Want to get rid of speed camera's??

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 16:47

i know nothing said:
But how could you enforce such a thing?

The way it always was enforced... Policemen.

I don't want anything that wasn't done before speed cameras came into use, as I said earlier, policemen used to use the speeding laws as one way of punishing bad drivers, not as a means to make money.

It's easy to look at people and tell whether they are driving appropriately, and there's a lot more to it than simply what speed they are doing. Speed is a very poor judge of driving quality.

eggcup · 3 Mar 2007 at 16:48

Can everyone on here put their hand on their heart and say they never speed ever??? I definitly cannot.

i know nothing · 3 Mar 2007 at 16:52

Dolph said:
The way it always was enforced... Policemen.

I'm not taking issue with the rest of what you have written as it appears to make sense, but I question how you could practically apply it.

Policemen? Hmmm, in principle I could agree with you, in practice no way. It would just cost too much, plus I would rather see policemen concentrate on more serious crimes rather than patrol the streets for people speeding.

lay-z-boy · 3 Mar 2007 at 17:47

Set off early + drive within speed limits = arrive early + no points on licence + no money for the camera's + no reckless behaviour on the roads

for just 2 simple inputs, that's a large number of gains.

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 17:48

i know nothing said:
I'm not taking issue with the rest of what you have written as it appears to make sense, but I question how you could practically apply it.

Policemen? Hmmm, in principle I could agree with you, in practice no way. It would just cost too much, plus I would rather see policemen concentrate on more serious crimes rather than patrol the streets for people speeding.

I don't want policemen patrolling for speeding, I want policemen patrolling generally, and being able to address road safety issues (whatever they may be) like they used to.

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 17:48

lay-z-boy said:
Set off early + drive within speed limits = arrive early + no points on licence + no money for the camera's + no reckless behaviour on the roads

for just 2 simple inputs, that's a large number of gains.

Speeding != reckless behaviour, and likewise Reckless behaviour != speeding.

lay-z-boy · 3 Mar 2007 at 17:51

Dolph said:
Speeding != reckless behaviour, and likewise Reckless behaviour != speeding.

The two tend to go hand in hand from my experience.

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 17:54

lay-z-boy said:
The two tend to go hand in hand from my experience.

Then I'd respectfully suggest your experience may be lacking. You can easily drive recklessly or dangerously without exceeding the speed limit, and likewise you can drive well in excess of the speed limit in a totally safe fashion if the conditions are appropriate.

dbmzk1 · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:00

People like you, who think they have a god given right to speed because they simply don't agree with the current system, are the reason the cameras were introduced in the first place.

You can never justify speeding. There is no need for it. If you want to drive fast, do it on a private road and keep your dangerous driving away from members of the public.

starscream · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:04

Dolph said:
Speeding != reckless behaviour, and likewise Reckless behaviour != speeding.

Well I'd argue that whilst that may be true driving 80mph on a clear day on an empty motorway, It would be hard to argue that doing 150mph in any condition is not reckless.

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:15

dbmzk1 said:
People like you, who think they have a god given right to speed because they simply don't agree with the current system, are the reason the cameras were introduced in the first place.

You can never justify speeding. There is no need for it. If you want to drive fast, do it on a private road and keep your dangerous driving away from members of the public.

Well, it's clear there's no point trying to hold an objective debate with you if that's the best reply you can come back with...

Despite repeated references to what I want (safer roads, less accidents) and why the current policy doesn't work (speed isn't the cause of accidents, and the measures to clamp down on it are breeding the wrong attitude and increasing accidents), as well as discussion of how I think things should change, your response is to insult me. FWIW I was actually taught fast road driving by a police pursuit instructor, and one of the biggest things that you're taught in advanced driver training is observation, anticipation and understanding. I hope you do better at this on the road than you have in this thread.

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:19

starscream said:
Well I'd argue that whilst that may be true driving 80mph on a clear day on an empty motorway, It would be hard to argue that doing 150mph in any condition is not reckless.

On a clear autobahn? Or is that different because it's legal?

