| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
dutch 
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
 Posted: 22-January-2006 at 16:18 |
|
are you advocating the use of speed limiters on all vehicles would bring down the rta stats?
|
|
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 22-January-2006 at 16:23 |
 dutch wrote:
are you advocating the use of speed limiters on all vehicles would bring down the rta stats? |
I'd rather we didn't have to go down that route. Perosnally I'd rather people observe the limits themselves. It is something the government are seriously looking at though & testing has already taken place in this country (& other countries in Europe). With some devices tested they sound a warning in the car & record your transgression, other devices physically stop you going over the limit.
Edited by livvy
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
Rhys
Moderator Group
Coffee addict...
Joined: 02-February-2003
Location: from the Latin locātiō
Status: Offline
Points: 10053
|
Posted: 22-January-2006 at 16:35 |
Nigel wrote:
Rhys wrote:
One thing that I do find helps, are those signs that light up to say you are going too fast.. It makes you take notice of your speed and alter it accordingly. |
You will be amazed ( and I don't say this smugly), as to how that doesn't happen once you've passed your advanced test and practised it a little. |
why, do you have a gizmo that turns them off? 
Personaly speaking I don't set these things off as they are there for a reason, and the ones in villages that actualy tell you your speed have have shown me to have been slightly under the limit by a few mph.
|
|
V reg Rustbucket Merc C220 Cdi estate
J Reg Saab 900i 16v
'63 Ford Anglia 105e deluxe
R reg Honda PC50 moped..
No BMW as yet...
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 22-January-2006 at 17:24 |
livvy wrote:
It's not demonstrably safer.
He appears to
be working from a simplistic view that you are travelling slower than
the flow so it is safer for you to go with the flow. What he is not
accounting for is others that don't do that. Others who's speed will
now have a greater differential because of your increase to go with the
faster vehicles. There is no mention of them.
|
So you're saying it's safer to be one of the few, slower cars and have
all the faster cars have a 15MPH (or whatever) differential and you
STILL have a 15MPH differential with HGV's?
As opposed to having NO differential with the mass of traffic and a bigger differential with a few HGV's?
(And I think I'm fairly safe in saying there would only be a few HGV's
if the flow was in excess of the speed limit, because HGV's choke up
traffic flow very quickly if there are many of them.)
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
Peter Fenwick
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 05:01 |
livvy wrote:
dutch wrote:
are you advocating the use of speed limiters on all vehicles would bring down the rta stats? |
I'd rather we didn't have to go down that route. Perosnally I'd rather people observe the limits themselves. It is something the government are seriously looking at though & testing has already taken place in this country (& other countries in Europe). With some devices tested they sound a warning in the car & record your transgression, other devices physically stop you going over the limit. |
If they are introduced they'll last until they are the cause of a death on the road. However they aren't likely to be introduced since Labour aren't lilkely to win the next election.
Stopping speeders isn't about road safety. I don't care what any load of governement statsitics tells us. It is about having a law and enforcing it. There is anoyance at people breaking a law so it is being enforced more vigorousley, it's as simple as that. It is about control. The more ways the state controls us the more likley we are to be compliant with other issues. The more laws we feel we can get away with breaking, the more likley we are to flaut other rules/regulations. It's similar to how you deal with a child. If you set a rule and the child breaks that then you need to punish the child otherwise it will think it can get away with breaking other rules. What the actual rule is is irrelevant. Simple psycology.
|
|
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
|
|
B 7 VP
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 04-November-2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1115
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 09:42 |
[QUOTE=livvy]
I'd rather we didn't have to go down that route. Perosnally I'd rather people observe the limits themselves. It is something the government are seriously looking at though & testing has already taken place in this country (& other countries in Europe). With some devices tested they sound a warning in the car & record your transgression, other devices physically stop you going over the limit.
