Is anyone else getting really tired of this whole speeding thing ?

MaX_PoWah · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:16

Admiral Huddy said:
Why would they be paranoid if they aren't speeding?

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.

I think most driving instructors would argue otherwise about that, and you will fail your test if you dont keep at the speed limits as its deemed as not making progress...

Cyanide · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:16

Admiral Huddy said:
Why would they be paranoid if they aren't speeding?

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.

Because it only takes a slight slope to increase your speed enough to set the cameras off.

There's 2 near me on a hugely steep hill that I have to do in second gear with the brakes on to stop me speeding, but there's been a lot of accidents and it's between 2 schools and a college so I have no problem with it at all.

Admiral Huddy · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:17

[TW]Fox said:
They are constantly checking to ensure they are not speeding I guess.

Interesting that they wouldn't know that already before entering into a restricted zone.. if i kept looking at my speedo whilst on my m.bike i'd be dead.. then again i know my bike..

Glaucus · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:18

DRZ said:
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.

really, I'm getting ***** off the avon and somerset police. They keep putting mobile speed cameras up about 600 yards after a gatso, around *** corner. I have also never ever seen a crash on that part. Further up theres the worst designed junction ever. But on the steep hill theres never been a crash I can remember. And your trying to tell me this isn't purley money motivated? why arent the police spending so many hours ctahcing proper criminals. Its not as if we have no crime in bristol..

So if your visting bristol keep your speed sown after q gatso, I've seen them do it on several gatso in the last few months.

Durzel · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:19

DRZ 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.

This is basically exactly my perspective too. Speed cameras are a non-issue provided you keep within the limits (read: don't break the Law).

I speed as and when I consider it appropriate to do so, I don't put a great deal of thought into it and I have sufficient car control to regulate my speed on whichever surface, incline, etc I happen to be on. Anyone who can't manage this should probably not even be driving anyway.

The above said, like the quoted poster, if I ever got caught speeding I would just hold my hands up and say "fair cop guv". Just because you or I don't agree with a speed limit (read: a Law) doesn't mean you're justified in breaking it.

Cyanide said:
Because it only takes a slight slope to increase your speed enough to set the cameras off.

Ever used that pedal in the middle, the one that makes red lights come on at the back and slows the car down? Alternatively, there is engine braking as well. Saying "omg a hill makes me go over the limit" shows a complete lack of car control that transcends simple speeding transgressions imo.

DRZ · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:22

Dolph 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...

With the examples I gave you I was playing devils advocate - I almost entirely agree with you

Unfortunately, with something as discretised as speed, legislating is always going to have to be done in a finite manner, the number in the red circle. Allowing discretion is great and it has worked in the past to great effect. How do you write that into law though?

The problem we now face is that there are more cars than ever on the roads and to be quite honest the average driving standard is abysmally low. People believe the test is the be all and end all, cars are more powerful than ever before and far more acessible and this is all a recipie for disaster.

Driving is a hugely involving skill that requires a great deal of concentration to do correctly. I genuinely cannot think of any other "skill" that as many people posess. It just doesnt happen anywhere else. Now, I think that this means one of two things:

1) Humans are naturally gifted at operating a motor vehicle (unlikely)

or

2) The standards required to be let loose on the roads are far, far too low.

The government therefore has a problem on its hands. Millions of tonnes of metal are being shifted about on a daily basis by largely unskilled people at speed. You can make it significantly harder to get a licence, but what does that do for the current generation that are wrapping themselves around trees and children in the street at the moment? So that means mass retraining - that is going to be unpopular in the extreme and no government is going to be brave enough to force millions of motorists off the road until they meet a much higher standard - it would be a nightmare for the economy for a start.

What option is left? Slow everyone down. If you are going too slow to hurt yourself when you run out of skill it is going to be one hell of a lot less painful than when you are battering it along. If the only way you can think of to achieve this is to hit people where they will make the biggest difference to them (in the wallet) it forces a lot more people to think about slowing down. While this in itself wont stop the inattention that is the rot cause of most crashes it will make it a bit less painful when it happens. Penalty points are there as a useful tool to stop those who can afford it from accepting a £60 charge for driving like a lunatic every Sunday.

So, whilst I disagree with the law, the way it has come about and the way it is being enforced, I cannot think of another way to solve the problem without causing a huge problem somewhere else. More traffic Police would be one way of going about it but you cannot keep masses of them out and about 24/7 in the way you can a camera - and thats why you see cameras at blackspots and not Police.

Its a really, really tough subject because there are so many angles to come at it from but one thing is for sure, whinging about getting caught by cameras / their use in enforcement is a sure way of not getting listened to.

Werewolf · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:23

D4VE said:
Luckily around here there aren't many $peed camera$.

There are other ways of slowing traffic down such as humps, cushions, signs, pinch points etc, the list goes on, its clear the cameras are there to make money.

The other line of thought is that humps cause problems for some cars, can cause major problems for ambulances carrying patients and require roadworks to maintain.
Likewise cushions and pinchpoints etc - they may slow down drivers but no more than a marked camera and can cause other problems

Signs just get ignored much the same way the normal speed limits are ignored by some people.

MaX_PoWah 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 ?

Unfortunately that means that rather than enforcing one, fairly easy to understand limit the police are enforcing a limit that varies between cars, and that the drivers may not even be aware of.

It's generally best to keep things simple.

I agree that the best way to deal with speeding related problems and road accidents is education and tougher tests (with regular retests), but if you
A: Don't realise you're in a speed limit
B: Don't see the signs indicating a camera
C: Don't see the (usually) pretty visible camera/marked car/cop in a yellow jacket until they've snapped you

you're probably not that safe on the roads anyway, most of the time if you have to brake sharply for a camera it's because you probably were not paying attention to the road ahead/what is going on around you.

