speed cameras....grrrrr

[[TW]Fox]

I would say, however, that people who aren't crap drivers do crash because of inappropriate speed. They might be 'good' but they can't be good every time. They only need to get it a bit wrong once to kill themselves or someone just minding their own business. Sticking within the speed limits would certainly reduce that.

It'd also gloss over the real issue - DRIVER EDUCATION.

Speed does not kill, bad driving does. The more we hammer home the point that SPEED IS BAD, reduce speed limits everywhere and put speed cameras everywhere, the more likely it is that your typical braindead idiot will agree that yes, SPEED IS BAD and as long as you are not speeding, everything is fine. You can still take a corner too fast under the speed limit, you know. The limit is merely a number plucked pretty much out of thin air..

Maybe. I would certainly drive at 60 rather than 70 to save a life.

And what is this hypothetical situation you refer to where driving at 60 instead of 70 would save a life? What do you expect to happen when you are driving that would make you drive at 60 instead of 70 to 'save a life'? You realise how unlikely it is that, statistically, you'll be involved in a fatal accident on our roads, right?

You can't go around limiting everything you do becuase of a slim chance that something might happen. If everyone thought the same way you'd do, imagine where human civilisation would be now. Fairly backward, I'd have thought.

In a way its like saying Well, really, we ought not do Air Travel. I mean, had no planes taken off in the last 10 years, thousands of lives would have been saved...

So because no-one will never die on the roads we don't bother trying to reduce it? There are something like 11 people killed every single day here in the UK with 200 injured. That's a statistic I would like to see reduced.

In an ideal world, sure. But there comes a time where further efforts begin to increase in futility. We already have one of the safest road networks in the ENTIRE WORLD despite being one of the most crowded road networks. Thats a pretty staggering acheivement.

And this focus on speed does little to reduce the death toll - Like I said, it just emphasises the fact speed is bad whilst glossing over the REAL issue - POOR DRIVING.

Sure, sometimes poor driving involves speeding. But it also involves many other things people seem to not give a damn about simply becuase you can't fine it with a GATSO.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm afraid I've lost you.

I know how fast 30mph is down this particular road. Therefore I can confidently state that they driving much faster!

I fail to see how you think you can accurately judge the speed of an oncoming car simply because you know how fast 30mph feels from the inside of your completely different car. The two are simply not related.

I could drive you down that road in two different cars and it would feel like that in one trip, the car was travelling at twice the speed of the other...

 

[Von Luck]

Whilst at the same time meaning the officers now dealing with 'proper' crimes are not dealing with the dangerous and illegal drivers who cannot be caught by speed cameras. Thats good, right?

Given a choice between having officers dealing with traffic and burglary I'd prefer them to spend time on the latter, yes.

It often isn't really that simple.

I find it is - perhaps with more driving experience you will too.

Your sole thing against 'speeding' appears to be that it is 'THE LAW'. This is very narrow minded indeed. Do you blindly follow and support anything at all simply becuase it is 'THE LAW'?

Not at all - however if I disagreed with a particular law, I would, as already stated, lobby my MP rather than break it and moan about how unjust it is on an internet forum, which achieves precisely naff all.

If you lived in another country, you may well find doing something like relaxing with a cold beer was against THE LAW. Would have you the same attitude towards that as you do towards speeding?

Yes, exactly the same attitude.

 

[Tommy B]

If you were driving round a blind bend at 60 and a kid was standing in the road, even someone with the reactions of Neo or Superman wouldn't be able to stop the car in time. So speed is a very important factor, but also a crucial element of poor driving.

 

[Cueball]

OK, lads. I will grace you all with a lifesaving tip.

Some say this is the best tip anyone can employ for combatting speed cameras, others say it is the only tip.

Whatever they say, here it is:

Don't speed, and you won't get caught - simple.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Given a choice between having officers dealing with traffic and burglary I'd prefer them to spend time on the latter, yes.

