Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Nigel Gibbins, 20-May-2007, 05:04pm
As always, if you don't want to contribute to the fund then you better not speed... easier said than done.
Of course, if the insurance companie do follow suit and claim to not increase premiums due to speeding points then it will be bemoaned as a tax on speed...
Ha, they can't win... ...
... buy a race car, get it out of your system safely...
Of course, if the insurance companie do follow suit and claim to not increase premiums due to speeding points then it will be bemoaned as a tax on speed...
Ha, they can't win... ...... buy a race car, get it out of your system safely...
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Dan Owen, 21-May-2007, 10:41am
Wake up and smell the coffee. You don't need to be a boy racer, or any other sort of speed freak, to get a speeding ticket now - in fact unless you drive everywhere like your nan it's pretty much inevitable! So many speed limits nowadays are arbitrary and unrealistic, set by people who probably don't drive at all. Plus you have the "speed kills" lobby bleating that speed is the ONLY factor in most accidents, meaning no effort is made to properly maintain the road to a safe standard - how many times this summmer will YOU be blinded by long grass when coming out of a junction, or onto a roundabout? Any speed is unsafe when people can't see - I could go on because this mentality of "don't speed and you won't get a ticket" is utter bullshit, given the underhand tactics employed by the revenue camera "partnerships". If, like me, you haven't got one yet it's only down to luck and paranoia - assuming there's one of those sneaky vans round every corner - or that you drive in such a pathetic, limp-wristed fashion that you cause congestion and annoy the hell out of the 50+ drivers stuck behind you, who then get frustrated and take stupid risks trying to overtake, thus leading to mare accidents and more grist to the mill of the "speed kills" fascists. It's strange, with all the effort devoted to handing out speeding tickets nowadays, you'd assume there wasn't any other crime about, but listen to the news - there's a murder or two every day now, I'm damn sure it wasn't like that 10 yers ago when this lousy government got in!
Oh, and watch out! We're starting to get unmarked camera vans round here now! They look just like regular Transits, but you can tell by the square, blacked-out and probably bullet-proof windows in the back that regular vans just don't have!
Up the revolution! Assuming such a thing is possible in a police state
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Mike Crewes, 21-May-2007, 12:49pm
Dan
You really do need to take a 'chill pill', or you're gonna end up with ulcers!
As a Collision Investigator for 15 years I feel qualified in putting across an educated view on speed cameras. I do not seek to justify them, but they do work and I am PERSONALLY in favour of them. Where ever they have been installed in multiple units accicent statics have prooved they work.
If you are frustrated by slower drivers that is YOUR problem and you need to sort that out before you have your own drama. If you slow down you actually give yourself more time to react to a situation and whilst moving, more time = more distance. So, it is no coincidence that fewer accidents happen at slower speeds.
On the M25 there are automatic speed limits that come in in times of congestion. When they first came in I was amongst a large number of sceptics about how successful they would be. Almost overnight the accident rate fell to zero, taking the breakdown rate down with it. The slower speed limits on the M4 next to the Bus Lane had similar critics (myself and Jeremy Clarkson among them), but the statistics speak for themselves.
Yes, there are a large number of murders each year, but there are over 10 times as many people killed on the roads of Britain. 3,500 people each year are killed on the roads, that equates to 10 Lockerbys every year. If 10 Jumbo Jets fell out of the British skys every year they would be grounded forever.
Whilst not all accidents are due to speed, almost all of them have a speed related cause. Yes, it's fun to drive fast, but that doesn't mean it's safe. If you think your driving is that good take an advanced test, see how fast they let you go!
In the end you have a choice; comply with the law and slow down, or speed and take the consequences. Speed cameras are not going away - on a corner near you soon!
Regards
Mike
(Setting up the armour plate shelter!!!) -
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Neil Pannett, 21-May-2007, 12:58pm
Whether you agree with the tactics or not (and I'm firmly in the 'not' catagory), you have to admit that if you're driving within the legal limits then you won't get a ticket.
This country has a culture for ignoring the speed limits that are set, and people picking what they feel is the safe speed for them and their car - consequently speed cameras are always going to rake in the money because people are too busy looking for ways that they can speed anywhere that is camera free rather than just accepting the limit and driving to it. This attitude makes us all sitting ducks for all forms of speeding detection.
Whilst I agree that there are many factors that can (and do) cause accidents, I don't really see that there is any benefit for attacking the principle of preventing one of these elements - and let's face it, most of the causes of accidents these days are illegal and policed accordingly (drunk driving, poor vehicle condition, driver distractions).
