So many questions...

The law on use of radios etc is very strange

I cannot hold my mobile phone...

I can hold the mic of my ham radio

The police  (and the other services) are exempt for radio use, as are taxi drivers, and ham radio operators.

If I were to have an accident whilst holding the mic of my ham radio, it would count against me, as it would the police officer etc, but to actually hold it is not an offence.

Strangely, if you were talking on a hands free mobile phone and had an accident, and it became apparent you were using the phone, I'm advised you would be deemed to not be in proper control of the car.

Its a complete mess, and this is what happens when the government tries to spin safety.

As for smoking in the car whilst driving.....get lost lol, but that is a personal opinion !!

It is stupid Toby, it really is, I can only advise you what I know to be the regs, I cant justify them mate.

I hope they dont try and ban smoking, I try to stay within the law, but I doubt I'd adhere to that.

Just something to make you smile Toby.

I have a Tom Tom Go sat nav system, a snooper radar detector, and a road angel gps camera detector, it was pointed out to me recently, by one of my collegues who doesnt like these devices, that all three units are mounted so as to be within the sweep of my windscreen wipers, making all of them illegal, well the mounting of them anyway !

He deserved that....american tv is rubbish

On the subject of smoking while driving

Why dont the people get pulled over for flinging the fag end out the window?

I mean dont they have ashtrays in there cars!!

I agree it has all gone a bit mad at the moment, although I don't think people should use mobile phones while driving. I've been behind someone who all of a sudden slows down and started to drift around a bit, then I noticed they were on the phone! I only tried to use a handheld phone once while driving and found it impossible to concentrate on the road, some thing I have no problem doing while talking to a passenger, eating an apple, smoking a fag (when I used to smoke).

Skull your right, no ones interested in actually addressing the real causes of accidents anymore. I got my first speeding ticket yesterday, for doing 38mph in a 30 zone. It wasn't a built up area however, it was a temporary speed limit for road works on a dual carridgeway. I musn't have slowed down quickly enough. I wouldn't car the limit comes into force anout 1/2 a mile before the road works. £60 and three points

Nigel wrote:   I hope they dont try and ban smoking, I try to stay within the law, but I doubt I'd adhere to that.

banning smoking ..hmmmm doesnt bear thinking about does it.....all that road rage .incidents would be up ten fold if smoking was banned.i for one [whos is so nice to other road users] carnt get the 5 mile trip in to the city centre without having at least 2 marlboros .and a red bull .

what would that same trip mean to someone who has the a short fuse???

spokey wrote: I think the safety nazis are waaayyyy out of control in this time and place. You can't do this, you must do that, what a load of BS. Especially when you compare the amount of emphasis given to bashing drivers and making our lives unbearable. I don't really like it when people use their mobiles, it definitely distracts people a lot more than most other things, and I don't really know why. You can almost always tell from someone's driving when they're on a mobile, they slow down for no apparent reason and tend to drive without any clue what so ever. However, picking on someone for taking a swig out of a bottle or having a fag is ludicrous.

I couldnt agree more

spokey wrote: Here is an interesting statistic: did you know that hospital acquired infections from the government-managed NHS directly kill nearly twice as many people as all the traffic accidents in the UK? And that they contribute to the deaths of 5-6 times as many people again? If you look at actual accident statistics and not the Big Lie of 33%, then speed directly kills only about 7% of all the traffic accident victims and contributes to about another 5% (my numbers are hazy but I think I'm in the right ballpark) All this means is that for every person killed on the roads, where excessive speed was in any way a contributory factor, the NHS directly kills more that 100 people through not taking care of the hospital superbug and contributes to the death of 300 more people. So, in other words, for every death that excessive speed contributes to, the NHS contributes to the death of 400 others. Now: I don't advocate people dying in traffic accidents, and I agree that accidents should be reduced, but I wonder about all the publicity given to punishing us for speeding because it kills versus actual government work on eradicating the MSRA superbug. I'm also not having a go at any people working for the NHS, let's be clear about that. But the bottom line is that millions of individual motorists are persecuted for causing 0.25% of the preventable deaths that an institution, under direct government control, is responsible for. And then I'm not even including any other thing that the NHS might be doing wrong systemically or through the fault of its employees. It just seems to me that the emphasis is wee bit misguided.

