On my previous long commute I'd perhaps exceed the speed limit 20 times a day, so over 8 years that's around 40,000 times! Wasn't stopped once in all that time, which will surely curse me for the journey home tonight....
Some might say that's a lot of occasions proving that speeding isn't dangerous?
|
Some might say that's a lot of occasions proving that speeding isn't dangerous?
I'd prefer to qualify that by saying that it isn't dangerous in the right place at the right time, something which the current draconian and all-pervasive cameras are unable to recognise; for that matter neither are the authorities whilst it continues to pour money into the coffers.
|
I'd prefer to qualify that by saying that it isn't dangerous in the right place at the right time something which the current draconian and all-pervasive cameras are unable to recognise; for that matter neither are the authorities whilst it continues to pour money into the coffers.
Erm, arent speed cameras put in known accident blackspots though?
|
|
Not if they won't generate enough revenue.
|
|
|
>>Erm, arent speed cameras put in known accident blackspots though?
Depends on your definition of accident blackspot.Theirs is a 1 kilometre radius of the camera,so the accidents could have occurred in side streets,not where the camera is sited.
|
Well, I suppose you have to put a ring around accidents to make a spot - 1km sounds big but maybe its not - you have to draw a line somewhere I suppose.
I would have thought that the accidents that triggered the need for a camera would have to be on the same road to cover the actual reason to slow people down else the accidents would keep on happening which wouldnt look good.
I'm no lover of speed cameras but I think we need to recognise that they arent generally sneakily positioned like a mobile unit can be.
|
I would have thought that the accidents that triggered the need for a camera would have to be on the same road to cover the actual reason to slow people down else the accidents would keep on happening which wouldnt look good.
That sounds garbled, I mean that the accidents would keep on happening at the blackspot and it wouldnt look good if the camera was placed just round the corner and the accidents just keep happening.
|
The definition of an accident black spot has been widened so that, if an accident occurs on the A1 they can put a camera on the A1 - almost anywhere! Members familiar with the A1 round Grantham will be aware of a camera on a nice safe Northbound downhill stretch of dual carriageway leading to the new roundabout and the Downtown shopping centre? No junction or joining roads, no curves, no farm tracks jus a place where the momentarilly inattentive might find themselves doing 70+
|
The definition of an accident black spot has been widened so that if an accident occurs on the A1 they can put a camera on the A1 - almost anywhere! Members familiar with the A1 round Grantham will be aware of a camera on a nice safe Northbound downhill stretch of dual carriageway leading to the new roundabout and the Downtown shopping centre? No junction or joining roads no curves no farm tracks jus a place where the momentarilly inattentive might find themselves doing 70+
You know and I know that is on a very fast very long downhill stretch well known for people seeing just how fast their car is. Its the best stretch for that for miles around. You also know there was a roundabout at the bottom of the same long fast hill, and there have been several accidents there. You and I also know that is very well known for localised bad weather. You and I also know it was very well signed, painted a nice bright yellow, and very visible. You need to be very unatentive to be doing the 77mph plus you will need to do be nicked, Frankly anyone who cant see that camera and then check their speed (you have over 100 metres of camera visibility) deserves to get three points.
Edited by Altea Ego on 04/02/2009 at 10:04
|
AE I am amazed that you should presume to think that you know what I know! Perhaps you should think about a job as a medium or mind reader? My point is that the camera we are discussing is over a mile from the roundabout, at which you say accidents have occurred. You may also be aware that in time past there was a second camera about 300 yards before the roundabout and yet despite the claimed prevalence of accidents there it has been removed! It is a money raising exercise pure and simple and there are plenty of alternative locations on the A1 where the camera might prevent accidents and wouldn't make much money and that would never do!
|
You dont disagree then that that area was used as a dragstrip?
or that it has bad weather?
or that the camera is visable for 100 yards?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt AS. Clearly you are not as well informed as me or as observant.
|
I have no knowledge of the use the road is put to - I am on it about twice a year. The weather is no different in Grantham than in Lincoln, Stamford, Newark or anywhere else in Lincolnshire, except the costal area which has sea fog from time to time. The camera is certainly visible - my point is that its siting in more related to money raising than road safety. Not knowing you personally I cannot comment on your levels of information or observation!
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 04/02/2009 at 14:32
|
AS
I trawl that road about 12 times a month, and have done for the last 4 years. The weather over that hill is VASTLY different to grantham, newark or stamford. The great Gonerby moor is a unique shaped hill, with the flatlands to the west and north as far as the eye can see and has a unique microclimate
|
|
|
|
On my previous long commute I'd perhaps exceed the speed limit 20 times a day so over 8 years that's around 40 000 times! >> Some might say that's a lot of occasions proving that speeding isn't dangerous?
Me too, probably more so, and I've been caught speeding just once in 20 years of driving. Just proves what a load of rubbish the 'Speed Kills' message is.
|
A more interesting question would be "Has anyone on here never exceeeded the speed limit over their driving life?"
I doubt if there is anyone who could truthfully answer yes to that!
|
|
|
I have been driving since 1986 so have always had the "drink driving can kill" message that the govt and other bodies have continually pushed. However I believe in the "good old days" drivers used to drink drive regularly.
So at some point this message has been effective and getting through. Yes some people choose to ignore it but we all pretty much know its wrong to drink drive and socially unacceptable.
However these same bodies have tried for years putting the same message over that "Speed Kills" but it is having no where near the same effect as the drink driving. Indeed this very thread shows reaosns why some drivers think it is OK to speed. You would need to look hard to find a thread explaining why its ok to drink/drive.
But the official bodies seem determined to try and get the speed kills message to the same level as the drink drive and I just do not think it is possible. We all know the times it is safe to speed so we automatically ignore the govt messages.
OK, some advertising is now targetted at "twenty's plenty" and showing how braking distance is affected between 30 and 40 mph.
But until they have the buy in of drivers by only having speed cameras at the correct sites, and I include mobile cameras as well, then it will always be a them vs us situation. They have now gone so far down this road they cannot alter due to the reduction in income it would provide, but I think they really do need to have a re-think of the whole speed camera legislation. Until then, they will have no respect.
The top boffin in each partnership should be personally accountable for each and every single camera that it uses and that it meets laid down criteria. If it doesn't, he is not doing his job and is dismissed. I think that would soon change things as just now there are too many faceless committees and boards running these!
Sorry that became a bit if a rant and a bit off thread.
I will get back to my work now!
(Oh and in answer to the OP, I speed probably 30-40 times a day, never in my opinion unsafely, and have held a clean licence all my life)
|
|
|
>I've been caught speeding just once in 20 years of driving. Just proves what a load of rubbish the 'Speed Kills' message is.
What twaddle - it doesn't prove anything at all. Speed doesn't kill on a straight empty road, except in the hands of an inept driver. The slogan hopes to tell people that the faster they drive, the worse they will come off in any collision they suffer. Collisions tend to follow an unexpected event, such as a bend being sharper than expected, a dog running into the road, a driver losing concentration, etc.etc. Being caught speeding may prove that you are more vigilant (and perhaps luckier) than some, that's all.
|
|
|
|
|
