S0 - More or less points for speeding...

My old job put me through a Drive & Survive course which against my expectations turned out to be fun and very useful. One of the many anecdotes and statistical quotes which came up was that the USA has around 60% less rear end collisions than the UK. Shal I tell you or will you guess (assuming that anyone's even vaguely interested, cos I do drone on...)?

Cheers

Harry

2 seconds isn't enough in less than good conditions. You'll fail an advanced test for not leaving at least twice that.

Tony

I know what you are saying, that is why I said at least two seconds. If the road surface is wet double it to four seconds.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

I have to say that the variable speed limits on the M25 have inproved traffic flow. Back in the 80s it seemed to be 100mph or stop. Course, it still gets clogged up but what used to be a stressful and frustrating 15 miles can now frequently be done on cruise, even at the intersections.

---

I totally agree with variable speed limits on the M25 as they actually reduce overall journey times.

Here is an explanation as to why

The variable speed limits are intended to stem the flow of traffic into the rear of a "wave" of congestion. At the head of the "wave" there should be a minimum speed limit...

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a road traffic 'accident'...
They are all collisions to which there is a 'degree' of blameworthiness...
even the losing control on a slippery road surface (ice) can be controlled by reducing speed - driving more carefully.

Just ask the legal dept in any insurance company....

---

This is politically-correct nonesense. Very few people deliberately cause collisions, although of course many are caused by driving without due care and attention.

As for insurance companies and their legal departments, someone has to be at fault in order to determine who pays up - they are obviously as much concerned about their revenues as speed camera partnerships.

Rarely does speed feature on an insurance claim form other than the:

"It wasn't my fault for pulling out on him without making effective observation before emerging, it was his fault for going too fast, else he'd have been able to stop before he hit me!"

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on MONDAY 26 January 2004 at 04:32.]

Steven,

Thanks for the 'traffic waves' link....nobody at work believes my theory on why the so called rubber-neckers at motorway accident scenes have no choice but to drive past slowly. This shows the reason why quite clearly.

Tony

Chaps

Speed restrictions are imposed to make our roads safer. If there were no restrictions, all the idiots would be tearing around, all over the place, at high speed. Not everyone is a responsible driver. Therefore speed restrictions are needed.

Cameras are an effective tool in making sure that any intelligent motorist stays on his guard and keeps the speed down.

There is NO excuse for speeding, none whats so ever. If anyone is thick enough to be caught then they deserve all they get.

Personally I would retain the 3 points per conviction but increase the fine by a severe amount for each occassion. Say £20.00 for the first offence, £50.00 for the second, £200.00 for the third and £500.00 for the fourth. That will serve as an inducement to toe the line.

The argument that some people will lose their livelyhood is nebulous. If your job entails driving, then there is more reason to drive within the law, so stop whinging and drive as per the rules.

Only thickos get caught and we do not need thickos on the road.

Regards

Mick

Mick

Brace yourself, shock coming-I agree with you!

Motorists seem to assume that they have a right to speed.

Speed control is a crude way of improving road safety and so many other things contribute but it is one way and it needs enforcement to work. Your fines suggestion may be a bit harsh, the cost of a lost licence is pretty heavy in terms of daily life and future insurance.

Bruce

quote:

---

Only thickos get caught and we do not need thickos on the road.

---

this from the man that thinks it's perfectly safe to be running red lights at high speed...
So are you going to ban yourself from driving now Mick?

I have been caught twice and it was my own fault on both occassions. I was bloody stupid to have done it and even more stupid for being caught.

I now drive strictly within the law at all times.

Regards

Mick

Cliff

That old chestnut.

OK let us agree that anyone who speeds over a marked road with a camera stuck on top of a pole is plain bloody thick if he gets caught.

On reflection, let us say that 99% of them are thickos and the other 1% are victims.

Regards

Mick

Let's also remember that being caught speeding used to mean being pulled over by a cop. How many now just get a speeding ticket from a camera and get away with being drunk, having no tax and insurance etc.

Just buy one of these road angeland you can concentrate on the road again.
I bought one on a whim, but wouldn't drive without it now. (It acts as a more accurate speedo too).

quote:

---

Equipment is fallable, and mistakes are made. A camera cannot determine if someone is driving dangerously. If you want to keep "thicko" bad drivers off the road, the only sensible way to do this is through a mixture of education and policing.

---

But the general public do not want policing concentrating on this area, if their government is to be believed! Also people are not prepared to pay for more policing to tackle this area, hence the camera's.

Also, re the road angel - if you are not driving carefully enough to see the signs and the great big gatso on the side of the road, the you should not be driving at all.

Good point from Rasher - re the speeding motorists being done by the camera as opposed to the police, thus reducing the chance of catching the drink drivers etc.

My point is simple, if you get caught by a camera, you deserve all you get. It is no good complaining, we all know the rules before we get in the car.

Secondly, the chance of you being done by 4 faulty cameras and losing your licience are miniscule. Also if a camera is faulty, it will be detected.

