Foamed Gatso - someone listened to Clarkson!

grahamjenks · 17 May 2006 at 11:33

ratface said:
I like watching my speedo and always ensure if never goes above 70mph in dense foggy conditions on the M4, I also like the way its hoovers at 30mph outside my local schools at 3pm whilst I cruise past in my own perfectly safe little world. I'm so glad I only have speeding to worry about whilst driving today, it used to be much harder when I had to think about all the other little distractions a driver can meet. All that slowing down for junctions, rounadbouts, lane control, looking ahead, waiting in traffic. Now no matter where I drive, on pavements, turning right at roundabouts, both directions at oneway streets I have nothing to worry about. Heck I dont even need insurance or tax anymore I love the way Labours is helping me to save time and money - Long live the camera

Incase you missed the point

If you want safer roads, employ a plodman not a silly yellow box

In case you missed the point - speed limits are a maximum not a recommended speed for a situation.

Doing 70 in dense fog anywhere would be stupid - if you can't judge whether you're just above or below the speed limit without looking at your speedo then be safe and do 50 - you should at least have common sense to judge roughly how fast that is.

You are correct that traffic police are far more capable of judging 'safe' and un safe driving , than a yellow box.

But that yellow box is enforcing a LAW, no matter how wrong you think it might be - you live in any country you live by its laws - or use your right of free speech and democracy to change it.

[TW]Fox · 17 May 2006 at 11:45

Dj_Jestar, a simple question for you. I just want a one word answer, yes or no. No garnish, no sauce, no whinging, no bleating. Just yes or no.

If the government reduced every speed limit in the country to 20mph tommorrow, would you STILL hold exactly the opinion on speed cameras and repeat the 'Don't speed, dont get a fine' manta to everyone subsequently caught?

Dj_Jestar · 17 May 2006 at 11:50

Yes. Though asking if I would continue to bleat on about it, is somewhat a flmae bait. I would be of the same opinion, but not bleat on about it.

Reason: The obvious.. if I didn't speed, I wouldn't get fined.

Would I be happy about the limits? No.

There is a difference, as I have said from near enough the start.

Dj_Jestar · 17 May 2006 at 11:54

Oh, and to further add, in response to you trying to conjur up an image of something I am not, I only 'bleat' at those who complain they have been caught speeding, like they are allowed to speed and it is offensive to be pulled up on such a charge.

grahamjenks · 17 May 2006 at 11:57

ratface said:
It may be stupid buts its perfectly legal and if I cant be trusted to judge my speed in good conditions why should I be in adverse conditions

I perfer road safety to blindly enfocing a speed limit which may or not be appropriate

The world is grey not b&w

If you crash above the limit through the book at them
If you arrived safely at your destination and you had speeded what harm was done

If you sped you broke the law - thats the harm done - by speeding you are showing you disregard the law and are taking the matter in your own hands.

You can't argue thats its safer to go 85 on the motorway than it is 70 - even if its AS safe at 85 as going 70 (which given the greater stopping distances it isnt) - yet you say your prefer road safety.

Speed cameras and road safety aren't mutually exclusive. I fully agree speed cameras dont always create road safety - but they don't hinder it (unless your someone who has to be starring constantly at the speedo to judge whether they're doing 29 or 31 - in which case you've gotta question whether you should be on the road - maybe these should be thinking of doing 25 instead of 35 to prevent them getting caught)

There are plenty of people out there who given the opputunity (ie no speed limits) would do 50 past schools and 110 on the motorway in heavy traffic. The rest of us have to live with the fact that we suffer low speed limits to try and stop these idiots.

grahamjenks · 17 May 2006 at 12:11

ratface said:
How does breaking a speeding law equate to harm, who is the victim if you arrive safely but happened to do 71mph on the M4

Going slower doesn't means its safer either

Road safety is about far more than limits, doing 50 past a school a 3am can still be safe, doing 30 past it at 8:45am could be fatal. Its all about using your judgement and enforcing it in the same manner.

This country is hung up on stupid targets and limits, who's is to say the people who set them have any common sence

I'm not disagreeing with your point - it may be perfectly safe to go down the M1 at 180 if you could - but you can't legally and it is exactly that thats the harm.
I may not think there is any harm steeling from my employer - they wouldn't miss it - but I still wouldn't do it - because its immoral and illegal - speeding may only be one of these - but doesnt make doing it any better.

volospian · 17 May 2006 at 12:27

Meh, speed limits are just a reactionary law to try and stop brain dead morons from killing themselves in their car, or on the street. I think Darwin may be right on this one.

A few years with no speed limits and we would have much safer roads as everyone left on them would have learned to drive sensibly, watch for dangerous situations and not to step in front of moving vehicles (he says to the braindead that walked in front of my moving vehicle this morning!).

