The creeping use of automatic electronic law enforcement, replacing the human element (i.e. human police officers) is something most citizens are suspicious of, and rightly so. If ordinary decent citizens do not speak up now and try to re-direct the course of this surveillance society, it will be "prosecution by machine" and an end to discretion in law enforcement within our lifetimes.
A couple of points I don't think have been mentioned before...
1. No crime is so clear cut and watertight as to fall into rigid black and white areas - crime/no crime. Little Johnny scrumping an apple from Farmer Giles' land is not the same as a pickpocket in a bustling market or a bank manager embezzling millions. A couple of centuries ago all three thieves would have been hanged or deported regardless.
2. The "logic" behind speed cameras and CCTV parking cameras is to catch every single transgressor so that no one can ever get away with breaking a single motoring rule or law and the obvious motive is to create, not a zero percent "motoring crime rate" but a near-perfect money making machine.
3. Those who so vociferously support this (especially chauffeured ministers and politicians and other sanctimonious, hypocritical mimsers and non-drivers who do not have to drive for a living) by their own logic support the full panoply of High Street bank charges and would never object to being prosecuted *solely on CCTV/computer evidence* for accidentally dropping a price label in the street, say (littering), or accidentally jostling another pedestrian in a busy street (assault), failing to return excess change handed over by a busy shop assistant, an overdue library book, a late gas bill, having more than 10 items in the express checkout......
|
Those who so vociferously support this (especially chauffeured ministers and politicians and other sanctimonious hypocritical mimsers and non-drivers who do not have to drive for a living) by their own logic support the full panoply of High Street bank charges and would never object
.. etc
Bilboman's phrase "hypocritical mimsers" says it all. While most of the words of the objectors may be about the method of enforcement, a lot of the complaint about speed cameras comes repeatedly from a hard core of drivers who want to keep on speeding, and sneer at those who stay under the speed limits as "mimsers". Keep it up, folks, the government loves folks like you, because you make the strongest possible case for heavy-handed enforcement.
If someone has to drive for a living, then they should learn how to stay within the speed limits rather constantly trying to drive at a speed which leaves no margin for error ... and if that's too difficult, then cars can be fitted with a speed-limiter such as those available on new Citroens and Renaults. Staying safely within limits is something most of us have to whatever our line of work, and if someone is driving for a living then it would be better to apply a little effort to learn how to drive legally than to moan about the enforcement.
|
"Moan about the enforcement" - too right!
The gradual "closing of the net" using all sorts of electronic "aids" so that eventually every single motorist becomes a criminal for every single minute over the parking allowance and every single mph over the limit REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES is a dreadful prospect. If we remove the slightest margin of discretion from every single area of motoring law, as seems to be the trend, then the machines truly are taking over and stop the Earth, I want to get off.
NowWheels, are you happy to be punished for every single lapse and criminalised in the same way for bumping into a pedestrian, dropping a piece of paper and so on as I asked in my previous thread? Do you defend Bank Charges?
Just wondering.
|
Speed cameras are the fairest form of taxation ever devised. Contribution to the national exchequer is entirely voluntary, and the option to pay, or be exempt, can be revoked at any moment.
I have a foot-operated lever in my car which enables me to select the precise level of taxation I wish to contribute. As it happens, I invariably select the zero option, but fortunately lots of other motorists seem to feel it is their duty to pay.
In these difficult times the government must be desperately short of money. Please keep contributing generously on my behalf.
|
As Stu says there are lots of these devices in Northants. Mostly on major roads or on the arterial routes into town (including one of the first implementations of SPECS). Sitings are pretty obvious blackspots - Blisworth/Tiffield crossroads on the A43, Blisworth/Courteenhall crossroads on the A508.
I'm not convinced the golden age of discretion based enforcement ever really applied either. You might have been lucky if the copper was that way inclined or at the end of his shift. On the other hand you mught fail the attitude test and held up for 30mins while your car was checked for other infractions.
Thirty years ago the West Yorks police used to set up a radar trap on the A658, just by where the airport runway then ended. Area was previously built up but cleared as part of airport development. Limit very sensibly left at 30 until after the airport terminal access. Lots of folks however booted it as soon as they were clear of buildings.
Caught 'em like flies!!
Edited by Bromptonaut on 10/11/2008 at 13:25
|
|
|
Speed cameras are the fairest form of taxation ever devised. Contribution to the national exchequer is entirely voluntary and the option to pay or be exempt can be revoked at any moment.
I have a number of ethical objections to the current policy.
Firstly I think we should be free unless there is a good reason to restrict our behaviour. You can't just say "Well, if you obey this rule you will not be penalised, so what is the problem?". Our ancestors have fought for centuries to achieve the liberties we now enjoy and would be appalled by such a draconian Big Brother attitude. In other words, laws and conventions must have a sufficient justification such that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Secondly the problem with heavy emphasis on speed limits is that the judgement as to the safe speed on a given road is put into the hands of a public servant who is not infallible. I suspect there is a book of rules, and (s)he sets the limits according to the rules. Problem is we are all human, and all too often the limits are inappropriate, sometimes too high, sometimes too low. If I see a sign saying "Danger, school entrance ahead" I am inclined to pay attention and slow if need be. If I see a fast road and a low limit, I will obey the limit, but many won't.
Thirdly, I doubt the effectiveness of so many fixed site cameras. The uninsured nutters are the ones who are more likely to speed, to be criminals and to have accidents. And many speedsters know how to manipulate cameras by braking when need be. They will get round average speed cameras too.
And remember that the justification for cameras is that they supposedly save lives. Let's assume they do. But far more people die in accidents in the home. So should we ban most household appliances, or impose rules so strict that products are 100% safe, but 3 times the price. And as for hospitals, far more people die from hospital acquired infections. We would save far more lives by tackling that more effectively. The truth is that for many speed cameras allow the building of empires, the furtherance of careers, and the pursuing of world views that are often simplistic and crass. Oh and loads a money for some.
|
|
|
|
"Moan about the enforcement" - too right!
Exactly. It's not hard to drive within the limits, because all you need to do is to give yourself an appropriate margin of error. Too many prefer to drive at or over the limit, and because the practice is so widespread, it is now cost-effective for the authorities to install very expensive automated monitoring devices.
Speed cameras exist only because so many drivers choose to drive in a way which means they pay for the things; if drivers stayed below the limits, these machines would become expensive white elephants. I do think that the proliferating number of cameras poses serious problems for privacy and liberty, but until more drivers can persuade themselves to ease off on speed, then these crude and ubiquitous devices are by far the most effective way of catching the miscreants without placing a burden on the public purse.
If you want to stop these machines taking over, then you can easily do that, by using your right foot with more piano and less forte.
And no, I'm getting into an off-topic side-discussion about banking.
|
I think speed cameras still have a place, but as said previously their placement is often less about safety which antagonises the general motoring public.
If most of them were around schools etc or genuine blackspots then most people would be in favour - here in the North East I've yet to see a camera anywhere near a school, yet plenty on nice straight dual carriageways where pedestrians are nowhere to be seen
|
Cliff spot on!
I agree, we are all free to choose on speed/points/fines or not, but it is easy to get caught out by devious entrapment. Our local camera van uses a site where it is unseen around a bend on a 30 MPH dual carriageway, local knowledge helps!
|
the simplistic statement regarding not getting caught by speed cameras if you don't want to is accurate, but for me doesn't cover the point
there are times when i choose to ignore a limit, because I want to, not because i haven't noticed, because as a human being i've been given a brain and choose to exercise it and work out the risk and drive accordingly...aware of why there is a limit there in the first place i.e. road safety etc..but...that the limit has been set often artificially low to cover factors that are not relevant when i'm making my decision, e.g. rain, traffic density, other road users, time of day etc. In those circumstances i'd like the State to allow me, within reason, to make a sensible decision and not harass me via a camera, in other words apply common sense.
in the similar fashion that if at 0600 hours i park on a yellow line to pick up my paper i won't expect to have any hassle, but would expect to if i tried it at 0845...because the yellow line system is designed for the free flow of traffic...and at 0600 hours i'm not obstructing anyone, but probably would be at 0845. If i copped a camera ticket for the 0600 transgression i'd be miffed...if i copped one at 0845 i'd probably deserve it for being selfish...yet in our increasingly unpleasant land i'm likely to cop the ticket 24 hours a day, regardless of whether i've obstructed anyone or how long i've been there.
same with speed cameras, in principle.
Take this as an example. Many traffic police officers, being exceptionally well trained at driving/riding, use their own time or register a business interest and instruct/coach/ examine bikers for advanced m/c training..when they do so, they establish the training 'ground rules'. Often they will mention speed limits and i'm aware (certainly some) that their can be some leeway with speed limits, in that they will insist absolutely that town/village limits are strictly adhered to..but.. that on open, far safer roads, a blind eye will be allowed for sensible speed transgressions. Now why would they do that?..day in day out they deal with accidents, it's their job... they wouldn't allow it if they honestly thought it was dangerous, would they? Could it be, that their risk assessment says it's acceptable, looking at the bigger picture...with the proviso that the risk assessment could easily change?...in other words like all safe and competent drivers could do?... and that by allowing someone to stretch themselves a bit, they'll learn more about themsleves and their machine, which will come in useful for an unexpected emergency etc.
bottom line is bigger picture and applying sense..we are not sheep to be herded.
|
|
I quite agree Westpig. Better get the tin hat on though.
|
Better get the tin hat on though.
It's on, i'm ready and waiting.
|
Why? You are entitled to your opinion as the rest of us are to ours...
As regards fixed cameras, their whereabouts or generally well known and on many satnavs... so the choice is yours, slow down or risk a fine... easy...
As regards the mobile "van" ones, I'd suggest that they are only used where drivers need slowing down, and from what I've seen of their use in the Midlands thats just where they are used... so I've no issue with them either...