Personally I think that police time would be better spent on more serious crimes, but then I've never lost anyone close to me in a road accident - if I had then maybe I would feel differently.
What we should be looking at is making the speed limits more relevent and then maybe we can move away from the idea that they are 'stupid' and that it's acceptable to disregard them. I'll happily stick to 25mph outside schools if I can trade that for 80+ on a motorway / dual carriageway, and I'd be happy to accept a slower spped limit for my spitfire (35 year old engineering) than I would my modern car with it's brembo brakes and ABS. How on earth you would police that I don't know, but I'm sure that they could find a way.
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Graham Cowan, 21-May-2007, 01:00pm
Dan,
The speed camera issue is such a hot potato with possibly no other subject more likely to divide car enthusiasts into one of two camps. I for one don&8217;t mind them and to say that if you &194;&8220;don&194;&8217;t speed and you won&194;&8217;t get a ticket is utter bull..t&8221;, is itself utter bull&194;&8230;t. You simply can&194;&8217;t get a speeding ticket if you are not speeding (Yes, I know there will be some examples where cameras were faulty etc).
Furthermore, I don&8217;t have a speeding ticket which is solely down to obeying the LAW and nothing to do with either luck or paranoia. I also resent the implication made that if you don&8217;t wish to drive spiritedly you must have
a &8220;limp-wristed-pathetic&194;&8221; driving style.
Graham-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Colin Wake, 21-May-2007, 01:49pm
My issue with them is that of inappropriate siting, occassionally in locations designed to maximise revenue.
There are plenty of instances of such in Essex (one of the first forces to be in the reciprocation agreement) where road X at site Y has a issue with speed related accidents, so they site the camera on Road X at site Y + 1 mile, where there is a higher likelihood of catching the maximum number of motorists. They do not address the reason that site Y has the high number of accidents (poor sight lines, defective road surface, blind junctions etc). The cameras have to be positioned on roads within certain criteria, but those criteria can be proven to have been met as they say Road X has had 5 incidents in teh last 3 years, which is the trigger required. They don't say that they are counting the incidents over a 20 mile stretch of road.
My other bugbear is constantly changing limits designed to catch out the unwary.
Until recently a 13 mile stretch of the A140 in Suffolk had 17 changes in limit, repeatedly going from 50 to 30 via 40 occassionally. The mobile camera would lie in wait round the numerous twists and bends in the road and they made an absolute fortune from people who had failed to spot the limit changes. The signage was all the minimum possible size and minimum frequency required by law so failing to spot the changes was not just a matter of lack of observation.
Yes the road has a poor accident record (if you have driven it you will know why!) and so some of the limits are justified, but the shear number of changes wasn't and has now been addressed as it was shown that the 40 limits were surplus to requirements and have been changed to 50's. Limits have been painted on the road surface (a great idea, but a hazard to bikers!) signs are now larger so are less liekly to disappear behind an over grown thistle, it is now much harder to make a mistake.
Now you do not see the mobile cameras on the A140 as much.
I wonder why???
Cheers
Colin-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Nigel Gibbins, 21-May-2007, 03:31pm
Hehe - there a road near my parent's house... Bolton Road from Bolton to Ramsbottom where one side the speed limit is 30 - 40 (200 yds) - 30... but the other side is national speed limit all the way!!! (60!)
For that you can thank your local council... you did vote last month didn't you ?
-
-
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Nigel Gibbins, 21-May-2007, 01:35pm
You can see what car I drive below and I do about 12,000 miles a year in it... I don't speed, I have a clean license however, at the weekend just gone (Oulton Park) I had the fastest spitfire of the day... (class pole)
So your argument is flawed as I am the proof myself...
... the "speed kills" lobby have never claimed that speed is the ONLY factor, but merely state it is a MAJOR CONTRIBUTING factor...
... if you can't see the road ahead you should slow down - seems to make sense to me
... "don't speed and you won't get a ticket" ... not BS but true, how will you get a speeding ticket if you aren't speeding?
... yep, limp wristed - that's me ... ... I refer you to the first line of this followup.
... 3,500 people are killed on our roads each year - that's the same number as lost their lives in 7/11... you say that's not serious? - you can't be serious..
I could go on... and I have, but I won't any more... anyone want to pick up the baton?-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Neil Pannett, 21-May-2007, 02:02pm
My personal favourite type of driver is the 40 mph'er.