Demon · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:23

Personally I'm with the "speed isn't the major risk factor, it's poor driving" camp.. which is also backed by the stats as people have said..

It's innappropriate speed that kills.. you can quite happily stick to all the speed limits and still kill yourself...

I suspect it's all the planks who keep quoting dumbly that 'speed kills' as though sticking to the speed limits makes them almost immune to an accident that need to be targetted...

Cyanide · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:29

Durzel said:
Ever used that pedal in the middle, the one that makes red lights come on at the back and slows the car down? Alternatively, there is engine braking as well. Saying "omg a hill makes me go over the limit" shows a complete lack of car control that transcends simple speeding transgressions imo.

*sigh* read the rest of what I said. I know how to keep my car at or under the speed limit. Some people don't though, thus I can understand where they're coming from. I'm trying to look at the arguement from both sides you see...

Morba · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:37

its a part of my normal driving.
im always looking ahead as far as possible to see whats going on around the next corner etc.

if i get caught over the limit then generally it would be my fault.
yes speed cameras do my head in when they are placed in silly spots, but thats life.

I dont see the point in putting a camera out side of a school, if a child runs in front of you then chances are you will cause major damage to the child regardless of being 35mph or 25mph, better awareness of the road (for children) and more barriers / railings on the pavements in such areas would be better.
what would be even better tho, is forced speed. dont allow cars to travel above a certain speed by way of the road rather than just a camera.
not speed humps as they wind me up (the roads are 30mph limits, not 10mph otherwise you ruin your car!!).

triggerthat · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:37

One thing that gets me is when your doing the correct speed, 30 in a 30 and someone behind you is driving too close so you are kind of forced to speed up. This can be annoying when there are speed cameras around.

Morba · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:38

triggerthat said:
One thing that gets me is when your doing the correct speed, 30 in a 30 and someone behind you is driving too close so you are kind of forced to speed up. This can be annoying when there are speed cameras around.

if you are intimidated by the car behind then slow down and pull over, let them past.

Cyanide · 16 Jun 2006 at 17:40

Morba said:
if you are intimidated by the car behind then slow down and pull over, let them past.

Screen Washer jets

rare · 16 Jun 2006 at 18:54

Its ok, I can be doing 29 MPH through one of the many thousands of cameras, drunk out of my head, with no insurance, in a stolen car with no seatbelt on and get away with it.

But oh noes...Im driving correctly I just happen to be doing 34 MPH and i get 3 points and a fine.

Sagalout · 16 Jun 2006 at 19:10

They dont bother me at all. Tend to drive within the limits on all roads apart from motorways. I'd prefer it if there were no cameras on the motorway as those roads are so safe (going by statistics) that the limit could easily be upped to 100mph, but they tend to be well signposted so if I got caught it would be 100% my fault for a) speeding and b) being stupid enough to miss the sign.

Conversely, I'd be firmly in favour of 20mph limits around residential areas, enforced by as many cameras as they like.

bitslice · 16 Jun 2006 at 19:56

I agree with the 1st post, driving has changed from being the pinnacle of teenage freedom, to a miserable half hour of speedo watching.
If I'm doing a legal 60mph, doing 57mph doesn't make me bob geldof, and doing 63mph doesn't make be pedo-of-the-month.
I think the human race loses a lot by trying to sanitise and regulate every second of it's life.

Oh, and it's funny how many mobile cameras hang around at those 40-60mph transitions, to catch out those who speed up too early.

States all over the world often try to impose controls "for your own safety" when all it really cares about is the "control" bit.
You wait till the state starts to track cars by GPS and ID tag...

NathanE · 16 Jun 2006 at 20:04

bitslice said:
You wait till the state starts to track cars by GPS and ID tag...

And I'll rip it out and leave it in my garage

Robdav · 16 Jun 2006 at 20:16

DRZ said:
Its not hard at all to drive at or below the speed limit once you are at least semi used to the car at various speeds.

Agreed, it's not hard to drive at or below the speed limit, just be prepared to have every one else stuck to your rear bumper trying to imprint their bmw/merc badge onto it :mad:

Demon · 16 Jun 2006 at 20:28

I'm of the opinion that cameras of course have a role to play, but I think they should be well placed, and very very evident, i.e. to remind people that it is 'protecting' a black spot and make sure you have plenty of time to see it and slow down.., ideally it should catch no-one if it's doing it's job right..

The idea that speed camera's 'hidden' in random places (read revenue generating places) will educate you to drive slowly elsewhere just isn't working, or am I the only one to notice speed camera revenue has disproportionately increased compared to the increase in speed camera's..

Of course we all know that it's the revenue the government are after, and they don't give two craps about lives.. speed camera's are probably the least effective measure they can use..

Fr0dders · 16 Jun 2006 at 20:39

Zefan said:
It's to stop people speeding. Surely that's obvious.

If it's all a money making excercise then explain why they have adverts showing SPEED KILLS. It costs them a lot to show those and they have a very good reason to be showing them.

complete and utter garbage

a speed inappropriate for the conditions kills.

2 average scenarios for you.

empty motorway on a sunday morning, perfect visibility and the road is dry, whats more the sun is weak enough that there is no glare. Motorist is doing 90mph

same motorway, but its a thunderstorm, and the water is running across the road like a river, there is spray everywhere, traction is poor, and visbility almost non existant and the motorist is doing 70mph

one is speeding, and one is going to cause an accident

which is which ?

ill drop you a hint, they're not the same person.