All this "we should be allowed to drive at whatever speed we feel is safe for the conditions/area" is fine... if everyone was as good a driver as a fully trained traffic cop... but we aren't, so therefore the limits are generally ridged... regretably that's a fact of life when driving in this overcrowded isle and short of moving to the Middle East I can't see any way of getting away from it...
Edited by b308 on 10/11/2008 at 19:53
|
|
Nowheels, I'm with you. For (almost) everyone else, answer me this, if you would, and I'm sure you will! : If I drive just a little bit over the drink/drive limit, but quite safely, as I know now at 44yrs old how it affects me, and I get home quite safely, is that OK? After all, I'm only a little bit over the limit, I didn't hurt anyone, and let's face it, I know my limits and I don't need the state to inject me with common sense. I'm a law-abiding citizen in all proper respects, not a criminal. The Police should catch some proper criminals - no value in prevention, is there?
|
Driving over the speed limit doesn't affect your judgement. Driving over the drink drive limit does, in fact any alcohol in your system affects your ability to drive. The more you drink the less able you are to judge what is safe and what isn't. If you drive at 71mph in the pishing rain up someone's backside you know are doing something dangerous. Ditto doing the same at 69mph. The actual speed doesn't affect how you judge the situation in terms of risk.
|
Sensible thoughts Westpig. Luckily for me, the officer who gave me my one and only ticket must have thought much the same. It was on a lovely morning, no other traffic, straight rural road with no houses or turnings with a sightline of a couple of miles. The road came down one side of slight hill and up the other. He was sitting at the top of the far slope cunningly situated behind a hedge but with a good view of the two white marks on the road some distance apart between which he timed me. He then had time to walk into the road and pull me over. I was doing over 80mph and it would have meant an automatic court appearance, six points and probably £200 fine. It was a fair cop as they say in the movies (though society is to blame) and I had no argument as I knew full well what I was doing. Luckily he took the view that there was little or no risk to other road users (there were none), the car was in good condition (Legacy Spec B) and I didn't try and bull my way out of it. He used his discretion and just gave me a SP30 (£60 and 3 points) and a warning to be more careful. We ended up chatting about Subarus for some time and parted amicably. A decent chap and I've learned to look out for white squares on the road!
I might add I religiously adhere to urban limits but do occasionally exceed the limit in NSL areas and motorways. I must therefore be inherently evil and a danger to society. :-)
Now I'll sit and wait for the saints to ask me which other laws I choose to break.
|
I've given up saying much in threads like this because there will never be a meeting of minds. The two essential variables are attitudes to the law, in the form of speeding and dangerous driving regulations, and attitudes to the automobile and the road, relaxed and fun-loving at one end and uptight and paranoid at the other.
The combinations of these variables, and others like the experience, skill etc of the individual and the available machinery, make people fall into two basic categories in terms of attitude. It is likely however that their driving isn't necessarily all that different, although it often will be.
But that's irrelevant here, where there is no driving, only attitudes. What we have are two automotive personality types. Call them Toad and Magoo. Different croaks for different folks, nearly always mutually incomprehensible.
|
>>relaxed and fun-loving at one end and uptight and paranoid at the other.
So speeders are relaxed and fun loving, Lud... must remember that one... I suppose those boy racers on this forum would probably agree with you!
Believe it or not you can be relaxed and fun loving and still stay within the law...
Rather bad generalisation, I think!
Edited by b308 on 11/11/2008 at 09:20
|
>>relaxed and fun-loving at one end and uptight and paranoid at the other. So speeders are relaxed and fun loving Lud... must remember that one...
He did not say that. You inferred it, rightly or wrongly. In my experience speeders (those who drive at excess speed) tend to be uptight and paranoid. After all, they are in too much of a hurry to drive safely.
|
He did not say that. You inferred it rightly or wrongly.
My interpretation of what he said then, and in previous posts... maybe I misread it, maybe not... perhaps Lud could therefore clarify where he puts the various types?
Edited by b308 on 11/11/2008 at 11:32
|
clarify where he puts the various types?
attitudes to the automobile and the road, relaxed and fun-loving at one end and uptight and paranoid at the other.
two basic categories in terms of attitude. It is likely however that their driving isn't necessarily all that different, although it often will be.
But that's irrelevant here, where there is no driving, only attitudes. What we have are two automotive personality types. Call them Toad and Magoo.
|
Following the argument in favour of "average speed cameras" to their logical (?) conclusion...
Serious transgressors (average speed 45 in a 30 zone over a stretch of 1 mile) get fined and points and possible ban. No problem with that, is there?
Not-so-serious transgressors (those caught regularly averaging 33, oh dear oh dear oh dear, can't be having that, now, can we?) get a proportional fine (10 Pounds per mph per mile) and one point per infraction.
And those who regularly average 28 mph (be it owing to traffic jam, stupidly phased traffic lights, awkwardly placed roundabout, illogical priority, overdose of uncharacteristically saintly behaviour, whatever...) get a REFUND at the end of the year to offset against VED. Points and bans obviously unaffected.
Follow this even further, and on payment of motorway toll, an automatic fine is built in for speed merchants (Rothersthorpe to Scratchwood in 45 minutes, going at a fair lick weren't we, Sir?) but a refund is given to those averaging 65, 60, etc. (no rebates below a legal minimum speed of, say, 55 mph)
Any problem with that?
|
Serious transgressors (average speed 45 in a 30 zone over a stretch of 1 mile) get fined and points and possible ban. No problem with that is there?
other than there are times when 32mph in a 30mph limit could be most dangerous... and others where 60mph isn't
...and before anyone gets their writing swords out about 60mph in a 30mph limit, have a look at the flyover (Staples Corner) that delivers the A5 (Edgware Road) under the A406 (North Circular Road) flyover.....you could do 60mph there at any time of day 365 days a year and cause no one any harm, because it is a dual carriageway; central barrier and anti-pedestrian fence; no pavements;urban clearway; most of it airborne; with plenty of vision as it's arrow straight; doesn't get congested.
Imagine this scenario:
Local doctor, has a knock on the door at 0430, neighbout taken ill...decides to drive neighbour to casualty, quicker than waiting for ambulance, bright sunny morning, plenty of vision, no pedestrians. Drives at 45-50 mph in 30mph limit to the hospital.
A, police officer stops him, realises the facts, sends him on his way with a proviso to be careful
B, camera nabs him.....untold weariness by petty officialdom that seemingly just won't go away...either accepts 3 points and £60 fine or loses a day in court arguing, with no guarantee the magistrates will side with him
B, is what our country has become... and i don't like it...i'd rather go back to A
|
Average speed cameras aren't a panacea. I was on the M1 around Nottingham yesterday - 50mph average speed check.
Half way into the 5 miles or so of cones traffic came to a halt. We then crawled for about half a mile - took about 5 minutes to pass the broken vehicle. My average speed had probably dropped to below 20mph. In theory I then had a couple of miles to get my average back to 50 in the knowledge there are no instant speed checks!
I didn't, but I was passed by quite a few vehicles doing well in excess of 50mph for the remainder of the roadworks.
|
At least on my satnav, and probably most of them, you can reset the average speed at any point. So in that scenario it would be dead easy to reset it at the end of the obstruction and drive like the clappers until it shows 50 again, or of course, just watch the thing between the start and end points of the check.
Edited by Dipstick on 11/11/2008 at 11:45
|
|
Will average speed cameras herald a new phenomenon of drivers stopping in the carriageway to 'investigate a mysterious rattle' as a means of lowering their average speed - having 'blatted it' 3/4 of the way between the timing points? :-)
|
having 'blatted it' 3/4 of the way between the timing points? :-)
... or will the dense network of ANPR cameras have software enabling the system to deduct timeouts from anyone's progress and triumphantly post an on-the-road average of 93.7 mph through four play streets and a pedestrian precinct?
I am afraid it will.
|
|
Big Brother is stretching his tentacles to be sure. I'm sure one day someone will suggest chipping us all at birth. 'If you don't break the law, you've nothing to fear'.
|
someone will suggest chipping us all at birth.
It's already been suggested, and could come.
Think of the advantages too for budget law enforcement, after a bit of evolution: a graded system of electric shocks, from mild to completely paralysing, delivered at the press of a button by a bored Ministry of Virtue jobsworth sitting in front of a bank of screens... No need for bobbies on the beat, helicopters or the like. Just a slight boost in the discomfort level for every 2 mph over the posted limit.
I predict a powerful boost for sales of numbing and painkilling drugs to raise the pain thresholds of habitual speeders. Sounds jolly amusing actually. Almost looking forward to it.
|
|
So at the end of your natural then Lud could your surviving relatives cash in your chips?
|
if you transported yourself back 20 or 30 years and sat having a pint in the average pub..engaged the locals in conversation...and told them in 20 years time:
you could drive up to the o/s of a bus station, drop a relative off and stay no longer than it took to get a suitcase out of the boot and receive a peck on the cheek... and for your trouble receive a fixed penalty notice in the post, from some council jobsworth watching you on a camera
or.. drove up an empty 'A' road on a bright sunny summer morning at 70 mph in the 60mph limit...and there'd be someone sat in a van waiting for you with a camera at the safest, straightest bit that there is for 20 miles and you'd receive your £60 fine and 3 penalty points in the post
or.. you chucked an apple core out of the car window thinking some bird or furry creature will snaffle that...and you receive your FPN in the post for littering
well they'd be horrified... or think you were indulging in bull's excrement.
well that's what we've got and I don't think it's what this country should be about
|
if you transported yourself back 20 or 30 years and sat having a pint in the average pub..engaged the locals in conversation...and told them in 20 years time:
try explaining gap insurance :)
Yeah 20 years from now you will be invited to take out an insurance to cover you when your insurance doesn't cover the value of your car !?!?!?!
|
Will average speed cameras herald a new phenomenon of drivers stopping in the carriageway to 'investigate a mysterious rattle' as a means of lowering their average speed - ..........