Slightly more seriously, how many of us slow down automatically when entering a "hazardous" situation, such as a built up area, limited visability or narrow road or whatever. I would say that most sensible drivers do. Whether they slow to the set speed limit is debateable, but they still slow to what they think is a sensible speed for the conditions.

it's a shame that we cant remove speed limits altogether and have some sort of automatic driving analysis system which fines you when it thinks you are being stupid.

DRZ · 17 May 2006 at 12:56

volospian said:
Meh, speed limits are just a reactionary law to try and stop brain dead morons from killing themselves in their car, or on the street. I think Darwin may be right on this one.

A few years with no speed limits and we would have much safer roads as everyone left on them would have learned to drive sensibly, watch for dangerous situations and not to step in front of moving vehicles (he says to the braindead that walked in front of my moving vehicle this morning!).

So, going by your Darwin theory here:

Person A is walking along to their local library to obtain some new knitting patterns. She waits for a suitable gap in the traffic and begins to cross at a zebra crossing. Perfectly acceptable behaviour.

Person B finds it perfectly acceptable (due to no speed limits) to do 95mph along that (previously 30mph) road. Person A is now a smear on the road.

A Darwinian approach to this simply doesnt work when the idiot is encased in a metal box with airbags and steatbelts.

volospian said:
Slightly more seriously, how many of us slow down automatically when entering a "hazardous" situation, such as a built up area, limited visability or narrow road or whatever. I would say that most sensible drivers do. Whether they slow to the set speed limit is debateable, but they still slow to what they think is a sensible speed for the conditions.

it's a shame that we cant remove speed limits altogether and have some sort of automatic driving analysis system which fines you when it thinks you are being stupid.

You mean like, erm, Traffic Police?

volospian · 17 May 2006 at 13:10

DRZ said:
So, going by your Darwin theory here:

Person A is walking along to their local library to obtain some new knitting patterns. She waits for a suitable gap in the traffic and begins to cross at a zebra crossing. Perfectly acceptable behaviour.

Person B finds it perfectly acceptable (due to no speed limits) to do 95mph along that (previously 30mph) road. Person A is now a smear on the road.

A Darwinian approach to this simply doesnt work when the idiot is encased in a metal box with airbags and steatbelts.

Yep, because, once he had hit that person at 95mph he would almost certainly lose control of the vehicle and kill himself in the process. No more high speed lunatic. As for person A, they should have made damn sure there was no oncoming traffic (let's face it if the driver was doing 95 there must have been no sharp corners to hide them, or they'd have never got to person A in the first place) and learn to run across the road, rather than saunter across like they owned it. A braindead moron wandering across the road in a "no speed limit" environment deserves to be jam.

Plus, I never said anything about repealing the laws about manslaughter, death by reckless driving and so on, so even if (quite unbelievably) he survided a 95mph impact with several stone of human flesh, he would almost certainly be locked up anyway.

You mean like, erm, Traffic Police?

Sorry the "traffic police solves all the issues" doesn't work in this instance as unfortunately I can't see the police paying for a person to sit next to all drivers at all times.

divine` · 17 May 2006 at 13:13

ratface said:
If speed camers work why are so many people caught speeding? Surely they are meant to deter this action especially on dangerous points in the road

*claps*

Shootist · 17 May 2006 at 13:16

DRZ said:
So, going by your Darwin theory here:

Person A is walking along to their local library to obtain some new knitting patterns. She waits for a suitable gap in the traffic and begins to cross at a zebra crossing. Perfectly acceptable behaviour.

Person B finds it perfectly acceptable (due to no speed limits) to do 95mph along that (previously 30mph) road. Person A is now a smear on the road.

A Darwinian approach to this simply doesnt work when the idiot is encased in a metal box with airbags and steatbelts.

You mean like, erm, Traffic Police?

It's obvious that person A did NOT wait for a suitable gap in the traffic if the car hit her did she ?

And if there was traffic she should have waited until it stopped before crossing.

Now if person B was overtaking stationary traffic at the crossing then that idiot needs a lifetime ban from driving.

As for foaming gatsos, better than that, stick a piece of opaque glass from a welders mask over the camera window. No one will know it's been got at until they view the pics. With a foamed camera, the local police would notice that quite easily.

The best road they ever ruined with speed cameras is the A17 and I wonder how many cameras there are on the A34. It's always on 5-live traffic reports as having accidents.

divine` · 17 May 2006 at 13:18

Shootist said:
As for foaming gatsos, better than that, stick a piece of opaque glass from a welders mask over the camera window. No one will know it's been got at until they view the pics. With a foamed camera, the local police would notice that quite easily.

Foamed GATSO = Destroyed
Glassed GATSO = Fixable

Berger · 17 May 2006 at 15:42

grahamjenks said:
In case you missed the point - speed limits are a maximum not a recommended speed for a situation.

Ah yes, but if your traveling a few mph below the number on the sign on your driving test, you recieve a minor or major mistake for it. Whilst traveling through a village in the country at approximatly 35mph on my test i recieved a minor for traveling too slowly, oh and this was at about half three, when all the children would have just got in from school. :rolleyes:

There was no traffic behind me to be held up by my "slow" progress, yet i fail to see how this is a mistake, surely travelling slower through a village is a safe thing to do.

