Sky news vote. Speed cameras

@ livvy :- please answer me this  why am i stopped in my car at 3.am & asked what i am doing out on the road at that time in the morning  ( i work in a night club at weekends )  are we under curfew in "good old blighty "??? That was Friday night/ Sat morning. Stopped again Sat night/Sunday morning by THE SAME TWO GUYS?????  still needed to hand in my doc's at local police station to verify i am who i said i was.Should have seen the look on the desk bloke's face as i produced 2 slips for two successive days . and please don't tell me they were checking if i was out burgling houses as that is old hat!!!

I know it has nothing to do with the "Speeding " post just need an "informed" opinion

Edited by shorty

shorty wrote: @ livvy :- please answer me this  why am i stopped in my car at 3.am & asked what i am doing out on the road at that time in the morning  ( i work in a night club at weekends )  are we under curfew in "good old blighty "??? That was Friday night/ Sat morning. Stopped again Sat night/Sunday morning by THE SAME TWO GUYS?????  still needed to hand in my doc's at local police station to verify i am who i said i was.Should have seen the look on the desk bloke's face as i produced 2 slips for two successive days . and please don't tell me they were checking if i was out burgling houses as that is old hat!!! I know it has nothing to do with the "Speeding " post just need an "informed" opinion

I am sorry but I have no idea why they stopped you.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: thepits wrote: livvy wrote: The speed limits are based around one ability level & it's not the highest ability level. . no they're not! They are there because of a knee-jerk reaction years ago to a shortage of fuel! I've said it here before, speed limits were introduced a long long time ago, before fuel shortage concerns. Drivers were prosecuted for speeding over 100 years ago. They have been adjusted through the passage of time, but to levels that all should be expected to be able to operate safely within & decide on a safe speed for the circumstances upto & not beyond that limit. http://www.checkyourspeed.org.uk/fe/default.asp?n1=1&n2= 6

OK, I'll accept there were already pockets of 30/40/50mph speed-limits already in place - so I'll rephrase it to read "A Blanket speed limit (of 70mph) was introduced years & years ago ..."

livvy wrote: The 70mph limit has been in force since 22nd December 1965..

My, that was some time ago, when most cars could only manage 70mph - and don't ask about braking distances.. but then again the amount of cars on the road were a lot less than nowadays.

How many times has the national speed limit been addressed?

It's ok saying that the limit should be raised - but wouldn't that make it more dangerous when there are slower vehicles on the road as well (usualy sitting in the centre lane)?

Good link Livvy.
Though I thought cats work best when hot, emmisions go down the harder they are worked..

I agree with what one of the chaps wrote about Scotland, the roads up there are a lot emptier than down here.

"It has been pointed out in another place that an estimated 19 per cent of those who travel on motorways already do so at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour, while perhaps 50 per cent exceed 70 miles per hour."

If this is so, how can emmisions be accuratly tested if 69% of motorists are going above 70 mph?

..it's getting late so I must have passed the section with ref: to noise polution, can you point me to it?

livvy wrote: You do care what their polls say or you wouldn't feel strongly about the issue.

Sorry, you misunderstand me. When I say I don't care it's because I don't believe them. Obvioulsey I do care about the issue and the fact that I think the general public is being sold a misconception to justify speed cameras.

livvy wrote: If you want raw data, try the camera partnerships themselves under Freedom of Information Act.

How do I contact my local partnership?

This whole issue reminds me of an American organisation called the PMRC or Parents and Music Resource Centre. In the 80s the set about trying to get rock musuc banned because it was evil, full of subliminal messages, etc etc. None of this was true but it did get several bands banned from certain venues and states. These people were convinced that they were not to blame for their kids going off the rails that they looked to the music they listened to so that they could find a scapegoat. If my child goes into a school with a shot gun it because he listens to Ozzy Ozbourne, not because of me or the fact that he is bullied. You know the sort of thing.

Now lots of well meaning do gooders look at the accident statistics and want to find someone to blame. Some of these people may even have been in a crash or lost relatives so thier view point may not be as objective as it should. Desperate to find a group of people to blame for the deaths they decide it's the fault of speeding motorists. These are the evil that terrorise our roads, that kill of family members, that endanger our lives.......and what about the children, won't somebody think of the children.. 

So these people set up lobby groups and start to campaign about speed etc and when some of them get into government they start to get their own way.....

However, IMO, most motorists are part of the problem. Accidents are caused by bad driving, by being tired, by a lack of attention, by poor judgement, by stupidity. I would reckon almost all drivers at some point suffer from one or more of the above and none of them are adequately addressed by speed cameras

The problem is if we accept this then these do gooders have to admit that the reason that little Billy was killed was down to a behaviour that they themselves sometimes exhibit. They have to admit that they are as much a part of the problem as the rest of us.

Yes if you slow cars down impacts will be slower and injuries will be reduced, but how many crashes actually occur at above the speed limit? Would those crashes have not happened had the driver not been braking the speed limit. Would the driver have been safe at that speed if he had been leaving a big enough gap, or actually been awake, or below the drink drive limit, or on the right side of the road, or paying attention.

 

Edited by Peter Fenwick

livvy wrote: So many people don't vary their speed according to circumstances. Speed limits try to address that by giving them a heads up, an idea of what is a safe maximum (with a good margin of safety built in).

Yep. That's right livvy, you can fix EVERYTHING by a speed limit, like you keep telling us. So why not make things even safer (since this is all about safety) and introduce a blanket speed limit of 20MPH on all roads under all conditions?

Deaths will plummet, serious injuries will plummet, noise will decrease, fuel consumption will decrease, I just can't see any down side. I mean, if safety is the goal, then that is what they should do.

livvy wrote: The 70mph limit has been in force since 22nd December 1965, (initially on a four month trial basis, but was left in permanently at the end of the trial)

livvy wrote: & was brought in following a succession of serious collisions.

 

Peter Fenwick wrote: I thought the 70mph limit came in because of car makers using the new M1 to test their cars top speed?

The actual limit was introduced following collisions. The testing of cars on the M1 did happen as well (in particular an AC Cobra), but that just cemented the view that limits were required on safety grounds.

I have said that they go for speeding because it's easy.
I have said that training offers greater long term benefits.

If they asked everyone to resit their driving test tomorrow millions (including a sizeable portion here no doubt) would lose their licence to drive. The effects to the economy as a whole would be catastrophic.
It's not that people don't improve their driving, it's that they actually get worse. People don't retain what they learnt & practice it (including keeping within limits which they did for their test), they think because they passed their test & they've been driving a few years they know it all. Most people need to drive & points for speeding are not about trying to get people off the road, they are about giving people a chance to change. The Police don't want to see people disqualified, the courts don't want to & the government don't want to. They all want people to obey the limits & drive safely.

People don't drive to the golden safety rule of being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear on their side of the road (1/2 braking rules for single track). They don't further adjust that for poor surface conditions. They don't lose speed as they lose vision. They don't lose speed the closer they have to go to unsighted areas & as a result when they see a hazard late they are carrying too much speed to deal with it safely.
Now the primary cause may be their lack of observation or poor assessment, but the extra speed they were carrying is the killer blow because they don't have enough time.

As I said before our speed limits are generous to safety, more than progress to allow for people's skill or lack of.

Addressing the observation skills is in the short term too hard to address, but in the long term it is the ultimate goal.
Addressing the secondary factor (speed) is easier & will give more instant results.

I say again I don't think attacking speeding is the only answer but it helps because it gives people more time to cover their other ineffeciences.


Edited by livvy

I always thought the first road to have a speed limit imposed was the M6 - round about the same time as the E-Type Jag came about (from a pub quiz btw )