But you have just consistently explained how bad speed is and how it kills. Bulgarly doesn't kill..... bad driving does.

I would rather a guy driving like a moron in an uninsured Fiesta with 4 bald tyres who is an accident just waiting to happen was arrested than somebody nicking next doors television. Both are scum, but the latter is scum who will almost certainly kill or seriously injure somebody.

I find it is - perhaps with more driving experience you will too.

It isn't difficult provided you keep speed at the front of your mind. Frankly, it isnt important to me, there are numerous other things I prefer to concentrate on when driving.

Not at all - however if I disagreed with a particular law, I would, as already stated, lobby my MP rather than break it and moan about how unjust it is on an internet forum, which achieves precisely naff all.

Me writing to my MP would acheive naff all. They are not going to change the speed limits becuase I dont like them. They wouldnt do it if 500,000 people didnt like them either. Me posting on a forum makes me feel better, and engaging in intelligent debate is interesting.

 

[[TW]Fox]

If you were driving round a blind bend at 60 and a kid was standing in the road, even someone with the reactions of Neo or Superman wouldn't be able to stop the car in time. So speed is a very important factor, but also a crucial element of poor driving.

I wondered how long it would be before this one was rolled out.

A kid just standing in the road? Unless its a heavily built up area, in which case, I rarely see people stonking around them at 60 (Dont forget how had it is to perceive the speed of an oncoming car and how things like engine note can seriously affect that perception), then this just doesnt happen very often, if at all. Kids dont just decide to stand in the middle of the road. Most of them are pretty well educated in road safety.

I managed my entire 16 years of childhood by not getting run over. It isn't that hard.

 

[[TW]Fox]

OK, lads. I will grace you all with a lifesaving tip.

Some say this is the best tip anyone can employ for combatting speed cameras, others say it is the only tip.

Whatever they say, here it is:

Don't speed, and you won't get caught - simple.

Would you mind not posting in this thread? We are trying to have an intelligent discussion, and pointless Captain Obvious like comments from yourself really add nothing to it

 

[Von Luck]

But you have just consistently explained how bad speed is and how it kills.

No, I haven't mentioned speeding killing at all.

It isn't difficult provided you keep speed at the front of your mind. Frankly, it isnt important to me, there are numerous other things I prefer to concentrate on when driving.

Odd that I've managed it for the last 16 years with no problem at all and with no detrimental effect on any other aspect of my driving.

Me writing to my MP would acheive naff all. They are not going to change the speed limits becuase I dont like them. They wouldnt do it if 500,000 people didnt like them either. Me posting on a forum makes me feel better, and engaging in intelligent debate is interesting.

Which is precisely the attitude which means that nothing ever gets changed. It's no longer the politicians fault - it's your fault.

 

[Nikias]

It'd also gloss over the real issue - DRIVER EDUCATION.

Speed does not kill, bad driving does. The more we hammer home the point that SPEED IS BAD, reduce speed limits everywhere and put speed cameras everywhere, the more likely it is that your typical braindead idiot will agree that yes, SPEED IS BAD and as long as you are not speeding, everything is fine. You can still take a corner too fast under the speed limit, you know. The limit is merely a number plucked pretty much out of thin air..

Is the number really plucked out of the air? I really have no idea how they make the limits, but I assumed they'd at least use some testing for it.

Education would be great anyway, but I can't imagine a really effective and feasible system. What do you propose?

And what is this hypothetical situation you refer to where driving at 60 instead of 70 would save a life? What do you expect to happen when you are driving that would make you drive at 60 instead of 70 to 'save a life'? You realise how unlikely it is that, statistically, you'll be involved in a fatal accident on our roads, right?

For my age group it's the most likely way of dying I think. Suicide is possibly the greatest, but I won't be doing that anytime soon. So as far as I'm concerned driving is the biggest threat to my life so statistically, I'd rather not take my chances.

