because your driving skills and awareness are telling you that (to quote a local example) this dual carriageway should be a 40mph limit and not 30mph.
I have to make a concious effort not to drive into a tractor doing 20 mph, but I manage.
Driving is a concious effort, thats why theres a test and standards to determine who can and cannot do it. This idea that driving should be a thoughtless process is rather worrying.
|
Those who advocate breaking any speed limit are also implicitly advocating breaking any law of the land they disagree with, that's called lawlessness.
The school I was referring to also has a public crossing outside it which a lot of people use as well as children. So tell me those of you who think a speed camera should only be active during school hours how you can justify exceeding the speed limit outside of school hours when a crossing or public road is crossed by people at any time day or night ?
I am fed up of seeing people die and seriously injured just because some so and so is unwilling to drive within a set limit and thinks they are above the law. If you can't do such a simply and straightforward thing such as drive within a legal then frankly you are not responsible enough to be on the road. To whom this applies perhaps you should try visiting a casuality unit or talk to someone who has just lost a loved one today as a result of some speedster who thought it was ok to break a speed limit and as a result couldn't stop in time, then maybe just maybe you may decide to drive within the limits of the law of the land or will you have to learn the hard way !
|
I am fed up of seeing people die and seriously injured just because some so and so is unwilling to drive within a set limit
Mike
You appear to have swallowed the simplistic "speed kills" message that's causing the current upsurge in accidents. Your assertion is that if everyone slavishly follows the set limit, then nobody will get hurt. Do you seriously believe that?
Your speed should be constantly being related to the circumstances immediately in front of you. Releasing the driver from that responsibility and merely requiring blind obedience to an overall nominal figure is counterproductive - are you really saying that it's safe to pass close to a parked car at 30?
I've said it before; we are raising a generation of drivers that can't think for themselves and assume that if they are under the posted limit, then nothing that happens can possibly be their fault.
|
Remember they were trialling speed limiters for motorbikes?.
It seems someone has a modicum of common sense (an may well get the sack??)
Calls for speed limiters on motorcycles have been rejected by the Government.
A Government response to the calls said speeding did not cause enough motorcycle accidents to warrant the move. ..........
The response said efforts to reduce accidents 'should focus on the major contributory factors' whereas research identified exceeding the speed limit 'as a contributory factor in only four per cent of motorcycle accidents'.
It said: 'A speed limiter would address a proportion of those accidents, but wouldn't necessarily impact on instances of inappropriate speed or ?going too fast for the conditions?, a contributory factor in nine per cent of motorcycle accidents.'
|
No I haven't swallowed any simplistic message, so please don't attempt to nail me with any such implication.
are you really saying that it's safe to pass close to a parked car at 30?
In your example the issue isn't simply one of speed but more to do with the distance of the car in relation to the parked vehicle. In general a wide birth should be given when passing any parked vehicle and the passing vehicles speed should be sufficiently slow to be able to stop for any given situation such as a child suddenly running from behind a parked car.
I've said it before; we are raising a generation of drivers that can't think for themselves and assume that if they are under the posted limit, then nothing that happens can possibly be their fault.
No, we are raising a generation of drivers who don't think or accept the consequences of their actions irrespective of their speed.
Just ask the young man who was caught for speeding and wreckless driving on his way back from the funeral of his friends who were killed in an illegal speed related car crash. Ask the person who drove head-on into a car and killed the other driver when passing on a bend. Ask the person who overtakes 6 cars and 2 lorries at 100mph on a single carriageway and forces 2 of them off the road whilst they drive off into the distance with their radio blasting away. Do they think, are they aware of the havoc they are causing ? It's not just young drivers either driving like this, it's elderly Merc drivers in powerful cars, managers in BMWs, directors and doctors driving home at 100mph having spent too long in the office/hospital and are rushing to get home, they should know better but they still do it, why why why ? Do they think they are above the law ? Do you see the connection here with the attitude of these people and those who break the law speeding but then complain when/if they are caught ?
The law is there to show us what we do wrong, not what we should be doing right.
This whole speed issue is to do with our attitude to other road users, other people, the environment, whether we actually care about being an active contributor to road safety by driving responsibly, it means driving within the law of the land, it means not wasting fuel and causing extra pollution that impacts on us all and future generations, it means thinking about the needs of others more than our own needs.
|
This whole speed issue is to do with our attitude to other road users other people the environment whether we actually care about being an active contributor to road safety by driving responsibly it means driving within the law of the land it means not wasting fuel and causing extra pollution that impacts on us all and future generations it means thinking about the needs of others more than our own needs.
Ignorant humbug. But there's nothing to be done about it. It's predominant, perhaps in all societies at all times.
|
Mike Torque: "It's not just young drivers either driving like this, it's elderly Merc drivers in powerful cars, managers in BMWs, directors and doctors driving home at 100mph"
Emotive claptrap, I'm afraid. I drive a great deal on the motorway. VERY rarely do I see cars travelling at or near 100mph. I tend to set the cruise control at 80-85 (true speed 77-82) and I'm not overtaken a great deal. I'm almost never overtaken by anyone doing 20mph more than me. You seem obsessed with 90mph and 100mph as figures to quote. I suspect most people on here would agree that "100mph on a single carriageway" consistutes dangerous driving and should result in extremely harsh punishment.
