PDA

View Full Version : Speed cameras! (merged)


InFinRetirement
31st Jan 2006, 20:45
If someone can tell me I am wrong I would be glad to hear it but...................I can recall that one David Blunkett introduced legislation that all cameras will be yellow: that where cameras existed there MUST be signs: that all cameras placed upon overhead gantry's shall be removed: that policemen shall no longer 'hide.' - there may be others, in fact I am sure there are.

So.............why today did I see overhead gantry's on the southern section of the M42 with working cameras in both directions? Why are parts of the M25 (in the Surrey section) still covered with working cameras on the gantry's? And why did I see a policeman virtually hiding behind his car on the A3 with speed detector resting the roof while is head was almost obscured. THIS all in the same day!

Have I got it wrong? :confused: :confused:

Astrodome
31st Jan 2006, 20:49
Without wishing to thread creep, I have noticed that there are times when despite being in a temporary speed restriction area, occasionally there are gantries that are not illuminated with a speed sign.
One wonders if the cameras would still trip, and would there be a defence if someone argued ?

Unwell_Raptor
31st Jan 2006, 21:25
And another thing:-
There are some shops that are equipped with CCVTV that is, or so they they say, to deter shoplifters, although we all know that it's just a revenue-raising scam.
The unprincipled swine have refused to fit out the store with notices saying: "Steal and we prosecute".
Well that's it! Fight all the way. Demand the evidence. After all, shoplifting isn't a crime, is it?

It is?

Bugger!

You mean I have to drive home at 30 as well?
Fascist bastards!

Onan the Clumsy
31st Jan 2006, 21:38
Why?...

Perhaps the same reason that we were told there were Ws of MD whose location were known and yet...

M.Mouse
31st Jan 2006, 21:45
You mean I have to drive home at 30 as well
Yes and probably on a well lit, straight piece of dual carriageway which formerly had a 70 mph limit.

If you really want to see how the principles of British justice are being abused have a gander here. (http://forums.pepipoo.com/)

I was snapped by one of the notorious LTi 20/20 cameras at an alleged speed that I know for certain was at least 10 mph more than I was doing ( I know because I saw the scamera van as I came around the corner and looked at my speedo).

I fought the case and won, no small thanks to those fighting back at the site mentioned above.

Astrodome
31st Jan 2006, 21:47
UR
As I understand it, and I am sure you will say if I am wrong, the latest Bliarist edict is that shoplifting gets one a fixed penalty up to a certain amount.

So crime will pay provided you only shoplift to the threshold ! :E :E :ok:

chiglet
31st Jan 2006, 22:12
AFAIK,
Yellow speed cams are yellow 'cos they are now Blair owned. He gets the dosh
When they was black/dark grey, they was Council owned. They got the dosh
Traffic light cams can do you for "jumping a red" council get the dosh......I would dispute the "jump" in 90% of cases,["Flashed on a Green"] but if it,s a "speed issiue" [37mph through the lights] then fight it! If there ain't "speed lines" on the road, it ain't a speed camera
Hope this helps....No1 son is a copper...:ok:
watp,iktch

Send Clowns
31st Jan 2006, 23:08
It seems a certain ill_eagle doesn't see the difference between breaking property rights and the right to move at will, under reasonable constraints.

Ontariotech
31st Jan 2006, 23:50
Speed cameras should be hidden so that you never know where they are, so you should always keep your speed at the limit.

Police officers should be able to hide, again due to the reason posted in the above line.

If you people that constantly moan about speed cameras this, and police radar that.......this is what people like me, and a few of my UK colleagues have to deal with on a daily basis. Would any of you like to go to this cabbies house, and tell his wife and child that daddy is not coming home tonight as he was killed by two 18 year olds, speeding down a road doing 140km / hr in a posted at 50km/hr.

And some of you people want signs posted telling you where the cameras are???????? Half of you do not even read the speed limit signs, so how on earth are you going to read the camera signs????

http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/060125_racedeath_300.jpg

This accident involved a cabbie, who was to have become a Canadian citizen last Friday, and was working towards having his wife join him here in Canada, and two 18 year olds racing mom and pops cars. Needless to say, the cabbie lost his life, and the two 18 years olds were granted bail today.

Do the speed limit......and you will never even notice the police, or the cameras doing their thing, therefore, you will never need to worry about what the police can and cannot do when it comes to speed enforcement.

M. Mouse.......That website is hardly a link to abuse of the criminal Justice system. The first link I click on in the Camera Forum...."Gatso Triggered, no laser detection".

Hardly a site for the moaning a crying about the abuse of power by the authorities in the UK.

More like a......"How can I get away with it website"

:yuk:

Send Clowns
1st Feb 2006, 00:03
That is a logical fallacy, Ontario. You cannot extend one, extreme case and then say that it is evidence that we should all obey the speed limit at all times. I was hit and almost killed by someone 5mph below the speed limit, but going too fast all the same. Does that mean that we all have to be at least 10 mph below the speed limit? Or perhaps never move at all?

Ontariotech
1st Feb 2006, 00:56
No, send clowns, I did not say nor imply you do 10 mph below the speed limit, that is actually unsafe. You should DO the speed limit.

Most of you fail to realize that the majority of traffic accidents occur due to the difference in speed between you, and the driver next to you, or in front of you, or behind you. This difference in speed is compunded by other factors, such as rain, snow, following too close, unsafe lane changes, SPEEDING, etc, etc. If every driver on every highway did the same speed as posted for the size and type of road, I can assure you that road accidents on every major highway on the planet will be cut in half.

Also, I am not extending one, extreame case and saying it is evidence we should all follow the speed limit. I am saying that it is the law and should always be obeyed. If you are not breaking it, then you have nothing to worry about. Second, I have personally been involved in 57 major traffic accidents, involving death, and the reconstruction of those accidents. In all but 3, speed was the major factor involving the cause of the crash.

When you go home tonight, on the M1, M25 or whatever road you travel on, take alook around and watch other drivers, and note at which speed they are passing you. Or, if you are speeding, notice the speed at which you are passing others? If that car was to swerve in front of you or you had to swerve to avoid an accident.....Could you or the other drivers stop in time?

I doubt it.

Please do the speed limit. If you all did, roadside cameras would be gone. Police officers waisting time writing tickets, and reconstructing accident's could be used to fight crime and terrorism.

allan907
1st Feb 2006, 01:37
Having read all the speed cam threads for the last couple of years I was quite apprehensive about my recent trip to the UK where the situation had obviously changed dramatically since my previous visit 3 years ago.

However, I drove 2000 miles in a month and never got busted once - driving in the same manner that I do at home (sometimes going over the limit but not intentionally - and certainly driving to the conditions). I get back to WA, driving in the same careful, considerate manner and keeping up with the flow of traffic, and I get flashed on my second day back!

UK is a pussy compared to the nazis here who do hide and do all sorts of nasty (probably illegal) things in order to keep government finances sound.

And if the intention is to keep the roads safe then WHY don't they signpost a warning ahead so that all but the brain dead boy racers slow down?

RatherBeFlying
1st Feb 2006, 01:47
OT -- There is a world of difference between idiots street racing without regard to others on or near the road and doing more than the speed limit while keeping a careful lookout.

I have had long observation of the local constabulary and find that their adherence to the local limits parallels that of the local population -- generally 15 km. over except at known laser locations where 10 over is the norm.

My one accident from highway speed was due to taking moving onto the right shoulder and the blinking of the right brake light for an upcoming right turn and deciding to pass on the left when the left turn signal/brake bulb was burnt out.

Strangely enough just a couple weeks ago in downtown Toronto, the same trick was played on me. The car ahead slowed down and moved left with the left turn signal blinking. She then turned right just as I was about to pass on the right:uhoh:

Every time I'm driving I see cars with burnt out brake lights -- more accidents waiting to happen.

Ontariotech
1st Feb 2006, 02:04
Allan.....it is sign posted.

40km/hr in a school zone

50km/hr on suburban side and city roads

60km/hr on city dual highways

80km/hr on county side roads

100km/hr on the Queens Series of highyways

White background with Black lettering.

Rather be flying, we are talking about speeding.....not break lights.

And the last time I checked Allan, Police officers are not Nazi's trying to keep the governments finances sound.

humberside_go
1st Feb 2006, 02:09
Speed cameras only have to be painted yellow and visible to drivers if the safety camera partnership that runs them wants to recover the running costs of them from the Government. So effectively if the partnership doesn't mind footing the bill for going out to the cameras and removing the film etc. then they can be as sneaky and well hidden as they like. See this taken from the humberside safety camera partnership site
'In order for the Partnership to recover its operational costs, the vehicle, the equipment or operator has to be visible to the traffic from a distance of 60 metres within 30mph and 40mph zones and from 100 metres in speed limit areas of 50mph and above. Please note - the rules and guidelines laid down by the Department of Transport regarding site selection and visibility etc, only have to be followed so that the Partnership can recover the cost of its operations. Non-compliance with these rules and guidelines cannot be used for mitigation or defence for an alleged offence committed by a driver or registered keeper in breach of current UK law.'

So no if you were caught by a hidden camera you don't stand a chance in getting off!

av8boy
1st Feb 2006, 04:09
Perhaps I just don't understand, or perhaps I'm stupid and pragmatic, but I drive the speed limit. If I inadvertently exceed the speed limit and get pulled over, then I pay the fine.

It's just that there are so many things in life that require interpretation-so little black and white--but driving at or below the speed limit is not one of them. Here in the States there is, for the most part, no requirement for any sort of warning. Cops work radar from stealthy locations, etc. Where there IS a warning posted (for instance, some states require signs near cameras, but nothing too obvious), it's usually done in an effort to get drivers to comply. This is to say that where I live, speed cameras are not the norm, but rather, cameras are installed at select traffic lights because those lights have a greater number of accidents resulting from people trying to sneak through at the last minute. In those locations, there are usually just signs telling you that a "red light violation" will cost you X number of dollars.

Don't get me wrong... if there are well thought out reasons for speed limits to be higher or lower than they are, by all means, make the case. But whatever the posted limit is, that's what it is. Exceed it at your financial peril.

I drive about 40 miles each way to work and at least three times per week I'm passed in a no-passing zone by someone who wants to go 30 or 40 mph over the limit. I feel as though the speed is up to them... they take their chances with regard to getting a ticket. However, the other things these folks do (like passing on a double yellow line) endanger ME, and that's not tolerable.

I'm not usually self-righteous, but I don't see the problem with just driving at the limit.

Dave

eal401
1st Feb 2006, 06:32
With regards to the M42 gantry signs. These cameras enforce "flexible" speed limits used at peak times, though I use the assumption that they are permenantly on. I'm pretty sure they are clearly sign posted prior to joining the M42 at the M40 & M6 Toll entrances.

I don't see the problem with just driving at the limit
Neither do I, but speed cameras do not prevent others speeding and endangering my life, nor do they prevent road accidents.

"Revenue raisers" is the easy target, but in reality there is an army of employees at the camera partnership wishing to keep their mortgages paid, hence do not wish to reduce speeding and/or road deaths. If reducing casualties was the aim, we'd see more red light cameras, more SPECS and more traffic police (though the latter's usefulness is highly questionable).

Tolsti
1st Feb 2006, 06:54
[QUOTE=And why did I see a policeman virtually hiding behind his car on the A3 with speed detector resting the roof while is head was almost obscured. THIS all in the same day!
:[/QUOTE]


Maybe he was just a short Policeman??

Heliport
1st Feb 2006, 06:58
It seems the UK's obsession with catching people who break the speed limit is shared by some other countries .........




http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/Bikebum.jpg




H.

MrFire
1st Feb 2006, 07:26
OT- In my country the rule is :

"
104: The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions can be dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when
the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends
sharing the road with pedestrians and cyclists, particularly children, and motorcyclists
weather conditions make it safer to do so
driving at night as it is harder to see other road users."There are innumerable easily imaginable circumstances in which driving at 70mph 'cos its the limit'. Regarding the speed limit as the be-all-and-end-all of road safety is gash. You would *almost certainly* fail uk driving test if you inflexibly drove at the maximum permitted speed evrywhere. you clown. 'driving at 10 mph under the limit is unsafe'. justify.

TFlyguy
1st Feb 2006, 07:37
Speed does not kill - inappropriate speed kills!

Our motorway limit is 70mph - if I do that in thick fog I am asking for an accident but on a clear dry day on an empty motorway (like we have those) then higher speeds are safe

InFinRetirement
1st Feb 2006, 07:52
Errrr!

I was not suggesting that cameras should not be used. I was not suggesting that speed limits should be broken. I was not suggesting that the police are wrong in enforcing the law. What I am suggesting is that the police and/or authorities are NOT CONFORMING to government legislation. THEY, therefore are breaking the law of the land. Now is that the state of affairs or not?

Still confused! :confused:

Bahn-Jeaux
1st Feb 2006, 07:55
humberside_go
In a previous incarnation of an employee, I was a constable in Humberside and during my probation had it instilled in me that as a PC, I was a non productive organism that had to justify its continuing existence.
To keep my job, myself and my other rookie friends had to be the proverbial Bar Stewards and turn in a couple of 'snips' a day. (snips = offences reported)
I also witnessed statements being written to the best of officers knowledge, ie , changed slightly to make it sound better for the Police and thus began my increasing disrespect for the forces of Law and Order and the Government that allowed it to occur.
I left in disgust after 4 years on the job having been a part of and done some of the things which I so despise now.
They only want to know if its an easy job for them now having not bothered to turn out for 2 car break ins but knocking on my door when they noticed my Excise licence had run out.
Same attitude prevails throughout all forces now I fear.
The only Law which they adhere to is the application of the 'Ways and Means Act'

"You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but what you say will be written down in pencil, rubbed out afterwards and changed to suit our purposes"

Says it all but that was how it was interpreted while I was in the Job.

TheOddOne
1st Feb 2006, 08:37
On my way to work this morning at 0600, twisty section of road, 30 MPH limit, chap behind me inches from my tailgate. Got to a set of traffic lights, just going green, he roars past, getting up to an estimated 50MPH. I gave him 3 flashes to remind him that the limit's 30. Unbeknownst to me and him, a Police car was coming the other way; does a 'u-ie' at the lights, passes me and stops the guy ahead. The Policeman flags me down also, says 'don't worry, we'll deal with him'. (You get an idea of the speed chummy was doing by the fact that by the time I caught up with them, they were all out of their vehicles)

I've seen several vehicles up trees/through fences on this stretch of road, very dodgy. There was also a newspaper boy killed along this stretch a few years ago. My son was out doing his round at the same time as this incident this morning. I'm VERY glad the Police are about, in Surrey at least. My son's a careful cyclist, lights, helmet, reflectors, HUGE yellow bag, but he wouldn't stand a chance being hit by someone at 50.

This is the reality of speeding in suburban areas. PLEASE don't do it. If you want fast fun in a car, go to a racing school. From my experience, Brands Hatch and Thruxton are both excellent (not an ad!) It's super fun, you learn a lot and hopefully it burns off a little of the 'need to speed'.

Cheers,
The Odd One

Astrodome
1st Feb 2006, 09:11
Ontariotech
In all but 3, speed was the major factor involving the cause of the crash.This is a fairly common comment made by Police Officers, and of course quite wrong. Not your fault but the fault of your training system.

Firstly I have been trained in railway accident investigation, as well as safety management and risk assessment.

Speed of its own can never be the cause of an accident. If that were to be true then every time someone went at 'speed', there would be an accident.

Speed can be considered to be a factor in the outcome of an accident. That is to say that there has to be other factors at play in order for speed to affect the outcome.

The Police sadly only appear to stop at what is known as the 'Immediate Cause' of an accident. They will say 'If you were not going so fast the accident would not have happened'. OK fair point BUT, the accident may well have STILL happened but the outcome may have been different.

Accident causation analysis needs to progress towards what we call 'Root Cause' rather than Immediate Cause.

If we were to say that a railway accident was caused by excessive speed and walked away (which is what the Police do) then the accidents would still continue to happen.

Accident investigation needs to go deeper into the underlying factors.

If it did so I am sure that many of the acidents could be reclassified into their true cause.

I could quite easily drive within the speed limit, and have an accident. I have not broken the law by exceeding the speed limit.

In the UK the greater number of fatalities and road accidents happen, if I recall correctly, within 30/40 mph areas, in which speeding does not figure as a factor. The actual figure is within the Dept of Transport website.

In the case you cited, the underlying cause would appear to be aggressive driving, with a failure to drive appropriately to the road conditions. This suggests that action needs to be taken to identify aggressive driving (which I am convinced plays a large part in the so called 'speed-related) accidents. After all we have all experienced the aggressive BMW/Merc/4x4 driver inches off the rear bumper, even in 30 mph conditions.

Such aggressive driving can never be identified as long as the Police continue to concentrate on the wrong issues.

They should not be surprised therefore when the general public feel as aggrieved as they do. There appears to be little if no action taken to tackle the real dangerous drivers, and that is what really causes such annoyance to the public at large.

lexxity
1st Feb 2006, 09:44
Aggresive drivers are a huge problem on the road my parents live, it is well known locally for being dangerous and locals treat it with respect, my parents have lost count of the number of cars and motorbikes they have found in their property having taken the road and it's bends too fast. The limit on the road is 50mph for a reason, but still the idiots drive it at 70-80mph.

But on the flip side people who drive too slow are as big a hazard. I work at MAN and use the M56 westbound, the exit from the motorway to the airport stays under motorway regulations for another 1/2 a mile to a mile, but the number of people who slow down on the exit is unbelievable, luckily if you use the road everyday you are prepared for these numpties, but one day there is going to be the mother of all pileups when someone who panics and lowers their speed to 30mph whilst still technically on a fast flowing motorway is wiped out by another person doing the actual speed limit. Why don't the police nick people who are driving like this? They are just as dangerous as the aggresive 4x4/merc/etc driver.