You know the sort - you follow them along single lane 60mph limit zones for bloody miles whilst they sit contentedly at somewhere between 38 and 40mph, then you get to a 30 limit and you watch them disappear into the distance as you drop down to 30 and they continue at 40. It's as if they find 'their' speed and they'll stick to it with bloody-minded determination regardless of the other road users, driving conditions or the law.
These type of drivers are amazingly common in Sussex.
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Nigel Gibbins, 21-May-2007, 03:33pm
All this stuff used to annoy me too... but I mellowed, I'd rather they drove 20mph under the limit and made me a minute late than drove 20 mph over it and blocked the road for an hour (when they spill it).
-
-
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Leon Guyot, 21-May-2007, 04:16pm
you'd assume there wasn't any other crime about
Speeding is not a criminal offence I believe.
L -
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Arthur Kaminski, 21-May-2007, 08:18pm
[QUOTE: Dan Owen] Assuming such thing is possible in a police state [/QUOTE]
At last, someone has the balls to say it!
America here we come! 'Sheriffs' and 'State Troopers' with guns and zappers. Big empty highways, where the speed limit is so low that people actually grow old and die while driving.
A few more years, and our cars will automatically slap us silly every time we cross the speed limit, change the radio station, or even fart for that matter, not to mention the &163;50 penalty fee which is efficiently transferred from our bank accounts. Of course, we wouldn't have our licenses taken away, because that would mean there would be no one out there to pay lots and lots of penalties!
Black boxes, anyone?
-
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Colin Wake, 21-May-2007, 12:44pm
I think I read somewhere that the reciprocation agreements have been cancelled, so that all fine revenue now goes to teh Treasury, rather than the 'Safety' partnerships.
This was because it was seen to be being used as a revenue generator by the partnerships.
Was in the same article about the Digital Gatso type approval. There is now a digital insert for the old film cameras, &163;10k each, peanuts compared to the costs of the films, and they keep going forever........
Colin-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : David Freeman, 21-May-2007, 08:54pm
If, as they insist on calling them, 'safety cameras' are there for 'safety' reasons, then why is there not a 'safety' camera on every single residential street, outside every single school and place where people congregate? I agree wholeheartedly that drivers shouldn't speed, good drivers don't, but my dilemma is that I also agree that the basic freedom to kill ourselves should remain, if it doesn't affect anyone else of course (which is impossible).
I object to the cynicsm and spin, the very term 'safety partnerships' and the simple fact that more revenue cameras mean fewer real cops on the road, and believe me, real cops can be, and are, very useful in a crisis. I hate the fact that we now spend more time looking for the menacing boxes than we do concentrating on good car control, crisis and hazard recognition, and more often than not, our destination! Driving isn't as much fun as it was, and that said by someone who's never been done for any driving offence, in 35 years. Oh, and I'm not a moron, having rallied cooper s minis, very quickly on unmade roads in the mountains of wales in the rain, and having owned and raced a variety of odd, and very fast kit, road and special cars over the years!-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Dan Owen, 22-May-2007, 06:47pm
Speed does not kill. INAPPROPRIATE speed does, but you can't legislate for everything. If people are so dull that they can't drive at an appropriate speed for the road and its conditions then surely that is their problem. It is not for the authorities to set an artificially low speed limit for a stretch of road - maybe several miles of road - on the basis of one nasty bend or whatever. If they carry on in this fashion we'll see the day when people can drive down a road AT THE LEGAL LIMIT (verified by the inevitable-if-people-don't-wake-up satellite black box), crash, and then sue the arse off the county council or whoever else set the limit because the limit "was set too low", thus rendering the road dangerous. I think we should keep the 30, and in some cases 20 limits in built up areas and ABOLISH the rest, as soon as you leave town it's de-restricted and you can go as fast as you like! That'd get the traffic moving and if a few idiots manage to kill themselves, well, that's natural selection for you!!!-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Mike Crewes, 23-May-2007, 09:52am
Dan
You are right! Not even inappropriate speed kills, it's the acceleration/decelleration that kills (if you want to talk science, I'm up for it).
Your PERSONAL opinion does not seem to be based on any logical experience, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I bet you didn't have that view when you took your driving test. If you did, you wouldn't have passed.
Keep taking the chill pills and get used to the rest of us wanting safety first.
Regards
Mike-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Russell Sayers, 23-May-2007, 01:06pm
"I think we should keep the 30, and in some cases 20 limits in built up areas and ABOLISH the rest, as soon as you leave town it's de-restricted and you can go as fast as you like! That'd get the traffic moving and if a few idiots manage to kill themselves, well, that's natural selection for you!!!"