Compare it to under age drinking, at 17 years and 364 days old it is illegal to drink in a pub if you buy the drink and its not with a meal. But 24 hours later your free to go get completely wrecked, what has changed, nothing but a number.

DRZ · 17 May 2006 at 15:47

volospian said:
Yep, because, once he had hit that person at 95mph he would almost certainly lose control of the vehicle and kill himself in the process. No more high speed lunatic. As for person A, they should have made damn sure there was no oncoming traffic (let's face it if the driver was doing 95 there must have been no sharp corners to hide them, or they'd have never got to person A in the first place) and learn to run across the road, rather than saunter across like they owned it. A braindead moron wandering across the road in a "no speed limit" environment deserves to be jam.

Plus, I never said anything about repealing the laws about manslaughter, death by reckless driving and so on, so even if (quite unbelievably) he survided a 95mph impact with several stone of human flesh, he would almost certainly be locked up anyway.

Sorry the "traffic police solves all the issues" doesn't work in this instance as unfortunately I can't see the police paying for a person to sit next to all drivers at all times.

Aside from the fact that pedestrians have right of way and traffic should stop for people on a crossing...

... have you ever seen a car coming at you at 95mph? Straight on and at distance, it is exceptionally hard to judge speed like that. Not many people are used to standing about while cars scream past at that sort of speed. I have been in situations where I have been trackside and close to "traffic" at that sort of speeds after spinning out or something and it is *really* hard to judge what is an accurate gap. Especially if you are not expecting it.

Dj_Jestar · 17 May 2006 at 16:00

Berger said:
Ah yes, but if your traveling a few mph below the number on the sign on your driving test, you recieve a minor or major mistake for it. Whilst traveling through a village in the country at approximatly 35mph on my test i recieved a minor for traveling too slowly, oh and this was at about half three, when all the children would have just got in from school. There was no traffic behind me to be held up by my "slow" progress, yet i fail to see how this is a mistake, surely travelling slower through a village is a safe thing to do.

someone posted on here (ages ago) they actually got commended for travelling at 25 in a 30, and I find it very hard to believe you were penalised for travelling 5mph under limit, sorry, I don't believe you.

Berger said:
Compare it to under age drinking, at 17 years and 364 days old it is illegal to drink in a pub if you buy the drink and its not with a meal. But 24 hours later your free to go get completely wrecked, what has changed, nothing but a number.

You have to draw the line somewhere. Stinks for anyone who is 24hrs away from becoming 18, and it stinks for anyone pulled for doing 31 in a 30. Such is life, the limit is a limit, not a guide.

grahamjenks · 17 May 2006 at 16:02

Berger said:
Ah yes, but if your traveling a few mph below the number on the sign on your driving test, you recieve a minor or major mistake for it. Whilst traveling through a village in the country at approximatly 35mph on my test i recieved a minor for traveling too slowly, oh and this was at about half three, when all the children would have just got in from school. There was no traffic behind me to be held up by my "slow" progress, yet i fail to see how this is a mistake, surely travelling slower through a village is a safe thing to do.

Compare it to under age drinking, at 17 years and 364 days old it is illegal to drink in a pub if you buy the drink and its not with a meal. But 24 hours later your free to go get completely wrecked, what has changed, nothing but a number.

If charged for underage drinking at 23:55 the day before your 18th birthday would you feel hard done by? Yes probably - would you feel you didnt deserve it - probably not if your understand that there is a law for a reason - therer has to be some quantifiable level set - its 18 for drinking and 30mph/40/60 etc for driving - abide by it or live with the consequences.

And yeah it does suck that you got a minor for driving to slow - but I guess the examiners have to stick with the rules to (or he was having a bad day and just didnt like you!)

grahamjenks · 17 May 2006 at 16:03

Dj_Jestar said:
someone posted on here (ages ago) they actually got commended for travelling at 25 in a 30, and I find it very hard to believe you were penalised for travelling 5mph under limit, sorry, I don't believe you.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Stinks for anyone who is 24hrs away from becoming 18, and it stinks for anyone pulled for doing 31 in a 30. Such is life, the limit is a limit, not a guide.

Yup just beat me to that point!

Berger · 17 May 2006 at 16:05

Dj_Jestar said:
someone posted on here (ages ago) they actually got commended for travelling at 25 in a 30, and I find it very hard to believe you were penalised for travelling 5mph under limit, sorry, I don't believe you.
You have to draw the line somewhere. Stinks for anyone who is 24hrs away from becoming 18, and it stinks for anyone pulled for doing 31 in a 30. Such is life, the limit is a limit, not a guide.

25mph under the limit, i was doing 35mph in an NSL road, and obviously i cant prove this as my driving test report only shows "appropriate speed" not where and when it happened.