S0 - More or less points for speeding...

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

quote:

---

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

---

First, define an "accident" -- I take it as an occurence of some sort of impact.

If that is the case, then "bad/dangerous/poor driving" if executed slowly by all parties involved, is surely less likely to result in an impact as everyone has time to stop and/or steer.

If just one party is going too fast to do this, a "near one" turns into an impact.

Thus (IMHO) it is the element of speed which turns an admittedly imperfect situation into a potentially lethal one.

This is not of course to say that all blame for the above should always be layed entirely on the speeding party -- but it is his contribution of the element of speed which can turn a close-run thing into carnage.

Best;

Mark

quote:

---

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

---

The two go together; arbitrary limits are only introduced because the technology exists to enforce them. Otherwise they'd be rightfully ignored by most drivers.

Certainly in Staffordshire the new lower limits and cameras to enforce them have arrived at the same time.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by andy c:
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.

.

---

How we'll laugh when you get your first flashes. Unless you NEVER excede the speed limits (and if you claim so, I don't believe you), a camera will get you one day. Gatsos are only one type of camera in use.

BTW I have a clean licence

Steven

I see your point but that is not quite the situation here. In North Yorks we do not have any fixed cameras but speed limits have changed a great deal, and many for the better. Small towns on A roads have much better 40/30/40 zones to slow through traffic, other urban areas have 20mph sections. We also have flashing advisory signs and better speed limits on dangerous sections of road.

Speed limits are arbitary by definition, the means of enforcemnent has certainly changed but the principle of restriction is unaltered. You just never got caught before.

Bruce

quote:

---

Gatsos are only one type of camera in use.

---

Indeed. With the other types of camera you won't know you've been caught until the letter comes through the post. At least in the UK we don't hide cameras in bins or under mail boxes on gate posts.

With the best will in the world every law abiding driver is going to slip up at some point and there will be a camera there to witness it.

I can't wait for a rake of do-gooders to be caught out in this way.

quote:

---

Small towns on A roads have much better 40/30/40 zones to slow through traffic, other urban areas have 20mph sections.

---

These are appropriate speed limits. What I mean by arbitrary is the limit on open roads and bypasses being cut from 60 to 40 because it means that the cameras will then catch more people. By lowering the limit inappropriately the camera casts its net further.

Regards,

Steve.

It does appear that the advent of the speed camera does show a correlation to the reduction in pedestrian fatalities and injures but there has been a substantial increase in motorcycle fatralities and no real change in car driver or paseenger fatalities despite the supposedly safer cars. I guess the increased congestion and use of cars results in the this increase. Would of course be interesting to see how many fatalities where caused by the LGVs!

Matthew

Traffic saftey stats

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
My point is simple, if you get caught by a camera, you deserve all you get.

---

Mick, what is that supposed to mean? If a camera takes a picture of my car and the camera is set at a certain speed below my speed I may get a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP), but the police still have to prove (using my witness statement as keeper of the vehicle (which I have to provide by law but don't have to sign by law (more of this later)) AND the Police still have to show that the law was broken. For example with a camera attached to lights they have to prove that I went through the light on red, even though the camera does not get your picture until well after you have crossed the line. It isn't really saving the police any time at all using cameras, it just massively increases the number of police and police employees to process the pictures.

quote:

---

It is no good complaining, we all know the rules before we get in the car.

---

The highway code which I read before passing my driving test did not include any reference to speed cameras. In fact back in those days (1977) we had exactly the same speed limits as we do now, but we did not have arbitrary reductions in speed limits on dual carriageways policaed by cameras. For example on the A1 in Northamptonshire there is a stretch of perfectly good 70MPH capable motorway type dual carriageway with a reduced speed limit to 50 MPH and about a hundred speed cameras. The speed limit reduction was introduced after many of the cameras in order to deliberately obtain increased income from the cameras already installed. I can't see the
point in deliberatley introducing 50MPH zones on dual carriageways outside of urban areas UNLESS you are on a mission to increase revenue.

Yes Mick, I do know the law before getting in my car, it says for example: Dual carriageways have a speed limit of "The National Speed Limit" unless otherwise signified by the placing of speed limit signs. So goin up the A1 I am ready to drive at up to 70, then I hit Northamtonshire and suddenly I get a 50 sign followed by (about 10 inches later) a speed camera. It is absurd, and nothing to do with saving lives.

quote:

---

Secondly, the chance of you being done by 4 faulty cameras and losing your licience are miniscule.

---

Mick, this is absurd. EVEN ONE FAULTY CONVICTION IS TOO MANY !

quote:

---

Also if a camera is faulty, it will be detected.

---

No. You are wrong. Cameras have a mandatory service once a year and if they are found to be wrong they are adjusted. However if you ask for the certificate for the camera when you are sent the NIP, you cannot argue that the camera is inaccurate if it is within a year of its last test. The law in this case is absurd. Natural justice would say that you are entitled to have the camera tested if you wish as part of your defense.

quote:

---

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

---

I am not advocating driving outside of the law, Mick, I am simply making the point(s) that cameras are unreliable, inappropriately used for revenue generation, and that dangerous driving is 5% about speed and 95% about other things (vision, awareness, reactions etc etc)


Cheers, and safe driving
Cliff

This geezer down the boozer last night from Swinedon told me that 90% of speeding related accidents involved alcohol, obvious innit, he said knowingly !

Fritz Von Welli'llbebuggered

Piss² More Pub carpark Spies ee reckons ?

I'd have no problem with a Police car sat in the pub car park breathalysing every single driver.

