Speeding On The M4 In Wiltshire !!!!

Michael

No one is saying that speed cameras will eliminate accidents but they will help to make the roads a safer place.

You can stop quicker and manouver far better at a slower speed than what you can at a high one.

All this is doing is to make sure the days of speeding are over.

If the choice is between thousands of cameras and one saved life, then the cameras deserve to be there.

To be frank, the cameras have already won and in you can expect them to be on nearly every street corner in say 5 years time. The big advantage being that they are such a good way of controlling speeders and raising revenue. On that basis, only a fool in the local Police Force would advise against their use.

Regards

Mick

Barnie

The seller of that stuff is a fool. The Metropolitan force survey ebay for that stuff as well as radar detectors. He is taking a chance.

Regards

Mick

421 sales of photoblocker since October 04. Not very clever these cops are they

quote:

Originally posted by Barnie:
421 sales of photoblocker since October 04. Not very clever these cops are they

Selling it probably isn't illegal. I've seen enough adverts for radar detectors to assume that trading in those is also not illegal.

If the police are monitoring a legal trade then wouldn't that be a shocking waste of resources?

Barnie

I think you will find that the loophole regarding this sort of thing is being looked into.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
I think you will find that the loophole regarding this sort of thing is being looked into.

Looked into by whom? It's the polices duty to enforce the law as it stands, not to make new ones up to suit themselves.

Mick is right on this one.

Nobody who keeps to the speed limit is feeding anyone's bottomless moneybox. It really is that simple.

You may rest assured that with ever increasing technological progress all vehicles (except the politicians' own) will one day be physically governed to avoid exceeding the local speed limit.

It matters not a jot whether your government is only paying lip service to reducing road deaths. Nobody gets "robbed" by greedy governments or the camera installers for obeying the law.

A fine is the consequence of your own actions. The fault lies entirely with you, the "perp" and nobody else.

Just be grateful the fines aren't heavier or the consequences as life-threatening for you as it probably is for anyone else using the road at the same time as your good selves.

If I was in charge I'd be automatically confiscating the vehicle of anyone driving at (say) 100% over the speed limit in any built-up area. And crushing that same vehicle and its contents in a very public place, in the presence of its former owner, as part of the penalty.

Now that would really concentrate your minds on your "excellent" driving skills. Wouldn't it?

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Barnie

I think you will find that the loophole regarding this sort of thing is being looked into.

Regards

Mick

I don't doubt it, but the fact is - if you make the motorist pay in an unfair way, it will always pay someone to beat the system!!

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
If I was in charge I'd be automatically confiscating the vehicle of anyone driving at (say) 100% over the speed limit in any built-up area. And crushing that same vehicle and its contents in a very public place, in the presence of its former owner, as part of the penalty.

Anyone driving at twice the speed limit in a built up area needs locking up, and that includes the police driver mentioned earlier in the thread.

With reference to Nime's comments on 17th April at 10:54

see the article about a project to do a very similar thing

in car monitor

Some of you amaze me. If anyone out there belives that driving at 70mph is any safer than driving at 80mph is an idiot. Speed is not the cause. BAD DRIVING is !!
I see idiots/chavs driving around Swindon in cars with hugh exhasuts, roaring off between speedbumps causing chaos in the streets they use but I can guarntee they hardly reach 30mph but do so in 2 secs and verging on out of control.
So according to you guys this is legal !!!
A close friend got badly hurt two years ago by a women driver doing 20mph in a 30mph zone ploughed right into him, didnt even notice he was on a bike because she was talking to her friend beside her !!!.
But she was driving within the legal speed limits !!!
Mick/Nime. If we just follow rules because they are rules without question then we are all fools.
The saftey campagin should be directed towards the "real" saftey issues NOT the ones easiest to gain revenue from.

Phil

quote:

The role of the police is to prevent offences being committed not to catch people in the act. For this reason I'm opposed to unmarked cars and cameras without warning signs or reflective markings upon them.

Speed limit enforcement is about safety not revenue, is it not?

Steve,
I take your point, but the role of the police is both prevention and detection. The police are not just there to do high profile patrols to give everyone a chance. They are also there to detect the offences committed. What does wind me up is when speed enforcement teams do not concentrate on crash hotspots, but go to the sites where they can catch the most offenders. Entrapment in the context you infer is illegal, but in the way plain cars are deployed is perfectly legal, and an important weapon in bad driving detection.