I see your point about the NHS and the MRSA superbug, but stopping people from contracting MRSA is a lot more difficult than you would think. I would say the spread of MRSA has more to do with overusing antibiotics for a long time and the fact that in some cases the bugs appear to be wining the war. 

I do agree that the emphasis on targetting motorists is very misgiuded though and the time and effort could be spent elsewhere.

You talk about the actual RTA stats, do you know where I can find them?  

Nigel wrote: Just something to make you smile Toby. I have a Tom Tom Go sat nav system, a snooper radar detector, and a road angel gps camera detector, it was pointed out to me recently, by one of my collegues who doesnt like these devices, that all three units are mounted so as to be within the sweep of my windscreen wipers, making all of them illegal, well the mounting of them anyway !

Your dashdoard must be on a parr with that of the Nebuchadnezzar(Matrix ship) Nigel.

So many buttons to press, so little time eh?  ...

<Snooper S5i - "beep beep beep beep">  - "Damn, false alarm, it's only a pelican crossing!"

Put mine on Ebay last month, was doing me blinking nut in.

skull wrote: plod are too busy checking numberplate sizes and bike exhausts to worry about anything that may kill a motorcyclist

That would be the traffic department.

Im afraid they lose their power of arrest once they get into their big comfortable motorway car. Its a known phenomenon.
Motorbike exhausts are a lot more interesting than chasing a burglar

Our current government is one huge lie. Take all the money off the motorist, penalise us for all sorts of ridiculous new legislation then claim it all in the name of 'road safety'. The fact of the matter is that Smiley Bliar wants to get as many cars off the roads as possible and get everyone shoehorned onto the inadequate buses and trains - possibility of working in central London, but perhaps not so applicable in the Scottish highlands? Never thought of that one did he?

As someone pointed out recently in a classic car magazine, why should the owner of more than one car be made to pay out two or three times for tax and insurance? Surely road tax covers our right as individuals to use the public highways, not each car. Also could insurance companies not set in place a scheme where an individual is insured not the car? No, and here is why. 25 million vehicles on the roads of which perhaps 10 million are a second car in a household. 100 quid each lost in tax and there goes a billion pounds for the government. Same for insurance companies. Its all about money.

skull wrote: nigel you can download and install onto your tomtom go all the static and mobile cameras info . http://www.pocketgps.co.uk/uksafetycameras.php that should clean up your dash .

Thanks mate, already done it, but thank you anyway.

Its not actually as comprehensive as the road angel, but good anyway.

Just a little exercise for those that wish to join in, give me your reasons why you think speed cameras should be removed, and let me play devils advocate with you

None of the above bear credence of any form when compared to the in car distraction I had this morning.

1 mile from the office (approx.) - spot one of the girls from the office stood beside her car at the roadside.  Clearly car problems.

I stop and discover her car has ran out of petrol because she thought she'd make it to the Shell garage.

So, I run her to the petrol station, get the fuel (she was well prepared I'll say that because she had a plastic fuel container with her, shame it was empty!) and we come back and I get her car started.

What is so distracting about that?

Well, she's, 24, 5'9" with the most perfect figure you can imagine, stunning bright blue eyes, natural blonde, and the legs are to die for.

Now that is what I call a distraction.

She's single too.....shame I'm not....lol

spokey wrote:   Because they are such a big distraction (you pay such close attention to them and your speedo while passing them) that it's the equivalent to driving 10MPH over the speed limit because you're not looking at the world around you. I know it's wrong for me to do this, but I do it. I can't help myself. I read of a case in the paper where the coroner said that this had contributed to someone's death in an RTA and that the camera in question should be removed.

Right, here we go, ( I'm playing devils advocate to try and get some ideas, the answers I'm going to try and give are what I get from my local scamera partnership, and I'm running out of ideas )

Good for the coroner but.......this statement plays straight into the hands of the " hide it brigade ", if it wasnt visable, and you were also not allowed to detect it, it couldnt distract you, you'd just drive to the speed limit.  

spokey wrote:   Because they de-emphasise every other aspect of safe driving.