Send Clowns
1st Feb 2006, 09:53
Ontario

That doesn't fit with your idea that one accident provides evidence fo the required behaviour of all drivers. We were all doing the same speed. We were all doing about 35 mph in a 40 mph limit. I could stop at that speed when things went wrong ahead. He (in an articulated lorry) couldn't.

Speed and spacing were the major factors in that accident, but that is safe speed not speed limit. Speed was a major factor in every car crash that ever happened, anywhere. If neither vehicle had any then there wouldn't ahve been an accident.

Having also been involved int he invesigation of an accident in an area of life (general aviation) where accident investigation is far more sophisticated than the investigations into most RTAs I would have to agree with Astrodome. I would go so far as to say that concentration on the speed limit is actually damaging road safety. People think of limits, and take a lot less effort to actually think and judge their speed for themselves, and concentrate less on the road. The limit is not a safe maximum speed: safe speed is far more important than speed limit.

Why should we always obey the limit?

Take for example a typical British motorway, at a time of day when it is free-flowing. Evidence suggests that the safest drivers are those around the 85th percentile in speed i.e. drive faster than about 85% of other drivers, slower than 15%. Evidence also suggests that the 85th percentile in these conditions is over 80 mph, where the speed limit is 70 mph. So there is clearly no correlation between breaking the speed limit per se and safety. So why should the limit always be obeyed?

Flap 5
1st Feb 2006, 09:56
Astrodome is spot on. Agrressive drivers (as in TheOddOnes case) or unaware drivers who drive faster than the conditions are safe for are the biggest factors in accidents. For people to still be arguing that speed is the primary factor is in itself showing a lack of awareness of the actual factors.

Dozza2k
1st Feb 2006, 12:18
Theres a bit of road near me with a fixed camara which can be twisted to snap on either lane, i.e traffic leaving/entering town. On some days 15m beyond where the camara is they have a white van with a camara pointing in the same direction as the camara. So, you can get done twice in the space of about 25metres. Its a 30 zone. Might take a picture of the little fun trap and email it to Clarkson.......

eal401
1st Feb 2006, 12:30
Might take a picture of the little fun trap and email it to Clarkson.......
And your local paper?

The Lancashire Job Preservers, sorry, Camera Partnership recently parked a mobile job preserver, sorry, camera on a road over the M55. The camera completely blocked the pavement, forcing pedestrians into the road.

Suddenly it wasn't a pavement but a "lorry emergency avoidance space" or some such b*llocks!!

Meanwhile nearby residents continue to get requests for a camera to catch people doing up to 70mph past their houses (a 30 zone) ignored.

Man-on-the-fence
1st Feb 2006, 12:41
IFR

In reply to your question.

If the Operating Authority (note that this may not be the Police Force itself)wishes to recover the administration cost of operating the camera (from the fines it levies), then that camera must be visible (i.e yellow in some way normally)

If they dont then they remain Grey.

G-CPTN
1st Feb 2006, 13:15
What is the status of (traditional) ie not red forward-facing or Truvelo cameras pointing TOWARDS the traffic flow. These cameras are aligned to catch traffic from A to B direction, but will flash when traffic from B to A exceeds their trigger level. Can a prosecution ensue? (The boxes are clearly marked yellow and black from behind, but grey from the front - where the flash comes from.)
PS we're talking Scotland here . . .

I should point out that the said camera is place on the opposite carriageway (though not a dual carriageway).

Professor Plum
1st Feb 2006, 13:45
Driver fined for swearing at speed camera

http://cars.msn.co.uk/carnews/swearing1feb06/

Respect!

Shame he got fined though!!

I'm just surprised the Police were able to make out his gesture, and then get to the blokes house within 30 minutes!

At least I can sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that people arent swearing at speed cameras thanks to the stirling work of the Police :yuk:

SixDelta
1st Feb 2006, 14:10
Ontario,
Speed itself doesn't kill, use of excessive speed for given road conditions can. It's that simple.
Bigger Picture:
I object to the use of these so called "safety cameras" for a several reasons:
1) They have directly led to a reduction in the number of Police "traffic" officers on the road, allowing more and more of the dangerous and uninsured drivers to get away with it.
2) They reduce public respect for traffic police, as they are seen as "police cameras"
3) They DO NOT reduce the likelyhood of accidents on a given stretch road
4) They are a revenue generator for the government and camera partnerships, yet another tax on the British motorist
5) They (cameras) themselves can CAUSE accidents, I have personally seen two accidents caused by drivers seeing grey-painted or hidden boxes late, leaping on the brakes causing vehicles behind to brake hard and bunch leading to rear-end collisions.
6) They can cause traffic congestion by creating the "domino-effect" of drivers automatically braking even when travelling under the speed limit
IFR, the best source for information about speed cameras can be found at the Association Of British Drivers website, www.abd.org.uk
See here
http://www.abd.org.uk/prosecutions.htm

ionagh
1st Feb 2006, 14:47
The last time I was unfortunate enough to have to drive in the UK, I was struck by the sheer number of these cameras and their placing.

Whenever there was a dangerous road (ie obstruction, poor vis, school, narrow village etc etc...) there was almost ZERO probability of finding a speed camera.

However on many totally straight roads with no junctions, excellent vis, no residential areas and 4 lanes sometimes, there were often ludicrous speed limits of half of what you might reasonably expect that were enforced by speed cameras every 400m !!

If that is your idea of "safety"; then god help you all.....

patdavies
1st Feb 2006, 14:57
What is the status of (traditional) ie not red forward-facing or Truvelo cameras pointing TOWARDS the traffic flow. These cameras are aligned to catch traffic from A to B direction, but will flash when traffic from B to A exceeds their trigger level. Can a prosecution ensue? (The boxes are clearly marked yellow and black from behind, but grey from the front - where the flash comes from.)
PS we're talking Scotland here . . .

I should point out that the said camera is place on the opposite carriageway (though not a dual carriageway).


Truvelo works from pressure strips in the road, not radar. So if it can be turned around (v. unusual) it would also need to be switched to trigger off a set of strips from the other carriageway.

Truvelo is forward facing and MUST have a magenta filter on the flash. If the machine does not, then it is being used outside its type approval and therefore cannot be used as evidence in court - but that won't stop them trying to get you to cough up a fixed penalty.

slim_slag
1st Feb 2006, 15:11
That cop who was acquitted by that magistrate level buffoon for driving at 159mph is going back to court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1699713,00.html

Interestingly..

Lady Justice Hallett said ..... that speed alone was not sufficient to found a conviction of dangerous driving.

"It has to be a question of speed in the context of all the circumstances," she said. "It's not for this court to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules that driving at X time at any particular speed is so excessive as to amount to dangerous driving per se."

So there is some common sense in our justice system, just need to get this concept into those magistrates whose thought process can only extend to rubber stamping the camera's decision that the speed limit was exceeded.

Didn't those two cops have better things to do than hunt down somebody who gave the golden forks to a speed camera?

bjcc
1st Feb 2006, 16:10
Astrodome

I don't agree.

You may well be trained to investigate accidents on railways. I was trained to investigate accidents on roads.

So yes, speed does cause accidents. In that had the vehicle not been driven at that speed the accident would not have happened.

Example. It's foggy, vehicle being driven at 70 hits a car being driven at 50.

The direct cause is excessive speed, irrespective of the speed limit. The reason speed is the cause is that the driver was driving too fast for the road conditions. The Highway code (assuming like most drivers common sense is not used)says clearly that you should be able to pull up in the distance, if you can't you are driving too fast.

Example 2.

Vehicle driving on round a bend. speed limit 30 (for good reason) vehicle being driven at 70+ Vehicle comes off road and embeds it's self in a tree. Cause of accident? excessive speed. Had the vehicle been driven at 30, the accident could not have happened.

Both examples are real. I investigated both. There was only one cause the drivers speed. In the first case the speed was within the limit. Yes the acident still happened, but it was inappropriate. The second the speed was above the limit, the driver was experienced but not capable of handling the car at that speed.

And of course therein lays the problem. Pass a driving test and many people assume they are much more capable than the really are. Last time one of these posts appearsd I watched every car on the way home from work, nearly every one was driven badly. Ranging from lack of anticpation to inapprioiate or excessive speed to being in the wrong place in the road to traffic light offences.

Thats the nub of the issue, if people were better drivers, then fine, increase speed limits. The simple and unplaitable (to many) fact is that most are not where near as good as they think they are. If the majority of drivers are not capable of safely driving at the current limits, why make matters worse by putting them up.

Navajo8686
1st Feb 2006, 17:10
There are three things here which I believe need to be taken into account:
Firstly when I drive at a speed greater than the speed limit (on motorway) I am doing so in a very safe manner whereas all the other road users who zoom by me even faster are obviously maniacs......

Secondly speeding is a very accident free thing to do as very few events of speeding (an infitesimal proportion) result in an accident - if 10 million people exceed the speed limit once a day (even if only by a couple of miles an hour) and there are 5000 deaths per year then the chances of being killed by speed are not very high. This becomes the public perception and driving styles are not changed because the chance of it happening to 'me' seem quite small.

Thirdly driving laws are - IMHO - not severe enough. Either this is a real problem with some very real dangerous outcomes in which case there should be a proper penalty (one years ban) or it's not. Drink driving only gets a ban - in that case the instant scapping of the car you're driving (irrespective of who actually owns it) would focus the minds of the idiots who persist!

Having like OT and BJCC helped scraped the dead off the road something needs to be done - I'm just not convinced that speed cameras are the way to do it. They are part of the package but the rest of the package just isn't there!
Nav

Astrodome
1st Feb 2006, 17:11
bjccThe direct cause is excessive speed, irrespective of the speed limit. The reason speed is the cause is that the driver was driving too fast for the road conditions. The Highway code (assuming like most drivers common sense is not used)says clearly that you should be able to pull up in the distance, if you can't you are driving too fast. In the first case the speed was within the limit. Yes the acident still happened, but it was inappropriate.

So we are agreed then, driving within the sped limit does not of itself prevent accidents.

Last time one of these posts appearsd I watched every car on the way home from work, nearly every one was driven badly. Ranging from lack of anticpation to inapprioiate or excessive speed to being in the wrong place in the road to traffic light offences.And that my dear bjcc is root cause analysis.

Simply putting up speed cameras does absolutely nothing to address the root causation. Now tackling root causation is REAL road safety, not issuing FPs at £60 and three points, which is a negative solution.

I would anticipate that the great majority of high speed accidents, and those that are of course the most news-worthy have one common factor....that being that the driver at fault was driving aggresively.

By that I mean he would have been driving far too close, taking risks overtaking, overtaking with inadequate distances, all of which he would probably do when driving within the speed limit in the normal course of events.

Now my argument is that if THOSE elements were tackled by the use of unmarked cars, that the driver could have been dealt with severely at a stage BEFORE his aggressiveness became the causal factor in a fatality.

As you have stated and demonstrated we see poor driving every day. Proper Policing which is designed to IMPROVE road safety and REDUCE accidents should be tackling these particular issues.

Lets remove the problem by removing these arsehioles from the road BEFORE they cause the inevitable accident. And let us have traffic enforcement that achieves this.

I am sure that this would do much to help repair the relationship with motorists.

Flying Lawyer
1st Feb 2006, 17:26
Well said, Lady Justice Hallett.
Absolutely right. :ok:
I'm not surprised; she was an excellent barrister when at the Bar.

Common sense, as S_S says, and it needed saying at appeal court level.
Because of the nature of the particular proceedings, it's 'persuasive authority' (ie It's not binding on lower courts) but Crown Court judges won't go against it lightly and magistrates shouldn't. I imagine young advocates cutting their teeth in the Mags Courts will get hold of a copy of the judgment and carry it in their bags for use when necessary. :)


bjcc


Speed does cause accidents. In that had the vehicle not been driven at that speed the accident would not have happened.

That's as logical as saying -
Driving vehicles does cause accidents. In that had the vehicle not been driven at that time the accident would not have happened.

As logical, and about as useful.

___________________________


Just in case there's any misunderstanding, the appeal judges did not say the District Judge was wrong to acquit the PC. They decided that, in coming to his decision, he took into account factors which he should not have done. (ie He may have come to the same conclusion anyway, even if he hadn't taken those factors into consideration.
The case was sent back to the Mags Court with a direction that it should be be re-tried. It was open to the appeal judges to send the case back to the Mags Court with a direction to convict. They did not do so.

It will be interesting to see what happens at the re-trial which will be before a different court. (SOP in such circumstances.)

An area of law which IMHO should be clarified is the extent to which (if at all) the expertise/experience of the driver is one of the factors which a court may take into account when deciding if someone drove dangerously. The law isn't entirely clear, although it's generally regarded as being irrelevant. IMHO, it may be extremely relevant and should, in appropriate cases, be taken into account.




FL

bjcc
1st Feb 2006, 17:49
Astrodome

In which case the root cause, taken to it end, is driving, therefore stop driving and no accidents.

Aggressive driving is not the root cause of all accidents, its poor driving. Many people who tail gate are not really paying attention, rather than being aggresive.

Again, the point is, given that people are not as good at driving as they think, what justification is there for increasing speed limits. They are unsafe as it is, why make it worse?

Speed cameras don't stop speeding. Nothing will, any more than being taken to court stops it. What it does do is make it painful enough to stop some people from doing it.

FL

Interesting a clash of logic then v phycics. Oh well, you know best.

On your last point, how do you quantify experience? How do you show 'experience'? I passed a standard police driving course when I was very young, frankly, when I think back, I was dangerous, mostly because of misplaced confidence. It took a serious accident to shake that out of me, and yes, it was caused by excess speed!

Flying Lawyer
1st Feb 2006, 18:08
bjcc

a clash of logic then v phycics
Sorry, you've lost me there. :confused:


How do you quantify experience?
By looking at all the evidence and forming an objective view.
The same way as you decide whether a piece of driving was dangerous.


FL

Astrodome
1st Feb 2006, 20:32
Aggressive driving is not the root cause of all accidents, its poor driving.So why not campaign for changes to driver training and driving test standards ?


Speed cameras don't stop speeding. Nothing will, any more than being taken to court stops it. What it does do is make it painful enough to stop some people from doing it. Demonstrating that the ultimate aim of the Police is to obtain a Prosecution NOT to improve road safety.

Road safety is NOT achieved by Prosecutions, if it was the considerable number speeding Prosecutions/FPs issued would have been reduced by now.

In which case the root cause, taken to it end, is driving, therefore stop driving and no accidents.Which summarises brilliantly the standard Police view on accident prevention/investigation.

If you actually carried out a proper root cause analysis, I am pretty confident that you would find the one of the main underlying factors is vehicle design.

Why for example do we build cars that are capable of easily exceeding by two or more times the national speed limits of most developed Countries ?

Why are not speed limiters fitted to prevent cars exceeding the limit ?

Why do we build roads to such a high standard that one can easily drive at considerable speeds quite safely yet put sometimes ridiculous speed limits on them?

Why are not speed limits more relevant to the actual conditions ?

I could go on.

Let me give you an example of one of the above. Driving from London to Hastings, at a small village down towards Hastings (the name escapes me), the speed limit through the village is 40 mph.

The road conditions in respect of curvature, sighting, etc are such that you could not safely go above 30 mph, yet some moron has decreed that 40 mph is safe ?

Other sections of road have artificially low speed limits.

Another common example of badly set speed limits.

Access and sometimes exit roads from/between Motorways will be set at 50 mph. The design and curvature of the road is such that 50mph seems unreasonably low, so people go faster.

Now you could argue that to do so is wrong, however everyone who drives is carrying out there own form of simple risk assessment and concluding that it is safe to go somewhat faster, therefore unreasonable speed limits set up a psychological mindset that negates whatever safety measure they were intended to achieve.

Let us look at a railway accident in the 1970's by way of an illustration of how proper root cause analysis can unearth the real causes of an accident.

An overnight sleeper train left London Euston station heading to Glasgow. Soon after leaving London, the locomotive developed a fault and failed.

A replacement locomotive was provided and said train continued on its ways some 60 odd minutes late.

Now although timed to run at 80 mph (for passenger comfort), the train could actually run at 100 mph, which the driver elects to do in order to make up lost time.

Approaching Nuneaton, there was a temporary speed restriction of 20 mph over a section of track being renewed.

Driver is approaching Nuneaton looking out for the advanced warning board which locates the speed restriction. He cannot see it, so assumes that in accordance with then standard practice that it has been removed and so continues running at 100mph, remember now that the train is timed at 80 mph.

As he approaches Nuneaton at 100 mph he sees in the distance ahead a 20 mph sign.

Train runs onto the speed restriction, derails and ends up spreadeagled all over Nuneaton.

Now taking the Police style attitude we end up with driver + speed = Prosecution and end of story.

Root cause analysis looked at the events leading up to the accident, and resulted in a number of both administrative as well as engineering solutions which would prevent that occurring again, thereby removing the true underlying causes rather than just dealing with the outcome.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=137

Unwell_Raptor
1st Feb 2006, 21:18
That cop who was acquitted by that magistrate level buffoon for driving at 159mph is going back to court.


That 'magistrate level buffoon' is a District Judge (Magistrates Courts), a legally qualified professional on about £100k per annum.

I said at the time of the original acquittal that I could not imagine any lay bench reaching such an extraordinary conclusion, nor making the comments that he did.

Flying Lawyer
1st Feb 2006, 22:09
U_R

You appear to believe the decision in some way supports or vindicates the comments you made after the acquittal. It doesn't.
The judges didn't say, or even imply, they thought the acquittal was wrong.

The Crown argued that driving at 159 mph on a public road was in itself dangerous driving.
The judges rejected that argument. (Rightly so, IMHO.)

The Crown's alternative argument was that the DJ was wrong to take into account opinions expressed by witnesses (on both sides) as to whether the driving was dangerous.
The judges agreed with that. (The defence conceded the point.)