Your argument should center on where they best deploy their finite resources. There has been a move away from traffic policing by this government, to concentrate on core crime issues and anti-social behaviour. Whether you agree with this is something you should dicuss with your MP.

Prevention of exceeding the speed limit is difficult to measure in some respects, isn't it? I mean, how do you actually know sometimes what has been avoided?

The frustrating thing is the unwillingness to comply with legislation by some folk here, legislation that is set by the government, not the police.

I find it amazing that we fit devices to our vehicles to avoid detection, thus condoning breaking the law. Its a purist approach, but you try having to go to a next of kin who has been killed by a driver breaking the law (speeding/bad driving/whatever). It is just so the worst thing ever to have to do.

andy c!

On my daily commute to and from work (by car, motorbike or bicycle) I see virtually no incidences of speeding but I do see lots and lots of incidences of bad or dangerous driving.

Installing speed cameras on my route would catch no-one, but proper policing of those areas could make a difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

The law was made to protect all of us and not to be argued with by some frustrated Sterling Moss who thinks he is a good driver but almost certainly isn't.

Unless I am mistaken the 70mph limit came about because of an oil crisis. Not only that but it was at a time when half the cars on the road had front drum brakes and cross ply tyres.

Then you've got the age old police argument against increasing the limit to 80mph - they say that because people already drive at 80mph so if you make the limit 80mph people will drive at 90mph - in other words the police are saying that they are happy with the present unwritten 80mph limit.

The trouble is, the appropriate speed depends upon the circumstances. Would you rather be travelling in a Ford Anglia at 70mph in the dark with driving rain on a busy motorway or in my 330D Sport at 90mph on a dry clear Sunday morning on an empty motorway. A policeman can judge which of these situations is the most dangerous - a camera cannot and would book the safer driver!

And what about overtaking on single carriageways with a 60mph limit. If you were overtaking a lorry that was doing 50mph on a straight bit of road would you only increase your speed by the permitted 10mph and hence spend longer than necessary on the wrong side of the road or might it be safer to zip up to say 75mph to get past more quickly before returning to the 60mph limit? I think we know the safest option there.

And don't forget that, as someone already mentioned, the vast majority of M4 accidents have involved HGVs that are ALREADY speed limited.

I mean - what if the motorway speed limit was reduced to 40mph tomorrow - would you 'obey the limit' advocates be happy with that or might you say this was a touch on the low side. I presume you would say this is too slow - this is exactly what we are saying about the 70mph under certain circumstances.

I guess what I'm saying is that people might have a lot more time for this over zealous policing of the speed limit on motorways if the limit itself was reviewed and set at what the police themselves deem to be a more reasonable figure i.e. 80mph.

If the government were serious about increasing road safety they would incentivise people to take the advanced driving test (subsidise lessons, broker a deal whereby those passing get big reductions in insurance premiums), rather than attempting to get unsafe drivers to keep to an arbitary limit so that when the inevitable accidents happen the damage will be reduced.

Matt.

Matt

I know a dozen or so local policemen socially and most of them feel that the 70 mph limit is about right. Their view is that whilst 80mph is safe some of the time, it is not safe all of the time.

The problem with speeding is almost like fuses, the idiots who ignore the rules genuinely think they know what is best.

Once cameras are everywhere (and that is now a certainty), speeding will almost certainly be a thing of the past.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
I know a dozen or so local policemen socially and most of them feel that the 70 mph limit is about right. Their view is that whilst 80mph is safe some of the time, it is not safe all of the time.

If they're stupid enough to not also think that applies to the current 70mph motorway limit then they should be sacked.

Anyone who thinks that driving at the speed limit is "safe all of the time" is an imbecile and shouldn't be allowed to hold a drivers license!

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Once cameras are everywhere (and that is now a certainty), speeding will almost certainly be a thing of the past.

One clear indication that it's revenues that are the driving factor can be seen in the move towards forward facing digital speed cameras. Those can extort more cash from the majority of the road population but one minority section, motorcycles, is completely immune.

Steve

Nothing is 100% perfect.

Regards

Mick

PS I think you misread the 70/80 mph thing. Most of them think the maximum speed on wiltshire motorways should remain at 70mph, even though they agree that driving at 80 mph could be safe on occassions.