Why would anyone want to do that? What would be the advantage compared with keeping to the limit? They wouldn't get to the end of the timed section any quicker.
Edited by L'escargot on 12/11/2008 at 07:26
|
So they could wait a few minutes, then race at 130mph to the second average speed camera - for fun.
I always feel safer if I stop on French motorways at an aire between the tolls.
(just in case average speed has crept up)
Edited by oilrag on 12/11/2008 at 07:31
|
Am I the only one wondering how big a leap it would be to get from average speed camera networks to road pricing ?
The system captures your number plate, knows exactly the volume of traffic travelling on that section of road so can easily apply any volume model you care to think of.
First roll out on the M25 between the M40 and M4, after initial trial expand between the M1 to the M3 then roll out to the whole motorway network.
As an added bonus to the price per mile there's an automatic fine generator built in for any speed transgression.
Edited by gmac on 12/11/2008 at 20:15
|
GMAX: Interesting point.
Anyone read Clarkson's car review in the Sunday Times? As usual, only the last paragraph related to the car under review. What he did say was that fatalities have not declined, or only to an insignificant degree, and that is the true measure of road safety. Injury figures can be manipulated and according to JC they have been manipulated to lower them. Anyone any first hand knowledge of such manipulation or is this invention by extreme speed freaks?
|
>>As usual, only the last paragraph related to the car under review.
This seems to be the case with most of the car reviews I read. A bit like weather forecasters who spend most of their time talking about everything bar the weather.
Clk Sec
|
There is some doubt over the definitions of serious injury and what has been left in and what has been taken out. An MP got involved in South Wales I think about the whole issue there from what I remember. It is also worth noticing that hospitalisations haven't fallen so with consistent levels of deaths it seems very unlikely that serious injuries would change so they weren't in a consistent ratio.
|
What he did say was that fatalities have not declined, or only to an insignificant degree
Depends what Clarkson means by insignificant I suppose but the facts are that road deaths in UK for 2007 were 2,946 compared with 3168 for 2006 - a 7% reductions or 222. Personally I would call that significant
|
|
As is usual with statistics more information is required before a proper informed judgement can be made. For example, how many cars were there on the road in these years and how many miles were driven. The only meaningful statistic is deaths per vehicle mile.
|
The only meaningful statistic is deaths per vehicle mile.
No it isn't. If the main aim of the goverment stategy is to reduce road deaths then the correct criteria by which to measure the attainement of that objective is by the total number of road deaths. How this is achieved is not relevant. For example reducing the total number of vehicle movements could be a reasonable strategy to that end.
In actual fact I there is no reasons to believe that the that number of miles driven actually reduced form 2006 to 2007 although there is of course no way to obtain an accurate statistic for this.
|
then the correct criteria by which to measure the attainement of that objective is by the total number of road deaths. How this is achieved is not relevant.
i would have thought it was... what is a road death anyway?
- highly drunk pedestrian trying to cross a m/way rather than use a bridge
- unfortunate soul who commits suicide off a bridge and is then run over by a vehicle
- car full of youths, driver high on drink and drugs who come a cropper versus the innocent car coming the other way, killing 5 (as happened near me)
the statistics put out by the Home Office are hopelessly different to those put out by hospital accident and emergency staff...and i know which one i'm inclined to believe
Edited by Westpig on 13/11/2008 at 12:34
|
The car I bought 6 years ago had 2 airbags + ABS + brake assist. It's equivalent make and model bought 3 years later has 6 airbags +ABS + brake assist + VSA(ESP). It's just as likely that car safety trends are having a benefit on total road deaths as speed cameras, and it would be very surprising if they weren't.
Point is, there are plenty of other potentially significant factors around and it doesn't follow that speed cameras are mainly, or even at all, responsible for any favourable trend even if it's there.
|
Westpig,
The figures quoted are for deaths reported to the police and include deaths resulting from the accident within 30 days. Why would these figures not be accurate?
The first and last examples you quote would certainly be seen as RTAs - The second would probably be recorded as suicide.
The fact is that road deaths are decreasing even taken into account the inclusion of "accidents" of the nature you describe and for whatever reason the reduction has occured it is something to celebrate . What evidence have you to believe that the facts are otherwise?
Why the number of deaths are decreasing is of course open to interpretation. My view is that one of a number of reasons may be that people are driving slower due to the fear of being caught on camera. This is of course impossible to prove and a concept so unpalatable to many that they reject it out of hand but nevertheless it may just be true.
|
The figures quoted are for deaths reported to the police and include deaths resulting from the accident within 30 days. Why would these figures not be accurate?
no idea, but hosptial figures are higher than Home Office figures i.e. A&E's think they deal with more serious or fatal road accidents than the figures dished out by the Home Office
>>The first and last examples you quote would certainly be seen as RTAs - Thesecond would probably be recorded as suicide.
the examples were given to show that a speed camera would have no influence on that type of accident in the slightestThe fact is that road deaths are decreasing even taken into account the inclusion of "accidents" of the nature you describe and for whatever reason the reduction has occured it is something to celebrate .
Quite agree, but i wouldn't be willing to attribute the success to speed cameras, which are fairly often placed in the wrong places, IMO
Why the number of deaths are decreasing is of course open to interpretation. My >> view is that one of a number of reasons may be that people are driving slower due to the fear of being caught on camera. This is of course impossible to prove and a concept so unpalatable to many that they reject it out of hand but nevertheless it may just be true.
if i thought it were to be true, i'd either say so or as a minimum, not bother arguing against it.
I believe that fatal accidents are reducing because of improved medical science, things like air ambulances, greater usage of 'triage' in emergency medical care..and.. as mentioned above; air bags, dynamic stability control, improved crumple zones, tyre technology, road surface technology, etc...and.. even the good old mobile phone (more people have them and are inclined to call for help quicker)
for the future, things like manufacturer emergency assist systems and satelllite technology will come into play...along with continued improvements in vehicle safety and medical science.
If some politician claims that their initiatives with speed cameras have done it...don't believe the LF
|
The DFT publish figures every year on road miles by transport type. It also shows interesting facts such as that in built up areas cyclists injure and kill more pedestrians per mile travelled than van drivers. I am fairly certain there was a drop in traffic levels, particularly motorcycle use during 2007 which would explain the higher drop in deaths for that year. You also conveniently forget that in some years deaths have risen compared to the previous year so I think it is pretty much a total failure. If trend lines from the 70s and 80s were continued then we would have around 2000 deaths on the roads per annum. As it is running at nearly 3000 then something has gone drastically wrong. The trend changed noticeably in 1993 when traffic police started to be replaced with speed cameras.
|
When I started driving in the early 70s it was unusual to see drivers shooting red lights, and unknown to see 3 or 4 cars go through on red as is now commonplace. Arguably this is down to the much lower perceived risk of being caught provided there is no camera. In this respect at least driver behaviour has become more dangerous, not less.
The corollary to this is that many drivers are so stupid that they pay more attention to avoiding penalties than to real dangers - it's the possible tragic consequences of shooting a red light that stop me doing it, not fear of getting caught.
|
|
Has the number of vehicle accidents that don't cause death changed over the years? If not, it would suggest that car design has improved so that less people are killed or injured.
|
in built up areas cyclists injure and kill more pedestrians per mile travelled than van drivers
What a wonderfully disingenuous use of statistics! There's a huge difference in risk to pedestrians between an urban dual carriageway (where a van can clock up lots of urban miles) and the shopping street where a cyclist is likely to be in close contact with pedestrians.
Say a cyclist injures a pedestrian on a shopping street, and a van injures two people. The van is likely to have done many more miles on roads where there aren't substantial numbers of people, so the "per mile" calculation makes the van look safer.
That also ignores the fact that being hit by a bicycle is less dangerous than being hit by a van, so there's a difference in the severity of injury. It also ignores the fact that car-centric traffic design has increasingly squeezed cyclists off the roads into situations where their own safety prompts them to use space which is either shared with pedestrians or in closer proximity to them.
The trend changed noticeably in 1993 when traffic police started to be replaced with speed cameras.
So bring back more traffic police. Speed cameras don't cost money out of the public purse, so scrapping the lot of them wouldn't free up funds to put more cops on the roads ... and if it's true (as some of the moaners complain) that cameras are raising a surplus for the public purse, then scrapping the cameras means fewer traffic cops, not more.
The reason we have fewer traffic police is because officers are being deployed to other areas of work which were perceived as a higher priority, such as burglary and street crime. Prioritisation is not an easy decision, and there is widespread concern that the balance as swung much too far away from traffic policing ... but don't blame cameras for that decision. They may have provided a convenient excuse for the switch, but they didn't force it.
Edited by NowWheels on 13/11/2008 at 14:04
|
So bring back more traffic police. Speed cameras don't cost money out of the public purse so scrapping the lot of them wouldn't free up funds to put more cops on the roads ... and if it's true (as some of the moaners complain) that cameras are raising a surplus for the public purse then scrapping the cameras means fewer traffic cops not more.
Who do you think maintains cameras? Smurfs?
|
Who do you think maintains cameras? Smurfs?
People maintain them, and people supervise the computers which process the data they collect. But the wages and costs of employing those people are paid by the speedsters caught by the cameras, so the cameras are self-financing.
Get rid of the cameras, and you won't free up lots of staff to send out onto the roads as traffic cops; you just free them up for redundancy, because you've just cut off the flow of fines which paid their wages.
|
"If trend lines from the 70s and 80s were continued then we would have around 2000 deaths on the roads per annum. As it is running at nearly 3000 then something has gone drastically wrong".