The judges pointed out that the DJ might have reached the same conclusion even if he hadn't taken those opinions into account, and would have been entitled to do so. Their decision to send the case back for rehearing was expressed to be with some misgivings (or similar phrase) but they considered it to be the proper course.

The fact that you "could not imagine any lay bench reaching such an extraordinary conclusion" as that reached by the DJ is worrying if your imagination is correct. It suggests that, if the case was heard by lay magistrates', nothing the defence said would or even could make any difference to the final decision. A curious, and very unfair, way to conduct a trial.
It's also unfortunate because it feeds the perception of many motorists that their chances of being acquitted by lay magistrates ranges from slim to non-existent.





FL

G-CPTN
1st Feb 2006, 22:23
What is the status of traditional (ie not red forward-facing or Truvelo) cameras pointing TOWARDS the traffic flow. These cameras are aligned to catch traffic from A to B direction, but will flash when traffic from B to A exceeds their trigger level. Can a prosecution ensue? (The boxes are clearly marked yellow and black from behind, but grey from the front - where the flash comes from.)
PS we're talking Scotland here . . .

I should point out that the said camera is place on the opposite carriageway (though not a dual carriageway).


The camera was NOT Truvelo, patdavies, but an 'ordinary' white flash camera, that was pointing TOWARDS me (though on the opposite carriageway). It flashed as I approached (there were no other vehicles in the vicinity).

Unwell_Raptor
1st Feb 2006, 23:12
The fact that you "could not imagine any lay bench reaching such an extraordinary conclusion" as that reached by the DJ is worrying if your imagination is correct. It suggests that, if the case was heard by lay magistrates', nothing the defence said would or even could make any difference to the final decision. A curious, and very unfair, way to conduct a trial.
It's also unfortunate because it feeds the perception of many motorists that their chances of being acquitted by lay magistrates ranges from slim to non-existent.

No, it suggests nothing of the sort. Lay benches (supported by a qualified lawyer) are there to make decisions within the law, but their true raison d'etre is to apply common sense, just like the juries that you normally work with. IMHO this DJ lost contact with his common sense. Not many of our fellow citizens would accept speeds approaching 160 mph in a 70 limit and (IIRC) 80 in a 30 as being anything other than dangerous. Worse still, he was acquitted of speeding! And don't forget that he is reported to have embarked on this so-called test drive without prior authorisation of any sort.

Probably 95 per cent of magistrates are drivers themselves, and, improbable as it may seem , I have sat on many traffic cases that have resulted in not guilty verdicts, based on the evidence and nothing but the evidence.

This was a perverse verdict, from my layman's point of view. Let's see a fresh bench, no matter whether it is a lay or a professional one, have a look at it. Fancy a fiver on the outcome?

humberside_go
2nd Feb 2006, 01:02
What is the problem with sticking to the speed limits? I very much doubt anyone on this forum would walk into a shop and pick up the nearest item to hand and walk out without paying for said item so why is it that hard for everyone just to obey the law of the United Kingdom and just simply drive at or below the prescribed limit? Is it really that hard? Take this example: I recently had to drive from my home in York to Swansea in South Wales a distance of approx 290 miles. I was making this journey with a group of 8 friends spread between two cars - my car and a friends car. We both departed York at the same time for the 4 or 5 hour journey. My friend who thinks himself as a bit of a boy racer/idiot decides to drive as fast as the road conditions allow ie 90 - 100 mph all the way down, me with 9 points already on my licence (for speeding i might add) cannot risk this so I trundle southwards on the motorways of England and Wales at 70 - 75 mph. My point being is that when I pulled up in Swansea driving at or around the legal limit I arrived less than 15 minutes after my friend who had gone all out to drive as fast as he could for the traffic conditions en route. This being a 290 mile route I thought to myself 'WHAT IS THE POINT'! Yes he has driven faster than me, yes he arrived before me, yes he was more likely to be involved in an accident than me but for what? - 15 minutes I think I can live with that. If someone can explain to me why exactly they would be happy to arrive a few minutes earlier, having driven in a manner statistically more likely to result in them completing the journey in a box, rather than simply to drive at or below the prescribed limit then I'd like to know. Just ask youself is it really worth you're licence? Is is really worth the money? and ultimatley is it really worth you're life and even worse any other poor sod who may be in the vehicle with u or outside of it and the heartache you could cause just to arrive at destination x a few minutes earlier than you would have done if you had just stuck to the limit and being able to stop in time should the unespected have occured. Just think could you live with yourselve should it ever happen? Think, next time you decide to bomb down a deserted motorway at 150+ mph when the offside tyre decides to blow out, I know what speed I'd rather be driving at or be driven at...

Flying Lawyer
2nd Feb 2006, 01:02
U_R

Lay magistrates (as you correctly say) are required to make decisions within the law.
The appeal court judges confirmed unambiguously that speed alone is not sufficient to found a conviction for dangerous driving.
So: Do you apply what in your opinion is 'common sense' or what the appeal court judges confirmed is the law?

You say not many of our fellow citizens would accept such high speeds as being anything other than dangerous. That may be so, especially if no-one makes them pause to consider the circumstances and conflicting arguments. However, the judges rejected the notion that speed alone is sufficient to found a conviction for the offence of dangerous driving. "It has to be a question of speed in the context of all the circumstances," she said. "It's not for this court to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules that driving at X time at any particular speed is so excessive as to amount to dangerous driving per se." So: Do you apply what you believe the majority of our fellow citizens would think, or what the appeal court judges confirmed is the law?

As for "common sense", you'd be hard pushed to find a more down to earth, common sense judge than Lady Justice Hallett, and even harder pushed to find a judge at High Court or Appeal Court level who has more experience of applying the criminal law. Much the same applies to the other judge, Mr Justice Owen, although he doesn't have her unusually great experience of criminal law.

Worse still, he was acquitted of speeding!
It may be that the DJ considered Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which says:
"No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion."
It would be an issue of fact, for the DJ to determine, whether the PC was using the vehicle for such a purpose when he exceeded the speed limit. He said he was practising his high speed driving skills. There was evidence before the DJ that West Mercia police encouraged their officers to do so.

And don't forget that he is reported to have embarked on this so-called test drive without prior authorisation of any sort.
"So-called test drive"?
There you go again, pouring scorn on a defendant's account.
I won't forget he didn't have express prior authorisation, but where does that take us?
Section 87 doesn't require prior authorisation before the exemption applies.There may (or may not, I don't know) be a provision in that Force's internal regulations requiring prior authorisation but, even if there is, that isn't law.

Improbable as it may seem , I have sat on many traffic cases that have resulted in not guilty verdicts.
I don't doubt what you say (and find it reassuring) but, if it seems improbable to some, that may be because in every post you've made in a 'motoring' thread over several years, you have without exception taken the prosecution side in discussions.

This was a perverse verdict, from my layman's point of view. If you're commenting as a layman, fair enough. However, you're also a lay magistrate so I'm surprised you express such a strong view about the decision of someone who heard all the evidence, watched a video of the driving in question, and heard the competing arguments. Some people who play a role in the justice system think it's wiser, and more sensible, not to express a view when they didn't hear the evidence/arguments.



Fancy a fiver on the outcome?
I'd put more than a fiver on him being convicted next time, but not necessarily being convicted for the right reasons.

If the retrial is by lay magistrates - which would surprise me, given the points of law which are bound to be argued - and if what you say about your fellow magistrates is correct, I'd consider putting my house on him being convicted. Seems a dead cert. :)


FL



Edited to correct typos and to add:

Section 87 of the RTRA 1984 (exemption of fire, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) has recently been amended* so that the exemption now also applies to vehicles being used for Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes provided that the vehicle is being driven by a driver who has been trained in driving vehicles at high speeds or for training a driver in that skill.

(* By paragraph 42 Schedule 4 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which came into force on the 1st Jan 2006.)

Wedge
2nd Feb 2006, 01:06
I've been driven at that speed on a public road (not in this country), and I have to say, IMHO, that it was above the speed which I would consider to be dangerous per se on a public road. The conditions were perfect but I still considered it to be dangerous.

But maybe it was the boy racer who was driving me in his brand new Corvette that made me feel that way. ;)

Flying Lawyer
2nd Feb 2006, 01:22
Wedge

Fair enough, as a personal view.
But, as a budding lawyer, you'll have noticed that the judges said there is no such thing (in law) as a speed above which the driving is dangerous per se and that, for someone to be convicted of dangerous driving, the prosecution must prove that the speed was dangerous in the particular circumstances. Potential danger can, of course, be taken into account as well as actual danger.
IMHO, they were absolutely right. That is the law.
If Parliament wishes driving above a particular speed, or exceeeding a speed limit by more than a prescribed percentage, to constitute dangeous driving regardless of conditions, it can easily make that the law.

slim_slag
2nd Feb 2006, 01:26
Marvellous stuff FL. Now I shall wait for the Blairite response.

humberside_go
2nd Feb 2006, 01:51
why when people say conditions do they automatically think road conditions or weather conditions. What about car conditions? If you have a tyre blow out or a brakes failure etc IMHO I think you would be more likely to survive a resultant incident if you were travelling at 70 mph rather than 90 mph regardless of the time of day/weather conditions/traffic conditions so think about that next time u think its safe to drive over the limit during so called 'safe' conditions. By the way I am not a traffic officer or road safety campaigner just a motorist who after being 'flashed' for speeding 3 times in the last 18 monthes have realised that it just isnt worth the potential catastrophes compared with the few extra minutes that MIGHT be saved.

allan907
2nd Feb 2006, 02:06
In reply to Ontario's post in reply to mine (unfortunately on page 1 because of merged threads and popularity of this thread):

Speed cameras (multanovas) in Western Australia are operated by civilians not the police. They (as has been pointed out elsewhere) are driven by mortgages etc and they have a target to reach to justify the expense of these cameras ($100,000) and their operation. They routinely flout the law in the placement of these cameras (at the bottom of hills; within a few metres of speed limit changes) and they also hide them which is also a no-no. However, if one is flashed then the charge sticks. Hence my comment about "nazis".

There is no stated leniency but 10% is the generally accepted norm and is probably the variation to which the cameras are set. However, at 60kph the variation is 6kph which equates to 3.7 mph! (Humberside Go would obviously get caught out by that one travelling at 75 on a 70 road!) That small amount of "excessive" speed earns you points and $100 fine. Even the best of drivers - with a full intention to drive within the speed limit - get caught out with this. The problem over here is also compounded with constantly changing speed zones which appear to have no relevance to the road conditions. In the 100 km between my home and the city (an open country road with no particular hazards) the limit changes between 50kph and 100kph (with all variations in between) no fewer than 24 times.

Is there any wonder that the average law abiding citizen feels aggrieved. This has the unfortunate effect that the stock of the police force continues to go down and they wonder why the general public routinely fail to support them.

Whacking out fines and points does nothing to solve the problem. It certainly does nothing to stop the hoons who are stupid on the roads - only a traffic cop can do that - and they seem noticeable by their absence.

bjcc
2nd Feb 2006, 05:41
UR

Something else that may be should have been mentioned, is that had the officer been assigned to an emergency call at that time of the day then he would have been doing those speeds if the call warranted it. Police drivers are trained to drive as fast as the road conditions allow.

I don't know about this officers force, but in mine there was no requirement to 'seek permission' to exceed a speed limit' for training or famil reasons.

Like this officer, I have exceeded a speed limit to get used to how a car reacts, I would not want to find out, for instance, that a vehicles brakes are worse than useless at 110 when on a call in traffic. That really would be dangerous. Please believe me, like in the old 3.5 rovers, that does happen!

Astradome

Your train example is interesting, but hadly comparable. There was no speed restriction warning, until the driver was too close to the hazard to do anything about it (if I understand your example correctly). The train was going to fast for the hazard, and therefore speed was the cause of the accident. That doesn't mean I would conculde the driver was culpable. Yes, I accept that the driver could not have avoided the accident in the circumstances as he was not warned in time that he should reduce speed.

The difference being that on a road with a 30 mph limit, it may well be the those that designed the speed limits know something you don't. (such as in the example I quoted with the tree and the bend! The limit was there, long before the hazard, but the driver felt, wrongly he knew better. result? crunch!)

I have consistantly said that there needs to be a change in driver training and licencing in the UK. Retesting for instance could improve driving standards.

As to speed limiters etc, I would not be suprised if that happens in the future, although any goverment that introduced it would probably be signing it's own death warrant!

eal401
2nd Feb 2006, 06:45
Like this officer, I have exceeded a speed limit to get used to how a car reacts
He didn't just break the speed limit though, did he? He broke his force's guidelines. Or is that still OK? :yuk:

bjcc
2nd Feb 2006, 06:49
EAL401
Did he break them?

In any event, magistrates are not the re to decide on force guidlines, just law.

bealine
2nd Feb 2006, 08:29
God I hate the police!!!

I drove to Somerset and back on Tuesday 31st January!!! I had never seen so many mobile cameras and patrol cars on the A303 and I suddenly twigged - it was the last day of the month!!! The B4stards have to get their quota or the Chief Pig won't be a happy bunny!!!

Sad to say, I used to support the police when we dealt with human beings who, as long as your driving wasn't dangerous or aggressive, would more often than not just issue a stern warning!!! Since speed cameras were introduced, I've lost all respect for the police!!!

Of course the police say "we're only doing our job!" - exactly what the SS said when the concentration camps were liberated!!!

bjcc
2nd Feb 2006, 08:57
bealine

You obviously have some serious issues with your anger. And reality!

Speed cameras were not the idea of the police. They exist, if you don't want a ticket, it's easy. Drive at or below the limit.

As regards to the theory that in the 'old days' you'd get a stern warning, thats as realistic as Dixon of Dock Green.

As I recall it was more lightly, if caught by traffic, a probabtioner, or anyone needing the overtime, you'd be visiting the local magistrates court.

BlueDiamond
2nd Feb 2006, 09:02
To be completely fair about what you said, allan907, you should have pointed out that the locations of the next day's Multanovas are very well advertised. One of our two major television stations lists the locations every night, and at least one of our major radio stations does the same every morning. If you miss either of those listings the night before, you can ring on the day and have the information given to you. There is absolutely nothing secret about Multanova locations in Perth.

Ontariotech
2nd Feb 2006, 10:14
Bealine wrote:
God I hate the police!!!
I drove to Somerset and back on Tuesday 31st January!!! I had never seen so many mobile cameras and patrol cars on the A303 and I suddenly twigged - it was the last day of the month!!! The B4stards have to get their quota or the Chief Pig won't be a happy bunny!!!
Sad to say, I used to support the police when we dealt with human beings who, as long as your driving wasn't dangerous or aggressive, would more often than not just issue a stern warning!!! Since speed cameras were introduced, I've lost all respect for the police!!!
Of course the police say "we're only doing our job!" - exactly what the SS said when the concentration camps were liberated!!!
Today 07:49
Your comments are a slap in the face to someone, like me, who has sworn an oath the People of Canada, the Queen, heirs and succcessors, and to uphold the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada.
Police officers are on these roads, not only for Your Safety, but for the safety of Your family, and friends. Not only do police officers enforce traffic laws, but they do their best in preventing crime, to Your property. I would suggest a little more respect be given to those whom you may be calling for help at some point in your life.
Give em a break, eh?

Bahn-Jeaux
2nd Feb 2006, 10:26
Your comments are a slap in the face to someone, like me, who has sworn an oath the People of Canada, the Queen, heirs and succcessors, and to uphold the law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms here in Canada.
Police officers are on these roads, not only for Your Safety, but for the safety of Your family, and friends. Not only do police officers enforce traffic laws, but they do their best in preventing crime, to Your property. I would suggest a little more respect be given to those whom you may be calling for help at some point in your life.
Give em a break, eh?

Unfortunately that message hasnt got across to many of our fine boys in blue who wont bother to attend for most calls and if they do, its usually too late.
Whilst your motives and execution of your duties may be nothing but honourable, you are in Canada and operate in different ways to the UK (I hope)

Just in case you hadn't read an earlier post I made, I am ex Job, I left in disgust and its for what I saw that I hold many officers in the contemptuous light they deserve.
Nothing changes except the levels of Falsehood and Prevarication which are seemingly increasing.

allan907
2nd Feb 2006, 11:00
Bluey Fair point. A multanova is located on Wanneroo Road. And exactly HOW many kilometers is that??? And then when you do spot it (doing just below the legal speed) the matt black camera is butted up against either a roadside bush or the trunk of a tree and the man's van is well hidden. Most times people only realise it's there when there's either a flash or they see the yellow "Thank You for not speeding" board after the camera (and even then that's sometimes hidden - more by neglect than design I admit)

SixDelta
2nd Feb 2006, 12:13
Just to throw another spanner in..

I recently bought a Radar Detector, not a GPS based "Road Angel" type, a proper detector, capable of K / Ka Band radar and Laser detection. Fantastic on the motorway for warning me of camera's and Lasers, allowing me to slow from my usual 80 to the speed limit without the need for leaping on the brakes when I see a unit.

Apparently there is an intention within the law to ban the use of such devices either this year or next.

WHY? Are they concerned that the amount of revenue generated might decrease if more of us own them?

terryJones
2nd Feb 2006, 13:20
SixDelta
Well, given that the cameras are SUPPOSED to be at accident spots, I would have thought that ANY action taken to slow you down past this spot would be conducive to road safety, including having been made aware by such a detector.
Therefore I can only conclude, as you have, that by banning such devices safety or otherwise is a side issue, the main concern is to maintain the revenue.

EDITED TO ADD:_
This is a similar situation to a position a friend of mine found himself in. There was a well know spot where the ss set up their mobile camera. Mike, to give him a real name, chose to park rust up the road from said device, eating his luch and flashing his lights at oncoming cars, and giving the 'Slowing down' signal. About 30 mins into this exercise he was approached by said SS and told he was 'hindering them in the execution of their duty' Mike replied that he felt he was been a resposible motorist by telling other motorists to slow down.
Plod told him to desist, examined his car with fine tooth comb, and gave him a producer for his docs.

