Where does the spying end?

[D1ngd0ng]

Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed to discourage their use. The government also spend money on advertising and in the NHS relating to education and treatment.

Do you honestly think that it makes a difference at all to whether people smoke 20 a day and/or drink themselves stupid?

Personally I have no issue with the average speed camera's that are in use now and find them to be a lot more palatable than the Gatso rubbish. It is not necessary to monior every car every second of every day just incase. Reminds me of the ticketing machine in Demolition Man on every corner.

 

[Dunks]

public transport.

And just good o'l walking surely .

 

[MotherMayI]

but just because you're exceeding an arbitrary limit on a sign at the side of the road doesn't mean you are any more likely to hit them.

Lol, on so many levels that is retarded, but the main two:

1. Yes it does. The faster you're going, obviously the less time you have to react, which results in a crash being more likely.
2. If the crash does occur, it will be much worse.

 

[alex24]

Do you honestly think that it makes a difference at all to whether people smoke 20 a day and/or drink themselves stupid?

Yep. Imagine what they'd do if they took the tax off these things. They'd smoke 40 a day and drink themselves really stupid!

@ mmj_uk

What do you suggest then? How do we tackle speeding? I'm not being confrontational, there's definitely better ways to tackle it, I'm interested to see what ideas people have.

 

[Dolph]

I'd say it does. Stopping distances, reaction times etc. You're also likely to do more damage if you do hit. The government has decided a safe speed for that road, it's not for you to take it into your own hands and make that decision for yourself unless you're fully prepared to accept the possible consequences, that being caught, or hurting someone. If you feel you can decide the law for yourself on the road, where does it end?

Don't confuse the speed limit with the safe speed for the conditions, they are two completely different things. Stopping distances and reaction times are something that a good driver takes into account as part of the overall safe speed for the conditions, along with weather, traffic, road conditions, visibility, the car, your personal level of alertness at the time and so on.

I own three cars, and the safe speed for the conditions varies dramatically between all three, all else being equal.

Would this be an appropriate point to mention that I was taught fast road driving techniques by a police advanced and pursuit driving instructor?

 

[Dolph]

Lol, on so many levels that is retarded, but the main two:

1. Yes it does. The faster you're going, obviously the less time you have to react, which results in a crash being more likely.

Only if the difference between crashing and not crashing is down solely to reaction time, or reaction consequences, something that, if you're driving correctly, should rarely be the case.

2. If the crash does occur, it will be much worse.

So tackle the cause of the crash then?

 

[Justintime]

Oh thank god, i thought i was in motoring for a second where common sense prevailed over the "OMG he went 3mph over hes a baaaabbyyy killerrrr!!!" brigade. Yea monitor us even more to make some dosh and terrorise the already overly persecuted motorist. Speeding excessively is bad and can have dire consequences yes, however a few mph over the limit hardly a criminal makes. I see more stupid slow/sticking to limit drivers everyday than speeding lunatics.

 

[alex24]

Well, it won't change my opinion.

I'm not confusing the speed limit and safe speed. They actually go hand in hand. The conditions are just another factor you need to take into account as a good driver. Not everybody is a good or perceptive driver, I'm sure you know that. The speed limit is there to tell you that exceeding that speed is inappropriate for that road (as decided by the government, not you). It's a lower limit for roads where pedestrians cross frequently for example. Motorways have a higher speed as they're less confined and have better visibility etc etc. Stopping distance and reaction time are all still very relevant.

 

[stockhausen]

Superintendant Tim Swarbrick, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Partnership, defended the cameras, saying: "Average speed recorders have proved to be very successful in roadworks on the major trunk roads. They have reduced injury and deaths and we would like to replicate this positive effect."

Sounds good to me

Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!​

 

[Dolph]

Well, it won't change my opinion.

I'm not confusing the speed limit and safe speed. They actually go hand in hand. The conditions are just another factor you need to take into account as a good driver. Not everybody is a good or perceptive driver, I'm sure you know that. The speed limit is there to tell you that exceeding that speed is inappropriate for that road (as decided by the government, not you). It's a lower limit for roads where pedestrians cross frequently for example. Motorways have a higher speed as they're less confined and have better visibility etc etc. Stopping distance and reaction time are all still very relevant.

Which is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that exceeding the limit is inherently dangerous, or indeed that driving below it is inherently safe. The problem is that this is the enforcement approach cameras use, and why points for speeding have been so devalued in recent years.

 

[Richie]

Black boxes to check for speeding is not needed. They are already looking at making gps linked speedometers compulsory in all new cars at some point in the future.

This will mean that when in a 30 mph zone, your car will be speed limited to 30 mph, 70 mph limited on a motoway etc.