Dan, I'm sorry but what about the other innocent motorists/pedestrians/passengers that the "few idiots" take out with them when they lose control because they believe their driving abilities to be far higher than they actually are? That's not natural selection it's an unneccesery waste of lives and to say otherwise would be pure ignorance.
I live in the countryside so I do not have to go far to "leave town" and unfortunately I see a seemingly never-ending amount of trees with floral tributes attached to them with photos of people, usually under 20, who have had their lives cut depressingly short by inexperienced, foolish drivers driving as fast as they liked at speeds totally inappropriate for the road and weather conditions, not to mention their sub-standard driving abilities. And sadly they usually take one, if not more, passengers with them.
The speed limits are there for everyone's benefit and to protect the majority of law-abiding road users from the fools who's egos are usually far greater than their actual driving abilities would appear to be.
Whether some of them should be reviewed based on road conditions is another matter... -
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Chris Taylor, 23-May-2007, 01:24pm
While I follow the logic of what is said, I still share Dan's frustration about dawdling drivers in front. And anyone who is holding up a Herald IS dawdling! While everyone is entitled to drive at their chosen speed, the type of driver Dan describes does not seem to adjust their speed in any sensible response to road conditions. And to drive significantly slower than other traffic or what the road conditions permit is discourteous, as opportunities to overtake safely on today's crowded roads are diminishing daily.
I also fail to be convinced that speed limits are always set by a process of logical and sensible application of risk based criteria. Nimbyism seems to be at least as prevalent. To take one example local to me, the A58 (a trunk road) between Leeds and Wetherby used to take the vast majority of through traffic between the A1 and the M62. The speed limit was 60 (previously 70 of course) with one 30mph restriction and two 40's. Since then, the M1 has been extended and has removed just about ALL through traffic. And a ban has been imposed on HGVs. No significant increase in housing along the road has taken place. But the 40mph limits are now 30, one of the two crawler lanes on a hill has been removed, and a blanket 50mph applies where not 30mph.
The introduction of a set of traffic lights at one difficult junction, and the introduction of a pelican crossing all make sense, but as for the speed limits, I can only conclude that nimbyism and/or the nanny state at work.
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Colin Wake, 23-May-2007, 02:10pm
I failed my first test for driving too slowly.
Don't forget, inappropriate speed kills, well the time of the examiner anyway.
Colin-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Russell Sayers, 23-May-2007, 04:00pm
I do agree there - you have to question whether someone is actually safe to be on the road when they feel the need to drive at significantly less than the legal limit (i.e. 20mph in a 40mph zone or 40mph on a motorway) on a clear dry day with an straight empty road and no obvious hazards or reason to do so. If someone honestly feels that unsafe driving their own car in a straight line in perfect conditions at anywhere even approaching the legal limit then that is worrying in itself if they are doing it through necessity rather than choice....-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Jon Morton, 23-May-2007, 04:23pm
This thread has taken an interesting turn.
It starts out complaining about speed cameras in general, then swings completely the other way wanting slow cameras for not for driving to fast but too slow!
I would keep quiet in case the powers that be catch on to this idea and implement it
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Dan Owen, 24-May-2007, 12:00pm
I would support the introduction of minimum speed limits on many roads. Obviously there would have to exceptions for poor weather conditions, not to mention old cars that couldn't manage the minimum speed! But it WOULD prevent many accidents caused by people getting frustrated sitting behind wallies crawling along and attempting inappropriate overtaking manouvres.
And Mike, yes I have always held the same view! I've passed two tests, car and PCV, both first time. Simply because I listen to all the bullshit, and accept that you have to drive in a certain fashion to pass a test, while realising it has, in many instances, very little to do with driving in the real world. One I always remember when I was first learning to drive was that you were always, always suposed to slow right down and take a roundabout in second gear - irrespective of its size or the prevailing conditions. Do YOU do this? The people that come up with these ideas would have a fit to see me going to work a couple of years ago, flying down the dual carriageway to Caerphilly early in the morning, taking the roundabouts in top! But why not - why slow down for other traffic that you can see isn't there? And how do you explain away the fact that accident statistics have RISEN in recent years, since the "safety camera" obsession began, after falling steadily for years due to safer vehicles and better roads?