SixDelta
2nd Feb 2006, 13:46
Sounds very public-spirited of him, warning drivers of an accident blackspot that is.

Incidently, there are currently a number of British drivers taking cases through the European Court of Human Rights. Their claim is that by signing a Notice of Intended Prosecution (received after being nabbed by a speed cam) and supplying the name of driver (as required on the form) you are being denied your right to silence and are instead being forced to incriminate yourself. Failure to supply the information leads to the owner of the vehicle being prosecuted.

Surely it's up to the Law to PROVE who was driving the car when any offence was commited....

G-CPTN
2nd Feb 2006, 13:56
a vehicles brakes are worse than useless at 110 when on a call in traffic. That really would be dangerous. Please believe me, like in the old 3.5 rovers, that does happen!

I have actively done brake-testing and development on the SD1 Rover, so I know what you mean.

bealine
2nd Feb 2006, 15:23
Anger Management. eh??? I thought this was "Jet Blast"!!! :D

Police officers are on these roads, not only for Your Safety, but for the safety of Your family, and friends. Not only do police officers enforce traffic laws, but they do their best in preventing crime, to Your property

Oh!!! There was me thinking that the Police are there to ensure the wishes of our Dictatorship Government were being followed!!!

Get yer house burgled or yerself beaten up, the police here aren't interested!

Do 90mph on the motorway at 2 am and all the bizzies in creation will be on yer case - unless of course they happen to be "interviewing" a vicar who dared to speak up against gay weddings!!!

Capt.KAOS
2nd Feb 2006, 15:25
You can always tell the judge you're "honing your driving skills"...


A police officer who caused a public outcry when he was cleared of dangerous driving and speeding after reaching an "eye-watering" 159mph must face a fresh trial, the High Court ruled. PC Mark Milton, 38, from Telford, Shropshire, was acquitted after a district judge accepted he was "driving for police purposes" and "honing his driving skills" when he drove at more than twice the speed limit while familiarising himself with a high-performance police car. District Judge Bruce Morgan, sitting at Ludlow magistrates' court last May, dismissed charges against PC Milton - a grade one advanced driver and armed response officer with the West Mercia police.

But yesterday Lady Justice Hallett, sitting with Mr Justice Owen, ruled that the district judge was wrong in law and there must be a re-trial. She invited any chief constables affected to instigate a review as to whether police drivers were being "encouraged to hone their skills in unfamiliar vehicles at grossly excessive speeds on unfamiliar roads, both urban and motorway".She expressed concern that PC Milton had reached "eye-watering speeds" without lights or siren to warn motorists of his approach when he was not responding to an emergency or attempting to prevent a crime.

bjcc
2nd Feb 2006, 16:59
G-CPTN

I'm afraid I am showing my age, I mean the Rover 3.5's before the SD1!

Mind you the SD1's looked the part...sadly they were crap!

Bahn-Jeaux
2nd Feb 2006, 17:23
While I was driving back down from Norfolk on the M3 the other day, (going a
little faster than I should have been) I passed under a bridge only to see a
policeman on the other side with a radar gun laying in wait. The copper
pulled me over,walked up to the car, and with that classic patronizing
smirk, asked: "Runway too short?" To which I replied, "I'm late for an
important charity function".


To which he asked, "What do you do?"?? "I'm a rectum stretcher," I
responded.


The copper was surprised and confused. "A what? A rectum stretcher? And just
what does a rectum stretcher do?"


"Well," I said, "I start by inserting one finger, then I work my way up to
two fingers, then three, then four, then with my whole hand in, work side to
side until I can get both hands in, and then I slowly but surely stretch the
hole, until it's about 6 feet."


Then the copper asked questioningly and cautiously, "And just what do you do
with a six-foot arsehole?"


To which I politely replied, "You give him a radar gun and park him behind a
bridge..."

eal401
2nd Feb 2006, 18:10
Give em a break, eh?
If they had a positive effect on road safety I would.

They don't.

air pig
2nd Feb 2006, 18:40
Just wait until the first combat stressed member or more likely former member of HM forces drives over one of these hand held systems, and the plod holding it, thinking they where about to be attacked. Imagine if you are stressed and a sudden flash or action occurs as you drive along towards the gun. Flashbacks can come on at any time, and actions in relation to these would probably fall under the Mental Health Act. That it has not happened is a surprise !!!!!
The CPS and plod would try for a manslaughter charge at least.

SixDelta
20th Feb 2006, 16:55
In the article it talks about reducing casualities, there is no evidence whatsoever that so called "Safety Cameras" actually do that.

terryJones
20th Feb 2006, 19:41
An interesting question that I have pondered quite a lot.
Which is most important to Mr. Plod, preventing crime, or catching the perps?
We are told that these devices are to help prevent speeding. Therefore, if the cameras were high visibility devices then it would help prevent crime (speeding), accidents, and possibly even loss of life. I see from the article above that someone said drivers were just slowing for the camera. SO WHAT, at least it means that for a potential danger spot the car will be going slower than it possibly would be had the driver not seen the camera.
Hiding them of course means:-
a) More revenue
b) Possibly more accidents(assuming they are 'SAFETY' cameras)
c) More revenue
d) Possible loss of life
e) More revenue.
f) More revenue.

SixDelta
20th Feb 2006, 19:46
Terry

That's exactly it. We'll be told by the authorities that the camera's are there to enhance road safety, however to my mind, a hidden or camoflagued camera is not a deterent but a trap, with the deliberate aim of generating more revenue. The same goes for the current use of "Talivans" fleecing the motorist across the nation.

:mad:

SyllogismCheck
20th Feb 2006, 20:46
From the Times article: He [Richard Brunstrom, the Chief Constable of North Wales Police] said: “Parents often write to us and ask us to put a camera outside a school because the traffic is so dangerous. It’s very difficult to write back and say, ‘Please let us know when your son is killed and then we can consider putting a camera there.’ ” Whilst I appreciate his point, it remains a fact that I cannot recall ever having seen a speed camera in the immediate vicinity of a school. Does that strike anyone else as strange?

There's a section of the M1 where the Armco is being replaced with a concrete crash wall. At a guess, it's a 4 mile or so long section, 40mph limit, no Gatsos, just 'Average Speed Check' signs and SPECS cameras (which may or may not be real) as you enter and exit the works section. Guess what? The traffic moves at bang on 40mph, occasionally even less due to the paranoia inducing effect of an average check. It works brilliantly, something which in roadworks, where workers are vulnerable, can only be a good thing.
If the Authorities were serious about deterring speeding they'd employ this system. It really is remarkably effective, I've never seen such speed discipline. Clearly, since they haven't, they're not and prosecutions is the name of the game.

Training Risky
20th Feb 2006, 21:33
I took a long journey in a car tonight with a work colleague who stuck rigidly to the limits when driving through winding country roads, dual carrigeways and the motorway. I had to endure his tut-tutting when obviously frustrated drivers had to overtake him on these country roads... I felt embarrassed to be in the car with him! I always drive to the conditions. If I feel that I can drive safely at 40 or 50 in a 30 zone, I will, and I'll evade the scameras by braking when I see them. When it is a foggy night, I will almost crawl along the roads anxious that I'll hit a blind bend if I went faster.

It fills me with such unbridled anger to read the whining pleas of "...just follow the limits and all will be OK...the government puts limits there for a reason..." by certain north american posters.

How dare you, I mean just how bl00dy dare you!, dare to lecture me how to drive when there is a nanny state in this once-great nation spying on long, straight, safe roads that need no monitoring except that required for the legions of chavs driving under the influence of drugs/booze/rap music.

Try directing this pious lecturing at the many, many drivers who should be retested, and subsequently banned from driving... and breeding (in some cases)

SixDelta
20th Feb 2006, 22:22
Wow, and i thought it wound ME up! :)
Yeah SC, i have no problem at all with SPECS cameras being used to enhance the safety of guys working in the roadworks, the M62 is another example of where they're being very effectively employed. No problem.
My major concern at the moment is the proposed use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras along Britains motorways, the Police state (no pun intended) that they will not be used to catch speeders but are a way of tracking vehicle movements. Apparently very useful in tracking uninsured drivers etc. Do we believe that....?
Big Brother is watching.............and profiting
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/images/smiles/gatso2.gif

cortilla
21st Feb 2006, 00:36
I do apologise if the messages in this post have been stated before, but i didn't have time to read all of them before i had to head back to university.
In the UK, speed cameras only have to be made conspicuous if the traffic safety partnership wants to recover the costs of operating the cameras. If the cameras are not made obvious by being in clear view, and being painted in conspicuous colours, then the revenue raised goes to HM Treasury.
Now a very contested point, but i want to put in my 2 pence worth. I'm curremtly writing a dissertation on the subject of speeding and accidents, so i believe i am pretty knowledgable on the subject.
One of my greatest bugbears of this whole topic, that never seems to be realised by governments or the police is that SPEEDING DOES NOT CAUSE FATAL ACCIDENTS. Whether you are driving at 70mph (for those not living in this country, the speed limit on UK motorways and appropriately signed dual carriageways), or over, you have exactly the same chances of being fatally injured. No matter how safe or big your car is, you have exactly the same probability of being in a fatal accident. The actual speed threshold of surviving an accident and being killed is 53.5 mph
However what does cause accidents, serious injuries and fatalities is not speeding is bad and/or dangerous driving or driving at excessive speed on an unsuitable road surface or in unsuitable conditions.
A perfect example of this is the unrestricted autobahns of germany. These roads have a significantly lower fatality rate than equivelant motorways in the UK or freeways of the US.
There are several theories for this. Firstly, people are trained to drive on german autobahns when they are taking driving lessons. This is forbidden on the UK motorway system.
Another theory for this is that european lorries are not speed restricted, unlike their uk counterparts, and therefore more likely to overtake much more quickly, rather than cause the accordian effect that is so often seen on uk motorways when much quicker vehicles are caused to slow quickly and force the average speed to drop from 70mph to 30-35mph within 60 cars.
another theory, which is my own, is that european motorways are maintained to a much lower degree than their uk equivalents (apart from the autobahns) and the motorways are much narrower (2 lanes on average as opposed to 3 in the uk) forcing drivers to be more aware to their actual circumstances and forcing them to focus much more attention on their driving than in the uk.
Fine I accept that the delays on the french autoroutes are much more serious than you find in the uk in the summer, however these are caused by serious accidents which are dealt with at a much slower rate than in the uk, but the average delays on the continent are much less than those here in the uk.
If anyone has any doubts to the statements that i have made, or wishes to discuss them in more detail, then please PM me and i will provide you with the necessary references on which i have based my argument (most from the journal of transport geography, but some from newspaper articles)
AS I STATED BEFORE, SPEED DOES NOT KILL, BUT BAD DRIVERS/DRIVING DOES

Just a quick edit, for all you NIMBY's out there.

Speed cameras have been proven to cause an increase in local pollution. The reason for this is the quick decceleration and acceleration of cars when they have spotted a speed cameras. The deceleration causing an increase in particulates in the local atmosphere because of break dust, and the consequent acceleration causing a local increase of CO2 and other green house gasses and in continental europe a greater increase in particulates (because of a greater usage of diesel cars)

RatherBeFlying
21st Feb 2006, 02:10
Have gotten quite used to HM Plod's favorite laser locations. What surprises me is that the same locations remain substantial revenue producers after decades. I have to conclude that people just don't look that far ahead. Of course I am on my best behavior at such locations.

That said I spotted a brand new location in the dark -- the shiny white cruiser tucked behind the bushes was a dead giveaway. They're doing a good business there even though the laser tripod stands out like a dog's bollocks.

There was a time we had mobile photo radar on the major highways. You could see the van a mile away.

SixDelta
21st Feb 2006, 19:56
Cortilla

Excellent post, makes the point very well. Thanks

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/images/smiles/gatso2.gif

FL69
22nd Feb 2006, 00:19
Cortilla
Excellent post, makes the point very well. Thanks
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/images/smiles/gatso2.gif

Coudnt agree more!

BigEndBob
22nd Feb 2006, 06:57
Cortilla, good point mentioning brake dust etc, what i would like to know is where does all the tyre rubber go, a 1cm by 10cm by 100cm strip of rubber gets dumped into the atmosphere by every car, say every 3 years.

High Wing Drifter
22nd Feb 2006, 09:18
Cameras on the M25. Two thoughts:

1) I have never seen an accident on the variable speed limit section of the M25, from that I deduce that there are less than on the other sections. Also, traffic, although sometimes slow, keeps moving.

2) When I look at the back of the gantries in the rear view, I can't see any cameras.

Coconutty
22nd Feb 2006, 09:44
High Wing Drifter,

If they are anything like the ones on the M42 then they are not easy to spot in the rear view mirror - they blend in nicely with all the other dull grey ironwork ...

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/GantryCameras.jpg

... but if you look between the lane boards as you approach the gantry, then before you get there, you CAN make out the smaller boxes shown in the pic - I don',t know if they are a separate low light / flash unit but they are only fitted to the gantries with cameras :O

- at least you can see them on the M42 - I don't know about the M25.


.... cortilla -

I agree too - speed itself doesn't kill.
The speed of the vehicle however is a "factor" when the Bad / dangerous / stupid etc. driving etc. is carried out.

20 MPH "can" be too fast - 100 MPH can be quite safe :ok:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

High Wing Drifter
22nd Feb 2006, 10:27
Coconutty,

Cheers for that. There appears to be mesh flush to the back of the gantry. Even when passing a gantry on the other side I cannot see anything as visible as the cameras in your piccie. I suspect that some of the gantries have cameras and some dont.

G-CPTN
6th Mar 2006, 17:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4779632.stm

A police watchdog has launched an investigation after a motorist suffered severe head injuries when he crashed near a speed camera van.
It is believed the 20-year-old lost control of his Renault Clio as he approached the mobile unit on the A184 Felling Bypass, Gateshead on Saturday.
The man is critically ill in Newcastle General Hospital, police confirmed.



G-CPTN Note: This section of urban dual carriageway has several FIXED cameras, ostensibly aimed at traffic lights, as Durham Police do not subscribe to FIXED speed cameras. They exclusively use mobile cameras for speed detection.

http://www.durham.police.uk/durhamc/central_deps/operations/scu.php
http://www.durham.police.uk/special/traffic/index.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F12%2F07%2Fncam07.xml
http://ex-parrot.com/~chris/wwwitter/20031211-they_like_driving_in_their_cars.html

Shropshire Lad
6th Mar 2006, 19:03
G-CPTN Note: This section of urban dual carriageway has several FIXED cameras, ostensibly aimed at traffic lights, as Durham Police do not subscribe to FIXED speed cameras. They exclusively use mobile cameras for speed detection.


Actually this piece of dual carriageway is in the Northumbria police area and has a combination of fixed traffic light and speed cameras along its length. Added to that the mobile van sits on a reasonably straight piece of road as well which always seems to me to be a waste of resources! However they will now probably justify keeping the van there as there has been an accident etc etc...:hmm:

LGS6753
6th Mar 2006, 20:16
I've been driving 37 years.
Driven around 1,000,000 miles.
Driven in 21 countries.
Driven everything from cars to artics.
Run several transport businesses.
Won a National Training Award for HGV driver training.
Been accident free for 36 years and never had a blameworthy accident.

But I got photographed....

Doing 48 in a 40 limit
On a straight, rural A class road
That used to have a 60 limit when I used it regularly
In the middle of the day
When there was no traffic
And certainly no pedestrians.
It was clear and sunny.
Road was dry.
My car is new, serviceable and well maintained.
My windows and lights are checked and kept clean

Moral of the story?

The speed limit was set too low?
The county authority wants to raise money/preserve jobs?
Should discretion have been used by the county authority?
Perhaps there was a fatality thereabouts 15 years ago?

The Authority doesn't understand that what causes accidents isn't speed, but CHANGES in speed or direction.

If I'd been inebriated, drugged, uninsured, untaxed, in an unroadworthy car on bald tyres I would not have been caught by this camera.

Who decides the priorities?

Krystal n chips
7th Mar 2006, 11:07
Another little gem :yuk: from the Gov't it seems.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1725229,00.html

Do, please. read the 4th paragraph and the comments by Mr Gifford who trots out the party line with such sanctimonious :mad: . Strangely enough, I do feel rather irritated about "the slight reduction of our liberty".

Grainger
7th Mar 2006, 11:13
Think that one's worth quoting, KnC, because it is particularly sinister:
Mr Gifford said expanding the use of technology for tracking the movements of cars could lead police to people who had committed other offences in the same way that Al Capone was eventually caught through his income tax evasion. He claimed that for greater safety and "the greater good of society", most people would be prepared to accept "a slight reduction of our liberty".Essentially, if you get snapped, you could now find yourself accused of and under investigation for all sorts of other offences that you've never even heard of !

Totally unaceptable.

Bad luck LGS - unfortunately it's far worse than you think. Take a look at the rules for speed camera placement: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules.html

That's right - cameras have to be placed on roads where it is relatively safe to exceed the limit by a few mph.

In a small village (rather like the one in the lower picture) where there is a genuine case to stop the occasional maniac, the rules actually prevent anything being done.

The concepts take a little time to understand - but it highlights a fundamental misunderstanding that goes far beyond just a moneymaking scam for the camera partnerships. Because of this misunderstanding they are putting cameras in the wrong places and punishing the wrong people. Oh, and children will still get run over. :mad:

Unwell_Raptor
7th Mar 2006, 11:46
There might be some truth in that. A lot of court appearances result from a simple stop for not wearing a seat belt. Failing to wear a seat belt is a non-endorseable offence that is usually dealt with by the issue of a £30 fixed penalty ticket. What it does do though, is to cause police to speak to the driver. This prompts the usual enquiries as to the state of the vehicle, its insurance and licence, whether the driver has subjected himself to the rigours of a driving test, whether he is drunk, whether he has drugs about his person, whether the car contains goods that were until recently the property of an innocent householder, and whether the driver himself might be wanted on an arrest warrant. In a high proportion of seat-belt stops one or more of these factors is present, and the man (it's always a man) ends up in front of the court.