They do not, they merely enforce the law, and give you a generous margin of 10% + 2 mph, it is illegal to break the posted speed limit.

spokey wrote: Because they form part of a campaign to demonise the motorist and make criminals of us all.

Not at all, they are part of a campaign to highlight the dangers of exceeding the posted speed limit, which has been set to give as much safetly as possible to all road users.

spokey wrote: Because they are used as an excuse to get rid of traffic police.

The amount of traffic police on our roads is a question for the chief constable of that area, he sets his priorities, speed cameras are there merely to enforce a speed limit on a stretch of road where tests have  shown this limit is ignored 

spokey wrote: Only where applicable, but many of them are sited for no other reason than to make money.

They can only make money if you drive outside of the law, if people dont break the limit, the camera will generate no revenue.

spokey wrote: Because they police something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't merit so much policing. The laws on speeding were made 40 years ago, and the capabilities of cars today are far superior to those of 40 years ago.

That is a matter of opinion, as they dont take up police time, in fact they free up officers to get on with other duties, and whilst the performance of the car has improved, the capabiliteis of the driver havent.

It seems dangerous sometimes to me..there you are driving along at 40 mph in a 40 mph limit and the muppet in front jams his brakes on because he sees a camera..

On the motorway (or better example the dual carrigeway) going along nicely at 70 mph and ..slam on the brakes because there is a car in front who has seen a camera and his initial reaction (before taking his eyes off the road YET AGAIN to check his speedo precisely) is to go for the brake.

The only benefit I can see is the exciting challenge I get every day in that I see if I can get away with it again. 

spokey wrote: Because they form part of a campaign to demonise the motorist and make criminals of us all.

They do demoralise the motorist, as pointed out by the IAM, but the type of response you get to this is " dont break the speed limit, if you do then you are indeed a criminal".

spokey wrote: Nigel wrote: spokey wrote:  Because they de-emphasise every other aspect of safe driving. They do not, they merely enforce the law, and give you a generous margin of 10% + 2 mph, it is illegal to break the posted speed limit. There is almost no visible policing of any other aspect of safe driving. The overwhelming preponderence of scameras tells everyone "as long as you don't speed, we won't bother you".

Agreed Spokey, but how does that merit removing the camera ?

Phillip wrote: It seems dangerous sometimes to me..there you are driving along at 40 mph in a 40 mph limit and the muppet in front jams his brakes on because he sees a camera.. On the motorway (or better example the dual carrigeway) going along nicely at 70 mph and ..slam on the brakes because there is a car in front who has seen a camera and his initial reaction (before taking his eyes off the road YET AGAIN to check his speedo precisely) is to go for the brake. The only benefit I can see is the exciting challenge I get every day in that I see if I can get away with it again.

Again this just gives ammunition to the " hide it brigade "

I see your valid point Nigel. And I don't want to appear "stroppy" but its also the serious point of "bad "drivers. These cameras cost money to intall etc..and there is a real issue that all the time there is an increasing number of drivers who drive drunk/drugged, not insured, no tax or MOT. Now I dont know the figures but there seems less police on the road watching drivers than ever before. I do 600 miles a week just to and from work and its a rare sight to see a police car (except parked in the little chef-with no-one in it) from one week to the next.

Over the entire Xmas period I didnt see one car pulled over, and I do drive around at throwing out time, and neither did a single person I know. Now whilst I realise that there are other police duties to be carried out I just feel there is a direct link between cameras and less "police presence" on the road. Peolpe are getting away with serious law breaking as mentioned above. Just to finish off, my own choice would be to see the guy who is drunk or drugged  or uninsured get pulled over--not the guy who goes over the limit at night by a few mph (speeding is bad, yes, but at least if a policeman sees you he can use his judgement to decide if 70 mph in the dead of night in a 60mph limit was actually dangerous or not, a camera has no discresion)

There is a solution to all of this of course.

I bought it and can highly recommend it.

         Road Angel II

Best accessory I have ever bought by far. 