As for: "Ask the person who drove head-on into a car and killed the other driver when passing on a bend."
What's that got to do with the price of fish? In what way is that accident related to people breaking speed limits? For all we know he was overtaking at 50mph in a 60mph limit.
V
|
"It's not just young drivers either driving like this, it's elderly Merc drivers in powerful cars, managers in BMWs, directors and doctors driving home at 100mph"
Agreed Vin, I regularly use a stretch of M-way in the same manner, last night being a prime example, travelled just over 40 miles on it at around the same speeds you quote, I overtook several German uberwagens, I was overtaken by one (one of them new Audis with the LED running lights), not a scientific test but then not an unusual experience. The road was quiet enough to spend most of the trip either in he middle or outside lane at a cruise controlled speed thus making for a very pleasant rapid and economical run.
(BTW Firefox spell checks Uberwagen as "Volkswagen" !)
|
I tend to set the cruise control at 80-85 (true speed 77-82)
So what is your self justification for ignoring the law. Perhaps "because everyone else does" or I "don't agree with it". Do you think we should all be able to ignore laws we don't like or interfere with our desired livestyle. Should you be able to drive through red traffic lights when you think it is safe to do for example?
|
CGNorwich,
My justification is that I do it at times when it is safe to do so. On a dry, clear motorway (I drive at 6am and 4pm) 77-82 is safe. On a side road in the wet, 30mph might be too fast. But I wouldn't be breaking the law, would I, which is clearly all that matters to you.
"Should you be able to drive through red traffic lights when you think it is safe to do for example?". No. Nor do I think that murder should be acceptable if you feel like it, before you suggest that that's where I'm heading.
You won't address the points in para 1 of this reply. You lot never do.
V
|
By the way, I gave up posting to the speed camera thread many years ago. I accidentally ended up here this time after posting to another thread that was subsequently moved in here. I won't be posting again, as there are too many speed limit bigots for my liking, who never even read a word of opposing argument; their sole argument is "speed kills" and "supporting driving one mpg above a posted limit is equivalent to justifying mass murder of children". Read their rants on here if you wish. Not for me, I'm afraid; I know I break the law by driving at 80mph on the motorway. If I get caught, I'll take it on the chin. Doesn't make me dangerous (25 years and never had an "at fault" accident, if you want proof). Oh, and one scamera speeding ticket, ten years ago, before they were widespread - I look at the road and surroundings for hazards rather than just looking at my speedo. Helps me to spot the scameras.
Thanks for reading. Those who are now apoplectic with rage at my law-breaking lunacy, try thinking about what I have said. Alternatively, just post a knee-jerk response pointing out that I'll be moving on to slaughtering the innocents next.
V
|
Should you be able to drive through red traffic lights when you think it is safe to do forexample?
yes..........i think you should be able to do that.........many foreign countries do so
i think that at traffic lights you should be able to filter left if there's nothing coming (inc pedestrians)........can't see it happening because it would mean drivers THINKING FOR THEMSELVES instead of obeying a sign.......can't have that can we
|
Should you be able to drive through red traffic lights when you think it is safe to do for >> example?
David Cameron and 99% of cyclists clearly have no problem with breaking the law in this way. They must therefore all be murderers, too!
|
I suspect most people on here would agree that "100mph on a single carriageway" consistutes dangerous driving and should result in extremely harsh punishment. Most may, but I think you will find others like me who think that this too is utter carp.
|
Lud: Full quote shoudl have been "100mph on a single carriageway and forces 2 of them off the road whilst they drive off into the distance with their radio blasting away"
V
|
Lud: Full quote shoudl have been "100mph on a single carriageway and forces 2 of them off the road whilst they drive off into the distance with their radio blasting away"
Sorry Vin. But I'm not psychic you know... :o)
|
You appear to have swallowed the simplistic "speed kills" message that's causing the current upsurge in accidents. Your assertion is that if everyone slavishly follows the set limit then nobody will get hurt. Do you seriously believe that?
Your speed should be constantly being related to the circumstances immediately in front of you. Releasing the driver from that responsibility and merely requiring blind obedience to an overall nominal figure is counterproductive - are you really saying that it's safe to pass close to a parked car at 30? <<
This is not a matter of speed kills, its a matter of the rule of law. Just because the law isnt always accurate, it doesnt mean you break it. Sometimes I feel like giving the guy who cuts me up a damn good hiding, and im sure im not the only one, but it doesnt make it legal, even if many would support people taking the law into their own hands in such circumstances.
Secondly, you seem to be totally unaware of the meaning of a speed LIMIT - that denotes the LIMIT, ie the maximum that is legal, not the speed that you must drive at in all circumstances.
