Is anyone else getting really tired of this whole speeding thing ?
- Thread starter MaX_PoWah
- Start date
DRZ said:
hence how completely inappropriate a lot of them are for the areas in which there used, not to mention the high performance of cars in general these days, like clarkson once said, a lot of the speeds are based on a average breaking distance, so why cant cars, which lets face it are most, that can break much sooner allowed to go faster ?
and fair enough if your so 'experienced' that you know what speed your going then you could argue that you dont have to look, but as a new driver i am concious of it all the time, and i do feel as thought i am spending more time watching my speed than stopping running into the car in front of me and / or people
Zefan said:
The whole point of the police being there is to make drivers aware of the limit, if you can't see them and get a letter a week later all your doing is ******* the driver off.
They should be sat with huge warning signs, so everyone slows down. Once you know a mobile is on a road you slow down or go another way for a long time.
Most camera's I agree with, around here they are mostly in sensible places like outside schools.
What I don't like is how they are now reducing speed limits all over the area! Roads which were perfectly safe at 60 are now 40's and 50's. 40's are going down to 30's which is incredibly annoying as it feels like your barely moving.
I bet they'll stick camera's on those roads now to catch drivers unaware, when all they need to do is perhaps fix the road up a bit.
Why is the goverment trying to brainwash everyone into thinking "speed kills" ? Being so naive will just cause driving standards to fall even further.
D4VE said:
Why would you assume that?
I know what the law is, if I choose to exceed that speed and I get caught well, thats tough, isnt it? The camera or whatever has nothing to do with it, thats just the "arm of the law" that has brought me to justice.
As it happens, I disagree with many speed limits and their inappropriate use in places, as well as the general attitude towards speed held by the government at the moment.
Bleating on about cameras isnt going to change one damn thing.
EDIT:
max powah said:
So is your gripe with the cameras or the law?
Zefan said:
Well, it's all well and good except speed doesn't kill, it's not a significant risk factor or cause of accidents according to the government's own figures, so it's rather a flawed argument. In fact, the obsession with speeding and watching your speed is actually playing straight into the hands of one of the single biggest causes of accidents, lack of attention and observation...
I don't have any objection to speed limits or their enforcement per se, other than it's not being done for safety, it is, instead, simply a revenue generation exercise, and it's one that's having a noted adverse effect on actual road safety.
Anyone who believes otherwise, before you say so, I'll suggest having a read of www.safespeed.org.uk, read the articles and analysis, and then make up your mind. I will also say that yes, safespeed is probably a biased source, but then so are government leaflets
DRZ said:So is your gripe with the cameras or the law?
Surely its both ? the cameras inforce ridiculous laws because its so easy ? if they made a law that meant you got fined everytime you dropped litter as easy as they can speeding then you can be dam sure they would do it.
MaX_PoWah said:
So going on that basis, if you knowingly dropped litter you would expect to get fined. Exactly the same as it is now, except it isnt really enforced.
The law might be "wrong" when it comes to speeding but unfortunately, its the law - try and get it changed if you like but in the meantime you cannot whinge when you decide to press the "go" pedal a bit harder and get caught for doing so
Dolph, Lots of crimes have the punishment of a fine - if all of those were enforced to the letter of the law ruthlessly and automatically, would that be revenue generation or would it be upholidng the law?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Admiral Huddy said:
Often the only thing 'wrong' with 'speeding' is that the speed your speedometer displays is higher than that which a bloke in a suit once decided was best.
This is the problem.
Speed doesn't kill - it simply increases the effect of other mistakes. If it was purely speed which killed, air travel would be dangerous. Perhaps if the other mistakes were targeted instead of simply OMG NO SPEED LOL, we'd actually get somewhere....
DRZ said:So going on that basis, if you knowingly dropped litter you would expect to get fined. Exactly the same as it is now, except it isnt really enforced.
The law might be "wrong" when it comes to speeding but unfortunately, its the law - try and get it changed if you like but in the meantime you cannot whinge when you decide to press the "go" pedal a bit harder and get caught for doing so
Dolph, Lots of crimes have the punishment of a fine - if all of those were enforced to the letter of the law ruthlessly and automatically, would that be revenue generation or would it be upholidng the law?
