Speeding on the M1 in England:

Posted by: Berlin Fritz on 20 May 2005

I thought it'be nice to start another 20+ pages of cul-de-sacs, innit.



Fritz Von Flying is cheaper Big Grin
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
They'll certainly work for young Einstein there in my supermarket when the cops look at the inhouse magic eye later on, innit.


Fritz Von Police Speed/Radar traps are actually mentioned here daily on the radio, ie, where they will be, and this has proven to work, in contrast to British mentality (official) we'll get em even if it causes an accident ? Placebo Camera's etc, are also usefull (so long as it's kept secret obviously) Cardboard tanks for all Armys; that's what I say, I didn't get where I am today by causing unnessesary car incidents, often ending fatally, innit Cool
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Bruce Woodhouse
Have you sold the Evo?

I've a clean licence too, but then N. Yorks do not have fixed cameras.

Bruce
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Rockingdoc
Sold the Evo to my younger partner in the practice. It was fun for a year, but too much like hard work for a daily drive.
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
A long time ago in the 'M4' thread I posted a link to a British Medical Journal review of the evidence for speed cameras. Accumulated research, of varying methodological quality, appears to suggest a positive effect. This I feel has more validity than a single report in the Sun.


I bothered to read it. It was flawed and methodologically unsound. Your link actually conceded this.
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Bruce Woodhouse
That is my point, there is absolutely nothing to show that 'cameras do not work'. It is unproven either way.

Bruce
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by John Sheridan
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
That is my point, there is absolutely nothing to show that 'cameras do not work'.

except for common sense.
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by John Sheridan:
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
That is my point, there is absolutely nothing to show that 'cameras do not work'.

except for common sense.


Akin to Common Prayer maybe ?
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Martin D
The bmj thing was selective tosh
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Martin D
quote:
The presence of cameras often prevents me from speeding. I have a clean licence. So, they do work

Medics from another planet - as usual
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Martin D
Bruce the facts were nothing to do with the sun:

please read these words:

SPEED cameras do NOT cut fatal accidents, new Government research reveals.
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Martin D
How much more do you need:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/117.asp
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
That is my point, there is absolutely nothing to show that 'cameras do not work'. It is unproven either way.


Wriggling methinks.

Given that we need to get around unhindered, "unproven either way" isn't good enough.

Why should we give up our unhindered liberty to move about in the face of no conclusive evidence that this actually dangerous/causes more collisions?

The burdon of proof should surely be on those who wish to limit such free movement.

Remember: limiting speed without any PROVEN safety gains limits progress.

Personally, I've no desire to burn rubber etc. but there is no reason why, in law, a journey to Scotland from where I live should not be completed safely (and legally) within three hours or less by well-built/designed roads.

Shorter journey times are actually safer journeys...

Think about it - when the causes of collisions are actually listed, driver fatigue features much higher on the list of collision causes than exceeding a posted limit.

FORCING A DRIVER TO DRIVE SLOWER THAN HE WOULD OTHRWISE WISH OR FEEL SAFE AT increases his risk of an accident caused by driver fatigue - especially on motorways where everybody is travelling in the same direction without any of the usual potential stopping hazards.

Let them drive a bit faster and they stay alert.

Driving at or below 70 mph is a good cure for insomnia over long distances...

Longer journey times equal greater driver fatigue which in turn increases the risk of a colision.

On the last 20 mile straight of me reaching my beloved in Germany back in June 2003 I was completely knackered (I'd had only 2 x 10 minutes' power naps since midday the day before) I booted the poor little 1.4 Escort to 105 mph (and quite legally too in order to summon a bit of adrenalin that kept me awake, and I kept a minimum of 2 secs distance) before leaving the Autobahn and trawling through Landstuhl at 30 mph before reaching her flat.

I got there and I was shaking, but I was still alive.

NOBODY falls asleep at the wheel at 100+ mph in a 1.4 Escort.

Think about it...
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by sonofcolin
I shall be bringing my solo s2 back to the uk for my next trip as I was shocked by the proliferation of cameras on motorways!

If you think it'd bad sticking to 70 in the uk, you should try 55 in the US! Having been pinched once and fined $275 for doing 71mph in a 55 zone(on a sunday on an empty 3 lane highway), I invested in a quality radar/laser detector and it works like a charm.
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Steve Toy
sonofcolin,

I guess driving at 55 is fatally tiring over long distances.