We are talking about an overall reduction in the absolute number of road deaths in a period since the 1970s when both the overall population and the number of vehicles on the road has increased drastically. Whilst there has indeed been a slowing in the rate of reduction in the number of deaths on a year by year basis there has been a 14% reduction in the last 10 years and a 23% reductions since 1993 which, whilst not dramatic, can't fairly be describe as a total failure.
|
Surely, if speed cameras are self-funding, the simple way to get rid of them is to universally not speed, so they bring in no revenue, which would trigger budget issues and hopefully cancellation? As soon as some accountant discovers they arent making money anymore, they will be hailed a success and money diverted elsewhere?
Speed cameras are to my mind, much like the sale of tobacco - the government wants you to smoke so they get the revenue, but wants it to be a negative thing so they can tax it, which is afterall, what speed cameras are - a tax on speeding.
|
As many people seem convinced that cameras don't work, of whatever type, and all drivers are more than capable of being able to judge what is an appropraite speed for the weather/road conditions and locations perhaps we should just do away with cameras, traffic cops, speed limits and any other restrictions on the roads and then just review the position in a years time to see if it worked...
Just tell me when it will happen and I'll take the wife and kids on a years sabatical as far away as possible from the UK! ;-)
|
As many people seem convinced that cameras don't work of whatever type and all drivers are more than capable of being able to judge what is an appropraite speed for
the weather/road conditions and locations perhaps we should just do away with cameras traffic cops speed limits and any other restrictions on the roads and then just review the position in a years time to see if it worked...
b308,
I've long posted against the things, but wouldn't advocate what you've just posted in the slightest.
What's wrong with a middle way, why the extreme?
keep cameras for bad accident blackspots by all means...but don't put them up the long straight safe bit just to catch people out. Have them variable so when it's more dangerous, the speed could drop.. or they only come on when it's raining, etc
it's glaringly obvious that not everyone is capable of making safe decisions on appropriate speeds for appropriate circumstance...so ensure there are enough traffic cops to deal with all motoring aspects, inc poor drivers, stolen vehicles, unregistered vehicles...not just have someone sat in a camera van booking Mr or Mrs Reasonable who are the only ones registered and therefore the only ones who will cough up
|
keep cameras for bad accident blackspots by all means...but don't put them up the long straight safe bit just to catch people out. Have them variable so when it's more dangerous the speed could drop.. or they only come on when it's raining etc
Variable limits are a great idea which works well on mways (at least when the system works properly rather than warning drivers of long-cleared fog or queueing traffic which isn't), but even if we accept the current limitations of the technology, it is expensive to implement. Putting that equipment on lots of A-roads is going to cost a lot of money.
I'm also unsure about the appropriateness of bringing motorway technologies for A-roads. Mways are an unusual type of road, reserved for motorised vehicles, but where would variable limits on an A-road leave a cyclist, or someone trying to cross the road on foot, or a farmer turning out a gate in a tractor? The speed differential is still a problem for them, even in good visibility.
Edited by NowWheels on 14/11/2008 at 23:30
|
I was being a little sarcastic, WP, to some of the posts on this and other aniti speed camera threads... just thats the way some of the posts read "we know better" type of thing... believe me, it wasn't a serious suggestion... if it was ever tried I'd be taking my own advice and getting the hell out of it!!
I don't think that in built up areas average speed cameras will work - certainly the two fixed cameras on the Hagley Road in Birmingham could not be replaced as the frequent traffic lights would make them worthless... as for accident blackspots... that road is not a blackspot... but I still recon they are justified as without them 40/50 would be the norm and I'd say that was too fast for that stretch of road... so perhaps just restricting to blackspots is not the answer either?
Edited by Webmaster on 16/11/2008 at 02:44
|
The problem here is not about speed enforcement as such but the governments pre-occupation with speed in the road safety mix.
It is now well understood that speed in excess of the posted limit is responsible for roughly 4.7% of fatalities on the roads and this includes police chases where high speed accidents occur.
This clearly shows that speed, i.e. drivers travelling faster than the posted limit is not really a factor in the vast majority of fatal accidents so why do we place such importance to this area of road safety?
Most fatal accidents are caused by innatention, failing to look properly and simple bad driving. No speed camera will stop these deaths and placing all our faith in prosecuting nearly 2 million drivers a year when speed is even a small factor in most accidents seems a little unfair.
You must also consider if speed cameras actually cause accidents. There is quite some evidence emerging now to suggest people avoid areas with a camera thereby accidents on other roads could well have been avoided and also videos where people brake when seeing a camera with quite nasty consequences.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2212479.stm
www.independent.co.uk/news/science/speed-cameras-d...l
|
This clearly shows that speed i.e. drivers travelling faster than the posted limit is not really a factor in the vast majority of fatal accidents so why do we place such importance to this area of road safety?
Because speed has many other downsides beyond its role as a primary cause of fatal accidents. These include increasing the severity of accidents which occur for other reasons, reducing the required reaction times to avoid accidents caused by other factors, displacing non-vehicular road-users, causing excessive road noise, increasing stress etc.
Focusing solely on fatal accidents caused primarily by excess speed is like wearing blinkers, and ignoring the wider issues involved.
|
>>roughly 4.7% of fatalities
>>a primary cause of fatal accidents
Since when does 4.7% constitute a primary cause?
|
Since when does 4.7% constitute a primary cause?
The claim is that the current data shows speed as a primary cause in 4.7% of fatal accidents, and there's nothing contradictory in that statement. You're confusing "primary cause of accidents" with "primary cause in x% of accidents", which are different concepts.
|
why do we place such importance to this area of road safety?
It's not an area of road safety, it's an area of road policing and we place such impotance on it because it is easy to measure and we are lazy. It has an added benefit in providing a simple yardstick by which those prone to such things can flaunt their self-righteousness.
|
It's not an area of road safety, it's an area of road policing
With statements like that, it's no wonder that self-regulation of speed has gone out of favour.
|
>> It's not an area of road safety it's an area of road policing With statements like that it's no wonder that self-regulation of speed has gone out of favour.
You really think so? The statement's only true because the regualtion of speed is receiving such preposterously disproportionate focus at the moment.
Would it have helped if I had been more explicit and said, "It is deeply unfortunate and some considerable cause for concern, but in the current climate speed is not an area of road safety it's an area of road policing"?
|
The "disproportionate focus" argument might make some sense if removing speed cameras freed up resources for other forms of road policing. But speed cameras are self-financing, so scrapping the lot of them wouldn't put a single extra traffic cop on patrol ... and if the speedsters complaints about the cameras being a revenue-raising device are true, then removing the cameras would actually mean cuts elsewhere.
So the proportionality argument is a read herring, which is why drivers who don't like being unable to break speed limits come up with a long list of increasingly bizarre forms of denial, such as your claim that speed is not an area of road safety. The "current climate" to which you refer is a simply a climate in which some drivers don't like the fact that speed limits can be effectively enforced.
I quite agree with the argument that there should be more traffic cops on the roads to deal with the many other forms of bad driving, but moaning about speed enforcement won't do anything to help bring that about. All it does is strengthen the hand of those who believe that drivers can't be trusted to act responsibly.
|
I think that the current deployment of cameras can't really be justified on a purely safety argument. I also think that once the effect of regression towards the mean is considered that very few individual camera sitings can be shown to be effective.
I think that the proliferation of the devices is doing more harm than good. It is distracting drivers from their duty to be watching the road for no better reason than to support the camera partnerships.
More fundamental is the general nannying of drivers. IMO, we should be removing speed limits, signs, paint, cameras, and traffic lights, and calming measures wherever we can, to re-inforce to the driver that it is up to them to make sure it is safe to proceed - their potential culpability would then be clear to them, and I don't believe for a second that it would bring mayhem. Yes, there would be the odd idiot, but, as far as I can see, our oppressive regulations haven't got rid of them either.
I'm sure no-one objects to the odd camera sited at a real accident black spot where only a dextral mammary would consider travelling beyond the posted limit, but far too many cameras are positioned solely to catch people out and generate income.
|
I think that the proliferation of the devices is doing more harm than good. It is distracting drivers from their duty to be watching the road
Back to the drivers-are-morons-who-can't-walk-and-chew-gum argument. A competent driver should be quite capable of both watching the road and maintaining a speed under the limit.
|
>>A competent driver ...
Cameras are just one extra item of workload that a driver must contend with, which haven't shown a demonstrable benefit.
Do you *really* think that cameras are the right answer?
I think that speed is one of the few scientifically measurable things that you can record about a passing vehicle. Just because speed happens to be measurable by the technology we have available, does this make speed the right thing to concentrate upon?
Of itself, I think speed tells you virtually nothing about the safety of the vehicle, the validity of the driver's licence, the insurance cover, the attitude, health, and mental health of the driver, the distractions caused by passengers, etc, etc, yet speed cameras are touted as the panacea.
|
|
NC, I think you're more likely to get the Pope to agree that perhaps atheists are right than to win that difference of opinion. (Notice how I avoid the word 'argument', very PC, no?)
|
>>I think you're more likely to...
I'm not sure if NW has yet claimed infallibility!
>>Pope to agree that perhaps atheists are right
I think there's an element of zeal and blind faith from those who support these cameras. Where is the real hard evidence that justifies people paying fines and having endorsements on their licences? Yes, the latest road death figures are a bit lower, but I don't think anyone can say with any confidence why they are lower, and so link these low figures with cameras is not demonstrable.
It could just as well be better pedestrian impact design of car front ends, better airbag deployment algorithms, better mobile phone coverage, GPS use by the emergency services, the weather conditions, etc, etc.
|
Of itself, I think speed tells you virtually nothing about ......
I think excessive speeding probably tell you quite a bit about either the driver's attitude to the law or the driver's ability to notice a speed limit sign.
