Scamera poll

livvy wrote: Rhys wrote: I doubt we have the best roads in Europe (out car tax gets spent on other things, like copper cladding government buildings - but to digress) and the number of cars on the road is probably greater now than ever before. We have the safest roads (in terms of casualty numbers per mile) of virtually any major nation in the world, let alone Europe.

So if our roads are so safe then why is there such a fuss about speeding?

spokey wrote: If I may dare to differ in opinion with as august and knowledgeable a person as yourself, a random drive down any given motorway will clearly show that while certain individual drivers may be tiptoeing around, the vast majority of drivers either drive at about 85-90 MPH (a guess based on how fast they seem to sail past me) or about 60MPH (based on how fast I sail past them) and the HGV's drive at 55MPH. Effectively we already have a three-tier speed limit system and I don't think the differentials I see are particularly good for road safety. The government is clearly misguided if they think that they are changing behaviour overall. They are only changing the behaviour of people unlucky enough to get caught speeding at a given point. The thing that rankles most about the use of scameras is that they are often sited at places where it's very easy to unintentionally break the speed limit and take absolutely no regard for how you drive overall. You may have driven at or below the speed limit for a whole two hours before, and a whole two hours after, but if your attention should drift for just one minute, you could arbitrarily be a criminal. This is why (for me, anyway) it's a subject that means that no matter what the benefits may be, I will never support them.

GATSOs are advertised & their purpose is to slow you at & in the immeadiate vicinity of identified targeted problem points. They can't hope to enforce change nationally wholesale.
Education is the way forward for that as it requires attitude changes.

You could drive for 2 hours lapse & get caught by a Police officer. Net result could be the same as a camera couldn't it. If you feel your concentration lapsing take a break.




Edited by livvy

I disagree with speed cameras or at least many of the locations of them. I do like the new signs that tell you your speed as you approach. Personally, those do have an impact on me, they make you think about your speed and aware of what the speed limit is in that zone - but gatso`s just annoy me.

A speed readign sign followed by a gatso further along the road I would find more acceptable.

If you do enough miles, with the current system it is only a matter of time before EVERYONE gets flashed. My first and only time has been when I went to new town I have never been to before(back in Feb this year). I was looking for a place and turning. It was a dual carriageway NOT in a built up areas and I didn`t realise it was a 40. I got busted doing 49 - not too bad considering the circumstances. I didn`t even see the camera so was shocked when later I got a NIP.
I fought my NIP via letter explaining some things and it was dropped.

I agree with spokey on many points, I just differ with how I put them across.

As for smoking, Derek your a good bloke, Livvy stop being such a wimp , living where you do, and breathing that "air", how can you complain about smoke !

The main thing I hope we are seeing here ( and Livvy has taken the time and patience to teach me ), is we aren't going to get rid of cameras.

We of course are in a minority, but not a favoured one like religion, or homosexuals, but like the afforementioned two groups, we do need to band together , somehow, to get our point of view listened to.

That itself is the major challenge that will face us in the next few years.

We have to come up with an alternate strategy to the government, that will reduce ksi's, and leave our hobby intact.

You all know my answer ( advanced driving...regardless of the organisation), what are your options ?, what can you come up with to help ?

IF we do nothing, the people in the know advise it will get worse, much much worse as far as we are concerned.

Edited by Nigel

spokey wrote:   The thing that rankles most about the use of scameras is that they are often sited at places where it's very easy to unintentionally break the speed limit and take absolutely no regard for how you drive overall. You may have driven at or below the speed limit for a whole two hours before, and a whole two hours after, but if your attention should drift for just one minute, you could arbitrarily be a criminal. This is why (for me, anyway) it's a subject that means that no matter what the benefits may be, I will never support them.

This is one of the rare occaisions I find myself in agreement with Spokey.

 

And again we differ, collar front back sleeves cuffs for me! All laundry now done so back to the serious business of finding some accomodation!

livvy wrote:   As for tailgaters, increasing speed to get away from them is not the answer.

I Wasn't for a moment suggesting it was.

livvy wrote:  Drive at a speed that you can extend your braking for any potential hazards ahead. So that your initial application can always be very gentle & measured, never needing to be firm or hurried. You are then building time in your application for the tailgater behind so that they won't be surprised by your brakes and adversely react. Think defensively with them in mind & build time in your driving plans to account for their inadequacies.