Sweet dreams...

BANG!
Posted on: 23 May 2005 by Bruce Woodhouse
Steve wrote

quote:
Given that we need to get around unhindered


...and surely that is the nub. I do not think the ability to drive my car unhindered, at my chosen velocity, is my right. I'm sure most people agree with you though Steve. That is why an 'attack' on the 'civil liberty' of driving is always so vehemently battled. That is also why society cannot seem to get beyond the ridiculous circle of increasing traffic volumes, road construction, congestion and pollution.

Bruce

PS Martin-that link is about stop sign red-light cameras, not speed enforcement.
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
That is also why society cannot seem to get beyond the ridiculous circle of increasing traffic volumes, road construction, congestion and pollution.


This brings us back to the link between speed limit setting policy and phase shift.

Our government does not want to "build its way out of congestion."

Back in the late eighties Thatcher proposed "the biggest road building project since the Romans."


Unfortunately Norman Lamont the then Chancellor pissed the entire budget up the wall trying to keep sterling in the Exchange Rate Mechanism. About £4.5 Billion was effectively flushed down the toilet in a matter of days before he gave up on ERM and sterling came crashing out on 15th September 1992.

With the road money gone, they had to make excuses for not giving us our much-needed extra road space. The green card was duly waved...

Then the Kyoto agreement was duly signed to give governments the pretext to hike fuel taxes. The basis for speed limit setting policy of today came in 1995 with the following maxim issued by Friends of the Earth:

Speed limits should be set low and rigidly enforced to take the glamour out of motoring.

In case you think that there is already enough road space in the UK, consider the fact that there are more cars per road mile/km here than in any other country on the planet, and yet we don't own any more cars per capita than the average for any other Western European state.

The obvious conclusion to reach is that we need to increase significantly our road space and abandon pitiful and counter-intuitive attempts (that include setting speed limits artificially low and making false claims about the safety benefits of so doing) to make people switch to other (often non-existent) modes of transport or even preferably, not travel at all.

Transport policy in this country has been a total fuck-up since 1992, and all we hear is soundbites and excuses as to why getting around should be so much more difficult and costly than in other developed states.
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Some interesting points there Steve from a proffesional drivers point of view, it really doesn't look too promising does it old Son ? Not much point in starting a mobile school then, where you could teach brats, and eat the miles.

Fritz Von I hear Münich's good, though beer here is better (honnist ! as well as much cheaper)that's why they all come here on a regular basis, innit John. Cheers, first bottle to be cracked very soon´cos it ain't arf ot mum Big Grin
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by Steve Toy
Thanks Fritz.

I'll get to visit Berlin sometime to admire its transport system (like that brand new railway station) it's fine wide roads, and of course its beer.

Steve von crackin' open a bottle of Pilsner Urquell I just bought when it's chilled innit.
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
A very nice drop indeed Sir, I'm still suffering the old Bud as I'm confined to barracks at the moment, innit.


Fritz Von Yeah, I mean to take a look at the station sometime too, they brilliantly do staem excursions that run better than Beardies bleedin wirgin on the whatever line Big Grin
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by andy c
...as I've said before it all boils down to money... Roll Eyes

andy c!
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Very profound Andy, go and have a cold pint Mister Big Grin Taxi home naturally:
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by andy c
fritz,
had one already matey - and I deserved one...been takin complaints all day Roll Eyes

still, can't have everything (except a stella!!)

andy c! von ya pay for it one way or another - but like big brother - u decide!
Posted on: 24 May 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
...as I've said before it all boils down to money...


And great big whopping porkie pies.

Progress is about shorter journey times and improved safety across the board and there is no reason why these two aims should be mutually exclusive.

We can ill afford NOT to invest in better roads as well as railways - we are after all a developed nation and we need to encourage inward investment here. It aint gonna happen if we fall behind our competitors re. accessibility.

Economies regarding transport investment are all entirely false ones...

Before we begin spending the money let us at least stop telling lies to ourselves.

Better, faster, wider roads, better junction layout, more off-road parking not less, appropriately set speed limits that can then be enforced with some degree of justification, and we'll begin to see that 3500 per annum death toll on our roads tumble.