I am going to have to ask you again ? do you drive ? because your attitude towards this issue is alarming, if i did not drive then it would be SO easy for me to stand and point the finger at these so called "dangerous" motorists doing 40 in a 30 zone.
DRZ said:
To me, it would largely depend on the crime in question, and what social consequences it would have.
Speed, when appropriate (which is something that is NOT defined by a random number printed on a sign) does not cause a social harm, and therefore should not, in my opinion, but punished. Just like I wouldn't adovcate fines for doing anything that harms no-one else.
To create an arbitary rule with no proven benefit but that is easily detectable, then punishing it with a fine, is certainly nothing but revenue generation.
Your example of litter isn't comparable, because you have a clear proven harm there (ie someone has to clear up the mess). The same cannot be said of speeding. There is no proven harm, or even an increased risk of harm in driving at 71mph as opposed to 70mph, but that is how the law treats it. Prevailing conditions and circumstances have far more bearing on whether a given speed or behaviour is likely to increase the risk of harm than what someone has decided to print on the sign.
This is where the differences between the letter and wording of the law come in. Speeding has always, to the letter, been an absolute offence. However, until cameras were introduced and became widespread, discretion was used to determine whether punishment was appropriate (indeed discretion is still used now by police officers on the roads). As such speeding convictions had meaning, they were a sign that you were being dangerous enough for the police to pull you over in most cases, whereas now they are meaningless, as evidenced by the insurance companies attitude to points for speeding these days...
Simply saying cars can stop in a shorter distance these days isn't really good enough tbh. Some cars will have better brakes, yes, but others will not. Plus there's thinking distance to think of. If the speed limit is upped by, say, 10mph from 30 to 40 then the distance it takes to stop is increased quite a bit regardless of your brakes. And think about poor Mr. Smith in his classic 60's sports car - he won't be able to stop sharpish from 40 if a kid jumps out in front of him.
Maybe it'd be ok if people left sensible distances between them and the car in front but they just don't. I'm constantly having to back off on the motorway because some idiot's just pulled into the gap I was leaving so that I'd have chance to react and brake if something happened in front.
Maybe it'd be ok if people left sensible distances between them and the car in front but they just don't. I'm constantly having to back off on the motorway because some idiot's just pulled into the gap I was leaving so that I'd have chance to react and brake if something happened in front.
MaX_PoWah said:
As I have said already in this thread, I do drive and I drive at a speed that I feel is safe given the prevailing conditions. If this exceeds the limit set for the particular section of road that I am on, I will cough up the fine and take the points without complaint should I be caught.
Most of the time cameras are ludicrously easy to spot and the mobile vans are sat where there is some sort of accident record. Some constabularies might choose to go for the easy kill on long straights etc but if its visible enough to break the speed limit, its visible enough to spot a camera van etc far enough in advance to slow down.
I have taken this approach since passing my test 4 years ago and despite driving in the above manner, I have yet to accrue a single penalty point.
Cyanide said:
Well, I for one don't advocate increasing limits where kids can jump out in front of you (ie residential zones), although there is a strong argument for teaching kids road awareness....
I obey most 30mph limits pretty much religiously, it's only when it's safe to do so that my speed increases, and anywhere where there is houses (unless the road is fenced and subway'd) is not the place for it.
That's a big problem now, too many people with "I'm not speeding so I'm safe" attitude, I've actually heard it expressed as such.... people seem to think as long as they are under the limit, whatever other stupid judgement flaws they show are fine...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
Pho said:
Why would they be paranoid if they aren't speeding?
[TW]Fox said:
Although this is true, we have to remember that speed limits are "Maximum" speed limits and not "Mandatory" speed limits.. there is is a difference.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox said:
Im with you on that one..all the vans around here are on roads that are straight and long...
the best being a lovely long road that goes past the stadium.. it has a 30mph limit on it because at match day it gets packed all other times there is simply no reason for people to walk that way (there is a shorter way to walk) so its always free of people on the paths.... but are the camera van aint used on the match days!!! only during rush hour traffic