As for the hypothetical situation, I'm afraid I just plucked the figure out of the air like someone setting a speed limit.
Perhaps 40 in a 30 would be more appropriate given the adverts about the difference between hitting a pedestrian at one speed and then another. There are certainly enough pedestrians around in places with 30mph limits and enough idiots going at 40 through them.

You can't go around limiting everything you do becuase of a slim chance that something might happen. If everyone thought the same way you'd do, imagine where human civilisation would be now. Fairly backward, I'd have thought.

In a way its like saying Well, really, we ought not do Air Travel. I mean, had no planes taken off in the last 10 years, thousands of lives would have been saved...

Ok, so now you're using air travel as your analogy instead of alcohol? Same principle applies. Safe limits are put in place. Nothing is banned.

I am not proposing banning driving or banning air travel or banning alcohol. Limit it to safe amounts. That means that you can't do responsible things when drunk, you have to have Air Traffic Control monitoring planes taking off and can't go at 50mph through a 30mph street.

In an ideal world, sure. But there comes a time where further efforts begin to increase in futility. We already have one of the safest road networks in the ENTIRE WORLD despite being one of the most crowded road networks. Thats a pretty staggering acheivement.

And this focus on speed does little to reduce the death toll - Like I said, it just emphasises the fact speed is bad whilst glossing over the REAL issue - POOR DRIVING.

Sure, sometimes poor driving involves speeding. But it also involves many other things people seem to not give a damn about simply becuase you can't fine it with a GATSO.

Yes, our road network is very safe. Now if people like Concorde Rules are suggesting that other countries manage fine without speed limits maybe there's a link there? Maybe our so-called draconian driving laws have an effect on it?

 

[Cyber-Mav]

i don;t understand what the problem is, my friend uses velcro numberplates and he keep spares under his seat which have a numberplate from a similar car he found in the scrappy. he never gets stopped with the dodgey plates on and he only puts them on when he is entering a speed camera area.

still dodgey approach though, now if he can make something like a revolving numberplate thingy then that would be aswome.

 

[Berger]

Is the number really plucked out of the air? I really have no idea how they make the limits, but I assumed they'd at least use some testing for it.

Seems like it, i could go looning about doing 60mph over blind country bridges on single track roads and be doing a "legal" speed, but it would be incredibly dangerous, yet 31mph on a dual carriageway with a central reservation is illegal and perfectly safe.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Is the number really plucked out of the air? I really have no idea how they make the limits, but I assumed they'd at least use some testing for it.

They did, however, unfortunately this was back in the 1950's. The Motorway speed limit of 70mph was, contrary to popular opinion, not decided upon after an AC Cobra did 180mph up the M1 but was chosen SIMPLY to conserve fuel during the 70's oil crisis. It was a temporary measure, but never revoked.

It has stood ever since.

Education would be great anyway, but I can't imagine a really effective and feasible system. What do you propose?

To be honest, I do not know. I know education is the best thing, but it's very hard to implement when you take into account many people who live on this wonderful island of ours are, to be frank, complete morons.

Perhaps 40 in a 30 would be more appropriate given the adverts about the difference between hitting a pedestrian at one speed and then another. There are certainly enough pedestrians around in places with 30mph limits and enough idiots going at 40 through them.

I think now is a good idea for my to point out that I have no real issue with urban speed limits and no real sympathy for those get nicked in proper urban areas by fixed speed cameras. I'm more on about dual carriageways, Motorways and out of town roads and suchlike - the sort where its highly unlilkely you'll round the next bend to find a child standing in the road. The sort where, actually, you can even enjoy driving.

Ok, so now you're using air travel as your analogy instead of alcohol? Same principle applies. Safe limits are put in place. Nothing is banned.

Just using it as an example to illustrate that stopping/curtailing/limiting anything that may lead to death isn't really something we should encourage...

Yes, our road network is very safe. Now if people like Concorde Rules are suggesting that other countries manage fine without speed limits maybe there's a link there? Maybe our so-called draconian driving laws have an effect on it?

