Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:34 |
livvy wrote:
Surely though Nigel we should always be travelling at a speed in the first place, that we can take in all the information that is available to us & pertinent (I include the speed limit sign in this). If we can't aren't we driving beyond our capabilities & that is dangerous.
|
Rubbish! You are stating here that the posted speed limit is the SAFE limit on that road - that is tosh!
The safe speed limit on ANY road depends on many factors.
70mph on a motorway in the driving rain and fog is stupid - but legal!
100mph on an empty motorway at 2am is safe but illegal!!!
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:35 |
There are far better ways to help people remain within the speed
limits. I have (on other fora) suggested that instead of a camera,
there should be a sign warning you a) what the limit is and b) the
speed at which you are travelling.
Cameras are not going to stop TWOCers or criminals or people who don't
care about losing their license and continue driving anyway.
As a motorist, I feel that standards are applied to me that are not
applied to any other road users. If you look at the road safety
adverts, for every one advert saying look left, look right, there are
ten that say "motorists are at fault for every accident and speed is
the root cause of everything."
You never see adverts saying "if you're stupid enough to walk out into
the road without looking, you might get run over." Yes, I am in the
big, heavy thing that will kill people if they walk in front of it
while it's moving, I am the one who pays for that black stuff that I
drive around on. I am the one who has to comply with government
regulations that define what the state of my car should be. I am the
one who subsidises everyone with the outrageous tax on fuel. But I am
also the one who has to automatically carry the can for those people
who choose to use the road in something other than a car.
I rail against cameras because I see blatant abuse of the safety
message with cameras placed on dead straight roads behind bushes or
road signs. This weekend, I saw cameras cunningly placed behind signs
in two villages at the entry points. These signs were in a forest of
multi-coloured road signage, INCLUDING SEVERAL ITEMS WHICH WERE BRIGHT
YELLOW. So easy to miss the camera until you see the flash. Now, while
I believe that you should drive extra carefully in built up areas (because children
are not taught to worry about running into a busy road), if those
cameras ARE there to deter speeding, why are they not visible? People
DO slow down at cameras (often when they don't even need to.)
But no, they're practically invisible until you're past them, so if
you're late in slowing down (which I agree is unforgivable!) you will
be penalised. You will not be given the extra incentive to slow down
first.
I can honestly say that I have spotted cameras in several places where
I can understand the justification, even though I would still provide
an information display, rather than a penalty-based revenue-gathering
device. However, for every ONE camera like that I see, I see TEN that
make me seethe as they are obvious scams.
If the government was serious about road safety, they would address the
causes of 87% of all accidents, before taking our money for the 13%. I
see plenty of the latter, and absolutely NONE of the former. Even if
the 33% statistic is correct, they are making hay about one-third of
accidents, and doing nothing about the other two-thirds.
Speed cameras are portrayed as a panacea for road safety. They are not.
Given all the other abuse I have to suffer as a motorist, I feel that
they are part of an orchestrated campaign to deprive me of my mobility
by discouraging me from using my car.
There is a law against travelling over 70MPH on an open motorway on a
clear sunny day. A camera will penalise you for doing that. If the
camera doesn't get you, then in future, a black box will. Speed is a
factor in between 13% and 33% of RTA's depending on whose lies you
believe. I am sure on occasion I have strayed to 71MPH on a motorway,
especially in cars that don't have cruise control. I am therefore a
potential murderer. (Although I'm only a potential murderer in the UK.
And not on the Isle of Man. In France, I can drive about 85MPH before I
suddenly become a potential murderer. In Germany, on certain
roads, I can never be a potential murderer, although I could suddenly
become an actual murderer.)
Similarly, there is a law against actual murder. If between 13% and 33%
of those murders occur in a home, then perhaps in future, they could
put camera in everyone's house to stop those actual murders from occurring or at least automatically provide proof of the crime. After all, if you don't actually
murder people in your house, then you've got no reason to rail against
the idea, do you? You want those lives to be saved, don't you? It could
be your child's life that gets saved, after all. And if those cameras
happen to catch you fiddling on your taxes, well, you should be doing
that either, should you. And
they can start serving automatic ASBO's for things like picking your
nose or scratching your privates. So we'll all be better behaved, and
the world will be a better place.
Sounds wonderful. Sign me up.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:37 |
thepits wrote:
livvy wrote:
Surely though Nigel we should always
be travelling at a speed in the first place, that we can take in all
the information that is available to us & pertinent (I include the
speed limit sign in this). If we can't aren't we driving beyond our
capabilities & that is dangerous.
|
Rubbish! You are stating here that the posted speed limit is the SAFE limit on that road - that is tosh!