It would be foolish indeed to see speed cameras as a total answer to road safety and I don't think many hold this view. Equally I don't think that they have no effect: people do seem to be driving slower with more respect for the limits these days and this may will be contributing to the decrease in the number of motoriing fatalities. At the end of the day for whatever reason cameras are unlikely to go away any time soon and there is no point in constanly railing against them. The only answer is to drive within the speed limits or at least withing the limits at which prosecution is likely. Once you accept that driving becomes much more of a pleasure again as you don't constantly fear being caught.
|
>>A competent driver ... Cameras are just one extra item of workload that a driver must contend with which haven't shown a demonstrable benefit.
Ignoring the rest of the post for a moment, including that question you posed... but do you *seriously* mean the above - every public road in this country has a speed limit, therefore I'm with NW on this, there is *no* extra workload for a competent driver... in fact if you think that its an extra workload for some drivers, then I'd suggest that they shouldn't be driving at all!
Back to the use of them... I've said before that there are some locations where they are used purely to keep speed down and of the ones local to me I can see that they are needed, without them more and more people would flout the limit and that would mean valuable police time beimng taken up chasing them rather than catching uninsured drivers and other miscreants, not to mention the increased likelyhood of accidents... surely a good thing...
|
>>but do you *seriously* mean the above
Yes.
Without cameras, whether you're doing 28, or 32 doesn't really make a great difference - in fact, while preparing for my HGV test, I was told that the examiners preferred to see 32, and would mark down for hesitancy if you stuck to 28 or so. Obviously, doing 40 or so during the day in a 30 is taking the mickey, and plod would quite rightly pull you over.
Same scenario with cameras, with people all very concerned about fines and points, braking at the last minute, watching their speedos, worrying about tiny infringements instead of the road. It's hardly a recipe for safety is it?
To me, cameras represent a frail grasp on the big picture - they aren't encouraging safe driving, but they are punishing petty infringements, sending entirely the wrong message to the driving public.
I've never been caught by a camera, but, I am sometimes concerned about how much time when I should be concentrating on the road that they rob.
|
Without cameras whether you're doing 28 or 32 doesn't really make a great difference - in fact while preparing for my HGV test I was told that the examiners preferred to see 32 and would mark down for hesitancy if you stuck to 28 or so. Obviously doing 40 or so during the day in a 30 is taking the mickey and plod would quite rightly pull you over.
ACPO recommends that the camera not generate a NIP until you are doing 35, at which point you have significantly increased the risk to pedestrians.
It's depressing to hear of examiners taking that attitude, though, especially when a HGV is involved. Was it recent?
Same scenario with cameras with people all very concerned about fines and points braking at the last minute watching their speedos worrying about tiny infringements instead of the road. It's hardly a recipe for safety is it?
The 10%+2 tolerance in the ACPO guidelines is hardly a tiny infingement. Add into that the fact that most speedos over-read, and any driver who keeps their needle a few points below the limit has a margin of about 20% before facing prosecution.
To me cameras represent a frail grasp on the big picture - they aren't encouraging safe driving but they are punishing petty infringements sending entirely the wrong message to the driving public.
On that point, I'd partly agree with you. If some of the revenue from cameras was used to repeat the simple message that "it's a limit, not a target", and "give yourself a margin for safety", they'd be much more effective in challenging the drive-at-the-limit culture which leaves some drivers thinking that they can only stay within the limits if their eyes are glued to the speedo.
|
>>most speedos over-read
In cars, perhaps, but not in buses, coaches and trucks, and not in all cars. The only general point you can make is that speedos don't under read.
|
>>ACPO recommends that the camera not generate a NIP until you are doing 35
Yes, but that doesn't help when you nearly pile into the back of an idiot who brakes suddenly to make their speedo needle read exactly 30 as they pass the camera!
>>It's depressing..
I'm not so sure. I think that motorists would become impatient behind a mimsing truck, and this would tend to lead to rash behaviour.
>>Was it recent?
NW, that's tantamount to asking my age!! Let's just say it pre-dates the widespread use of cameras!
>>On that point, I'd partly agree with you.
If some revenue were used to spread the message that speed isn't the be all and end all of road safety, that might make a more positive change to our driving culture.
|
One has to admire yr doughty defence, here of all places, of excessive numbers of speed cameras and the systematic lowering of speed limits, NW. However you seem blind to (or even positively gleeful about) the fact that people who cover a lot of miles, and drive well and responsibly, have to consider yet another small but irritating form of harassment at the same time as dodging HGVs, mimsers and incompetent fast drivers during their daily commutes and so on.
I am afraid this tendency is unstoppable. The view that progress, money, expansion, the defence of civilization or just our own bit of it, are worth some risk and sacrifice of human life and some incidence of occupational hazards has been replaced by a mawkish respect for every last little pink human bottom. Even our enemies don't deserve to die these days.
As I say, unstoppable. But there's no need to be smug about something that is clogging the roads daily with more and more slack-jawed, superstitious, ignorant mimsers.
|
But there's no need to be smug about something that is clogging the roads daily with more and more slack-jawed, superstitious, ignorant mimsers.
so we get rid of cameras and they all become firm jawed, enlightened, educated, speed merchants. Not sure which group frightens me more! :-)
|
Not sure which group frightens me more! :-)
Put like that CGN, it sounds more than alarming... But it isn't going to happen. The mimsefest on crowded roads presided over by careless slapdash politicos, whose first concern is their own images among their peers, will be with us for good.
|
mimsefest.
Could be come a new multi-cultural bank holiday celebrated throughout the land with dances round the speed cameras
|
It is the disproportionate focus of public attention that most concerns me. The focus of traffic police resources and any opportunity cost is a separate issue.
forms of denial such as your claim that speed is not an area of road safety.
It isn't. It should be but it isn't. If it was then I'd know that if what I was doing was not regarded as dangerous in the judgement of a trained, experienced expert then I couldn't be prosecuted for anything.
The "current climate" to which you refer is a simply a climate in which some drivers don't like the fact that speed limits can be effectively enforced.
Perhaps some drivers don't like that fact, but the climate to which I refer is not that. It is a climate in which we enforce a law simply because we have the means to do so easily. Many people simply do not understand why they are being required to obey this particular law to quite this extent in quite so many circumstances where not obeying it causes no harm. It is a fundamental point of philosophy whether you accept "because it's the law" as an answer to that question. Obviously anyone who does accept that answer won't have a problem.
All [moaning about speed enforcement] does is strengthen the hand of those who believe that drivers can't be trusted to act responsibly.
Only in the eyes of those who can't think of a basis for the complaint other than a reckless desire to be allowed to drive irresponsibly.
|
|
Teabelly are you still reading? I refer to your post on Nov 10th. Your judgment fails you when you break the law by speeding. No-one invited you to apply your own judgment, you are required, by law, to observe the speed limit. If you disagree with that limit, petition for a change in the limit.
|
I spent 4 hours in the company of a class 1 police trained driver a few weeks ago. They don't believe in obsessively following and sticking to limits. They believe in driving at a safe speed for the conditions and will routinely exceed the nsl 60s and 70s. What they said has changed is the enforcement culture so they now advise not to exceed the limit in marked limits ie 30,40,50s. NSLs are generally exceeded up to 20mph over. Advanced driving is more about applying your own judgement. Driving to pass your test and survive afterwards is more about obeying rules so everyone knows what you are doing.
I still generally stay within speed limits. It isn't that hard but I am a competent driver. There are incompetent drivers that stay within limits and they are lethal. Just because someone is obeying the letter of the law doesn't necessarily make them safer than someone that chooses to ignore it.
The first thoughts a driver should have about their speed are these: is my speed sensible for the current conditions? Am I fitting in with other drivers around me? It shouldn't be is my speed under the speed limit. That should maybe be their third thought and it is of a lesser importance than being safe and fitting in with the traffic flow. The more people are able to make a conscious choice about speed the safer they will become.
|
Many people simply do not understand why they are being required to obey this particular law to quite this extent in quite so many circumstances where not obeying it causes no harm. It is a fundamental point of philosophy whether you accept "because it's the law" as an answer to that question. Obviously anyone who does accept that answer won't have a problem.
Great fun to put it in black-and-white, but it's also a fundamental point of philosophy that most issues are not binary choices.
The law can indeed be an ass, and I for one certainly don't take the obey-all-laws-regardless-of-merit view. Some laws have been downright wicked, like those which criminalised gay sex or preventing women from voting, but most laws which people dislike fall into an inbetween area of things which have upsides and downsides.
In this case, most of the downsides of speeding are born by people other than the driver, and one of the reasons that enforcement is unpopular is that many speeding drivers don't seem to be concerned about things which don't cause an immediate problem for them. Sure, many drivers do understand risk enough to grasp that not having an accident after one incident of speeding doesn't necessarily mean that it was safe to do so, and will understand that if they cut safety margins then they increase the risk to themselves.
The problem, though, is that comfortably cocooned in our cars, the harm to others is less evident. That's why so any drivers perceive speed as as "no harm" issue, and feel persecuted by enforcement of limits.
|
perceive speed as as "no harm" issue, and feel persecuted by enforcement of limits.
It isn't really like that NW. Adult drivers know very well what is good, bad or risky about speed, one of the prime qualities and benefits of the automobile. They don't 'feel' persecuted; they really are persecuted by the faffing interference of people in positions of authority or influence who don't know or care anything about the real issues, except in clanking statistical terms.
|
Lud: 'Adult drivers know very well what is good, bad or risky about speed, one of the prime qualities and benefits of the automobile.'
Is this sentence about adult drivers or automobiles?. I can't make sense of it!!