The answer is simple....drive within the law.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cliff Patterson:
iv) People driving whilst doing their eye shadow using their visor mirror as a make up mirror(

---

Speak for yourself Cliff

Rasher has spelt it out precicely. Much better than my knackered shocks argument.

I'm not surprised the 'general public' (whoever they are) are opposed to effective road policing. Means they can be as dangerous as they want, just so long as they behave for the camera. Oh hang on a mo, that was a political observation right? Well, we can disguard that as obvious rubbish then.

I don't care if this country becomes carpeted with cameras, or if they all get taken down. What I do care about is traffic cops getting replaced by stupid cameras that churn out till rolls. It shouldn't be a case of either/or.

Some way back I saw a quote along the lines of 'all drivers think it's their god given right to speed'. Whislt here, I'd just like to violently disagree with that very shitty and inaccurate statement.

Drive safely folks.

Harry

quote:

---

I get your point about public opinion, although I'm not sure what stats you have that would back this up. Most people I talk to don't complain about being followed by police cars driving at the speed limit. In fact they seem to cause the traffic flow to smooth out a bit, in my opinion. I'm not sure you got my point about education though ... ;(

---

Hi Cliff,
I do get your point about education, and i am well in a position to totally agree to this - but I cannot elaborate any more for personal reasons and this is a public forum (some things need to remain private! )
I personally feel that if people we, say, taught according to roadcraft or something similar, and were periodically tested to reinforce this with re tests similar to the National Driver Improvement Scheme That is run in Notts, then that would be a beneficial way to go.
FYI NDIS is avaiable to drivers of offending vehicles where there is sufficiant evidence to prosecute them for due care, but for certain reasons education would be better. So there are scheme's in place to cope - the offender pays for the course and can pass or fail. If they fail, they then still get done for due care!

Essex traffic cops were once famous for their enthusiasm ? It now seems North Wales is the new happy spot for motorists, innit:

Fritz Von Bungimaladyguvnor

Piss² Mind you saaf wales has been speeding continually for decades, an I don't mean motors Boyos.

Back to the original question - to suggest reducing points for speeding can only mean one thing - revenue generation.

Off tangent now - I see far less traffic cops these days - speed cameras cannot detect bad/dangerous driving or the untaxed/uninsured/false plated drivers. IMHO the police have to a degree abandoned road traffic policing for the easy and revenue generating option of speed cameras. I do hope I am wrong.

A point to contemplate - what is the cause of an accident? Is it bad/dangerous/poor driving or speed?

Education of drivers is the way forward to reduce deaths on the road.

Mike

Mick's this Authoritarian type chap who belongs firmly in the camp of "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about."

Despite his penchant for stating the obvious where speed cameras are concerned, he is overlooking the fact that those automated highwaymen have done everything to erode civil liberties and absolutely nothing to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads.

The government will continue to miss its targets while it continues to ignore the causes of 90% of accidents and only focus on the 10%.



Regards,

Steve.

If those speed cameras have saved one life then they may be deemed a success.

The anti camera mob are just a bunch of whingers fighting a lost cause. The cameras are here to stay and you had better get used to them. The debate is effectively over.

So do as the Highway code tells you or risk losing your licience.

I am stating the obvious because it appeals to you.

Mick

quote:

---

The cameras are here to stay and you had better get used to them.

---

We'll have to see won't we?

By moving away from the simplistic "speed kills!" we may yet save more than just one life.

BTW, I drove to Marco's and back yesterdy and apart from on the motorway I didn't break a single speed limit because in Shropshire and Cheshire the limits are appropriately set and make sense. In my native Staffordshire they are fond of arbitrary 40mph limits on open roads enforced with cameras. It is all too easy to actually forget what the posted limit is at times and otherwise-law-abiding drivers are getting caught out by this.

In Staffordshire it's about revenue - the road deaths here have actually increased, yes I said increased since the cameras started to breed. We have 220 of them.

Regards,

Steve.

Steven

I'm not sure how cameras have eroded our civil liberties. They catch people who break a law, they do not photograph everybody passing by and send messages to your boss that you've just sloped off early for the weekend.

Bruce

They erode civil liberties because they are a powerful weapon in the undeclared war by socialists on private transport. Hence the arbitrary lowered speed limits I mentioned above.

Cameras will continue to have no effect in reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads yet the authorities will continue to add more of them and tell whopping lies about their safety effectiveness.

It's about phase shifting and revenue not about safety.

I for one value freedom of movement as a civil liberty. Restrictions to speed should only apply where necessary. Many of the restrictions now in place are simply unnecessary from the safety aspect.



Regards,

Steve.

I know this may be pedantic but I'd suggest your argument is therefore about speed limits, not about speed cameras.


Bruce

Speed cameras are a very effective tool in keeping down speed. Once they are installed all over the place, drivers will soon tow the line because of the risk to their licience. Let us be frank, if there was a camera for every one mile of road, only a fool would speed.

The police can then divert their time in persuing burglars and the like.

Regards

Mick