Grainger
7th Mar 2006, 13:17
And a great many people not wearing a seat belt are just that - someone who forgot to put their belt on.

Just as many burglars, drugs users etc. do manage to put their belt on.

You might as well argue that because some burglars have red hair you should suspect all red-haired people of being burglars. :rolleyes:

eal401
7th Mar 2006, 21:29
Moral of the story?
You are an EVIL law breaking SCUMBAG......

...whoa, strayed into "idiot" territory there!! ;)

Unwell_Raptor
7th Mar 2006, 21:44
I don't think that you quite got what I said there Grainger.

There is evidence that those who treat the law with contempt in general will carry on doing so in a car. Police officers on the patch where I sit as a magistrate will always stop an unbelted driver, not because they are particularly excited about seat belt offences, but because experience has shown unbelted drivers to provide a rich harvest of other offences. Not all of them, not all of the time. It's just that so many people self-select for a stop.

Send Clowns
7th Mar 2006, 22:24
So my former landlady, with no money, has to pay a £30 fine for endangering only herself, having forgotten to wear a seatbelt? I know for a fact she usually does, and unlike many insists her children are seated and belted.

You could make the case for sensible offenses, I understand crooks often don't have tax discs, but not for seatbelts. What business is it of the government's?

doublesix
7th Mar 2006, 22:50
eal 401.

whoa, strayed into "idiot" territory there!!

You said it.

eal401
8th Mar 2006, 06:08
doublesix, they say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Not sure what that makes people like yourself who can't spot it.

monumentally stupid would be my guess

Anyway, I was a bit off, back to the sensible posts....

Grainger
8th Mar 2006, 08:41
. . . those who treat the law with contempt in general . . .I'm sorry U_R what the hell are you talking about ?

Someone who forgets to put their seatbelt on for a few hundred metres - as I did the other day having just come out of a car-wash - is a person who "treats the law with contempt in general" ?

I stopped and put the belt back on as soon as I realised of course. A mistake anyone could have made. Does that mean I'm a drug-running desperado ?

Great - so now according to you I treat the law with contempt in general. Thanks a bunch.

I'm sorry U_R, I'm really trying to keep my temper under control here, but I've never heard such a pile of sanctimonious holier-than-thou CRAP.

Let me ask you a question U_R. Can you drive for just one hour without making a single mistake ? Without missing a single traffic sign, finding yourself in the wrong lane at an unfamiliar junction, without having your attention distracted by a vehicle tailgating you, or one that's just swerved across your path without signalling ? Can you ?

So how does that make you a person who "treats the law with contempt in general" ? What a load of hogwash.

eal401
9th Mar 2006, 06:24
Can you drive for just one hour without making a single mistake ?
Anyone who answers that with "yes" is a liar.

I know I certainly make my best effort to drive without making mistakes, but no-one is infalliable.

Which from some people's perspective makes us all "contemptuous of the law." :yuk:

the man (it's always a man)
I wonder how stupid that comment makes you feel today? (Search BBC news for the make-up story, I haven't got time)

Unwell_Raptor
9th Mar 2006, 09:09
Sorry, Grainger, you have entirely missed my point. It is a fact that police who stop unbelted drivers around the patch where I work reap a rich harvest of other offences. Not my opinion, but that of experienced frontline coppers.

Grainger
9th Mar 2006, 10:00
I didn't say anything about whether it was your opinion or not.

I have not missed your point at all. If you stopped every red-headed person it would be a "fact" that some of them would be found to have comitted offences, but it wouldn't justify placing them all under suspicion.

if you genuinely cannot see the difference between an honest person making a mistake (it could be you next time !) and a criminal then I despair.

slim_slag
9th Mar 2006, 10:03
Relax grainger, U_R is having fun with you and has it right this time, save your fire and brimstone, it will not be long before foot goes in mouth again:)

Grainger
9th Mar 2006, 10:07
Hmmm, seems to me that it's not so long ago the same logic was used to justify stopping people based on their appearance, because those from a certain easily-identifiable group* would provide a "rich harvest" of offenders.

Fortunately this disgraceful practice has now been stamped out, so now they have to look elsewhere for their fishing expeditions.

I ask again, how does making a simple mistake make me a person who "treats the law with contempt in general" ?

* We all know what I'm referring to here. Clearly, I have been using red-haired people only in an allegorical sense

Tim McLelland
9th Mar 2006, 10:12
I've just received a ticket from Nottinghamshire Police for a camera on the A1(M) which covers a patch where the speed is restricted to 50mph. No reason for this, other than that the locals obviously whined and bitched, claiming that it was an accident black spot ('cause the road curves - imagine!), so I get stung for sixty quid for driving at 60mph on er... let's get this right, a motorway...

Hmm, I wonder when a motorway is not a motorway... when the speed is permanently restricted to 50mph? If I had the inclination, I would sooo like to drag that one through a court and ask why that patch of road isn't declassified from motorway status when it no longer conforms to the regulations of a motorway.

slim_slag
9th Mar 2006, 10:17
Grainger, the difference is that having red hair is not against the law (having flashbacks of a Rowan Atkinson sketch here). Lets dream and assume a copper is sent out by his sergeant with the job of arresting proper criminals, and in his experience he finds that pulling unbelted people over makes that job easier, I say go for it. As long as he isn't encouraged to give tickets via a quota system he can let the forgetful people off with a warning. The same goes for speeding, if a real policeman finds he can arrest more proper criminals by stopping speeders then he should. As long as he doesn't give out tickets to those who are driving safely. The problem with cameras is they will give the robber speeding away from the bank a £60 fine and no more, and now we don't have cops on the roads because the powers that be believe speed cameras are the best way to make us behave.

Grainger
9th Mar 2006, 10:17
Bad luck, Tim. That sucks.

If that stretch of motorway is really so unsafe that it has to be restricted to 50mph, shouldn't the Highways Authority or someone be prosecuted for building something so dangerous ? Aren't there some sort of construction and use regulations ?

The logic here is peculiar - akin to an electrician leaving bare wires but it's the person who might touch them and whose life has been put in danger who gets prosecuted.

s_s - I can sort of see what you are getting at, but it still sounds like "fishing" to me. Maybe you will net a few perps, but you will also end up harrassing a large number of innocent, law-abiding citizens, which is very harmful to police-public relations. By the same token, any criminal who remembers to put his seatbelt on will drive past unmolested whilst granny is being turned over. And, as you point out, how can a camera stop and search the robber in a stolen getaway car ?

Tim McLelland
9th Mar 2006, 10:27
I don't think there is any logic to be honest. It all sounds horribly like a famous episode of Absolutely Fabulous with Edina whining-on about how they have to put railings along the kerb to stop the stupid people from falling into the road... "just tax the stupid, sweetie"...

I never quite work-out why roads have to be restricted, altered or signposted to the point of confusion in order to supposedly make them safe for stupid people that either can't drive properly, or who are incapable of walking on the pavement rather than the road. I also can never quite grasp why motorists are expected to crawl along at a variety of ludicrous speeds in order to protect people who seem to think it's never their fault that they're stood on a road when they're hit by a car. Funny old world innit?

slim_slag
9th Mar 2006, 10:46
Maybe you will net a few perps, but you will also end up harrassing a large number of innocent, law-abiding citizens, which is very harmful to police-public relations. But they aren't law abiding as they have broken a law. It's how you deal with it that matters. The missus was recently stopped by a real policeman for driving through a red light into a restricted traffic zone, and then driving through another red light when she saw the blue lights go on. The policeman quickly realised the missus is just a buffoon and from looking at the situation knew she hadn't actually driven dangerously, had a chat, was incredibly reasonable, and let her off with a warning. The previous time we had dealt with the cops was after a burglary and we were very unimpressed. That policeman who stopped the missus actually improved our opinion of the police. Maybe she should have got a ticket, she wouldn't have complained if she had, but her last camera ticket had her hopping mad.

Grainger
9th Mar 2006, 11:24
But they aren't law abiding as they have broken a law.That's an incredibly narrow way of looking at it, slim !

You know perfectly well that making a simple mistake is not the same as acting with malicious intent. The people we are talking about have not woken up thinking "let's see what I can get away with today".

You are absolutely right that's it's how you deal with it that matters, and I'm glad that your wife was treated with common sense by the officer who stopped her. I'm sure you would have been very unhappy had she been searched and taken down the station for questioning.

So here's a well-deserved "hooray" for discretion correctly applied - more of the same please !

Unwell_Raptor
9th Mar 2006, 11:30
You know perfectly well that making a simple mistake is not the same as acting with malicious intent. The people we are talking about have not woken up thinking "let's see what I can get away with today".
When the Government brings in the offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving those are exactly the kind of people who could find themselves facing five years in prison for a human error with no criminal intent. Hit a car and injure the driver - Without Due Care - fine and points or disqualification. Driver dies, five years in chokey. Same accident same culpability.
It could happen to any of us. And it's all to please The Sun.

Grainger
9th Mar 2006, 11:37
Well there's a huge difference in degree there, U_R and as I have previously told you I don't read newspapers (not that the The Sun is even a newspaper !).

Besides which, I'm not clear which way you're leaning now: are you saying people should be punished for making a mistake or that they shoudn't ?

panda-k-bear
9th Mar 2006, 11:43
Ah but if we tried to please The Guardian, everybody would get away with everything, wouldn't they? Except speeding, I suppose. But we'd just "educate" the murderers and the rapists.... :yuk:

Tim, I think I know the patch you mean. If you're heading north from London/Hatfield/Stevenage, it's around the 3rd roundabout, right? The one before Black Cat (which they're digging up at the moment). The speed drops progressively from 70 to 60 to 50 as you enter the built up area? Interestingly enough, that isn't the "M" part of the A1(M). That disappears around Stevenage. So it actually is only an "A" road at that point (hence being allowed to have a roundabout and having green road signs indicating place names and distances). That part of the A1(M) has had a 50 limit for at least the last decade that I know of and I should imagine that the cause is related to the amount of side roads that lead out onto the A1(M) at that point...

slim_slag
9th Mar 2006, 11:52
Grainger, if we want the cops to catch 'real' criminals they have to have a reason to talk to them. We cannot have them stopping people for having an ugly wife and for stepping on the cracks in the pavement. If speeding is an excuse for a cop to stop a car full of suspicious looking people then that is fine by me. I've been stopped plenty of times in my youth, I have no doubt I was technically breaking some law, and on every occasion (bar one, and that was the fault of one of my mates) the cops quickly worked out I wasn't a 'real criminal' and sent me on my way. I have no problem with that.

419
10th Mar 2006, 14:52
A very interesting site here
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/
that a few people might like looking at

G-CPTN
10th Mar 2006, 15:09
I've just received a ticket from Nottinghamshire Police for a camera on the A1(M) which covers a patch where the speed is restricted to 50mph.
Tim, I think I know the patch you mean. If you're heading north from London/Hatfield/Stevenage, it's around the 3rd roundabout, right? The one before Black Cat (which they're digging up at the moment). The speed drops progressively from 70 to 60 to 50 as you enter the built up area? Interestingly enough, that isn't the "M" part of the A1(M). That disappears around Stevenage. So it actually is only an "A" road at that point (hence being allowed to have a roundabout and having green road signs indicating place names and distances). That part of the A1(M) has had a 50 limit for at least the last decade that I know of and I should imagine that the cause is related to the amount of side roads that lead out onto the A1(M) at that point...
I don't believe Nottinghamshire Police have jurisdiction over that part of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, panda. You might know otherwise.
I believe the section referred to IS between roundabouts - I was stopped on the same section, being oblivious of the limit (despite the signs!). I got a finger-wagging!
Do 'Motorways' have roundabouts?

jayteeto
10th Mar 2006, 15:37
If you do something wrong, mistake or not, just accept what you get without whinging. The line has to be somewhere and you crossed it. If it is ok to have no seatbelt, because you are a law abiding citizen, then there should be no law for anyone. What next, sorry officer, I was mistaken when I drove at 50 in a 30. Thats alright son, anyone can make a simple mistake, that kid you maimed will understand.
Get a Life.............

419
10th Mar 2006, 15:38
Do 'Motorways' have roundabouts?

The M23 at Gatwick does. When you exit at the slip road, you reach a roundabout, but the end of motorway restriction signpost is not for another 1/4 mile after that.

G-CPTN
10th Mar 2006, 15:53
M1 at Luton (J10) the Motorway restrictions start at the 'end' of the spur road, but the main carriageway continues beneath the roundabout. My point was (trying to be) whether the main carriageway of a motorway (in particular the A1M) continues over multiple roundabouts. I believe the section referred to in Nottinghamshire does (and has minor roads joining at junctions). Can Motorways have 'junctions' (without proper slip-roads) with minor roads (ie not 'motorway junctions')? Probably not explaining it properly, but I though 'motorways' were special in that - ah forget it I can't convince MYSELF what I'm trying to say! :{

Send Clowns
10th Mar 2006, 16:16
There is a difference betweena law for your own safety and a law preventing you harming others, JT2

eal401
10th Mar 2006, 17:47
My, that's a great set of blinkers you've got on there!

Married a Canadian
10th Mar 2006, 20:08
There certainly are a lot of "honest people making mistakes" when it comes to everyday road usage.

No one seems to want to offer any solution on how to prevent those mistakes or educate those mistakes.....all we do is moan and complain about speed cameras and zealous police officers etc etc.

In the rail and aviation industry there are boards and safety groups and analysis done on a daily basis so that mistakes are learnt from and won't happen again.

What happens on our roads?.......we criticise cameras being set up to stop people "breaking the law"...we criticise policeman for stopping someone who wasn't wearing a seatbelt...we criticise the few safety groups there are looking at road accidents and say their figures are wrong (statistics are bullshit anyway)...we say that the thousands of accidents that happen every year "can't happen to me cos I drive sensibly"......We admit that in a half hour drive we are likely to make a few errors at the wheel!! We have one driving test and then we are free for the next x amount of years so our competency is never checked. Our vehicles only need to be checked once a year to pass a mechanical test. We still have to advertise how drinking and driving is dangerous..we think about ourselves only and never the other road user..how many times have I heard the statement " I am in control when I am driving!"....the list goes on.

Seeing as this is being discussed on an aviation website why don't we scrutinise "car drivers" with the same microscope the pilots are under...... and then everyonecan moan about unfair this and that. Don't anyone say it is a different industry....we are still talking about lives here and we can still talk safety and preventative measures. Take all those criticisms above and transfer them to the aviation industry...would anyone fly again if they knew that pilots were allowed to break safety limits laid down...or not have an annual check up..or fly a plane that wasn't checked every x hours etc etc.

Car drivers have it easy!! Where else can you break the law on a daily basis and get away with it and then when you get caught complain.

Come on guys. It isn't even a debate. Unless anyone has any constructive suggestions as to how they would reduce the amount of car accidents a year...increase the standard of driving...limit mistakes on the road etc etc

If you want to increase the speed limit don't chunter on this website...email your MP...or your local road safety group.

Oh and final point....the cameras don't go off if you are doing the speed limit. And anyone who wants to argue that point...see the one just above

Unwell_Raptor
10th Mar 2006, 20:25
MaC,

I have said it before here over the years, and been roundly slagged off for it, but isn't it ironic that members of one of the most disciplined professions in the world take an anarchic view of speed on the road?

On approach, five knots more-or-less is important. ATC instructions are just that - instructions. Put the pilots in a car, and suddenly things are diifferent.

Ho- hum. It's that old human nature again, isn't it?

Send Clowns
10th Mar 2006, 21:24
U_R

That is because we have been trained in safety, real safety not the feel-good crap that you espouse. We know that a safety problem is rarely the first, simplistic expanation that people jump for, and that true safety depends on individual resoponsibility and genuine concern for a safety culture, rather than concentrating on a single factor. Exceding speed limits being also a remarkably stupid factor to concentrate on, as has been shown more tha once here, as people like you put head down and ignore all rational arguments for "yes but it's the law".

Speed control in the air is there for a purpose; if you knew anything at all about what you are talking about then you would realise that unless there is a well-defined reason for speed control then it doesn't restrict teh pilot's freedom, we will fly the speed we wish to. Your naive analogy falls down because it takes no account of the reason that speed limits have lost all respect on the roads. The reason is that speed limits and their enforcement, and safe speed control have lost their relationship with safety. Limits have become a mantra, something to be worshipped as if breaking them was the reason people are hurt, which it so rarely is, with irrational statistics used for propoganda. It is people like you, blind to genuine safety concerns but with a bizarre belief that we can make people safe by legislation that have caused the breakdown in respect for safe speed.

Married a Canadian
11th Mar 2006, 02:45
Send Clowns.

"But it is the law" is the only argument we can use though really isn't it.

It is as I said....why don't people lobby to have the law changed?? Surely it can't be that complicated???

I also would love to see the safety culture on in the air and on the railways become prevalent on the roads...and that means in all facets...including speed. If any accident has been shown to have been caused by excessive speeding (and many have) then surely that would be enough to put preventative measures in place? It happens in aviation....look at the Concorde incident...one in a thousand and yet BA and Air France had to modify their planes incase that one in a thousand happened again...On the railways...they want to put full level crossings on all the road/rail intersections in the UK at a cost of X billion cos one driver decides to commit suicide on an unmanned crossing.

And yet on the roads where the accidents per year are numerous and varied and have various causes we do next to nothing. And the one thing that we do that is linked to accidents...speed...gets criticised.

Safety on the roads should be an issue...and it is an issue that won't get addressed until we maybe take the viewpoint of industries some of us work in. Being critical of what is in place right now won't help...whatever anyone says it is there for a reason..whether you agree with that reason or not.

It is up to those who disagree to change the parameters...and that means a change in the law. Until then I am afraid I will stick to my "you were breaking the law" line.