Nowwheels - please don't be spoiling my fun again....!!
|
|
If one really must speed, a 4x4 offers greater protection in the event of an accident, if that's any help?
|
Captain C
creating a post with intent to cause a breach of the peace must be worth 6 points:-)
|
|
Any back roomers advise how I could get off?;-)
|
It isn't really like that NW. Adult drivers know very well what is good bad or risky about speed one of the prime qualities and benefits of the automobile.
I really wish that were so, because then there'd be no need for the plethora of traffic signs which blot the landscape around major roads, let alone speed cameras. But it's not.
I spend a few nights at the end of last week in a small village in Ireland, which I visit several times a year. Somewhere on the way in from either end is a lone 50km/h sign, which is routinely ignored by the cars and trucks which pass through at more than 60Km/h, taking a shortcut to the motorway. This is a bendy road with poor sightlines, and along with fifty or a hundred houses it has a shop, school, and two pubs behind narrow footpaths. The only fatalities I am aware of are of dogs, but parents even in this rural area parents are terrified to let their children out because the speeds on the road make it dangerous.
Other villages nearby have benefitted from a double-gate system on entry to the town, where a huge set of signs either side of the road a few hundred metres out indicate a 60km/h limit, followed by a similarly huge pair of 50km/h signs at a pinch point where the the road colour is a sort of burnt orangey-red for about one car length. All this is necessary because without this road-safety-for-dummies approach to warning signs, cars sped through the villages at 80km/h or more, despite the presence of houses and shops on either side of the road and of people who need to be able to walk across.
Without this heavy-handed used of signage, a significant proportion of the vehicle drivers concentrate on their own safety but pay little attention to the safety of the pedestrians who use the main street, which is why the point has to be rammed home to them so that village streets can return to being living spaces rather than racetracks.
For the last few years, my own village in Yorkshire has had this gate system on one approach, but even that wasn't enough to slow the drivers, so it was joined by one of those display-your-speed signs ... and despite that, plenty of cars still zoom through at 40mph rather than the indicated 30, let alone the 20mph that would be appropriate in a busy village street. So the police come out from time to time with mobile cameras, and always collect a good haul of the speeding idiots.
If drivers were making a speed-safety assessment which showed responsibility to others, none of this would be needed, and the 30mph-camera-cops would be bored to death while their machines never beeped.
|
the trouble with over regulation though, is people think less for themselves... and this is very much against what they should be doing....because the regulations/signs cannot possibly cater for all likelihoods...
in some places there are so many different signs you cannot take in all the information quickly enough....and presumably why some councils are getting rid of a load
in NW's village i'd presume 40mph would be acceptable at 0500, whereas 20mph might be pushing it at 0830
so in the absence of variable limts, why not have the approach of common sense and a degree of leniency for the 0500 40mph man, but by all means hammer the 0830 40mph one because he deserves it
Edited by Westpig on 27/11/2008 at 10:10
|
I can see the merit in most of the arguments put here, although I do think that the cameras are a tax on those stupid enough to deliberately speed.
Ignoring that, what do people think about the new experiment in Ashford, where all signage has been removed, along with road markings, pavements and so on, and where pedestrians, cyclists and motorists all have equal right of way. In some ways this is the idealist 'lets just all use our common sense' environment that some here are arguing for, but it's being slagged off quite badly by most.
I think it's worth a try - the uncertainty will hopefully breed care and civility, but of course people can be pink fluffy diced, and it's possible it will be dangerous anarchy.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 27/11/2008 at 10:39
|
the trouble with over regulation though, is people think less for themselves... and this is very much against what they should be doing....because the regulations/signs cannot possibly cater for all likelihoods..
The problem is that the unthinking driver is not a new phenomenon created by the regulations. As in the two villages I described above, the high degree of regulation is being introduced to cope with the large number of drivers who consistently demonstrate an inability to take responsibility for the risks which their cars pose to the safety of others.
I agree about the problem of excess signage; it's confusing as well as ugly, although the worst examples I know of are on the approach to roundabouts on dual carriageways rather than on urban roads. But while there needs to be some prioritisation, the examples above show that getting rid of speed limit signs would just take us back to a situation we had been in before, where self-regulation didn't work.
in NW's village i'd presume 40mph would be acceptable at 0500, whereas 20mph might be pushing it at 0830
I'm lucky enough to live on a side-road up the hill, but the many people who live on the main street need their sleep, and beyond 30km/h (20mph) vehicle noise rises significantly with speed. Why should people have their sleep disrupted because some antisocial eejit wants to shave 20 seconds off their journey time by doing 40mph rather than 30mph for 1 mile through the village? (see also ongoing work by govt and EU on noise reduction: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/ambient.htm )
Apart from the noise problem, those people who are outside at night in a village are likely to be tired and have poor reaction times. There may not be many of them, but they are likely to be very vulnerable to speeding cars, and I know of two people killed in those circumstances in Pennine villages in the last few years.
|
"It's not an area of road safety, it's an area of road policing and we place such impotance on it because it is easy to measure and we are lazy. It has an added benefit in providing a simple yardstick by which those prone to such things can flaunt their self-righteousness."
I largely agree.
There are several reasons for speed cameras:
1) Speed cameras are nominally free i.e. self financing. Given the current problems finding funds to finance the police, you can see the appeal of cameras.
2) Speed camera partnerships are an empire, furrthering careers, and employing certain kinds of people.
3) It gives the impression that something is being done.
4) It improves the police crime clear up rates. Because speeding is a crime, and a prosecution is a crime 'solved', crime solving appears to improve.
Some cameras are good. Most near me are good. Many elsewhere aren't.
|
NowWheels : "The "disproportionate focus" argument might make some sense if removing speed cameras freed up resources for other forms of road policing. But speed cameras are self-financing, so scrapping the lot of them wouldn't put a single extra traffic cop on patrol ... "
Who do you think services, maintains, and refills cameras? The speed camera equivalent of the tooth fairy?
|
NowWheels; "Back to the drivers-are-morons-who-can't-walk-and-chew-gum argument. A competent driver should be quite capable of both watching the road and maintaining a speed under the limit. "
Rather simplistic. In the general scheme of things that is of course true. But ... it ignores the fact that many signs are obsured by vegetation, or some other objects, and that it is easy to be distracted. For example, some nincompoop tries to drive into your lane, and you take action to avoid a collision. While you are occupied by avoiding a crash, you pass a speed limit change. You do not notice the speed limit change because you are trying to avoid a serious accident. So you are sent an NIP for speeding. This is clearly not a common sequence of events, but it is one example which shows why automated enforcement is not so black and white as you indicate. I have twice nearly received a ticket because speed limit change signs were placed at the entrance to a roundabout, and I was more concerned with a) avoiding colliding with other drives who ignored lane markings, b) could not see some signs due to large lorries either side of me and c) concentrated on safely entering the roundabout.
And driving under the limit does not mean safe. That is something that annoys me greatly about such simplistic reasoning. Driving at the limit can be very dangerous.
This is too much about some Big Brother bureacrat imposing silly rules and targets.
|
Rather simplistic. In the general scheme of things that is of course true. But ... it ignores the fact that many signs are obsured by vegetation or some other objects and that it is easy to be distracted.
Yes, those situations do happen. They are rarer than some drivers like to claim, but they do exist. Where there is a genuine case for mitigating circumstances, it should be easier and cheaper for drivers to defend their conduct.
And driving under the limit does not mean safe. That is something that annoys me greatly about such simplistic reasoning. Driving at the limit can be very dangerous.
Straw man Leif; I don't argue that driving under the limit means safe, nor does any police force or other agency that I am aware of. And of course driving at the limit can be dangerous if conditions require a slower speed.
Safety has many aspects, of which speed is one important factor, and I deplore the lack of enforcement of other issues. But so long as so many drivers continue to think that speed limit enforcement is about "silly rules and targets", we'll continue to have these crude automated devices as the only cost-effective method of enforcement.
|
NowWheels: "But so long as so many drivers continue to think that speed limit enforcement is about "silly rules and targets" we'll continue to have these crude automated devices as the only cost-effective method of enforcement."
I'm afraid that I disagree with most of your postings as I find them very black and white. Unfortunately some quite respected organisations criticise speed cameras as being to a large extent "silly rules and targets". I've read many quotes from coppers saying the same sort of thing too. Including an ex-head of the Met traffic division.
And I've approached a new speed limit, only to slow down, and watch the speed cmaera van in front of me carry on without slowing. That say's a lot.
"we'll continue to have these crude automated devices as the only cost-effective method of enforcement."
Sorry but I just think that is nonsense. In some areas cameras are used effectively. In others not. IMO.
|
"we'll continue to have these crude automated devices as the only cost-effective method of enforcement." Sorry but I just think that is nonsense. In some areas cameras are used effectively. In others not. IMO.
I'm sure that there are some cameras in less than ideal locations, although I can think of several dozen speed cameras on the roads near my home, and there's not one I'd want to see removed. But if limits are going to be enforced, it would cost a fortune to do it by placing police officers to replace even a quarter of the cameras, and so the only practical choices are either:
* go back to much less enforcement of speed limits
* use some new technologies, whether to prevent speeding or to automatically warn drivers if they break limits
* keep the cameras
If you don't want cameras, what do you want instead? Should we return to leaving communities unprotected against speeding motorists, or have you got another solution which would restrain speed?
|
Who do you think services maintains and refills cameras? The speed camera equivalent of the tooth fairy?
Leif, do you understand what self-financing means? There's no need for any tooth fairy, because those staff costs are covered by the fines paid by the speedsters.
Take away the cameras, and you take away the cash to pay the salaries of the people who service and maintain the cameras. That's why "scrapping the lot of them wouldn't put a single extra traffic cop on patrol"
|
Yawn.
Good posts from teabelly, leif and the reliable Westpig.