Planning ahead, ensuring sufficient braking distances - even if everyone ahead thinks you're leaving space for them to pull in - This is all basic driving skills 101, awareness of other road users yes, anticipation of their next move yes. but there are lot of them out there for me to protect .... which one do I choose? the lovley blonde weaving while she applies her mascara or the hoodie wearing neanderthal that's so close it seems he's trying to mount my car in some display of sexual domination?

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on many points discussed here Livvy. But to go full circle and answer one of you earliest questions regarding loss of customer base, you are right, in one sense banning people will cost them money on the long term - but most people don't end up banned just very nervous while they tiptoe around with 6 or 9 points for a couple of years.

The same could be said for us poor smokers (yup one o them too!) We put millions into the coffers of Mssrs Brown & Bliar.... do they thank us, no. Do we get inviter round to No 11 for tea & biccies for being a major contributor, no, We get criminalised, shunned as soon told to go stand outside to enjoy our addiction!

 

I'm off me soapbox and going to seek some harmonious interaction with a Phillips Azure and some Ben Shermans - can't be looking creased or crumpled as I tear up the highways smoking and scaring old ladies now can I

. [/QUOTE]

Back to the subect of this thread, it appears that the result of the poll is fairly conclusive. So if nothing else the government (or livvy for that matter) has failed to convince us that cameras are a good thing.

 

As I say I'd prefer to see more Police rather than cameras as well.
I do understand people's frustration in the dumming down to the lowest common denominator, but I also see it's value to the government as an easy immeadiate option.

As for tailgaters, increasing speed to get away from them is not the answer. Invariably they will just pick up speed to sit just as close but at a faster speed, or you will end up going so far over the limit that you'll lose your licence in one hit.

Drive at a speed that you can extend your braking for any potential hazards ahead. So that your initial application can always be very gentle & measured, never needing to be firm or hurried. You are then building time in your application for the tailgater behind so that they won't be surprised by your brakes and adversely react. Think defensively with them in mind & build time in your driving plans to account for their inadequacies.

Derive pleasure in your driving from your harmonious interraction with all other road users, however talentless they are. You be their saviour & save them from themselves with your planning prioritised around safety. Revel in your skill in these areas on public roads, the skill of your accuracy in never being caught unaware by any circumstance. Save your "thrills" for places that are designed with that in mind & not where they will leave you open to prosecution.

Edited by livvy

I think you are missing my point.

The public complained about traffic officers & wanted them deployed elsewhere. The public said they should be out catching burglars not prosecuting motorists. The cameras came in large numbers after not before the drop in traffic officer numbers. Cameras were an attempt to plug the hole, in response to public wishes about redeployment of reources.

I would prefer to see more Police, but they are far more expensive than cameras & budgets are squeezed. When the relative departments heads are bidding for a slice of the budgets who do you think will have the purse string holders ear at the momment ? Anti-terror ? Burglary ? Robbery ? Drugs ? Gun crime ? Public order ? or traffic ?

When the governement look at cameras the figures show that average speeds drop where they are placed, KSI collisions drop where they are placed. They are self funding, which Police officers are not. They work 24/7, don't have to leave their post for paper work, don't have to eat, can process offenders far more efficiently & show no favour.

Gunning for speed is a crude way to deal with the problems on our roads, but what reducing speed does, is gives drivers the golden nugget that is time. Time to recover from their mistakes, mistakes that may come initially from other deficiencies in their driving but that speed just exaggerates. Yes it's dumming down, but it works on the premise that less speed = more time to avoid the collision & if it still can't be avoided less speed = less energy in the collision & therefore greater chance of survival or minimal injury.

They want you to slow down so they don't have to prosecute you & at the same time you can help them meet their targets for reductions in KSI numbers. Reducing speed is cheap & gives more immeadiate results whilst being easy to implement. Dealing with the low skill level  wholesale is expensive & will take a long time to yield reduction benefits. It is also very complex to introduce. As I said earlier as well there are environmental benefits to limiting speed.


Edited by livvy