Seen too many people mashed in accidents.

Bruce

quote:

---

I'd have no problem with a Police car sat in the pub car park breathalysing every single driver.

---

I agree except for the driver who has ordered a taxi but has gone to his car to get his coat and his bag.

Under our daft laws he will also lose his licence.



Regards,

Steve.

Speed cameras are ok, but I think the 70 mph speed limit on motorways is too slow. we should have it like the autobahns in Germany, but most people would have to learn how to drive properly first.
on another driving point, what are the views on there being too many cars on the road, especially mothers on the school run jamming up the roads unnecessarily? should there be restrictions put in place to control the amount of cars on our roads?

TN

Any particular reason for singling out the school run? Do you think children should walk to school? Do you have children?

I'd use public transport if it was availavle, as quick as and cheaper than driving. However, none of these apply in my case - and I've tried all the permutations.

Cheers

Harry

Harry.

School runs cause traffic chaos everywhere. i dislike being stuck in traffic jams on a road near a school behind 40-50 cars filled with one parent and a single child all from the local area when it would be much more sensible to car share, or in some cases for the parents to walk their children to school. don't people walk anymore?
add to that the outrageous and inconsiderate attempts at parking whilst waiting for children to come out from school whilst blocking the road in the process and you have an absolute nightmare.
yes, I have two kids and I walk them to school. i realise that in your case you've tried all the permutations so I don't blame you personally. there should be more school buses available, and therefore less cars needed.
roads are such a joy to use during school holidays!

TN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
roads are such a joy to use during school holidays!
TN

---

Yeah. i always look forward to the holidays. It can knock an hour of my total round trip time.

People should share - but I woundn't confine that to the school run mob. Trouble is, people don't seem to like it. When I worked in one place and commuted every day, four of us shared a car up to London. It was amazingly cheap and convienient compared to walking, trains and tubes. And it took about 45 min less each way, even in London traffic. Nowadays I drive all over the place at all times of the day. I can't share, which makes me one of those selfish bastards with three empty seats. Sorry about that.

Cheers

Harry

Why do so many women insist on driving around in bloody great big off-road 4x4s? I suppose they are a fashion accessory like Burberry handbags.

They clog up the bottom of the road on which I live every day as there is a primary school opposite the end of the road where it joins the main road.

As for the public transport protagonists, they tend to live in big cities like London where not only is public transport readily available to go where ever they want, but traffic congestion is a real issue. In more rural areas the reverse is true.

If I lived in London I'd probably leave my car in Staffordshire.



Regards,

Steve.

I lived in SW9 and drove to work in WC1 every day. This was at the time when Ken was heading up the GLC. When he did the tube fare cut thing it became a no brainer. At times when I HAD to drive to work there was noticalby less traffic about.

I'm rural now. If I have to go from here (near Wells) to WC1, driving is the only sane option. It's an hour less than public transport and about a half to a third of the cost. Put one passenger in my car and it drops accordigly. This includes 22p a mile for wear tear and petrol, and the cost of parking at the other end. Oh yeah, and the congestion tax.

These costs are just plain bloody stupid. When you consider the mysery and discomfort of going public, it should cost less, not more. The argument that I should pay more to run my car doesn't wash. In Europe I always take trains. Fast, comfortable and cheap. Our public transport infrastructure is screwed - yet as a car driver I always seem to get the blame for this!

I didn't break your damn trains. I don't use 'em!

/rant

Sorry.

Trevor,

Sorry, but in my limited experience autobahns are scary places to drive. The Germans seem to have received no warnings about the dangers of tailgating....or do they call it drafting?

Tony

Tony.

Driving on Autobahns can indeed be scary but whenever I've driven on them the vast majority of drivers respect speed and judge distances accordingly. if you dilly dally too long on the fast lane and don't pull over in time to allow a faster moving car to pass, they'll go right up your arse to let you know, and rightly so!
the Germans, in general, use the fast lane for its intended purpose, and that's to overtake quickly and safely and then move over to the middle or inside lane.
here in this country the outside lane on motorways is usually hogged by trucks doing 58 mph overtaking a car in the middle lane doing 55 mph, frequently uphill, and taking two hours in the process. or idiots who think they own the outside lane and refuse to pull over for you when the inside lanes are clear just because they're doing 70mph!!

TN

quote:

---

In Europe I always take trains. Fast, comfortable and cheap.

---

Thats because they are subsidised by their respective governments. The French railway to a huge extent IIRC. You can pay for it via tax or tickets-your choice! I'm not defending our public transport but I'm not sure you can hold it against other nations for direct comparison.

Public transport in rural areas need not be irrelevant, lost of simple schemes for relatively low cost (such as the post bus). Still people do not use them. Taxis are now so cheap they have effectively become the transport of choice for those who do not drive here.

Bruce

Yes. Many (all?) european rail networks have a huge government subsidy behind them. Unlike here, where money goes to pay off winging shareholders who don't understand that trading in shares is another form of betting on horses, or awarding productivity bonuses to senior management because 50% of the toilets on the network flush correctly. Is tax in the UK the lowest in the EU? It's not the highest, and we pay less VAT but is it like 30-50% of what other countries pay? This is the only reason I can think of, because ticket prices here are amoung the highest I've seen anywhehe.

Trevor,
Naa, I've been in the outside of the measly 2 lanes at high speed overtaking along lines of cars on the inside and suddenly WOOSH! mirror filled with Merc or whatever, 2 feet off my bumper. And it doesn't happen just the once.
That isn't good driving, never will be. And the safety record of autobahns is nothing to cheer about.


Tony