Its this attitude to the rules and clearly a lack of understanding of them, that is a risk to others.
|
I have to make a concious effort not to drive into a tractor doing 20 mph but I manage. Driving is a concious effort thats why theres a test and standards to determine who can and cannot do it. This idea that driving should be a thoughtless process is rather worrying.
Driving is a learned skill. If I had to conciously think about driving I wouldn't be able to do it, any more than if I had to conciously think about how to move my legs when I walked. It's not a concious effort - I don't think, hang on, I've not checked my mirrors for several seconds, so I'd better do it. I do it automatically.
|
snipquote - PU
If its a learned skill, then you need to learn how to maintain a cars speed. Cars are often fitted with brakes which greatly help with this.
There are many actions in driving which require concious effort and many which dont - I dont automatically move from one lane to the other on the M-way - I make a decision, then carry it out and maintaining speed just happens to be something which often requires effort in some cases.
The idea that its some kind of infringement on civil liberties because you actually have to put some concentration into driving is rather odd - if driving was that easy, everyone would do it.
|
the speed limits are set as an average, for what a driver on a road might have to worry about, so a wet winter's morning would be likely to be more dangerous than a dry sunny summer's one, etc,etc...
this would mean on the summer's morning trip you're driving slower than you need to, because of the risk in the winter, so the limit isn't as relevant
and the same principle with a 20mph limit outside the school.......no problem when the kids are there.....but really irritating when they're not
then there's the national speed limit......in some places e.g. back lane on Dartmoor it would be suicidal to attempt 60mph.......yet driving across Glen Coe in Scotland you could do 90 mph without much danger......DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES
yes it's illegal to break them, no arguement........bit it isn't necessarily dangerous to break a speed limit......and those that insist that it is automatically dangerous, need to 'widen their vision'...
|
>>yes it's illegal to break them, no arguement........bit it isn't necessarily dangerous to break a speed limit......and those that insist that it is automatically dangerous, need to 'widen their vision'...<<
You can have an accident at or below the legal limit, no question, but its commonly believed that lower impact speeds reduce the risk of fatality if such a situation arises.
Nobody is saying its dangerous to break the speed limit - in my youth, I drove at 140 mph on the M23 - the road was deserted and it was only for a short while, but in hindsight, really stupid from legal point of view - thats what happens when you give an 18 yo a Ford Scorpio Cosworth for an hour!
It was however illegal and I stick to the limit now because I believe in the rule of law as a principle that is part of civilised society. We have channels to go through to affect a change in the law so if the law is a problem, you change it first rather than just ignoring it and making your own rules up.
|
We have channels to go through to affect a change in the law so if the law is a problem you change it first rather than just ignoring it and making your own rules up.
the bus full of nuns doing 41mph in a 40mph limit are illegal........as is the vicar doing 31mph in a 30mph limit
everything needs to be put into context, not convenient black/white, yes/no boxes...
which is why a magistrate or judge has sentencing guidelines and a degree of autonomy on how they sentence........and police have discretion...
|
It isn't a meeting of minds, is it.
Some people seem to think that exceeding speed limits is breaking the law in the same way that arson or murder are breaking the law.
Others, who have (ahem) some familiarity with the nuts and bolts of law enforcement, take a broader and essentially more practical view. Takes all sorts unfortunately.
|
It's obvious that some of you have no intention of reducing your speed. You admit you speed, trying to justify why you speed is no excuse, setting cruise controls well above the legal limit proves the point, why not set your cruise control to 69 or 70 what's the problem !
We could go on for days with this discussion but to be frank it's pointless, utterly pointless with the closed minded attitude some of you have got. Maybe when someone you love gets killed or badly injured you may learn something and change your attibute to speeding, until then alas you'll just be another accident waiting to happen. In the meantime I have to go one living without someone I loved, killed by someone like you.
|
|
I don't suppose anyone here has a heartless attitude to road casualties or takes dangerous driving lightly MikeTorque. The argument is about equating observance or non-observance of speed limits with safe and dangerous driving. Adult people who like cars and speed usually take safe driving very seriously, as they have to. They are not crazed, arrogant hooligans and disapprove of such.
|
Agree or disagree, don't lets get personal about it. Stick to facts about your argument don't lets make assumptions about other people - PU Mod mode full on.
|
In the meantime I have to go one living without someone I loved killed by someone likeyou.
MT.......Firstly i sincerely wish you didn't have to grieve someone.
Secondly i have had to do the knocking on the door, numerous times, telling someone of this and i can assure anyone it is extremely unpleasant.... (although obviously nothing like that of losing a loved one).
Thirdly, it changes not one jot my views on this subject and i would suggest that i come from an informed viewpoint.
I fully understand why a grieving relative would believe the 'speed kills' propoganda, which in my view makes it all the more wrong to peddle it.....there ARE times when speed is lethal (obviously), yet there are other times when it is not... it is the 'not' times i'm trying to make a point on.
The adverts etc ought to be something like INAPPROPRIATE SPEED FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES KILLS.......but of course that is too much of a mouthful and is not catchy is it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