No more speeding tickets or cameras needed eventually as all cars will be unable to break the speed limit.

So which footballer will buy a new 200mph lamboghini mercialego which he can only drive at 70 in the uk?

Link here:

http://www.rospa.com/RoadSafety/Policy/CarsInTheFuture/intelligent-speed-adaptation.aspx

Trials are being carried out all over Europe and they say that ALL cars in Europe will be fitted with this system by 2035 so enjoy speeding (if that's your thing) while you can as you have 25 years left.

How unsafe an idea.... So in the occasions where you need to take evasive action to avoid a potential collision, you put the foot down and.... nothing... you potentially have a collision which could have been avoided.

Smart...

 

[Dolph]

Sounds good to me

Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!​

Sounds like he's never heard of regression to the mean... but then that's not uncommon where road safety is concerned.

Having said that, I've never had a problem with cameras in roadworks, or indeed in actual residential roads. However, this is rarely where they are placed.

 

[Richie]

Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed to discourage their use.

And driving isn't ?? Road Tax, fuel duty etc.

I don't have a problem with people smoking until it affects people who've chosen to do it in the company of people who have chosen not to.

So you dont have a problem with people speeding if no one else is around ?? Say 5am ??

Cameras dont care that no one else is around....

 

[alex24]

No, it doesn't mean that going a bit above or below is inherently dangerous (though risk does increase the faster you go), but you have to draw an absolute line somewhere. To think otherwise is being naive. If the limits aren't enforced, there's no point in having them.

Nowhere am I saying cameras are the best way to go about enforcing the limits.

 

[alex24]

And driving isn't ?? Road Tax, fuel duty etc.


So you dont have a problem with people speeding if no one else is around ?? Say 5am ??

Cameras dont care that no one else is around....

Not sure why you're confused. Driving is highly taxed....

How do you know there's nobody around at 5am? You don't. Risk is less, but there's still no logical reason to exceed the limit.

 

[Dolph]

No, it doesn't mean that going a bit above or below is inherently dangerous (though risk does increase the faster you go), but you have to draw an absolute line somewhere. To think otherwise is being naive. If the limits aren't enforced, there's no point in having them.

Nowhere am I saying cameras are the best way to go about enforcing the limits.

Discretionary enforcement is exactly what used to happen before cameras though. You would only get stopped if you were speeding dangerously, not just if you were speeding. Indeed it still happens now when dealing with actual traffic officers.

There is no requirement to draw an absolute line in law, an advisory line with discretion is just as good for road safety, it just can't be enforced by cameras.

 

[alex24]

It'd cost a lot more to implement effectively (more officers needed) and taking up matters in court would be a lot more costly and lengthy. It's a lot easier to enforce an absolute line than an advisory one. It also sends out the wrong message to drivers, especially those who have poor judgement. I think more widespread absolute enforcement would help more than advisory limits with traffic officers catching foolish people every now and then when they're about. Of course, the government could double your car tax and put officers in every neighbourhood to monitor speed, though I can't see people liking that either.

 

[Dolph]

It'd cost a lot more to implement effectively (more officers needed) and taking up matters in court would be a lot more costly and lengthy. It's a lot easier to enforce an absolute line than an advisory one. It also sends out the wrong message to drivers, especially those who have poor judgement. I think more widespread absolute enforcement would help more than advisory limits with traffic officers catching foolish people every now and then when they're about. Of course, the government could double your car tax and put officers in every neighbourhood to monitor speed, though I can't see people liking that either.

The problem is evidence says you are wrong. The rate of decrease in road deaths worsened when absolute enforcement began to be utilised and has never returned, despite massive improvements in car design.

 

[Gangster]

There goes high performance sports cars then... No one in a Ferrari, Porche is going to max go 70mph. In these cars it doesn't even feel to be that speed.

What about the money they lose from people not purchasing high performance cars, the fuel these people pay to top up their V12 engines on 10mpg? the 'high emmision' road tax etc

I've got nothing against safe driving, but black boxes in cars to auto-fine? I dont think so. If it does become true, I dread do think what else they will increase the price of to make up for the losses.

 

[Richie]

Not sure why you're confused.

Not confused at my statements, simply using the smilies to highlight my point that the arguments you used for smoking/drinking can be used for speeding.

As for speeding etc -

Is it safe to go 30MPH in front of a school at kicking out time ?? Probably not but doing that speed wont trigger the camera so you're ok.

Is it safe to do 80MPH in a 70MPH limit at 5am where you can view the road for 1 mile each way ?? Yep but the cameras will still take your picture and you may be prosecuted for it.


Surely thats just silly ??