The other benefit will be falling exhaust emissions as vehicles won't be belching out fumes as they go nowhere quite so much.

The Tories made a big mistake in privatising the railways and National Express, and by so doing they have created this huge monster of private public transport with vested interests in making life for drivers as unpleasant as possible.

That wankery organisation Transport 2000 was thus born...
Posted on: 25 May 2005 by Nime
Steve

a) Cars numbers expand to fill every available space. Gridlock is a reality.

b) Traffic cameras produce income [only] from idiots. (Not from law-abiding citizens)

c) Cycling is faster than driving in many cities. This was as true in the 60's as it is true today. They should pay cyclists to cycle in town centres. "That'll be sick squid for using the high street in your car matey! You can hand it to any passing cyclist. Next?"

d) Walking is faster over reasonable distances than driving in many city centres. Yet most prefer to sit in a comfortable car to have their nervous breakdown at the traffic queues which impede their progress and make them fat. Forgetting that they themselves contribute to the queues. As does their wife, teenage son, teenage daughter, granny and grandad and piece of totty from the office. Oh I forgot, she cycles to work.

e) They gutted most of the decent town centres to make way for the bløødy car.

f) Congestion is worse now than it was the day they opened the gutted historical town centres to make way for the car. But only for as long as it took the mayor to drive round in their stretched limo with a police escort to protect them from the disbelieving populace. There were queues then and there are queues now. Nothing has really changed except that a few smart guys made a bløødy fortune gutting the cities we knew and loved.

g) If they expand the roads to allow more cars to queue on there wil be no town centre buildings left to live and shop in.

h) Taxis should be allowed to use bus lanes. Yeah! Smile

i) Bus lanes should be removed completely and immediately and replaced by double width cycle lanes. Woohoo! Big Grin

j) The obvious answer is to close city centres completely to all traffic except pedestrians, free electric busses, electric delivery vehicles, hybrid electric/hydrogen taxies and all human powered vehicles.

k) All diesels are shit-awful and twice as noisy and should not be allowed on the roads at all. That includes busses! You'd have to work damn hard to design and make a less appealing vehicle for "public" transport. It took real skill and decades of intensive research to achieve the present awfulness that are busses! Diesel cars, vans and lorries seem not to have starter motors so must be left running continuously once they get them started. (It's my world too!)

l) There is no cause for an "artic" to be delivering a small consignment to a supermarket in the town or city. Yet every town centre is jammed with the things delivering a few packages to small shops and businesses. Ban the bløødy things already!

m) The supermarkets thrive by getting in our way on the roads, making us do our own shopping in their football-field sized display stadia and then make us wait in long queues to pay for the items we selected. For god's sake why do we let them do it to us? Supermarkets are primarily responsible for today's congestion! Nobody else carries so much blame! They took away our corner shops, our high street and backstreet specialist shops with their decades of in-depth knowledge. Even the post offices, banks, bakers, cycle shops, hardware shops and chemists are going now to be replaced by an insipid and incredibly limited choice of cheap Chinese shite on a display rack.

n) Now they have the nerve to move out of town centres to larger and much cheaper premises with a carpark so large that it gives you the most excercise you'll get all day just walking to the shop entrance. It also leads to global warming as that vast area of tarmac hits 150 degrees on a sunny day. Would avenues of shade trees be asking too much?
It all ensures that we have to drive miles just to eat their sickly Roundup contaminated shit and to buy their recycled, re-bleached & repackaged bog paper from some Brazilian shanty town!

o) ?

Nime
Posted on: 25 May 2005 by andy c
quote:
And great big whopping porkie pies.



Steve,
people cause crashes. Not cars, not bikes - people. People who think they can do bigger/better/faster without being pre-emtive about what may happen. We live in a society where 'i' want to get there quicker etc with not alot of concern for 'others'.

Traffic legislation in general is preventative in its design - 'don't speed or drive without due care' normally the result is only the person doing either is at fault, but sometimes they hit others.

True the transport system in the uk is at critical status, and the blame for that lay at several differant places. It still don't get away from the fact that we can directly affect the chioices we make, and more important what we do re the implications and consequences of those choices.

'I didn't mean to do it' doesn't wash when dealing with a fatality, does it?

PS Don't start on me about camera's again - I agree with you re the use of these things!

regards

andy c!