Frankly I've not even bothered to read any of his posts as I got bored after the first paragraph but the first road network that springs to mind when you mention no speed limits are the rural sections of Germanys Autobahn network, which I believe has a BETTER accident record than our Motorway network.

Mind you, it also has drivers who actually know what lane discipline is for..

 

[cheets64]

I cant stand these drivers who moan about speeding and getting fined, If you get caught speeding and fined learn from your mistake and slow down, no just in front of a school but every road you drive on.

I have seen people bomb down the motorway in there big M5 or AMG, no care for other road users whats the difference between say 70 miles in an hour to 100 miles in an hour, is it that important to get your meeting.

I caught speeding just over 2 years ago and I always stick to a safe place, I dont have any points on my licence but the amount of people killed on the road (in car crashes and walking the acorss the road) has shot up in the last 2 years and the M6 J27 to J25 has about 1 lethal smash a month.

I am late for work, I need to speed. I feel like flooring it, I need to speed. etc.

You can say its a safe road and you can do 60 down it but the fact your actions or other drivers actions will have a reaction.

"I FEEL THE NEED TO SPEED"

 

[agw_01]

Having a tipple of alcohol doesn't kill. That is drinking within safe limits, just as driving within safe limits doesn't kill either.

Woah woah woah, hang on there for just a second.

So you're doing 30, you're a law abiding citizen and you never speed.

Someone runs out in front of you while you're obeying the speed limit, they hit your car in such a way that they break their neck. They're taken to hospital and they die...

You cannot possible say that sticking to the speed limits means that there's no way in hell people will die! Even running into the back of someone at 20mph and cracking your head on the steering wheel, this could lead to a concusion or maybe worse side effects.

I speed everyday. There's a dual carriageway on my way to/from work. It has excellent visibility and has no junctions along it. The limit is 40. I'll happily do 50 along it keeping a watchful eye on the traffic around me. Am I dangerous? No.

The impatient idiot overtaking on the wrong side of the road at 8:30am to get past a bus that's pulling into a bus stop... that's dangerous... but I guess it's ok because while overtaking, the guy only just about hit the 30mph limit.

 

[[TW]Fox]

i don;t understand what the problem is, my friend uses velcro numberplates and he keep spares under his seat which have a numberplate from a similar car he found in the scrappy. he never gets stopped with the dodgey plates on and he only puts them on when he is entering a speed camera area.

The entire country is a speed camera area, don't tell me we've now got a nice portable sun aspect to this thread as well?

 

[cheets64]

i don;t understand what the problem is, my friend uses velcro numberplates and he keep spares under his seat which have a numberplate from a similar car he found in the scrappy. he never gets stopped with the dodgey plates on and he only puts them on when he is entering a speed camera area.

still dodgey approach though, now if he can make something like a revolving numberplate thingy then that would be aswome.

Why stop there, why not fill up for petrol with them on, do a bank job, even kill a small child.

What if he hits someone, hes gonna think "****, got my fake plates on" Hit and Run.

 

[Nikias]

They did, however, unfortunately this was back in the 1950's. The Motorway speed limit of 70mph was, contrary to popular opinion, not decided upon after an AC Cobra did 180mph up the M1 but was chosen SIMPLY to conserve fuel during the 70's oil crisis. It was a temporary measure, but never revoked.

It has stood ever since.

I do think 80mph at least would be more appropriate on motorways. It does seem that when speed limits are revised they never go up, only down.

I'd have more confidence in the system if it went both ways.

To be honest, I do not know. I know education is the best thing, but it's very hard to implement when you take into account many people who live on this wonderful island of ours are, to be frank, complete morons.

I know. That's why I'm inclined to believe that at least laws with some penalties might encourage such drivers to reduce the risk of killing themselves or worse, others. They often ignore the stuff they used to pass the test so I don't know what effect extra education would have.