Not forgetting it tells you of black spots, schools etc too.

Hi Coasting, got one 6 months ago and its great..(classic though). Just keep on thinking changing one digit on my number plate is worth the risk???. I will keep considering for a while longer..

I have to say I agree with Spokey's sentiment here.

The point is that no matter what messages are given out by various bodies regarding road safety, partnerships, etc, that police authorities see them as a source of revenue.

There was a fly on the wall article in the Guardian a year or more ago that said officers had been heard saying they'd be deploying more on roads they knew they could mark as "dangerous" and hence have a requirement for the camera's, but that in reality that was a cover-up for them as revenue generators.

Interestingly though, and I didn't know this until last week, there isn't a single Fixed Speed Camera in the whole of North Yorkshire.

I think I'll move back there!

Coasting wrote: Interestingly though, and I didn't know this until last week, there isn't a single Fixed Speed Camera in the whole of North Yorkshire. I think I'll move back there!

Yes but there's frequently a mobile one on the Moor Road between Guisborough and Whitby.

WRT speed cameras, I object to them for two reasons:

1) They are enforcing unrealisticly low speed limits

2) They are not making the roads safer so what is the point other than to make money? Why focus on a crime that doesn't have a victim??

My final though is this. When I was hit by an uninsured driver the police didn't want to know. When my alloy wheels were stolen, the police didn't want to know. When my car stereo was nicked, you guessed it , the police didn't want to know. When I do 38mph on a dual carridgeway with a road work related 30mph speed limit I get nicked.

I'm treated like a criminal yet people who have commited much worse crimes are ignored because there are no resources. Surely the time and effort put into developing cleverer and more complex speed cameras could be put to better use sorting out the problems encountered on almost every highstreet between 11pm and 2am on Friday and Saturday nights.

Nigel wrote: "dont break the speed limit, if you do then you are indeed a criminal".

Speeding does not make you a criminal im afraid, it is a traffic offence.

Nigel wrote: spokey wrote: Because they police something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't merit so much policing. The laws on speeding were made 40 years ago, and the capabilities of cars today are far superior to those of 40 years ago. That is a matter of opinion, as they dont take up police time, in fact they free up officers to get on with other duties, and whilst the performance of the car has improved, the capabiliteis of the driver havent.

I agree with Nigel- if the nut behind the wheel is loose, the car will be dangerous....

cheers

Brucey wrote: Nigel wrote: spokey wrote: Because they police something that, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't merit so much policing. The laws on speeding were made 40 years ago, and the capabilities of cars today are far superior to those of 40 years ago. That is a matter of opinion, as they dont take up police time, in fact they free up officers to get on with other duties, and whilst the performance of the car has improved, the capabiliteis of the driver havent. I agree with Nigel- if the nut behind the wheel is loose, the car will be dangerous....

Are we not taking this a little bit out of context though?

The fact that driving standards haven't improved doesn't make a case for speed camera's.

It makes a case for a sterner Driving Test.

My stance on speed camera's is rather more of a radical approach.

If they have them on a stretch of road, say 5 miles long, and there is a speed camera every 1/2 mile - so be it. I can see that having a marked impact on peoples driving and it would ultimately lessen the number of accidents, I have no doubt.

However, if you have a single speed camera on that road, which everyone becomes aware of and simply slows down for and then accelerates again once beyond it - well I don't see the point other than revenue generation for the unwary driver.

I am sick and tired of seeing traffic brake suddenly for cameras even though they're within the speed limit - it's just an instinctive reaction and whilst I haven't seen such incidence cause an accident I have no doubt that it will have done or will do eventually.

If cameras are truly there to aid road safety then put them everywhere, but not just in the odd stretch of road.

I used to go on the A68 route to Edinburgh yet now I take the A1. 

Why? 

Because of the ridiculous location of the cameras and the way they are set to deliberately catch you out in some parts when your speed simply isn't a danger to other road users or pedestrians (not many on the A68!).

I also think we have to give more merit to the earlier argument about cars being safer and a world apart from those of 40 years ago. 

Whether or not driving standards are better is hugely debateable - especially as the increase in the volume of traffic has to be taken into account.