Oh and BTW I got nabbed twice for speeding within six months of my test. I learnt my lesson from then onwards!

And I only get cross with pilots if they slow down.....funny that I don't mind them speeding up in the air:)

Grainger
11th Mar 2006, 07:41
And the one thing that we do that is linked to accidents...speed...Says it all really :rolleyes:

jayteeto
11th Mar 2006, 08:12
Maybe I am blinkered, but the law is the law. Where [I]exactly[I] do you draw the line? Seatbelts? Speeding? Shoplifting? When does it become not ok to break the law?? I got zapped by a camera and was really whizzed off, but it is simple really. If you don't want a punishment don't do it. Even a scumbag little thieving drug dealing git from around here has exactly the same rights you or I. Some people claim to be unlucky law abiding citizens, but they are not!! If they break the law, they are unlucky law breaking citizens. As I said, take it on the chin and stop moaning.....
PS. Is it ok to bust minimums by just a few feet or go a little bit below fuel minimums because you are decent citizens?

slim_slag
11th Mar 2006, 09:51
Well said Send Clowns, seems to have summed it up.

Let's look at this one.

I have said it before here over the years, and been roundly slagged off for it, but isn't it ironic that members of one of the most disciplined professions in the world take an anarchic view of speed on the road?

"Anarchic" - that is somewhat prejudicial and severe. Is it an 'anarchic view of speed on the road' to argue that there is a safe speed to drive at, and if this is the legal speed then that is purely coincidental? Perhaps to those whose blinkered minds are closed on the subject, but the rest of us might consider this an idea worthy of discussion.

So, it has been claimed that pilots disagree with legal speed limits. There are ways to look at this.

1) Pilots who are without doubt highly trained in safety and speed matters, maybe even experts! are absolutely wrong (anarchic even) to suggest speed limits ae wrong. Taking this a step further, perhaps they aren't even fit to be pilots?

2) Pilots, who are without doubt highly trained in safety and speed matters, maybe even experts! might actually have a point when they say speed limits need changing, that the 'safe speed' is not always the 'legal speed', and these people should be listened to. Perhaps, due to their expert status in speed and safety matters, they might just be correct.

Now obviously some believe in 1). Some of these people are able to discuss this rationally and at least see the opposing point of view. Some are so closed minded that they are not even able to consider an opposing solution, e,g 2) Is such a closed minded person who would describe those who have a differing opinion as 'anarchic' fit to decide these matters on a day to day basis?

Send Clowns
11th Mar 2006, 10:09
MaC

"the one thing that we do that is linked to accidents...speed" which is the entire point! If you bother to read through this thread, that is half the criticism! That clamping down on speeds above the limit is the only thing being done about safety, when it is rarely the cause of the accident. Much more dangerous driving (tailgating being particularly prevalent) is being accepted because the road laws are now enforced by cameras, not police. The other half of the argument is the fact that cameras enforce speed limits, which so often bear no relation to safety, and which have been reduced in a lot of places where there really is no need, despite improvements in the capability of cars to handle speed

Look, before trying to make people here repeat every argument we have had, could you read the thread? All the arguments you made in your last post have been ripped apart already.

JT2

If you can't be responsible for your own morality, then obey the letter of the law at every moment. That's your choice. However if you can't judge safe speed for yourself, then get off the road before you kill someone. Speed limits are a ridiculous way of considering safe speed.

Notice I have never had a driving conviction, in common with some of the others you are arguing against, so don't arrogantly assume we have anything to "take on the chin". Our arguments are not based on personal selfishness, but on rational thought and observation.

jayteeto
11th Mar 2006, 10:24
Well done on the clean licence, but dont give me this bull on morality. I actually agree that some laws are crazy (especially speeding) and should be changed. Until they are, there are no excuses. If I choose to break one, it is my choice, if anyone else does it then it is their choice. My point is that you know what you are doing, so don't complain if you get caught. I was getting a t*tty on about how some people see themselves as superior to others. Everyone is equal, even the low life (sadly). An honest mistake is still a mistake.
PS Speed does kill, fact.

Send Clowns
11th Mar 2006, 10:33
P.S. Speed does kill - propoganda.

Of course speed kills, if we never moved then no-one would have a car crash. Just because it is a fact doesn't mean that it has any relevance to the argument! In most of our lives we balance risk and reward. In this case if we want to go somewhere at more than a cycling pace then we accept slight risk of a car accident. It is a sickness of our society that less and less do we accept risks. We are forced by ever more dull regulation to abandon rewards because of slight risks. The freezing of and reduction in speed limits despite improvements in cars is just one such case.

jayteeto
11th Mar 2006, 10:45
There lies the argument, I believe the statement, you do not. I think some specific limits in specific areas are wrong, but because they are wrong on the low side, this errs on safety. The law is written to cope with the lowest common denominator. Drivers in some areas (here for instance) take that number very very low. If everyone drove like you, I have no doubt things would get better, but they don't drive as well as you. Only last week, we had a fatal on the M57 to attend to, it was carnage, caused by idiots driving --- ----. (fill in blanks yourself). If only this accident was a one-off, we could slash our flying hours and watch more MTV.

eal401
11th Mar 2006, 10:53
No one seems to want to offer any solution on how to prevent those mistakes
Any time I've tried that, all interest in the thread is lost.
If you want to increase the speed limit don't chunter on this website...or your local road safety group.
Tried that too. You should have seen some of the semi-literate, arrogant responses I got. Waste of time.
the cameras don't go off if you are doing the speed limit.
No. They also don't go off if you are using a mobile phone, not wearing a seatbelt, drunk, on drugs, tailgating, driving an unroadworthy vehicle, not in possesion of insurance, not in possession of a licence, distracted by other car occupants, tired, going too fast in bad weather etc. etc. etc.

But it is absolutely clear that you don't believe any of those are a causal factor in any accidents, so I guess we need not be concerned. :rolleyes:

Send Clowns
11th Mar 2006, 10:58
Errrrrmmmm JT could you try reading my post again? I pointed out in my post that it is beyond doubt true. I also showed it to be completely meaningless.

Equally meaningless are pious "erring on the side of safety" claims. Well why should I be forced to err on the side of safety when I am in perfect conditions and on an empty road? When, in fact, there is no risk? Or when the speed limit has nothing to do with safety, but just revenue raising on cameras and employing stupid jobsworths? Like the stretch of good dual carriageway with 3 cameras in 2 miles and a 50 mph limit! Despite this I have seen a mobile camera twice placed very clearly for revenue raising, on a patch of road where it is hidden until too late to slow, where people should be concentrating on the road not speed yet are on a downslope so could inadvertantly speed up, and where there is a new 70 mph limit 300 yards further on with no change in road conditions!

I have been hit and almost killed by a vehicle driving too fast too. He was doing 35 mph. What was the limit? 40 mph. Would a camera have fined him? Of course speed limits are now a mantra, a talisman. They are concentrated on so much that people give up taking responsibility for their own speed. I bet the cause of your accident was not just speed though, as mine was not.

jayteeto
11th Mar 2006, 11:19
Apologies on the misread. I DO see your point, please understand that, but please see mine for what it is. I am not pious, I agree on some cameras creating revenue. But I do stand by my lowest common denominator comment. I could drive faster and safely, as can you, but some can not be trusted to do that without measures to slow them. Also SOME speed cameras have slashed accidents in blackspot areas. The age old problem of only slowing for the camera still has some merits.
The point about bad driving not being policed is also valid, but who pays for the extra resources? I have stated many times before, we don't go out patrolling looking for easy motorist targets. We go looking for what the bosses tell us. And they tell us what the government tell them. My partner is a bobby in liverpool city centre and she has performance indicators to meet. That means she is bollocked if not enough tickets are given out. She hasn't got time to do traditional policing. Guess who sets the targets?? So No, I am not in my own little dreamworld, I see the same problems that you see. But ultimately, the law is the law for everyone, even if it is wrong, so your choice on if you choose to be a law-breaker or not. Take the consequences.
The accident was speed only, he drove into the back of another car who was sticking to the limit and caused a pile up.

Send Clowns
11th Mar 2006, 11:39
I entirely agree about some cameras. There is now one outside my old school which, while not an accident blackspot, is clearly not a place to be doing more than 30 mph during the daytime.

There was a system in place, not perfect but it basically worked, of police patrols. Death rates on the roads declined at about 5% per year for at least 20 years. Then in the mid 90s something broke down. As the cameras came in more and more, and speed became the new alcohol, death rates started to level out. The last couple of years they have been steady. I genuinely don't know what exactly is the solution, but I know that part of it is to force "safety partnerships to use soemthing other than cameras, and to stop them using the cameras to say "the law is the law, not 1 mph over".

Binoculars
11th Mar 2006, 11:55
To jayteeto, to MaC, to all the others who keep smugly pointing out the bleeding obvious; namely that if you don't speed you don't get fined for speeding, can I please say this.

I don't remember seeing more than a tiny minority of posts complaining about how unfair it is that they have been caught speeding. This is quite simply, a debate about whether bad laws are justifiable. We KNOW that "chuntering on" about it here will not change the law, OK? We KNOW that changing bad laws is an almost intolerably slow process, OK? Send Clowns has even stated that he has never been caught, so all he is saying is that the laws as applied in this particular case are deeply flawed.

So instead of using "don't speed" (Just Say No, anybody?) you may as well say, "Get over it", "Get a life", "Whatever..." or any of the other currently popular ways of avoiding an opposing argument.

As I have pointed out moons ago and SC has again stated, of course speed kills. If nobody ever moved nobody would die of impact. So what? We have to work towards an acceptable compromise. So fixated is everyone on an arbitrary speed limit and the policing of it that my major point about the standard of driver training remains basically ignored. Why? It's too hard. No government would have the guts to enforce the attainment of a genuine level of skill before handing out a licence; it would be political suicide. I understand that, that's life.

But after handing out licences in Weeties packets for decades, after giving free rein to incompetents (the lowest common denominator) and making their access to potentially lethal weapons unrestricted as long as they drive around the block without killing anyone and successfully manage a reverse park, don't compound the hypocrisy with all this crap about every K over being a killer. As long as anybody can get an unrestricted licence without ever having been off the bitumen, driven on wet surfaces, driven at night, experienced skid training etc, I have nothing but contempt for governments wringing their hands and justifying their revenue raising by "chuntering on" about safety.

The clear and blindingly obvious answer is to raise the level of the lowest common denominator, but as long as no government can afford to grasp the nettle on that we're going to be limited to these futile arguments, and we're going to continue making lawbreakers out of people doing absolutely nothing unsafe to anybody.

As a side thought, do you honestly think governments care about how many people are killed in road accidents? Why would they be?

cavortingcheetah
11th Mar 2006, 12:38
:p

I drive a state of the art beautifully maintained sports vehicle which is designed to flow at some 200 mph but which is governed at 155mph. It accelerates from standstill to 60 mph in some 4 seconds and will move quite significantly rapidly from 60mph to 120mph. I never ever willingly obey the national or motorway speed limits. As a member of The Institute of Advanced Motorists; I rely upon my superior driving skills to avoid dangerous situations on the roads and motorways. As an airline pilot I use my superior reflexes and judgement to anticipate and avoid situations that would cause accident and injury to other, less endowed drivers. When I rent an insignificant little car I find that the skills I possess, honed over years of super fast driving, allow me to out drive motorists in far faster vehicles. I always spray the licence plates of rental cars with special lacquer to outflash and thus outwit cameras.
I have been fined for speeding approximately three times in all my millions of miles covered at breakneck speed. On each of these occasions the road both ahead and behind was completely clear of any other traffic. I calculate that, by speeding, I have saved days in my life on the time that I would otherwise have had to spend travelling had I adhered to the speed limits of the countries through which I passed so rapidly.
I never speed in built up areas or near schools, only on the open road. I never even sip alcohol and drive and I am usually to be found with both hands on the steering wheel. I never talk on the telephone when driving nor do I use any form of in car entertainment, even sex. I prefer instead to concentrate on the job in hand which is to get from A to B as quickly as possible. With these skills at hand and such an attitude, safety is a matter which takes care of itself.

Speed cameras are revenue raisers that have not been approved by public vote. It is fair game to shoot them out? In the dead of night for choice? Laser sights are quite useful for this?
I am delighted to advocate the maintainance of the speed limits as they are in the UK at the moment. But I would like to see more policing of the fast lanes on the highways in order to ensure that they become exactly that; the fast lanes!:E

Binoculars
11th Mar 2006, 12:47
Hey, that's pretty funny; you and I must have learned to drive at the same place, CC! Just a word of advice though; that spray paint on the number plate doesn't work!

cavortingcheetah
11th Mar 2006, 13:01
:{ Bother and Blast!

Always amazes me that the agriculturalists around where I live can get away with dollops of mud well concealing their numerical identifiers. Plod must wear gum boots around these parts but then the STASI were always inclined to a degree of rubber fetishment.:rolleyes:

jayteeto
11th Mar 2006, 13:02
Binoculars, now you are talking my language. Lets raise standards required, that would make a huge difference. a system similar to the motorcycle one, where you are limited by power for the first part of your driving career might help. 100% behind you.

Married a Canadian
11th Mar 2006, 13:18
EAL 401

I don't think I said anything not acknowledging other causes of accidents. In fact I said accidents are "numerous and varied".

Lets leave the speed issue aside then cos it is true that that debate will never be solved...people either agree or they don't (and I did read the thread Send Clowns The point I was trying to make regarding cameras was related to our industries.In aviation it only takes one incident no matter how trivial to set up all these investigative bodies and safety measures....I think cameras are the road equivalent that is all)

What does need to be solved then is the appalling attitude towards safety in this form of the transport industry. How do you regulate a mode of transport where millions are on the roads every day and we get all the types of incidents that 401 pointed out. An accident happens every day and it is now accepted as the norm. Why??

Binoculars...you emphasise my point....it can't change so why worry. I mentioned that you only take one test in my first post and that was ignored. I agree with you that the govt is next to useless when it comes to any type of change....but that is only because in this case they don't hear anything from the people. Again take the rail and aviation industries....any time there is a minor incident the press and various groups are up in arms and the govt (or safety bodies) have to be seen to take action. Major pile up happens on the M6 or wherever and it registers a "so sad..glad it wasn't me...back to work tomorrow" type response. Nothing will change whilst our responses to car safety stay at that.


Oh and I'll bet Cavorting cheetah flies a Shed.

Binoculars
11th Mar 2006, 13:20
Yeah, welcome to dreamtime, Jayteeto. :(

By the bye, I'm not sure what limitations there are in your neck of the woods, but 250cc used to be the upper limit for newly licensed riders here in Aus. Since a 250cc bike will outperform all but dedicated high performance cars I always found it an odd token gesture, especially given that newly licensed riders are almost all in the highest possible risk category of young testosterone-fuelled males, who can kill themselves as brutally efficiently at 80mph as they can at 140.

In my own version of dreamtime, there would be a restricted licence for those who only want a car to get to the shops and pick up the kids from school in their 4WD. This still wouldn't be a Weeties packet licence, they would have to demonstrate basic skills. But they would be forbidden from driving above 30mph and therefore from all roads where there was a higher speed limit than that.

Anybody who wanted an unrestricted licence would have to prove him/herself as capable in all conditions, and would have to pay to achieve that status. As I said, welcome to dreamtime. :*

slim_slag
11th Mar 2006, 13:35
The road through our village is an A road with a fair amount of traffic on it and it's a 40mph. There is a narrow bend in a pinch spot just between the pub and the church, and one has taken ones reasonably well performing car around this bend plenty of times and I find myself going at around 35mph. Being one who anarcharnistically (sp) believes in a safe speed approach, which may or may not be the legal speed, I can only draw the conclusion that the safe speed is around 35mph (give or take) - less than the legal speed.

There are Worthies in the village who want a speed camera there to catch the few people going round this bend at 45-50mph, and I've thought about this and although I do think they are going a bit fast, I don't really have an opinion on whether to put a camera there.

Anyway, the highway people came along and did their tests and said that there is no need for a camera or a change in speed limit. This pissed off the Worthies who are now bothering us with their petitions and the like. Last I heard they were bothering the parish council for some cash to buy some sort of laser detector. Lord knows what they will be doing with that, but it can only be a matter of time before I am called upon to do my civic duty, don a silly hat and a yellow fluorescent jacket, and man some new barriers through the village extracting a toll from people going too fast. Hey, thats how it seems to work, why shouldn't we do the same? Maybe we could buy a village van and use it on the days when we don't get our rubbish collected?

But I thought there are all these cameras in 40mph areas on roads where there aren't any pedestrians, where the road is demonstrably 'faster' than that, where there is a central divide, and where there doesn't really appear to be a problem. Yet in a 40mph zone with narrow pavements and people crossing a road from the pub, there is no action taken.

Perhaps if it made sense and was enforced fairly we peasants might not complain too much?

cavortingcheetah
11th Mar 2006, 14:17
:hmm:

What Ho!

Damn big tool shed.
Toodle Pip!:p

Astrodome
11th Mar 2006, 16:48
The accident was speed only, he drove into the back of another car who was sticking to the limit and caused a pile up.

Obviously someone trained in the Police school of accident investigation. :(

Speed was a SECONDARY factor in the accident NOT the primary factor.

The primary factor was that the motorist was not driving correctly in response to the developing road conditions.

He (she?) clearly failed to exercise CONTROL of the vehicle so that they could stop in the available sighting distance.

The ONLY aspect that speed would have had an influence in would be the outcome.

I really do wish the Police would actually send their people to proper training centres to learn how to properly identify immediate and underlying factors, and their relationship with outcome and severity.

:(

Grainger
11th Mar 2006, 16:57
...the highway people came along and did their tests and said that there is no need for a camera or a change in speed limit...

there are all these cameras in 40mph areas on roads where there aren't any pedestrians, where the road is demonstrably 'faster' than that, where there is a central divide, and where there doesn't really appear to be a problem. Yet in a 40mph zone with narrow pavements and people crossing a road from the pub, there is no action taken.Thank You s_s for hitting the nail squarely on the head. This is exactly the problem - that the cameras are in the wrong place and catching the wrong people. Where there is a legitimate safety concern, as in your village, nothing is done.

