But speed cameras aren't a pratical solution for preventing serious injury or loss of life for thousands of people every year considering how few accidents are actually caused by speeding.
Ugh probably caught speeding
- Thread starter Mort
- Start date
But speed cameras aren't a pratical solution for preventing serious injury or loss of life for thousands of people every year considering how few accidents are actually caused by speeding.
On the subject of speeding, this is why I can't quite grasp why people buy cars that can do 150MPH when they're (legally) limited to 70MPH. I get a bit nervous even thinking about speeding. I sometimes come across a cracking bit of road and feel like opening the taps a little but, but worried about situations like the OP has just been through with a mobile speed camera.
Saying that though, I'm not trying to suggest that all forms of +70mph driving is dangerous; plenty of people are dangerous drivers regardless of speed.
Anyway, to the OP - unlucky dude, my mother was caught recently doing about 38 in a 30 by a mobile speed camera - which was placed there due to someone complaining about the noise of the cars. Maybe I should drive through my village at 30 in first gear or something...
Saying that though, I'm not trying to suggest that all forms of +70mph driving is dangerous; plenty of people are dangerous drivers regardless of speed.
Anyway, to the OP - unlucky dude, my mother was caught recently doing about 38 in a 30 by a mobile speed camera - which was placed there due to someone complaining about the noise of the cars. Maybe I should drive through my village at 30 in first gear or something...
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
"other areas"
Yes thats right, I'll stop short of explaining what that means as I'm sure you've got access to a good dictionary.
Why?
There are numerous things which cause accidents which are rarely ever attended to. Badly sighted junctions, poor road surfaces, adverse camber, etc.
Well nobody's the same. And a lot of people drive different cars. Those are just two things that affect the chances of someone having an accident.
For example, person A might have a shorter stopping distance than person B, despite going 20mph faster at the point of applying the brake.
On Britain's roads, which are varied and diverse, it makes very little difference unless the speed is very excessive, in which case it starts moving into "dangerous driving" territory.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 359
- Location
- North Wales
[TW]Fox;15397452 said:
most of which are only a problem if the party/parties involveds speed is not appropriate to the road ahead
i do agree with you however that the response of "lots of accidents at such and such junction, make sure a speed van goes there at some time" is wrong however the problem is a lot of these things only get reported to the police and the police dont have the power to change the layout of roads or order them to be change so they can only do what they have the power to do, so to speak.
Not what I'm disputing.
Well now you have to define how much over the speed limit is acceptable. Fortunately this is already done for you by the government, and it's 0 mph over the speed limit, ignoring the small amount they give you for your speedo being out or similar.
The fact is, whatever way you try to justify it, speeding is dangerous. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be limits. Even 5 mph can make a significant enough difference, and I know I certainly wouldn't want to find myself in an accident knowing I was speeding. There are other factors which we can talk about until the cows come home, but I'm talking about speeding, not reaction times or whose car can brake the most efficiently or how bumpy or twisty the road is.
If you want to look at it objectively, even 30 mph is potentially dangerous, but this is the chosen reference point for which speeding (i.e. going over the limit) may be defined. As I believe the danger increases with greater speed, any speed over this limit is therefore more dangerous, or with a 30 mph reference point assumed (or whatever the limit is), dangerous.
I'm not going to explain it further. If you wan't to believe it's not dangerous for you to speed in certain situations, you carry on.
So we could either:
a) Slow EVERYONE down with a speed limit reduction and a camera
or
b) Just re-design the problem area. Move the junction perhaps. Improve signs. Cut back some trees obscuring vision. Change the road surface.
Yeah, it's a pain coming across those types sometimes. It also seems some elderly drivers are completely unaware of their surroundings.
Back on topic, I really think average speed cameras are a lot safer than these mobile cameras or GATSOs. There's a speed camera at the bottom of a hill near where I live, and then a zebra crossing not long after. I'm always a bit wary of crossing there as more often than not someone has been going down the hill at 40-45 (30 zone) and then braked for the speed camera, and is staring at their dash rather than at the crossing. It was a bad placement.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 359
- Location
- North Wales
[TW]Fox;15398114 said:
i agree with you B is the better choice but since when have councils ever done sensible things?
im afraid untill that happens we have to live with A and follow the rules or suffer the consequences
What annoys me is that they harp on about road safety e.t.c. but the condition of the roads where i live ( surrey, epsom, dorking e.t.c) is nothing short of scandalous. Dangerous pot holes and uneven road surfaces everywhere. Its a disgrace.
Which really has nothing to do with a speed limit. Plenty of national speed limit roads I know where travelling at 60 would be suicidal. Plenty of staight dual carriageways with 40 limits where 60 wouldn't be an issue.
No, excessive speed for the conditions is dangerous, which have very little to do with posted speed limits. Empty motorway at 3am and even 100+ speeds could be fine. Past a school at 3.30pm and even 20 can be dangerous. Excessive speed for the conditions has nothing much to do with the posted speed limit.
Isn't it about time people wised up to the fact that speeding (up to a point) is no where near as dangerous and as big a factor in the amount of accidents as the atrosious driving of some of the drivers today.
And with the constant decrease of traffic cops and increase of speed camera's, these drivers will continue to go about their merry way oblivious to how dangerous some of their driving habits are.
And with the constant decrease of traffic cops and increase of speed camera's, these drivers will continue to go about their merry way oblivious to how dangerous some of their driving habits are.
More people die in the UK from asbestos than car accidents.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asbestos-a-shameful-legacy-1825554.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asbestos-a-shameful-legacy-1825554.html
Well it is, because it was kind of my original point.
The government does not care about road safety, and to think so is naive at best. The speed limits are there because it gives them a point at which they can fine you and give you points if you go beyond. Nothing else.
It can be, but not always.
Yes, but part of driving is being able to pick a speed for the conditions. For example, you wouldn't do 70 on an incredibly wet and skiddy motorway that's congested would you?
It's all about being sensible. Going faster than the speed limit does not automatically make anyone a danger on the road.
Okay, I think I can begin to see where you're coming from. Sadly, as soon as you take things like conditions, the driver, and the car, into account, what you've just said no longer holds. Yes, if everyone was identical, with the same cars, and all the roads were the same, someone speeding would be more of a danger than someone without.
Yet no two people are the same, so what you're saying makes no sense.
I can see why. You're just running around in tiny, constrained circles. You're even beginning to confuse me.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I think we need woman driver cameras, every female should have to drive with a camera on her car for at least 4 years, after that a careful study of the footage should be undertaken (by other women - keeping them off the road too), once proven to be useless(as 99.875% will be) they get an immediate lifetime ban then sent to weekly bikini waxing clinics and taught the finer skills of deep throating and after work cocktail creation, oh and get discounted public transport to allow them to pick up beer and fags for the truely talented drivers - us.
I bet a squillion pounds this would make our roads a million billion times safer
(that's a quote from a really well researched and published document written by clever people who manipulate statistics and stuff)
I bet a squillion pounds this would make our roads a million billion times safer
(that's a quote from a really well researched and published document written by clever people who manipulate statistics and stuff)