The safe speed limit on ANY road depends on many factors.
70mph on a motorway in the driving rain and fog is stupid - but legal!
100mph on an empty motorway at 2am is safe but illegal!!! |
Where am I saying that ?
Nigel is saying that we can't see the speed limit sign because we are concentrating on the other hazard.
I am saying if that is the case we should be going slower because it is
obviously too fast to process all of the importnat information that is
available to us (important includes what the road signs are (all of
them))
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:41 |
I'm saying we may miss it due to other factors, and assuming we don't have local knowledge of our entire road network, this is forgivable.
So, if scameras are not there to make money, repeaters every hundred yards or so would be good wouldn't they ?
So where are they ?
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:42 |
Nigel wrote:
No Livvy, I disagree with you.
There can be so much information to take in, you can't possibly do
it all, and the local council and the highways department are
responsible for large amounts of sinage overload on our roads.
You prioritise what you are seeing, subconciously, and with experience. |
I happen to think that the speed limit sign showing a reduction is very
important & should be one of your priorities. It is indicative for
your anticipation & planning of extra hazards ahead. You shoudn't
be waiting until you can physically see them to start your plans when
the signs are giving you that advance warning.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:43 |
Nigel wrote:
I'm saying we may miss it due to other factors, and assuming we don't have local knowledge of our entire road network, this is forgivable. So, if scameras are not there to make money, repeaters every hundred yards or so would be good wouldn't they ?
So where are they ? |
It's 2 (or maybe 3!) against one here Nigel - is that fair???
Even if livvy is wrong!
Edited by thepits
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:45 |
Nigel wrote:
I'm saying we may miss it due to other factors, and
assuming we don't have local knowledge of our entire road network, this
is forgivable.
So, if scameras are not there to make money, repeaters every hundred yards or so would be good wouldn't they ?
So where are they ? |
I see repeaters all over the place, except 30's where they are
forbidden, but that doesn't matter as we know with street lamps closer
than 185m apart & no repeaters these are 30's, or no street lamps & no repeaters National speed limits.
I do travel at a speed that I can process that information in the first
place though. What are the other more important factors ?
Edited by livvy
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:48 |
livvy wrote:
I do travel at a speed that I can process that information in the first place though. |
So that's 70mph on a motorway / dual carriageway then?
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:48 |
livvy wrote:
Nigel wrote:
No Livvy, I disagree with you.
There can be so much information to take in, you can't possibly do it all, and the local council and the highways department are responsible for large amounts of sinage overload on our roads.
You prioritise what you are seeing, subconciously, and with experience.
|
I happen to think that the speed limit sign showing a reduction is very important & should be one of your priorities. It is indicative for your anticipation & planning of extra hazards ahead. You shoudn't be waiting until you can physically see them to start your plans when the signs are giving you that advance warning.
|
I dissagree with you entirely Livvy.
One of my local area's stunts is to put speed limit changes right at traffic islands, busy ones at that, the last thing you should be looking for here is road signs.
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:50 |
thepits wrote:
livvy wrote:
I do travel at a speed that I can process that information in the first place though. |
So that's 70mph on a motorway / dual carriageway then? |
That's the maximum where posted as such (not all dual carriageways are
National Speed limits after all). Also depend on whether I'm driving
other vehicles to which different limits apply.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:50 |
livvy wrote:
I happen to think that the speed limit sign showing a reduction is very
important & should be one of your priorities. It is indicative for
your anticipation & planning of extra hazards ahead. You shoudn't
be waiting until you can physically see them to start your plans when
the signs are giving you that advance warning.
|
Yes, because the signage is always 100% accurate and believable, isn't
it? I mean, I've never wasted 15 minutes in one lane because a sign
warned of a lane closure ahead which never materialised. Similarly, I
have never come over a blind rise to find a bunch of workmen in the
road with no warning.
I'll just keep my eyes on the signage then!
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:52 |
Nigel wrote:
I dissagree with you entirely Livvy.
One of my local area's stunts is to put speed limit changes right
at traffic islands, busy ones at that, the last thing you should
be looking for here is road signs. |
Well I disagree Nigel. I don't think Safety is negotiable & if you
can't take in all the important details (which includes signs) &
you are getting information overload, then you must slow down. It is
folly not to.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:53 |
spokey wrote:
Yes, because the signage is always 100% accurate and believable, isn't it? I mean, I've never wasted 15 minutes in one lane because a sign warned of a lane closure ahead which never materialised. Similarly, I have never come over a blind rise to find a bunch of workmen in the road with no warning.