I've posted this link before but it's worth repeating - when you see the logic behind the decision in your village, you won't know whether to laugh or cry :

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rules

This isn't about whinging, or sour grapes for getting caught, or even about revenue - it's about a genuine concern for safety and wanting effective solutions applied, not ones which criminalise people for driving safely. If they only reversed this one rule (the 85 percentile), all of the objections would melt away - and, as an additional bonus, accident rates might actually start falling.

Send Clowns
11th Mar 2006, 17:29
Nice post, Binos!

Although I was taught to drive by the man who knew I would then borrow his car - my father - who thus took me out at night, in the rain and onto dual carriageways to simulate motorways, I still feel I was inadequately prepared in just the ways you suggest. I have learnt the hard way, and am not too proud to admit I have learnt by royally screwing up on a couple of occasions. Interestingly both had speed as a cause - one above the limit, one well below but still too fast. However on both occasions the real cause was that I did not really know how to avoid a skid or how to control one when the road conditions unexpectedly deteriorated. In both cases there was no danger to other road users, and only my pride and wallet were hurt.

However I have not had an accident that I could have avoided for over 8 years now, during which I have driven a hell of a long way, and yes often
at greater than the speed limit. However I have also often been well below the limit, knowing that I was at a safe speed while others pass me unsafely but below the limit. The classic was on the M11, where I was drving at 30 mph because I was in a hurry! The fog was so thick that was the highest speed at which I judged I could stop in the clear road I could see. Still I was overtaken at one point by two cars doing 60-70 mph about 6 metres apart. I genuinely expected to come upon an accident scene further up the road. Of course I didn't - they were safe because they were within the speed limit, weren't they :confused:

Astro - it is astonishing that people will still oversimplify in that way, even after reading this thread.

cortilla
12th Mar 2006, 00:11
You know i hate getting into these discussions, but i did earlier, and i'll do sa again. I think this thread is moving away from a speed camera debate to a general state of driving debate.

Some governments do actually take a proactive response to driving tests. My best friend is dutch, and he recently took his driving exam which was a set of 7 tests ( i never verified this, but i'll believe my best mate), which included motorway driving, bad weather driving, night time and so forth. I believe this might lead to better driving.

Another issue, which i believe is fatally flawed in the UK Driving lessons is that you are prohibited from driving on motorways, and this often leads to 'middle lane malcolms' who will sit in the middle lane of a 3 lane motorway for no reason whatsoever, more evidence of basically bad driving. This effectively turns a 3 lane motorway into 2 lanes, and is illegal. It also leads to people crossing 6 lanes in order to overtake one car.

I have driven with several friends who will pull onto the motorway and then move into the middle lane until their junction. I often saw them having a higher speed in the middle lane than the car infront, but the were too scared to move to the outside lane, so they slowed their speed until the car infront moved to the nearside lane. Verbally i encouraged them to move into the nearside lane when not overtaking, and the outside lane when they wanted to overtake.

My final bugbear of motorway driving is when you are overtaking a car, and another car will come and sit right behind you trying to intimidate you into moving faster. I have several methods of discouraging this. Either i will lightly tap my brakes, so the brake light comes on but i do not slow down, or i will overtake the car i intended to overtake, and then move extremely slowly into the nearside or middle lane, often taking up to 30 secs to do so. I will admit myself that this can be construed as dangerous driving, but the speed limit on UK motorways is 70mph and i do not drive more than 75mph indicated for both legal and environmental reasons, and however is overtaking me is breaking the law.

Whilst i may not agree with the law, i will abide by it.

Don't forget, when driving 90mph in a 70mph zone, you will only save 7 mins over a trajectory of 65 miles.

ORAC
12th Mar 2006, 07:09
The Times: Crime cameras used for minor traffic offences

CCTV cameras designed to prevent robbery and other street crime are being used to penalise drivers who commit minor traffic offences. Motorists have been handed £100 fines after being caught on film double parking, making illegal U-turns or driving through no-entry signs.

One CCTV camera in a residential street in Camden, north London, has resulted in more than 2,500 tickets being issued since it was installed last year as part of a pilot project. Its victims include residents who have briefly pulled over to unload shopping. The Camden pilot will soon be rolled out across other London boroughs and councils throughout the country will be granted similar powers from 2008.

The move comes as the government proceeds with plans to install microchips in car numberplates, which could lead to all vehicles being electronically tracked in future.

Motoring groups fear the use of CCTV cameras to enforce minor traffic offences will lead to a sharp rise in the number of fines being issued. edicated traffic cameras are used to enforce speed limits, and to prevent cars jumping red lights and using bus lanes. However, the Traffic Management Act allows councils to enforce a much wider range of offences through town centre CCTV networks. These include stopping in a yellow box junction or no waiting zone, making illegal left and right-hand turns and exceeding weight restrictions on certain roads.

Critics of the scheme point out that yellow speed cameras are usually easy to spot, whereas CCTV cameras are often erected on buildings and poles above a driver’s field of vision. “There are no signs to tell motorists where this is happening, and everything indicates this is aimed at easy pickings,” said Paul Watters, of the AA Motoring Trust.

In a separate development, microchips are to be embedded in registration plates for the first time next month in a bid to crack down on car crime. Each chip will contain a car’s unique vehicle identification number which can be read by a roadside detector up to 100 metres away in all weather conditions. Detectors have already been honed to capture data from up to 200 vehicles per second travelling at speed. In theory the detector would be linked to a central database that could provide access to ownership records, allowing police to identify cars without road tax, insurance, a current MoT and vehicles wanted in connection with a crime. Only 25 cars, operated by four police forces, will initially be used to test the technology throughout April and May, according to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). However, if the trial proves to be a success, “e-plates” could eventually be fitted as standard on all new cars.*

The DVLA is concerned about the rise of car cloning, which involves criminals using number plates from a legitimate vehicle to mask the identity of a similar car, which has often been stolen.

(*Don't know about it being a "trial", IIRC a sole source contract was awarded last year to produce an initial run of 5 million plates. Plates will hold vehicle registration, MOT, tax and insurance details).

Flying Lawyer
12th Mar 2006, 08:13
cortilla

I'm very pleased you did get involved in the discussion again.
You give such a valuable insight into a certain sort of 'law-abiding' driver.

Either i will lightly tap my brakes, so the brake light comes on but i do not slow down
..... I just want the driver behind me to think I'm braking suddenly in the overtaking lane on a motorway - and hit his own brakes because he thinks he needs to take immediate action to avoid a collision.
Very safety conscious. :ok:
You obviously think through the potential consequences of your actions on the road.
Just out of interest, do you do the same if there's a queue of vehicles behind him, also waiting for you to move over?
(I'm assuming you look to see, but I realise that may be a very silly assumption on my part.)

or i will overtake the car i intended to overtake, and then move extremely slowly into the nearside or middle lane, often taking up to 30 secs to do so. I will admit myself that this can be construed as dangerous driving, but the speed limit on UK motorways is 70mph and i do not drive more than 75mph indicated for both legal and environmental reasons, and however is overtaking me is breaking the law.
So you never exceed the 70 mph limit by more than 5 mph, but you think deliberately doing something with the intention of irritating other drivers of whom you disapprove is an acceptable way in which to behave on the roads?

Let me guess: You consider yourself to be a good, responsible driver?
You strike me as someone who's commendably concerned not to break a speed limit because it's 'the law' (not forgetting your "enviromental reasons") but has little or no comprehension of road safety.
Like some others who post on these topics, equally misguided IMHO, you equate not breaking the speed limit (or not by much) with driving safely.
You also remind me of those who proudly proclaim they've never had an accident in n years driving. (But have caused a few.)

:rolleyes:



Don't forget, when driving 90mph in a 70mph zone, you will only save 7 mins over a trajectory of 65 miles.
How many minutes do you save over the same distance by overtaking other vehicles going 5 or10 mph slower than the 70 -75 mph at which you prefer to travel?
Enough to make the exercises you described above worth it?

Krystal n chips
12th Mar 2006, 09:04
For all the debates on here about the things, they can actually have some effect--notably the expression on the face of Miss Vacuous who was caught on camera merrily putting her face on ( as shown on TV ) and giving a whole new meaning to the term "hands free" in the process. :E Probably whilst en-route to a supermarket to see if there were any BOGOF offers on brain cells. :rolleyes:

FormerFlake
12th Mar 2006, 20:49
Over here in Lisbon it is fair to say driving standards are very poor, they have only had test for about 10 years. However, the only speed cameras I have so far seen do not take your picture, or even fine you. They simple turn the set of traffic lights 200m down the road to red. In short, if you speed, you don't get there faster. Simple and effective from what i have seen so far.

Why don't we get that in the UK? The only reason can be it wont make any money.

Another problem in Britain is the type of car you drive is governed by your wallet. Insurance groups do deter some young drivers, or those with little or no no claims bonus to buy a more sensible car. Yet, I really don't understand why the law can not limit the type of car you drive. As long as it does not effect car prices, or force you to spend a lot of money then why not?

A new driver can only drive cars up to insurance group 6 for example. Each year of safe drving is rewarded with another 2 insurance groups. If you crash you go back 2 or something like that. This would stop rich idiots driving cars there are not capable of controlling.

frostbite
12th Mar 2006, 21:35
There's a lot of common sense in there, FF.

Wouldn't do to have any of that in the UK.

G-CPTN
12th Mar 2006, 21:46
A new driver can only drive cars up to insurance group 6 for example. Each year of safe drving is rewarded with another 2 insurance groups. If you crash you go back 2 or something like that.

How do you define a 'year' of safe driving? When I was working I was driving more than 50,000 miles a year, whilst someone such as my Mother would rarely drive during that year. In fact my mother had never needed to take a test, but the same negligible mileage is true of my son (who sold his car as he lives in London) and his wife. Does 'having a licence' qualify you for safe driving (ie you won't have an accident if you don't drive). Does the School Run count, or does it have to be mixed-traffic driving?

FormerFlake
12th Mar 2006, 22:33
How do you define a 'year' of safe driving? When I was working I was driving more than 50,000 miles a year, whilst someone such as my Mother would rarely drive during that year. In fact my mother had never needed to take a test, but the same negligible mileage is true of my son (who sold his car as he lives in London) and his wife. Does 'having a licence' qualify you for safe driving (ie you won't have an accident if you don't drive). Does the School Run count, or does it have to be mixed-traffic driving?

Good point, well made. How about a simple 10 000, or one year whichever happens sooner. You could set a minimum too, 5 000 miles a year? I don't think the sort of people who only drive once a month will need a V8 so it wont matter is they have to stay on the lower insurance groups for ever. If you don't get any points or claim on your insurance you go up 2 levels?

Coconutty
13th Mar 2006, 08:38
Large Goods vehicles and Passenger coached etc are already fitted with "governors" that prevent them exceeding a certain speed limit.

Sat Nav technology is developing all the time.

HM Gov. are already looking at ways of charging motorists depending on the number of miles they travel on the busiest roads etc.

How long will it be before these are linked together and there is an automated system that actually prevents vehicles from travelling over the speed limit, by use of engine management systems fitted to the vehicle, linked to GPS with a database of the speed limits for all the roads in the Country ?

This could also be tailored to suit local conditions - e.g when its foggy on the Motorway, automatically limiting speeds to 30 or 40 MPH depending on how bad it is.

Revenue will still be raised for the Government by selling the kits to vehicle manufacturers and requiring them to be fitted, the costs being passed on to the vehicle owner / buyer / user :hmm:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

patdavies
13th Mar 2006, 11:56
Good point, well made. How about a simple 10 000, or one year whichever happens sooner. You could set a minimum too, 5 000 miles a year? I don't think the sort of people who only drive once a month will need a V8 so it wont matter is they have to stay on the lower insurance groups for ever. If you don't get any points or claim on your insurance you go up 2 levels?

So those that do lower mileages will forever be restricted to small cars? What about drivers (farmers etc.) who need 4x4 - how many of those are in the lower insurance brackets?

G-CPTN
13th Mar 2006, 17:01
What about drivers (farmers etc.) who need 4x4
Nonsense! Farmers don't do the school run . . .

Polikarpov
13th Mar 2006, 17:14
From an excellent piece on the fined-for-using-a-bin fiasco, by Rod Liddle in the Sunday Times, another little speed camera gem.


We are all of us subjected to a daily procession of small-scale miseries, visited upon us by a plethora of self-important statutory authorities. We cry when presented with our outrageous council tax bills and then cry louder when presented with the fruits of such expenditure; the bone-jarring humps in the road, the one-way systems, the salaries of Puerto Rican gay and lesbian community outreach workers, the obligation to separate our household waste into three neat piles, the penalties for transgressing a whole new bunch of rules and the severe warnings as to what will happen to you if, out of frustration, you verbally abuse or lamp some dull-witted, sententious council employee who is towing your car away because you exceeded the time allowed on the parking meter by 32 seconds, the police investigating somebody because he once said he doesn’t much like homosexuals, or Muslims, or Muslim homosexuals.

Recently a chap called Simon Thompson was fined £80 for having displayed a wearily raised middle finger to an inanimate object — a speed camera. You’re nicked, Mr Thompson, matey, under the Public Order Act. So not only must you never transgress the rules, you must not insult the technology employed to enforce the rules either.

FormerFlake
13th Mar 2006, 23:03
Large Goods vehicles and Passenger coached etc are already fitted with "governors" that prevent them exceeding a certain speed limit.

Sat Nav technology is developing all the time.

HM Gov. are already looking at ways of charging motorists depending on the number of miles they travel on the busiest roads etc.

How long will it be before these are linked together and there is an automated system that actually prevents vehicles from travelling over the speed limit, by use of engine management systems fitted to the vehicle, linked to GPS with a database of the speed limits for all the roads in the Country ?

This could also be tailored to suit local conditions - e.g when its foggy on the Motorway, automatically limiting speeds to 30 or 40 MPH depending on how bad it is.

Revenue will still be raised for the Government by selling the kits to vehicle manufacturers and requiring them to be fitted, the costs being passed on to the vehicle owner / buyer / user :hmm:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Tests have already proven that you are more likely to have an accident of your car governs your speed for you. The clever the car gets, the more stupid the driver gets.

I have had a few occasions were i have needed to accelerate out of danger. If i had one of these gadgets i would be in a wheel chair now.

Astrodome
13th Mar 2006, 23:18
(farmers etc.) who need 4x4
Farmers don't drive that sort of 4 x 4.

They are purely built for good looks in the High St.

And to provide the penis substitute that their drivers need.

Coconutty
14th Mar 2006, 08:03
Tests have already proven that you are more likely to have an accident of your car governs your speed for you.

What tests are those then ?
Do they only apply to car drivers and not lorry / coach drivers ?

By "governs" do you mean speed limiting, or Cruise control ?

I would have thought that there were plenty of tests / surveys / statistics etc. that were studied before speed governors were fitted to Large Goods Vehicles and Coaches.

I have had a few occasions were i have needed to accelerate out of danger.

You're not a motorcyclist by any chance are you ?

How do the truck and coach drivers accelerate out of danger then ( if they needed to ) at 60 MPH on a motorway ?

The clever the car gets, the more stupid the driver gets.


If you take the attitude that ALL motorists are stupid, no matter what they are driving, and that they WILL do something ridiculous at the worst possible time, then you will be more prepared to take appropriate action and avoid an "incident".

Maybe if everyone's speed was governed to prevent exceeding the limit, then there would be no need to "accelerate out of danger". :ooh:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Curious Pax
14th Mar 2006, 08:36
Saw a roadsign last week that was a new one on me, situated on the Antwerp ring road. Said 'Cruise Control' with a red line through it - turn off your cruise control I guess. I assume that as that road gets jammed up in the rush hour that they have have instances of drivers on cruise control smacking into the back of suddenly slowing cars because their brain forgets to re-engage the right foot.

I'm sure you'll be relieved to hear that traffic was flowing freely when I was passing at 8pm on a Sunday night.

Coconutty
14th Mar 2006, 10:54
Mike,

So you made an error then by misjudging the distance of the oncoming traffic :rolleyes:

I am presuming it was a single carriageway, National Speed Limit of 60 MPH.

If you knew your car wouldn't go above 60 MPH ( because it was governed ) you might not have begun the overtake in the first place, so there would have been no problem.

Obviously it is almost impossible to try and precisely imagine every precise aspect of any scenario just from a description of it, without actually being there, but consider this :

If you accelerated to get past the lorries, having misjudged the oncoming vehicle speed, then there could have been a collision - between you, the oncoming vehicle, and probably the heavy stuff you were overtaking.
If you had slowed down hard and pulled back in to let the oncoming vehicle pass then at least, if there is a coming together, the resultant head-on speed would have been less, and the heavy vehicles you were trying to pass might not be involved.

Had there been an accident, it would have been very hard to prove my side of the story - assuming I had lived to tell the tale of course!! With a "governed" speed, I would have been either very seriously injured or killed, no doubt about it.


If you were killed you wouldn't need to worry about proving anything, but your next of kin might when the insurance assessors get hold of the Police report which proved you were breaking the law by speeding - they would probably then blame the accident on you, and this could affect any insurance payout or claim against the other party.

On the other hand, if you were drivng within the speed limit, and actually well below it at the time of impact because you were braking, then the oncoming vehicle driver may well be found to be at fault for having incorrect lighting on their vehicle.

Heres another couple of thoughts :

1. On a 10 mile journey if you average 40 MPH ( which is a respectable average speed ) you will arrive at your destination in 15 minutes.