But it's wasted breath in NW's case, just grist to her mill. The problem is that no meeting of minds is possible finally between enthusiastic drivers in the traditional mode and pioneers of the dull, nursery-style driving-by-numbers being imposed, actually for reasons that have little or nothing to do with road safety, by politicians of all parties and their bleating accomplices in the population.
I don't include NW in the category of bleating accomplices. She presents the absolutist arguments of the powers of darkness in an able, energetic manner. But when the darkness has descended, as it will, perhaps NW will perceive fleetingly the deep unconscious hostility to the automobile and fear of their own murderous violence that lies behind people's acquiescence to this nursery-style control and repression.
|
Lud, you always raise a smile. I don't suppose you'd like to stand for parliament? Please?
The country is certainly turning into a nanny-led kindergarten. Example: the coastguard rescue teams are having parachute flares taken away in case they hurt themselves. Use torches instead!
I despair!
Edited by nick on 27/11/2008 at 16:52
|
Number Cruncher>>Cameras are just one extra item of workload that a driver must contend with, which
>>haven't shown a demonstrable benefit.
Nonsense! Or, perhaps, yes, absolutely correct.
Which is why average speed cameras are superb. Anybody can have a moment's inattention when being overtaken on both sides by motorbikes, or getting out of the way of a 7-series that is sitting on the rear bumper.
But with an average speed camera, a driver who is paying attention to his surroundings is not caught.
Having sat, time after time, in 3 lanes of traffic doing exactly 50, or 60 or 70mph, I doubt average cameras raise any money at all. Just goes to show how well they work.
As I've stated before, I'd have average cameras on every road in the country. Any driver who has to pay more attention to his speedo when they're about than when they're not is a fool, and the roads will be better off without him.
A mark of good driving on a fast good road is to pick a speed - 70mph; 75; 80; 60; whatever! and STICK to it. that way you're not irritating other drivers constantly speeding up and slowing down. The average cameras do nothing more than check you're driving well.
|
Mapmaker, in theory I completely agree with you, but I have found the practice to be very different.
I recently had to drive from Glasgow down to Stranraer. Pretty much the whole route is covered by average cameras. Now, I found no problem not getting caught, as you say it's dead easy not to. BUT. The sensation of being monitored, of being watched the whole way was deeply unpleasant.
I'm aware that, for the moment, I wasn't being tracked in any real way. Never the less, I didn't like it, and despite being fairly ambivalent to the anti-camera arguments (I find a lot of them self serving and aimed at justifying speeding), I find this a step too far.
Edited by Gordon M on 27/11/2008 at 17:44
|
I don't include NW in the category of bleating accomplices. She presents the absolutist arguments of the powers of darkness in an able energetic manner. But when the darkness has descended as it will perhaps NW will perceive fleetingly the deep unconscious hostility to the automobile and fear of their own murderous violence that lies behind people's acquiescence to this nursery-style control and repression.
Lud, you and I disagree strongly on this one, but you're an intelligent man, so I want to challenge you to move beyond the rhetoric and see if there is any substance to it. Let's start with your "murderous violence" phrase.
We have a situation where metal boxes weighing a tonne and upwards are travelling at dangerous speeds through heavily populated areas; they can and do kill people, both those in the metal boxes and those outside them, and the latter (pedestrians, cyclists, children, etc) can easily be killed by a collision which leaves the car occupants uninjured.
So let's be clear here about this phrase "murderous violence" which you have chosen to bring into the discussion. It's a phrase which you apply not to those such as yourself who argue passionately against any restraint on the speed of machines that can and do kill in significant numbers; you describe such restraint as "dull, nursery-style driving-by-numbers", and you display zero concern for those whose freedom of movement is constrained by the speedsters because they don't want to be killed by the said speedsters. Those are the people who you describe as harbouring thoughts of "murderous violence".
Let's strip this down to an example of two people, in one of the villages I mentioned above where speed is being controlled by increasingly intrusive methods. One is trying to walk across a road, and the other is one of those "enthusiastic drivers in the traditional mode". In terms of the risk they pose to each other, their situation is analogous to that of a man with a gun pointing it at a unarmed man; one faces a risk of death, the other does not (and before you denounce that analogy, remember that someone hit by a car at 40mph has a very low chance of survival).
What you are doing is the classic game of blaming the victim: you allege that the person seeking restraint of the car driving at him is driven by "fear of their own murderous violence", while the man holding the trigger (or, in this case, the gas pedal) is a laudable practitioner of "enthusiastic driving". Sorry, Lud, but that's the old Goebbels technique of the big lie, and I'm sad to see you sink so low.
|
|
Lud - you never did get round to explaining that rather curious thing masquerading as a sentence. Did it slip your mind??
|
get round to explaining that rather curious thing masquerading as a sentence <<
Don't kibbitz woodster. Damn cheek.
The subordinate phrase 'one of the prime qualities and advantages of the automobile' referred, as any fule should be able to see, to the word immediately before it: speed. It hadn't slipped my mind, no, but I foolishly hoped it would penetrate yours eventually...
|
NowWheels said: "Lud, you and I disagree strongly on this one, but you're an intelligent man, so I want to challenge you to move beyond the rhetoric and see if there is any substance to it. "
Nice put down!
Anyway, there is one fundamental issue between you and me. Namely, you think speed cameras work, and argue from that angle, and I think some work, many don't. Even worse, I think there are serious issues with them that create distrust and cynicism on the part of drivers. I won't rehash those reasons which have been put by many people.
BTW when I think of recent incidents where I have nearly had a crash, or been run over, it was never due to someone exceeding the posted limit. It was due to downright dangerous driving or inattention. Not long ago I was running along a country lane, heard a noise, turned round only to see an Aston Martin coming towards me at about 60mph while overtaking another car. Had I moved out from the kerb by 12", it would have been goodbye. That has happened to me 2 times in 15 years. Had I been hit and killed, maybe they would have erected a speed camera, thereby making sure that the next person to be killed does not get hit too high into the air by the car. Unfortunately the logical conclusion to your simplistic arguments is to reduce all limits to 20 mph. After all, if a car hits you at 40mph, you probably die. So it's dangerous.
|
blaming the victim
the old Goebbels technique
Goebbels schmoebbels m'dear, and what victim for heaven's sake?
I would point out to you NW, quite severely actually, that a traditional enthusiastic driver is no threat whatsoever to a person crossing a village street and will not even alarm them unless, as pedestrians sometimes do, not always accidentally, they step without warning into the road very close to the front of his or her vehicle. And if that happens, NW, the blundering or suicidal or foolishly aggressive pedestrian is far more likely to survive unscathed than if he or she tries to get run over by a dreaming mimser.
I remember upsetting you once before with shrink stuff so mentioning 'murderous violence' was perhaps a mistake. For the record though, it referred not to pedestrians at all but people who can drive but favour restrictive speed limit enforcement and lower limits everywhere. The reference is to murderous violent fantasies repressed in infancy or very early childhood instead of exposed and dealt with at the time. Nearly everyone has them, and is unconsciously aware of the fact. It may be convenient to project them in later life onto, say, a fantasized Toad character blinding recklessly about risking everyone's life and refraining heroically from self-criticism. As you seem to be doing actually. Most people maintain the repression in their own cases, and quite a few are exaggeratedly afraid of losing control and doing something awful unless they are kept under iron restraint. They may well, if drivers, find enforced mimsing reassuring.
One thing anyone who understands these things can tell you though is that it won't make them any safer.
Goebbels! Tchah! I have had a busy day and wanted to give you a couple of minutes, or would have posted earlier.
|
but the many people who live on the main street need their sleep and beyond 30km/h (20mph) vehicle noise rises significantly with speed. Why should people have their sleep disrupted because some antisocial eejit wants to shave 20 seconds off their journey time by doing 40mph rather than 30mph for 1 mile through the village? (see also ongoing work by govt and EU on noise reduction: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/ambient.htm )
I don't wear that, not at all. There are very few houses indeed next to roads that haven't been there for hundreds of years (the roads that is), so the average house occupant of the past would have had to endure far more noise than the average one nowadays, particularly as most modern cars are far quieter, inc diesels.
I'd agree that faster vehicles make more noise than slower ones..but...people that buy houses next to main or arterial roads, soon get used to the noise...i did 20 years ago. Same principle as living next to a railway line. Beyond that how about double glazing or ear plugs, that's what I did when having to adjust to shift work...i wouldn't have dreamt of coming from the angle that every one should crawl along at 20mph so that i could get some peace and quiet.
I'm quite glad though that I have now got an excuse for the 'hand wringers' who might sniff at me driving a 3 litre petrol car... it's kinder to the local population, because it's much quieter than most.
|
|
Lud, I'll kibbitz and cheek as I wish. Regardless of your sentence construction, how do you validate your assertion that adult drivers know very well what is good, bad or risky about speed? And even if they do know, they frequently fail to exercise good judgment, or worse, recognise the risk but go on to take that risk regardless of the potential outcome. In my estimation you suffer from the same delusion as many other drivers: that your judgment is good, all the time. I bet you criticise other road users for their apparent errors and for failing to come up to your rather good standards of driving? You belong in a swathe of people blessed with poor judgment and a self serving argument for why you should not be subject of regulation for the good of many. When you become a victim, you will likely rely on some piece of regulation to bring punishment to bear on another, conveniently forgetting the many times when you choose to drive outside of regulations.
|
Leif, the creature you describe bears no resemblance to an adult as I understand the term, or an enthusiastic driver come to that. It is a figment of your imagination.
But if what you intended was to air your inadequate's fantasies about me in an ill-mannered and prattish way, why didn't you do it in the first place, instead of simulating what I took to be good-natured kibbitzing. Then we would have known where we were and I wouldn't have bothered to respond. Play with someone your own size.
|
Leif the creature you describe
Many apologies leif. Of course that post should have been addressed to woodster. Must have been the red mist.
|
I don't wear that not at all. There are very few houses indeed next to roads that haven't been there for hundreds of years (the roads that is) so the average house occupant of the past would have had to endure far more noise than the average one nowadays particularly as most modern cars are far quieter inc diesels.