The nanny state has gone far too far. Everyting is blamed on speed, how about lack of highway maintenance? Many roads in this area are unsafe at anything more than a walking pace. A lot of the accidents at night that people blame on excessive speed/inexperience I am sure could have been caused by the driver being dazzled by oncoming traffic, how many dickheads do you see with their foglights permanently on? Or badly set lights - often not checked at MOT time and never picked up by traffic police, because they've largely been replaced by speed cameras! Or maybe just idiots who think they own the road and won't dip their lights - I have to go on about this because as I travel around I never cease to be amazed at where some people manage to go off the road, I just don't see how it is possible in many instances! How about modern cars in general? Far too many knobs and switches to work AND concentrate on the road, and how about all that power going to the front wheels - many modern cars just don't handle well. I tell you this much, however rich I was I WOULD NOT BUY an even remotely modern car because my Herald, with no ABS, no seatbelts, no anything else for that matter, is far easier to drive and simply feels much safer on the road than anything else I've ever tried! Then of course there's people getting lost. How many times have YOU, trying to find your way, hunting for a signpost or street name that either isn't there at all or so covered in filth that you can't see it, driven like a bit of a wally? Simply because you can't concentrate on two things at once, the very reason behind the largely ignored, at least in this area, mobile phone law. Again, largely ignored because the traffic police have been replaced with speed cameras!
Maybe the roads can be made safe by cameras, but ONLY when someone invents the mobile phone camera, drunk camera, idiot camera, lighting offences camera, dodgy tyres camera - people round here drive on tyres down to the canvas and don't get caught! Speed cameras are simply ineffective and an unhealthy obsession for the police state. If they weren't such a moneyspinner there wouldn't be any, simple as that. For proof you need look only as far as the recent proposals to cut the number of points put on people's licences in some instances. They don't really want to ban people, as banned drivers can't get even more speeding tickets and bring in a nice steady stream of revenue!!!
OK rant over... Up the revolution!-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Nigel Gibbins, 24-May-2007, 12:17pm
Dan - if you drive as aggressively as you type then I'm afriad...
A) That you are going to hurt yourself in a terrible RTC
B) You'll destroy your Herald in the process
C) You'll hurt / traumatise the people in the other car that you didn't see while taking roundabouts in top gear
It's all just too sad... easlier to slow down
and respect other road users safety.
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Neil Pannett, 24-May-2007, 02:15pm
Dan,
As you quite rightly say, for cameras alone to be effective at reducing accident rates we need cameras that detect all sorts of bad driving - but just because we don't have these doesn't make a reasoned arguement against the cameras that we do have.
Surely all the other factors (poor roads, poor driving etc) just provide better reasons for slowing down so that ( A ) you are better equiped to deal with them, and ( B ) you have a better chance of surviving an impact with the idiot coming the other way who's just lost control at 20 mph over the limit?
Okay, in an ideal world all of the factors that cause accidents would be addressed - but surely working on one is better than working on none? Let's not forget that every speed camera put up should (in theory) free up another traffic cop to police the other points that you've mentioned rather than standing there monitoring traffic speed - if the truth is that the local forces are just using the opportunity to cut costs by reducing their headcount then that is a different issue altogether.
-
Changes in regulations controlling siting of Revenue sorry Speed cameras
Posted By : Dan Owen, 25-May-2007, 11:30am
I'm sorry, but the whole point of this argument is that the "safety cameras" nowadays have about as much to do with road safety as I have to do with brain surgery. They are just another tactic employed by the car-hating, swivel-eyed, environmental Nazis in local and national government to harass and inconvenience the motorist and travelling public in general as much as possible. Road safety? My arse, the statistics speak for themselves - I know there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but statistics that mock current policy? If they've been tweaked it's downwards and deaths/injuries may have risen even higher than we think since the "safety camera" obsession came in.
On a *slightly* different topic that illustrates the current mentality, not far from here going up into Blaina, the council went and refreshed the double yellow lines. They may have been necessary when that street was the main A road going up the valley, but the bypass has been in place for many years now and the parking restrictions haven't been enforced - after all, there's been no point. Now, however, people are getting tickets, so they're parking in, and blocking the back lanes, impeding access for, say, a fire engine if one needed to get to the back of houses that are in a LONG terrace, and the parked cars that used to be such excellent traffic calming on the front street have gone, leaving the boy racers free to do 70 of an evening. Net result is that Abertillery Road is now more dangerous in every respect for the residents than it has ever been! Safety? Revenue raising, more like. If they couldn't just ignore the parking restriction any longer then it should have been revoked, simple as that. Probably the next thing will be the increased traffic speeds used as justification for putting speed humps in, on a road where nobody USED to be able to speed anyway!!!
It's all just a big scam. Up the revolution!
PS No, I don't drive as agressively as I type. The keyboard is mightier than a Herald!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-