On the same journey if you drive hell for leather and average 60 MPH, you will arrive at your destination after 10 minutes - that is if you get there at all :eek:

Is that extra 5 minutes really worth the risk ? :uhoh:

2. Most "accidents" happen within 1 mile of the home - so I'm moving house :ok:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Send Clowns
14th Mar 2006, 11:12
If you knew your car wouldn't go above 60 MPH ( because it was governed ) you might not have begun the overtake in the first place, so there would have been no problemWhy do you say this? He specifically states that he did not intend to excede the limit.

There are more reasons that limiting the car to speed limit is ridiculous. For a start it will go wrong, or fail to find where the car is (I use GPS regularly to help me in my job, and it is far from reliable!). Secondly it would reduce many people's attention levels, as they would know they were not breaking some arbutary "safe speed". It is just a worse version of the speed cameras, focussing on a number rather than on safety.

Coconutty
14th Mar 2006, 13:01
Oh dear,
Lets get a few things straight -
I have not said that I think all vehicles should be governed to the speed limit.
I have not said that there could be occasions when it is pefectly justifiable and safe to exceed the speed limit.
Mike - I have not said that I think you were wrong in the way you planned and executed your overtake, or that I would not have done the same.
Send Clowns :Why do you say this? He specifically states that he did not intend to excede the limit.
...err no he didn't actually, He stated that he maintained the 60MPH limit and his description implied that he didn't intend to exceed 60.
The reason I said "If you knew your car wouldn't go above 60 MPH ( because it was governed ) you might not have begun the overtake in the first place,"
is precisely that - the two lorries if they were tailgating on a straight deristricted road, were probably travelling not much less than 60 themselves, and if you KNEW that your car wouldn't go above 60, then you might not have begun the overtake and waited for the oncoming traffic to pass.
Secondly it would reduce many people's attention levels, as they would know they were not breaking some arbutary "safe speed".
Really :confused: On what information or evidence do you base this statement ? "Maybe" the driver not having to worry about constantly looking for speed limit signs, and speed cameras, frequently taking their eyes off the road to check the speedometer, would free up some mental capacity and allow them to concentrate more on their driving, making it safer :rolleyes:
It is just a worse version of the speed cameras, focussing on a number rather than on safety.
Worse than speed cameras - now I know you're having a laugh :E
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

G-CPTN
14th Mar 2006, 13:10
If he'd been driving a Lotus Seven he'd have been able to tuck under the trailer (well, in the days when they weren't fitted with side-guards).
Been there and done that (not MINE, was passenger with a friend who also owned one). :E

Coconutty
14th Mar 2006, 15:42
Mike,

I stand by my comment :

"I have not said that I think all vehicles should be governed to the speed limit."

By suggesting that this could happen, some time in the future, especially in the context of my original post on this matter, where the basics of the technology needed already exist, does NOT mean that I am stating an opinion that this SHOULD happen.

There - is that clear enough ? - or am I approaching too fast for you ? :eek:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

SyllogismCheck
14th Mar 2006, 16:56
Coconutty,

Think about this. You restrict cars to the speed limit. That's 60mph in a national speed limit zone. The lorries using that road are already restricted to 56mph. I decide I want to pass one, an artic'. Let's call the lorry around 50 feet long overall and, from that, say that it represents an 80 foot obstacle. The extra to include pulling out, passing and pulling back in without swerving abruptly.

The problem is this. On the straight, flat bits where it's safe to pass and I have line of sight past the lorry it's likely to be doing all of its 56mph. That means that with a 4mph differential I need (1mph = 1.47fps. 4*1.47fps = 5.88fps. 80"/5.88 = 13.6) almost 15 seconds to pass. Now, that might not sound like long, but it is. It means, since 60mph is a mile a minute, I'm going to need 1/4 of a mile!

That's an awful long time and an awful long way on the wrong side of the road. People would almost never be able to pass lorries on A-roads. At times when the lorries were slower than 56mph, and the car would have a greater speed advantage, it'd most likely be due to bends, rises and the consequent blind crests and other physical factors preventing passing being safe.

We'd end up with a situation where one lorry would cause an immense tailback. We'd all have to follow it, slowing to 30mph as it laboured up hills etc. In effect every HGV on the road would become a rolling road block, restricting all traffic behind it to its average speed.
Save, of course, for the very rare occasions where there happend to be a clear, safe 1/2 mile or so stretch (the extra being needed as obviously the 1/4 mile only just gets you past and there's the need for some decision making time, in addition to which it'd be most unwise to commit to using absolutely all the clear road in view especially when you're left helpless to opt to use less of it) and, even if we did come across such a rare place, assuming that it happened to be clear of oncoming traffic.

Sure, I'm putting my hand up and saying that I do, on occasion when passing, exceed 60mph on roads so limited. Doing so, and as a result passing expeditiously and comfortably within the clear road I can see, simply has to be worth the virtually non-existent risk that a few extra miles an hour over that distance and time represent. Safer to complete such a manouver at 70mph and have no accident than be stranded on the wrong side of the road at 60mph and have a 120mph collision me thinks.

Of course we could all never pass and just sit behind lorries for mile after mile after mile. Maybe to you that would appear to be the solution. Just congest the roads even more. To my mind it's not. It's also downright dangerous. I begin my manoeuver and all my options are gone. I can't pass in anything less than 15 seconds or a quarter of a mile. I may well not be able to drop back if the lorry driver has spotted me in his mirror he may also slow on seeing the situation or the next frustrated driver hoping to use the same once in a blue moon passing chance may be following me through. I'd be relying soley on everything staying just as it was as I began to pass for that entire time. It may not...

...one thousand and one... one thousand and two... one thousand and three... one thousand and four (I'm past and safe)... one thousand and five... one thousand and six... one thousand and seven... one thousand and eight... one thousand and nine... one thousand and ten (Feeling exposed yet?)... one thousand and eleven... one thousand and twelve... one thousand and thirteen... one thousand and fouteen (Finally you're past - maybe. ;) )...

It just removes the best option, that of staying with the manoeuver so as not to add confusion to the situation and completing it as quickly as possible, and either requires that we all virtually never pass lorries, become entirely infallible at judging passing and oncoming vehicle distances with no resolution for an error and basically expose ourselves to longer periods on the wrong side of the road.
That's somewhere I want to spend as little time as possible and have those coming toward me doing likewise. :ok:

Coconutty
14th Mar 2006, 17:20
What a fantastic reply :ok:

I bet even the maths is spot on ;)

... and broadly speaking I totally agree :D

... So maybe they would introduce "Passing zones" - a bit like when the solid white line ends, and on that stretch there would be no governing :cool:

Hey - it's not my invention ! :ok:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

FormerFlake
14th Mar 2006, 17:25
Really :confused: On what information or evidence do you base this statement ? "Maybe" the driver not having to worry about constantly looking for speed limit signs, and speed cameras, frequently taking their eyes off the road to check the speedometer, would free up some mental capacity and allow them to concentrate more on their driving, making it safer :rolleyes:


Coconutty

I have seen a test done on TV were they put somebody in a protype car with the speed govener and used equipment to monitior brain function, heart rate etc. The drivers switched off, your brain needs a certain amount of inputs to operate properly. Why else to people crash in the middle of the night on empty motorway?

Part of the problem with new cars is the cut you off from the world outside, you can forget you are even driving. 20 years ago you did not need your speedo to tell you your speed, the road and engine noise told you, the vibration through the car told you and so on. Now you need your eyes to do everything, cutting off your other senses.


Many times I been in the process off over taking long vehicles and had them try to pull out in front of me. Several times I realised it would be a lot quicker (and safer) to accelerate past them than to brake. With a governer I would be dead.

Coconutty
14th Mar 2006, 18:01
Looks like speed governors are out then - unless you're a lorry or coach driver :ugh:

So what IS the answer ?

Design a prototype where the driver sits on the bonnet with no windscreen, no air bags, no ABS, no Traction / Stability control, no seat belts ? :suspect:

You could guarantee that the driver be alot more careful than when driving the family saloon ! :p

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

G-CPTN
14th Mar 2006, 20:34
Fiat Multipla
http://www.boogerballs.com/Fiat_Multipla.jpg

eal401
14th Mar 2006, 20:56
Passenger coaches etc are already fitted with "governors" that prevent them exceeding a certain speed limit.
Pity they don't work for 30mph limits.

Virtually all buses around here do at least 35 in 30 zones. How come they never get flashed?

(Oh and I know by driving behind them at the speed limit and watching the gap grow)

G-CPTN
14th Mar 2006, 21:12
Virtually all buses around here do at least 35 in 30 zones. How come they never get flashed?
Had a journey (as a paying passenger) in a bus which had arrived at the terminus 20 minutes late (due to traffic). The driver was determined to make-up time on his next leg. Full-throttle starts from every traffic light, and as fast as the traffic would allow through the suburban areas, but slowing noticeably for every speed camera. He obviously knew the location of every camera on his route. We arrived in Ashington (from Newcastle) - 18 miles - on time! He was fortunate that, because the bus was late, there were few passengers to pick-up or drop. Quite a ride (though very smooth. I complimented him and said I'd have been pleased to have had him as one of my test drivers. :ok:

ShyTorque
14th Mar 2006, 22:13
Fiat Multipla
http://www.boogerballs.com/Fiat_Multipla.jpg


Ah yes, a Mk1 Toyota Previa, with headlights on the tailgate!

ShyTorque
14th Mar 2006, 22:21
"If you knew your car wouldn't go above 60 MPH ( because it was governed ) you might not have begun the overtake in the first place, so there would have been no problem."


Well, many HGV drivers I see don't subscribe to that theory, albeit governed at 56 mph.

BTW, isn't the speed limit for HGVs actually only 40 mph on single carriageways, but 56 mph on dual carriageways and motorways?

Coconutty
15th Mar 2006, 07:02
National speed limits for all roads unless signs show otherwise.

Goods Vehicle up to 7.5 tonnes max laden weight :

Single Carriageway - 50 MPH
Dual Carriageway - 60 MPH
Motorway - 70 MPH

Large Goods vehicle - over 7.5 tonnes max laden weight :

Single Carriageway - 40 MPH
Dual Carriageway - 50 MPH
Motorway - 60 MPH

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Coconutty
16th Mar 2006, 08:38
Aahhhh - Road signs,

Don't you just love 'em :rolleyes:
( Still on topic as there is a Speed Limit sign there somewhere ;) )

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/OneWay.jpg

:ok:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/coconut.jpg
Coconutty

Coconutty
13th Sep 2006, 16:36
Following on from my post on 13th March ( Page 9 ).....

From Global Positioning Systems.co.uk (http://www.globalpositioningsystems.co.uk)

Speed-limiter forces vehicles to slow down

A new government-backed system using GPS and mapping to identify speed limits in any location, will force vehicles to observe speed limits. Using an engine limiter the Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) device has the capacity to retard the throttle to slow the vehicle down until it is at, or below the speed limit.

Last week the GPS enabled speed limiter was demonstrated on a motorcycle, and here is how it would work.

When the rider strays over the limit they hear two warning beeps, once the rider reaches 5mph over the limit their seat vibrates. If they still do not slow down, the device retards the throttle to slow the vehicle down to the speed limit.

The speed limiter was developed at the Motor Industry Research Association with funding from the Department for Transport (DfT). The system can also be used in cars and there is speculation the system is the first step in government plans to force carmakers to fit variable limiters.

It is argued that the system could be dangerous as it could hinder drivers when they need to accelerate out of danger. According to the TimesOnline a DfT spokesman said there were no plans to make the device compulsory in the UK.



I like the bit about "once the rider reaches 5mph over the limit their seat vibrates" - I know a few riders that might be encouraged to go over the limit just for the "buzz" :ok:

The last paragraph is interesting - maybe the DfT have read all the previous posts here :oh:

Although with a Government like the one we've got now where "U" turns are completely acceptable ( at any speed ), I wonder how long the bit that says "...there were no plans to make the device compulsory in the UK." will last :suspect:

I personally don't think the Government will make this compulsory - at least until such time as they have worked out how to make money from the motorists out of it :\

... Like I said folks - not my idea :rolleyes:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

Gingerbread Man
13th Sep 2006, 17:20
I think if the government wants to force my car to do a certain speed, they can get someone else to drive it for me. I've driven a Mercedes with a limiter on it (that you can set to any speed) and that was very disconcerting once it kicked in. No thanks - i'll just go and live in Iceland instead.

Ginger :rolleyes:

Grainger
13th Sep 2006, 17:29
. . . a DfT spokesman said there were no plans to make the device compulsory in the UK. So next year then :rolleyes:

ISA is useless - ABD press release (http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/499.htm)

Coconutty
21st May 2008, 17:28
In other news Transport for London announced plans to trial a GPS based speed enforcement system that will limit your vehicle speed based on a map of speed limits

http://msn-cnet.com.com/A+car+that+slows+you+down/2100-11389_3-6076096.html?part=msn-cnet&subj=re_3-6076096&tag=tg_home

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

Overdrive
21st May 2008, 18:17
Coming soon - You won't be able to speed !


Sadly, this was predictable about a nano second after GPS became available for road vehicles, it was just a matter of "when".

Last week, did anyone notice? The "20 mph in all urban areas" thing was mentioned again. This is not just side roads and housing estates, it means all urban and borough roads, towns, cities.

Imagine. If that doesn't cause frustration akin to mental illness, nothing will. Are they trying to make us kick off?

ZH875
21st May 2008, 18:47
But the slower you travel, the more fuel you burn.....



...Result is one very happy Chancellor.

ShyTorque
21st May 2008, 20:55
I think I just heard my first cuckoo of the spring.

G-CPTN
22nd May 2008, 00:28
WRT 20mph instead of 30mph it all depends on the local conditions - width and congestion of the environment. There can be regions where 20mph is more appropriate IMO, however other areas could tolerate 40mph 'quite safely', just as 60 mph for some highways is enough whilst 90 mph would be tolerable elsewhere I believe. It is impossible to generalise and blanket speed limits are usually inadequate (one way or another).
Of course we have variable limits on some motorways according to traffic density, so maybe some degree of monitoring of how busy the particular section of urban roadway might be a trigger for switching between 20 mph, 30mph and 40mph. Using embedded cables or piezo sensors can detect the type of vehicle (number of axles and axle load) and spacing as well as speed.
I used to have a traffic programme that ran on a Sinclair Spectrum that would control virtual traffic lights and smooth the flow as the frequency increased - very impressive it was to watch the population of vehicles increasing and decreasing (it was similar to the rabbits and foxes simulation - where more rabbits meant more food for the foxes but more foxes would increase predation and reduce the rabbits which in turn would reduce the number of foxes).
Ani fule could come up with suitable 'rules' that would determine appropriate speed limits according to how busy the 'built-up area' was . . .

Effluent Man
22nd May 2008, 12:22
For many years I ran a body repair shop.We jokingly instated an award of a bottle of decent malt at Christmas to the customer who brought us most business during the year.For several years running the recipient was a mild mannered Geordie schoolmaster who I could be pretty cetain never exceeded a speed limit in his life.

He just had a huge number of accidents,not all of which were his fault.However riding with him you became aware that he was unaware of almost everything happening around him.One day I called at his house to collect his Citroen (yes it had to be didn't it) after his latest fracas.He showed me around his garden.On the way back up the path he stumbled and fell completely into his pond,which he crawled from covered in weed and dripping wet.

I guess some people are just accident prone.He needs a man to walk in front waving a red flag.

Forkandles
22nd May 2008, 13:07
I used to have a traffic programme that ran on a Sinclair Spectrum that would control virtual traffic lights and smooth the flow as the frequency increased - very impressive

Sheeeee-it G-CPTN! I bet the evenings just fly by in your house. No wonder you're an insomniac with that kind of rush on tap every night! ;)

Out Of Trim
22nd May 2008, 13:10
I can't see these GPS limiters being allowed; The instant ending of speeding fines, would dramatically lower the Government's revenue. Thus, meaning they would have to tax us more on something else instead.

If Speed Cameras were there for Safety - they'd be outside schools, wouldn't they?

Cynical - Me? :}

Forkandles
22nd May 2008, 13:16
No doubt they'll introduce it more as a GPS nose-poker-inner so the DVLA computer can instantly issue a speeding ticket the second you stray over the speed limit, while it checks your MOT/Insurance/Tax all in one go. Ferpect!

Overdrive
22nd May 2008, 14:44
used to have a traffic programme that ran on a Sinclair Spectrum that would control virtual traffic lights and smooth the flow as the frequency increased - very impressive it was to watch the population of vehicles increasing and decreasing



I tell you what decreases congestion best of all, at the vast majority of regular junctions... turning the damned things off. Ever notice how there are no queues when you approach a set of off-line traffic lights?

In the 'seventies and 'eighties, many traffic light controlled junctions were replaced by roundabouts/traffic islands to improve traffic flow. Now, these are being replaced at huge cost by... yes, traffic lights. Guess what you see afterwards? Long queues where you never saw them before. I wonder why they do that? Mmm.. let me see.

Incompetence is one thing, deliberate obstruction another altogether. I've been around a bit, though by no means everywhere, so someone may tell me otherwise here, but... I have seen roundabouts, I have seen traffic lights. Only in the enemy-of-progress UK have I seen myriad roundabouts with traffic lights on them. What a stupid place this has become.

west lakes
22nd May 2008, 15:02
Just north of Carlisle City center is a large roundabout "Hardwick Circus" in the floods of 2005 this became a part of the River Eden and the electronics of the traffic lights failed.
For some weeks after the water receeded the roundabout operated as it was designed, decent flow of traffic, no queues etc.
And then the traffic lights got fixed and the queues returned!!!!

So after a public outcry they got switched off again for a trial period - they sometimes now get used in peak times but mostly are unused!

frostbite
22nd May 2008, 17:22
Same story here, Mr Lakes.

Roundabout on two major roads, worked well for years until they installed traffic lights, now the slip roads off the dual carriageway are often full meaning several cars 'on offer' for a rear end shunt as they sit waiting in the inside lane.

Never seen the sense in mixing the two - roundabouts are intended to provide smooth flowing traffic, lights intended for stop/start.