My point was that the two were not synonomous. You can exceed the speed limit safely or recklessly, and you can be within the speed limit safely or recklessly.

I will say that 150mph is seriously tiring (in fact anything much above 100mph is) if you're actually concentrating sufficiently for the speed you're travelling at. I generally don't drive in three figure speeds (whether they are legal or not) for that reason, I'd much rather sit around 85-90mph where your critical observation distance is shorter...

Guru · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:21

I would rather that get money from nob-jobs driving too fast than taxing my wages more or increasing my road tax. :rolleyes:

RDM · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:24

Dolph said:
I don't want policemen patrolling for speeding, I want policemen patrolling generally, and being able to address road safety issues (whatever they may be) like they used to.

Are you prepared to pay the extra taxes to provide it? Especially as there will be a hole in the tax bill with the camera revenue going down if they remove them?

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:26

RDM said:
Are you prepared to pay the extra taxes to provide it? Especially as there will be a hole in the tax bill with the camera revenue going down if they remove them?

We used to have it, before cameras. Why should taxes have to rise to pay for something we used to have?

RDM · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:28

Dolph said:
We used to have it, before cameras. Why should taxes have to rise to pay for something we used to have?

Because those police officers are now employed doing other things?

Additionally I would argue that they weren't doing a great job before hence they introduced speed cameras.

lay-z-boy · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:33

Dolph said:
Then I'd respectfully suggest your experience may be lacking. You can easily drive recklessly or dangerously without exceeding the speed limit, and likewise you can drive well in excess of the speed limit in a totally safe fashion if the conditions are appropriate.

Yes my experience is lacking, i wont disagree on that and i wont disagree on your statement as well but gernerally speaking, someone who is travelling at say, 100mph is a bigger hazard to others than say the same person in the same setting at say, 45mph.

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:34

RDM said:
Because those police officers are now employed doing other things?

Additionally I would argue that they weren't doing a great job before hence they introduced speed cameras.

I know

You wouldn't argue they were doing a great job? You do realise that since the introduction of cameras, the rate of change in road deaths and injuries has fallen slower than it was before their introduction, right?

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

And that's despite huge improvements in car design...

I would say cameras as a safety policy have failed far more than the police ever did, and that's what I care about. Safety, not 'law' or revenue. If the law isn't improving safety, then it's either a bad law or badly enforced, and the strict enforcement of the speeding laws hasn't improved safety at all...

Dolph · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:37

lay-z-boy said:
Yes my experience is lacking, i wont disagree on that and i wont disagree on your statement as well but gernerally speaking, someone who is travelling at say, 100mph is a bigger hazard to others than say the same person in the same setting at say, 45mph.

Surely it depends entirely on the setting. On the M3 at Basingstoke (which consistantly moves at around 90mph IME quite safely), the 45mph driver is far more of a danger than the 100mph driver. I'd even say the same applies on a motorway where everyone else is doing 70mph. It's all about context and situation. What is safe isn't defined by the number, but by the situation.

starscream · 3 Mar 2007 at 18:40

Dolph said:
On a clear autobahn? Or is that different because it's legal?

Not at all, the legality has irrelevent. My point is that even in these conditions, there must become a point at which driving at such a speed that it is dangerous. Perhaps it's high than 150, 200mph? If you accept that then it stands to reason your statement Speeding != Wreckless does not apply.

Dolph said:
My point was that the two were not synonomous. You can exceed the speed limit safely or recklessly, and you can be within the speed limit safely or recklessly.

I agree

Dolph said:
I will say that 150mph is seriously tiring (in fact anything much above 100mph is) if you're actually concentrating sufficiently for the speed you're travelling at. I generally don't drive in three figure speeds (whether they are legal or not) for that reason, I'd much rather sit around 85-90mph where your critical observation distance is shorter...

I do pretty much the same, and I do agree with your argument, and I certainly don't think that the speed you travel at suddenly becomes dangerous at an arbitry number. However I believe there becomes a point at which one can be wreckless due to the speed of human reactions, coupled with the conditions of motorways and the capability of cars.