I've been on motorways when 20mph would be dangerous, and on other occasions where I'd regard 150mph+ as safe.

Most people on motorways seem to be driving at indicated speeds of around 80-85mph, and I think that to set the speed limit around that figure would be reasonable, however I'd much rather see a crackdown on careless/dangerous driving (whether speed is a factor or not), drunk driving, dangerous vehicles etc, etc, instead of a continuation of this dishonest focus on speed alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
I've been on motorways when 20mph would be dangerous, and on other occasions where I'd regard 150mph+ as safe.

Steve, if you really think you are that good a driver then good luck to you. Personally I wouldn't regard 150mph safe under any circumstances unless I held a racing driver's licence!

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
Most people on motorways seem to be driving at indicated speeds of around 80-85mph, and I think that to set the speed limit around that figure would be reasonable, however I'd much rather see a crackdown on careless/dangerous driving (whether speed is a factor or not), drunk driving, dangerous vehicles etc, etc, instead of a continuation of this dishonest focus on speed alone.

I agree with this to some extent but would suggest that a lot of cases of careless and dangerous driving involve the use of excessive speed.

I think that one of the reasons why 70mph seems slow as a speed limit is that reaching 70 is one thing when you're accelerating but driving at 70 for many miles on the open road can lead to a state of getting so used to it that it starts to feel like 30! I agree with the police's argument against raising the speed limit, however. It's one thing for motorists to think it's acceptable to drive at 80 when the speed limit is 70, but raise the limit to 80 and motorists will then find it acceptable to drive even faster leading, IMO, to an even more dangerous situation on the roads than we have now.

Cheers,

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by JonR:
Steve, if you really think you are that good a driver then good luck to you. Personally I wouldn't regard 150mph safe under any circumstances unless I held a racing driver's licence!

As it happens I do hold a race license and have done for a number of years but I don't think it's all that great a factor in whether one is a good driver/rider. I don't personally regard myself as any more or less than an average driver as it happens.

I do have experience of vehicles at high speeds on circuits and also on public roads from when I lived in Germany (and from visits to the Isle of Man). During my time there it was often the case that I'd be cruising at 130mph or so and I'd be passed by vehicles travelling much faster than that. People were used to those speeds and also paid more attention for vehicles coming up behind so I don't ever recall those speeds seeming dangerous. What was very dangerous in Germany though was the number of drivers who didn't slow down at all when the conditions deteriorated (at such times speed limits are in place) and that led to some of the worst wet weather carnage I've ever seen.

Because of that I wouldn't advocate no speed limits, but I think the motorway speed limit is a clear candidate for being re-set more realistically and the police cracking down on all forms of traffic offences affecting safety, and not just the easy target of speeding.

quote:

Originally posted by JonR:
I agree with this to some extent but would suggest that a lot of cases of careless and dangerous driving involve the use of excessive speed.

I'd agree with that but my experience of "excessive speed" is that it's just as likely to happen within the prevailing speed limit as without. Many accidents that are reported with excessive speed as a factor actually took place under the speed limit.

Mick clearly relishes the prospect of living in a totalitarian regime (on the roads anyway.)

The rest of us do not.

I shall "stop whingeing" and vote Conservative on 5th May...

Mick,

Get it into your head -

The cameras are not there to save lives.

As ever you pursue the same conformist argument in the face of overwhelming evidence that speed cameras do nothing to reduce casualties on our roads. You ignore the arguments presented to you and keep trotting out this one consistently simplistic line.

As for thousands of cameras being justified to save just one life, what about the many more lives that may have been saved if a less totalitarian approach had been taken wrt road safety?

Not wearing a seatbelt has saved one life too.

The car was on fire.

Eventually the revenue from cameras will be sufficient to plug the hole in Gordon's budget.

Also bear in mind that in similar threads in the past Mick has admitted speeding through inattention (masonic handshake got him off) so doesn't really hold the moral high-ground anyway.

Speeding through inattention is surely worse than deliberate speeding.

Officer: Have you any idea what speed you wwere doing sir?

Driver1: Yes officer, according to my speedometer I was doing 85 so I guess my real speed would be somewhere around the 77 to 80 mark. I've kept my distance as well as keeping with the traffic flow. The weather conditions are perfect and I haven't hogged either of lanes two or three.

Driver2: I dunno. about 65/70 I guess.