At first your comments were of some interest-----NOW!!! they sound like a brainwashed Dalek.Where will all the transgressors go for their Electric shock treatment Or will we have built in equipment to punish us as we drive with suitable voice advice.
|
|
SAFETYFAST
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 10:46 |
B 7 VP wrote:
livvy wrote:
I'd rather we didn't have to go down that route. Perosnally I'd rather people observe the limits themselves. It is something the government are seriously looking at though & testing has already taken place in this country (& other countries in Europe). With some devices tested they sound a warning in the car & record your transgression, other devices physically stop you going over the limit. |
At first your comments were of some interest-----NOW!!! they sound like a brainwashed Dalek.Where will all the transgressors go for their Electric shock treatment Or will we have built in equipment to punish us as we drive with suitable voice advice. |
Merely reporting what's happening in the real world (not a ABD censored private one) Read that ruling yet ? 
Edited by livvy
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 10:50 |
Peter Fenwick wrote:
If they are introduced they'll last until they are the cause of a death on the road. However they aren't likely to be introduced since Labour aren't lilkely to win the next election. |
Do you really think there is going to be a massive change in road policy & speed enforcement by any other party that get in ? Do you really think that all GATSOs will be removed overnight ? Do you think ANPR will abolished ? I personally don't think so. That doesn't mean I am saying that limiters are definitely coming, they are just being looked at as a form of compliance with limits (both here & abroad). Having said that TFL have openly said that they are looking at all buses, taxis & council vehicles being fitted with them. They will effectively create a lot of rolling "pace" cars if they do. Tax breaks & incentives may well encourage business fleets to do likewise. If the governemnet do that they don't need to force limiters on you because there'll be so many vehicles with them fitted that they perform rolling speed limit enforcement. You'll be in a line of traffic unable to overtake & just paying more than those with limiters fitted for the privilege of doing so.
Stopping speeders isn't about road safety. I don't care what any load of governement statsitics tells us. It is about having a law and enforcing it. There is anoyance at people breaking a law so it is being enforced more vigorousley, it's as simple as that. It is about control. The more ways the state controls us the more likley we are to be compliant with other issues. The more laws we feel we can get away with breaking, the more likley we are to flaut other rules/regulations. It's similar to how you deal with a child. If you set a rule and the child breaks that then you need to punish the child otherwise it will think it can get away with breaking other rules. What the actual rule is is irrelevant. Simple psycology.
|
Forget about the enforcement for a minute..... why do we have speed limits then ?
Edited by livvy
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 13:20 |
livvy wrote:
Forget about the enforcement for a minute..... why do we have speed limits then ? |
As I understand it, it's because some car-hating old bag who didn't
even have a driving license got the hump about someone doing 150MPH on
the M1.
Personally, I'd have thought a police officer would know that.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 13:24 |
spokey wrote:
As I understand it, it's because some car-hating old bag who didn't
even have a driving license got the hump about someone doing 150MPH on
the M1. |
We had speed limits long before motorways & they were introduced on motorways because of collisions on them when they first opened.
Personally, I'd have thought a police officer would know that.
|
Just keep on guessing.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
Peter Fenwick
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 15:17 |
livvy wrote:
Peter Fenwick wrote:
If they are introduced they'll last until they are the cause of a death on the road. However they aren't likely to be introduced since Labour aren't lilkely to win the next election. |
Do you really think there is going to be a massive change in road policy & speed enforcement by any other party that get in ?
|
No, I don't think any party entering power will actually remove any of the measures put in place by the previous government. However I don't think they would introduce limiters themselves. I am talking about the conservative party. Like them or not, they have a less controlling attitiude to the genral public that the current labout party do.
livvy wrote:
Forget about the enforcement for a minute..... why do we have speed limits then ?
|
I don't know. Because people were scared of cars in the early days. They did used to make them drive around with a man in front waving a red flag. Hardley a rational response to the motor car. However it is irrelevant now why we have them. The fact of the matter is it has become more about enforcement than safety.
|
|
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 15:27 |
|
The limits are a safety measure.