I'll just keep my eyes on the signage then!
|
Yes, let's just slip O/T for a while - "Lane closed to protect workforce"
9 o-clock at night, no workforce, no machinery, no evidence of any work at all, just loads of cones, and.................
a speed camera set at 50 - or even 40mph
why????????????????
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:57 |
spokey wrote:
Yes, because the signage is always 100% accurate and believable, isn't
it? I mean, I've never wasted 15 minutes in one lane because a sign
warned of a lane closure ahead which never materialised. Similarly, I
have never come over a blind rise to find a bunch of workmen in the
road with no warning.
I'll just keep my eyes on the signage then!
|
Have I said that you must only observe signage ?
Of course you mustn't, but you have to consider what it says &
build it into your driving plans, that is prudent. Any signs missed are
an opportunity for information missed. The more information we have the
more accurate & well considered our driving plans will be.
If I gave you a briefing sheet as we are going out on a track day &
I said you've got to read it between here & the car, you wouldn't
rush to the car, you'd slow yourself down to take in all the
information. If you don't you are putting yourself & others at
risk, it's no good then complaining but I didn't have time because I
rushed to the car & wanted to get out on the track.
Edited by livvy
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:59 |
thepits wrote:
Yes, let's just slip O/T for a while - "Lane closed to protect workforce"
9 o-clock at night, no workforce, no machinery, no evidence of any work at all, just loads of cones, and.................
a speed camera set at 50 - or even 40mph
why????????????????
|
I don't know, but it is not for us to decide on what is an
appropriate speed over that posted limit. We are only allowed to decide
that up to it as a maximum.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:59 |
livvy wrote:
Nigel wrote:
I dissagree with you entirely Livvy.
One of my local area's stunts is to put speed limit changes right
at traffic islands, busy ones at that, the last thing you should
be looking for here is road signs. |
Well I disagree Nigel. I don't think Safety is negotiable & if you
can't take in all the important details (which includes signs) &
you are getting information overload, then you must slow down. It is
folly not to.
|
I agree safety is not negotiable. Unfortunately, the only person
responsible is the motorist. The Highways Agency or whoever can put up
as much road signage as they want, wherever they want, and it's up to
the motorist to decode it. I would have thought it would be far better
to provide the motorist with useful information at a managed pace that
allows the motorist to also consider things like kids running into the
road from between parked cars, etc.
If the Highways Agency (or whoever) posts a bunch of spurious signage,
then we have to slow down AND get distracted from watching out for
other road users.
If I have to be a careful driver, why can't they employ careful sign-putter-uppers?
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:01 |
livvy wrote:
I don't know, but it is not for us to decide on what is an appropriate speed over that posted limit. We are only allowed to decide that up to it as a maximum. |
TWADDLE! Big Brother State and all that! Not for us to decide indeed!!!!!!!
I retract my apology!
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:02 |
spokey wrote:
I agree safety is not negotiable. Unfortunately, the only person
responsible is the motorist. The Highways Agency or whoever can put up
as much road signage as they want, wherever they want, and it's up to
the motorist to decode it. I would have thought it would be far better
to provide the motorist with useful information at a managed pace that
allows the motorist to also consider things like kids running into the
road from between parked cars, etc.
If the Highways Agency (or whoever) posts a bunch of spurious signage,
then we have to slow down AND get distracted from watching out for
other road users.
If I have to be a careful driver, why can't they employ careful sign-putter-uppers?
|
In my experience lack of signage poses a greater risk than over signage on our roads.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:04 |
thepits wrote:
livvy wrote:
I don't know, but it is not for us to
decide on what is an appropriate speed over that posted limit. We are
only allowed to decide that up to it as a maximum. | TWADDLE! Big Brother State and all that! Not for us to decide indeed!!!!!!!
I retract my apology! |
What do you mean big brother state.
Where does it say we can decide what is an appropraite speed to travel
at above the speed limit & when has it ever said we can do that ?
It says we can only decide on an appropriate speed up to & not beyond it.
That's not twaddle it's the law & has clearly been stated as such for a long long time.
Edited by livvy
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:07 |
livvy wrote:
In my experience lack of signage poses a greater risk than over signage on our roads. |
More twaddle! How can you possibly say that?
There have been numerous reports about the amount of useless signage on our roads leading to confusion...
How long is your "experience" anyway?
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|