A risk analysis of speeding

This thread has been going on for some time now and perhaps its time for a time out!!!

You may want to consider this in the discussion;

The law is there as guidance and within it there are tolerances; and tolerances elsewhere.

There is a tolerance within the speedometer in the car - when it says 40 mph you are probably doing no more than 37 mph.

There is a tolerance within the speed camera; when the limit is 40 mph you wont normally get your picture taken unless you're over 46 mph (I think, that needs checked out and may be different in different areas).

Combine these 2 and it could well be that although your speedometer says 80 (ish) your probably only doing 75 (ish) and the camera wont get you unless your actual speed is over 77 (ish).

Not all cameras have film in them, another tolerance.

Guidance to warn you where the speed cameras are, or may be, is available through GPS systems, and even included in some road maps,

Guidance in local newspapers and on local radio saying where the mobile speed cameras are, or may be, is available on the web.

If you get caught, your caught fair* and square. 

�Ah but Officer its just wan wee murder� said Billy Connelly in his younger days �..  You�ve got to draw a line somewhere and as written above drivers have a pretty wide fuzzy one before they race over it!

*I don�t think its fair for the Police to run around in unmarked high performance cars.  Have them by all means but be open and honest about it.  That was the open and honest approach �welcomed� by drivers when speed cameras came out from behind the road signs!

* Hand held speed cameras are unfair.

After 40 years I think limits, particularly on motorways, should be increased to take into account the substantial improvements in car and road safety. 

PS If you do 80 mph over 100 miles (1 hour 15 minutes) you�ll only be 10 minutes ahead of the guy doing 70 (1 hour 25 minutes).  Given that you're unlikely to get 100 miles of unhindered driving in the UK you probably wouldn�t have time to get out and lock your door before the 70 mph man came up the road behind you!

spokey wrote: Nigel wrote: How about, scameras have absolutely nothing to do with road safety. They are there to enforce the law...period. Now what arguement do you have ? That would be a lovely statement of the truth. Apart from the bit it's missing: "And collect more revenue from motorists." The arbitrary nature of the law leaves me with little doubt that it is unfair and unjust. It is very easy for your speed to vary by a couple of MPH. You might get a cramp, or sneeze, or whatever, and in that second, you could get snapped. What do you say when a road has had NO accidents on it, but because of activism, the speed limit gets dropped by 10 MPH? Yesterday, I was doing 60 safely and responsibly on this road, today, on the same stretch of road in the same conditions, I'm a crazy law-breaker, exceeding the speed limit by 20%!! The whole problem for me is that speeding is criminalised because the government is unwilling to expend a bit of effort and make us all better, safer, smoother drivers; and keep us like that. The philosophy is NOT "let's make better drivers", it's "we can't be @rsed to do anything about making it better, so let's just make it slower." The problem with this approach is that it further defers the issue and makes an actual correction even less likely. I really would not be surprised within my lifetime to find a ridiculous blanket speed limit, like 40MPH and there will STILL be idiots killing themselves because they still can't drive and there will still be pious, sanctimonious morons like Transport 2000 advocating even slower limits. So, starting from the perspective that the philosophy is wrong, the law that "defends" the philosophy is also wrong, then the enforcement of that law is ALSO wrong. Cameras enforce the law, I can't argue with that. I can argue with the value of the law, though. I can argue with the arbitrary nature of the law, as well. I can definitely argue with the reasoning behind the law as well.

Spot on Spokey

another roundabout thread I see.

Just so it doesn't get left out, every single camera system, and everything that doesn't involve an immediate stop, only ever hits the majority of (generally) law-abiding citizens.

Those who are: insured, correctly registered, etc.

As per ususal, Johnny chav -who picked up a dog for a 'couple of ton' and can't even write his own name, let alone fill in a V5 - gets off scot-free.

Fantastic system you advocate!   

this is the problem these people are not shown the rules of the motorway how to drive what the signs are what to do if you break down, but because they demonstrated they can drive carefully at 28mph around town,we let them on the motorways because they have every right to be there.

then when theres and rta we can all say its speed its careless but what it is is negligence on behalf of the powers to be allowing this in the first place

Its a basic test.

Like everything else, it needs practise.

Lots & lots of very good training out there for peanuts.

How about ( this is never going to happen, but here goes), any current licenced drivers will have their entitlement to drive removed on 31/12/06, unless they can produce a recognised advanced driving certificate.

That tough enough for you ?

Its never going to happen though spokey, so its just on with the push to get people to do it volunterily.

May I organise you an assessment drive ?