I think now is a good idea for my to point out that I have no real issue with urban speed limits and no real sympathy for those get nicked in proper urban areas by fixed speed cameras. I'm more on about dual carriageways, Motorways and out of town roads and suchlike - the sort where its highly unlilkely you'll round the next bend to find a child standing in the road. The sort where, actually, you can even enjoy driving.

Aye, motorways and dual carriageways are pretty safe to drive fast in. You can see where you are going and there are few bends. I've mainly been talking about single-lane carriageways and urban environments too.

Just using it as an example to illustrate that stopping/curtailing/limiting anything that may lead to death isn't really something we should encourage...

Yeah, there will always be risk. I'm in favour of making that risk the minimum while still allowing the thing limited to still be worthwhile.

So I think 30 in most cities is fine, but 10 is too limited. 40 however is quite a lot more dangerous to pedestrians while not really affecting someone's journey time that much.

Frankly I've not even bothered to read any of his posts as I got bored after the first paragraph but the first road network that springs to mind when you mention no speed limits are the rural sections of Germanys Autobahn network, which I believe has a BETTER accident record than our Motorway network.

Mind you, it also has drivers who actually know what lane discipline is for..

I think we can agree on motorways/autobahns etc. Germany overall has a worse accident rate than our own though, IIRC.

Woah woah woah, hang on there for just a second.

So you're doing 30, you're a law abiding citizen and you never speed.

Someone runs out in front of you while you're obeying the speed limit, they hit your car in such a way that they break their neck. They're taken to hospital and they die...

You cannot possible say that sticking to the speed limits means that there's no way in hell people will die! Even running into the back of someone at 20mph and cracking your head on the steering wheel, this could lead to a concusion or maybe worse side effects.

I speed everyday. There's a dual carriageway on my way to/from work. It has excellent visibility and has no junctions along it. The limit is 40. I'll happily do 50 along it keeping a watchful eye on the traffic around me. Am I dangerous? No.

The impatient idiot overtaking on the wrong side of the road at 8:30am to get past a bus that's pulling into a bus stop... that's dangerous... but I guess it's ok because while overtaking, the guy only just about hit the 30mph limit.

Sorry, you're right.

My statement was a bit inaccurate. I meant to say will reduce significantly the risk of a fatality. You must admit that they are a hell of a lot less likely to break their neck at 30 than 40 at least.

 

[Energize]

i don;t understand what the problem is, my friend uses velcro numberplates and he keep spares under his seat which have a numberplate from a similar car he found in the scrappy. he never gets stopped with the dodgey plates on and he only puts them on when he is entering a speed camera area.

still dodgey approach though, now if he can make something like a revolving numberplate thingy then that would be aswome.

You've got to be kidding me. What a waste of time, the minute off his journey he saves by speeding is nullified by the time it takes to change the numberplates. What does he do, get out of the car and change the numberplate every time he approaches a speed camera?

 

[Durzel]

Threads like this always turn to crap because there's 3 different types of people all believing their P.O.V is the "way forward":

1) Those that don't give a rats ass about speed limits and do whatever speed they feel like, think "scameras" are a symbol of decaying civil liberties or some rubbish, "The Man keeping me down, why can't I drive however fast I want?". The usual militant anti-Police "why aren't they out catching real criminals" cretins,

2) Those that ardently stick to every limit and have some kind of rabid hatred of any speeding transgressions like it's akin to murder or something,

3) Those that speed whenever they feel it appropriate/safe/justifiable to do so but recognise the need for fixed limits and speed cameras in genuine accident blackspots and residential zones.

Possibly also 4) Those who have no hardened opinion either way but just pick a side so as to troll the thread.

Personally I fall in the 3rd category, I have a measure of respect for those in the 2nd (takes more discipline than I care to invest) and no respect for those in the 1st - as they're typically the sort of people with no compunction about doing 70mph+ past my house (30 limit) every single day.

Summary: Anyone who speeds in a residential zone (20, 30) should be locked up, the rest should really be treated according to circumstances (weather, road condition, weight of traffic, etc) - but that's never gonna happen.