It's then about enforcing that safety measure.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 15:41 |
livvy wrote:
The limits are a safety measure. |
Are they? I thought they were a means of dumbing down driving because
people did not drive safely. Instead of making better drivers of us,
the government has chosen a mechanism that is used to:
a) treat us all as bad drivers
b) act as a target for blind enforcement
c) alienate the public
d) generate revenue
e) arbitrarily make criminals of us all
Love the reasoning.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 15:54 |
|
I agree it's dumbing down, but that doesn't mean it's not a safety measure for doing that.
a) Being unable to stick to the limits is one form of bad driving.
b) It is impressed upon drivers that the limit is not indicative that it is safe to travel at that speed. It is a maximum if the circumstances are safe.
c) You say so, but is that the view of the majority of the public. Is it that distasteful to them. The governemnt still managed to get re-elected with these policies.
d) Road Policing & enforcement costs more than the money netted from speeding.
e) Only you make yourself a criminal by failing to adhere to the law.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
dutch
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:12 |
b) It is impressed upon drivers that the limit is not indicative that it is safe to travel at that speed. It is a maximum if the circumstances are safe.
why is 70 safer than 80 the car has evolved roads are better the limit is outdated set in 1967!
|
|
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:15 |
|
The driver is the weak link though & there are more of them on the roads.
I've said before, safety alone isn't why the limit has remained at 70. There are environmental reasons as well.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
scarface
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 16-June-2004
Location: Surrey, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 414
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:16 |
|
Surprisingly, I don't believe the current national speed limit should be raised, if it was then people would eventually start to drive 10-15mph faster than that. And that is a scary thought considering some of the drivers out there.
What I do think is that less emphasis should be placed on speed enforcement. There have always been speed limits and always been people prosecuted for speeding. But recently it has got fanatical. A return to the situation not so long ago where the police were too busy to deal with speeding unless you were being stupid.
The best way to make our roads safer is with a rethink of the mandatory level of training and skill required to be on the road.
Edited by scarface
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:24 |
scarface wrote:
Surprisingly, I don't believe the current national speed limit should be raised, if it was then people would eventually start to drive 10-15mph faster than that. And that is a scary thought considering some of the drivers out there. |
I agree
What I do think is that less emphasis should be placed on speed enforcement. There have always been speed limits and always been people prosecuted for speeding. But recently it has got fanatical. A return to the situation not so long ago where the police were too busy to deal with speeding unless you were being stupid. |
But prosecuting is within the spirit of the legislation, i.e. the will of parliament. If it was intended that danger had to be present or stupidity, then they need never have introduced the offence of excess speed. people could be dealt with under careless or inconsiderate driving etc. The absolute offence of excess speed was introduced because it is preventative. i.e. they don't want people to get to the stupid stage because that means danger is present. They want to nip it in the bud before there it gets stupid & before it becomes dangerous. You can still of course be prosecuted under those other offences at speeds below our current limits where there is evidence that the speed is inappropriate.
The best way to make our roads safer is with a rethink of the mandatory level of training and skill required to be on the road.
|
Again I don't disagree that this is the best method & has the greatest long term benefit. It however costs more & takes longer.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
dutch
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:34 |
|
Again I don't disagree that this is the best method & has the greatest long term benefit.
It however costs more & takes longer.
this is my point train new drivers to IAM standards to start with,cost shouldn't come into it insurance premimuns should reflect the efforts of the training. a 45min test is way short of the mark
|
|
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:36 |
livvy wrote:
e) Only you make yourself a criminal by failing to adhere to the law.
|
Yes, livvy.
There is, however, an enormous difference between driving along and not
causing anyone any bother, and raping, murdering or thieving.
If I drive along on my own, not in a rush, not trying to find the
limits of my car, just ambling along, and I accidentally stray just ONE
MPH over the speed limit, and some bloody-minded scameraman just
happens to be there, I am a criminal.
I'm now arbitrarily classified as a criminal, a law-breaker, despite having no intention of causing harm, nor have I actually caused any harm.
If I saw as much effort being
expended on catching car thieves or burglars as there is on catching
speeding motorists, I might be less aggravated.
But I don't see any police at all, ever.
Scameras are by far the most visible policing I see, and since I don't agree with it as a means of policing or
as a means of achieving safer roads, and I don't believe in the ethos
of "speed kills", nothing you have said to date has even dented my
belief that speed persecution and scameras are an insult to motorists.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
A risk analysis of speeding