Modern cars may have quieter engines, but noisier tyres. And there are an awful lot more of them on the road than there used to be, particularly at nights.
Strange argument, though, that because you mistakenly claim it used to be worse, there's no room for further improvement.
i wouldn't have dreamt of coming from the angle that every one should crawl along at 20mph so that i could get some peace and quiet.
Perish the thought that anyone should ever be required to exercise some restraint so as not to inconvenience others!
I'm quite glad though that I have now got an excuse for the 'hand wringers' who might sniff at me driving a 3 litre petrol car... it's kinder to the local population because it's much quieter than most.
Only at less than about 30km/h. Beyond that speed, the roar from its big fat tyres is a much bigger factor.
|
Perish the thought that anyone should ever be required to exercise some restraint so as not to inconvenience others!
What an interesting angle. Despite the fact that many thousands of people live beneath aircraft routes to airports..or next to main line railway lines.. or farms...or industrial estates....hospitals...police stations etc, etc
then i'm to be condemned to a 20mph limit, just in case someone else might want to sleep, because my 'big fat tyre' noise might wake them up.... and this person will be living in the same house that has been next to that same road for donkey's years.... and my tyre noise will be nothing to the next HGV that comes past...or coach..or fire appliance... or the neighbours diesel car starting early...or cockerel, pig, cow...or the neighbour having a row, etc
could it possibly be the case, that someone who views others that push on a bit as 'speedsters'.....disapproves so much of that philosophy, that they will tailor their arguement to fit?
|
>> Perish the thought that anyone should ever be required to exercise some restraint so >> as not to inconvenience others! What an interesting angle. Despite the fact that many thousands of people live beneath aircraft routes to airports..or next to main line railway lines.. or farms...or industrial estates....hospitals...police stations etc etc
Indeed they do. Noise from aircraft is already a big issue in south London, and is a major constraint on the expansion of Heathrow, which is already limited to 16 flights a night between 11:30pm and 6:00am, to allow people to sleep. Other airports area also limited in the same way, and similar planning issues arise for industrial estates and other ventures that create noise. One of the pubs near here lost its licence because its customers made too much noise late at night.
You, however, are adamant that not only should no restraint be put on road noise, but that vehicles should be permitted to drive even faster through a village at night than is allowed during the day.
then i'm to be condemned to a 20mph limit
Hold on. We got into this discussion because you wanted to be permitted to do 40mph at night in a 30mph zone. This isn't about someone inventing an extra constraint on you, it's about you wanting to make extra noise at night.
just in case someone else might want to sleep because my 'big fat tyre' noise might wake them up.... and thisperson will be living in the same house that has been next to that same road for donkey's years....
More weird logic; you now say that be cause a problem has persisted for years, there's no need to do anything about it. In this case, people whose sleep has been disturbed for donkey's years, only more and more disturbed as traffic levels rise, should not even be able to rely on the speed limits being enforced if one of the noisy drivers is actually caught?
There used to be lots of coal fires belting out muck into the urban air. That too went on for years, so presumably you also think that should have been allowed to increase rather than being curtailed through smokeless zones and industrial emission controls.
and my tyre noise will be nothing to the next HGV that comes past...or coach..or fire appliance
>>... or the neighbours diesel car starting early...or cockerel pig cow...or the neighbour having a row etc
So, because the cock crows at 6am and one or two HGVs pass in the night, you think it's okay to add to the disruption by increasing your own speed? If the other ten cars per hour that pass through the village street at night also speed up as you want to permit, that's an extra 60 noisy events between midnight and 6am.
could it possibly be the case that someone who views others that push on a bit as 'speedsters'.....disapproves so much of that philosophy that they will tailor their argument to fit?
No, I haven't tailored my arguments, and nor do I follow the speedsters practice of using euphemisms fot their misbehaviour. You don't like accepting that people who wilfully exceed speed limits should be called speedsters, preferring to sanitise their illegality with the PC term "push on" (a variant of Lud's "enthusiastic driver"). When you pull in a drunk driver, do you take the same don't-mention-the-offence approach and call them a "party on" driver, sending them on their merry way on the grounds that there aren't many others around late at night?
|
Interesting that the discussion has reverted to the appropriateness or otherwise of the limits rather than the type of cameras that enforce it... which really is the whole hub of any discussion on speed and the policing of it...
Edited by b308 on 28/11/2008 at 08:51
|
You however are adamant that not only should no restraint be put on road noise but that vehicles should be permitted to drive even faster through a village at night than is allowed during the day.
Misrepresented. I do think there shoud be restraint on road noise, but with a reasonable balance applied... and not to an excessively low unnecessary speed level, particularly when you consider the natural noise created by other means e.g. lorries. Where is the line drawn? 4mph and a man waving a red flag?>> then i'm to be condemned to a 20mph limit Hold on. We got into this discussion because you wanted to be permitted to do 40mph at night in a 30mph zone. This isn't about someone inventing an extra constraint on you it's about you wanting to make extra noise at night.
there are 20 mph limits going up everywhere and you seem fully sold on the idea that less speed at all times is a good thing.More weird logic; you now say that be cause a problem has persisted for years there's no need to do anything about it. In this case people whose sleep has been disturbed for donkey's years only more and more disturbed as traffic levels rise should not even be able to rely on the speed limits being enforced if one of the noisy drivers is actually caught?
i'm saying that people get used to reasonable noise, ask people that live next to railway lines...ask me who has lived next to a main road for 20 years. I don't think the average car at 40mph is an unreasonable noise. It is a matter of what is reasonable or not, a balance, not one extreme versus the other. I do not for one minute advocate a free for all on noise, for example i very much disagree with concrete sections on fast roads, as they are hideously noisy.There used to be lots of coal fires belting out muck into the urban air. That too went on for years so presumably you also think that should have been allowed to increase rather than being curtailed through smokeless zones and industrial emission controls.
Of course not, what a ridiculous and condescending answer.>> and my tyre noise will be nothing to the next HGV that comes past...or coach..or fire appliance >>... or the neighbours diesel car starting early...or cockerel pig cow...or the neighbour having a row etc So because the cock crows at 6am and one or two HGVs pass in the night you think it's okay to add to the disruption by increasing your own speed?
Yes, i do, very much so...if it's reasonable...and I think 40 mph is not unreasonable
No I haven't tailored my arguments and nor do I follow the speedsters practice of using euphemisms fot their misbehaviour. You don't like accepting that people who wilfully exceed speed limits should be called speedsters preferring to sanitise their illegality with the PC term "push on" (a variant of Lud's "enthusiastic driver"). When you pull in a drunk driver do you take the same don't-mention-the-offence approach and call them a "party on" driver sending them on their merry way on the grounds that there aren't many others around late at night?
Another wholly ridiculous comparison. I cannot think of any circumstance where it is reasonable to drink drive..other than maybe a doctor having to act in a genuine emergency or something similar if the risks are properly assessed. Yet, there are times when an increased speed and therefore the illegal act of speeding can be fairly innocuous. Equally so there are often times when speeding is lethal. What I object to is the two extremes being lumped together i.e. one fairly benign, the other downright dangerous... with a whole host of variables in the middle that would need to be assessed on each and every occasion, before you consider the act.
To try to argue this as black or white is disingenuous to say the least and an easy attempt at put down..i.e. choose the worst case scenario of your opponents arguement to shut them up. I'm quite happy to state that some speeding is highly dangerous and causes unnecessary death and those that persist in it should be prosecuted to the utmost extent... but equally so, some speeding is fairly minor and should be treated as such. It is purely a balance that is needed in my view, not ill informed hysteria or people with an agenda.
Edited by Westpig on 28/11/2008 at 10:01
|
|
Lud - It'z kibbitzing as we know it where I come from. Time for me to reveal myself and calm the waters. I can't claim some sanctimonious position here, I speed frequently. there, I've said it. Of course, I choose where, when and to what degree. I have never found that speed cameras interfere with enthusiastic driving. they are not placed where it will interfere with the opportunity to play with the car. I support their general use, but accept that there will be some misplacement and misuse. Nothing is perfect. I do stand by the argument that there is no workable system that allows us to use our own judgment. We would all have a sliding scale - at one end we justify our actions, at the other end, the unacceptable that we wouldn't venture into. Everybody's scale would be different, and we wouldn't know what to expect on the roads. Some people can exercise sound judgment but many cannot. We must therefore accept regulation for the good of the majority. Metaphorically speaking I prod you with my arguments about you breaking the law and then if you become a victim expecting the law to assist you. This describes me too, and therefore I must conclude that I am hypocritical. If many of us were to honestly examine ourselves and imagine a situation where we became victim, we would fit this description. Enthusiastic drivers should be ambassadors for the art of good driving and quietly demonstrate how, where and when we may safely be a little enthusiastic, whilst extolling the virtues of adherence to urban speed limits, good observations and manners. Never intended to offend, just enjoying the forum. Off to choose some wine from the catalogue. Best wishes.
|
woodster: once again I had misunderstood you, or perhaps I didn't the first time.
I apologise for my harsh words. Best wishes to you too.
|
|
Lud, that's a short reply, I've come to expect rather more argument!
|
Lud that's a short reply I've come to expect rather more argument!
Yes, there's a whole army of us waiting man, get a grip....:-)
|
Come on then Westpig, I've eaten, I'm ready!
Lud, I see you're kibbitzing (Oh yes, nice new word for me, had to look it up...) on the 'speedo fixation' thread...
|
|
Kibbutzing, mummsies, what an odd vocabulary.
|
mummsies??
Edited by b308 on 28/11/2008 at 20:45
|
|
|
|
|