YOU , I , and the Devils Advocate Know it---Everything on this Subject is purely--POLITICAL-------------- Nothing to do with Geniune concern for a citizens well being, in this Left wing land of ideals of Milk and honeyland.Thinking on a Meglomaniac 1984 'BigBrother' system , the camera,s-- the daily brainwash, LIES what lies oh those lies --say something often enough--and eventually disbelievers -believe it--DONT give em time to start questioning--before the next scam-Lie comes in quicker than you can say, Fridays BAD News Day.

The Record--documented by those 'Luv em Or Hate em' Newspapers-show a disaster  for US , the citizens , in every subject, from edukatshon to NHS, to pathetic public transport-abandoned drivers without Rights, Loss of freedom and democracy, Iraq &WMD, immigration and no security +++++++++++  , BUT----- the biggest theft by stealth Taxes Ever --Since the Normans stole the whole Country in 1066--THAT Bliar can Relate to!!!!!!!!!!WE better not start on law n disorder eh!!!

Has anyone seen anything ,about the serious concerns and immediate action being taken by GOVT- about the 70,000 patients dying each YEAR in Hospitals from MRSA-mistakes-other infections??????? NO!!

So, as you can see---A need for a distract em subject!!!!, something we can throw at em every OTHER day(Count them) something we can give the Party slime in All those little cesspits with their dictators, in all the towns and county areas, to make them feel important-doing a public service-able to shout to all their slime 'You see what we can do' --and we can steal taxpayers wages at the same time.WE are a caring authority--AS long as It doesnt hurt US, only those OTHER criminal people- THE Motorist-God bless every one of the 32Million Suckers!!! Come On , Lets Spin Spin Spin away.(snow white Bliar tune)

WE are THE subject that keeps the Govt in power, and the means to buy them time---is it not Now OUR Time ,to fight Fire with Fire ????

Passionate about this subject then?

The only problem is that you vote one government in as you vote another government out.

It won't change. 

But, perhaps we should all ask ourselves a question - if we were the Prime Minister, what would we genuinely want to do about speeding and traffic control in the UK?

It's not easy to answer seriously.

spokey wrote: Nigel wrote: spokey wrote:  Because they de-emphasise every other aspect of safe driving. They do not, they merely enforce the law, and give you a generous margin of 10% + 2 mph, it is illegal to break the posted speed limit. There is almost no visible policing of any other aspect of safe driving. The overwhelming preponderence of scameras tells everyone "as long as you don't speed, we won't bother you".

I agree, but its not a reason to remove the cameras.

Phillip wrote: I see your valid point Nigel. And I don't want to appear "stroppy" but its also the serious point of "bad "drivers. These cameras cost money to intall etc..and there is a real issue that all the time there is an increasing number of drivers who drive drunk/drugged, not insured, no tax or MOT. Now I dont know the figures but there seems less police on the road watching drivers than ever before. I do 600 miles a week just to and from work and its a rare sight to see a police car (except parked in the little chef-with no-one in it) from one week to the next. Over the entire Xmas period I didnt see one car pulled over, and I do drive around at throwing out time, and neither did a single person I know. Now whilst I realise that there are other police duties to be carried out I just feel there is a direct link between cameras and less "police presence" on the road. Peolpe are getting away with serious law breaking as mentioned above. Just to finish off, my own choice would be to see the guy who is drunk or drugged  or uninsured get pulled over--not the guy who goes over the limit at night by a few mph (speeding is bad, yes, but at least if a policeman sees you he can use his judgement to decide if 70 mph in the dead of night in a 60mph limit was actually dangerous or not, a camera has no discresion)

I agree with everything you say, but its still not a reason to remove the cameras.

The chief constable of an area has been set targets by our stupid government, unless he achieves these, bang goes his job and pension ( except Herr Brunstrom, old 6% seems exempt this), so who can blame them.

spokey wrote: Nigel, I see you playing the devil's advocate on a point by point basis. My point is that there is an overall case (in my opinion a very strong case) against cameras, just as there is an overall case (in my opinion a very weak one) for them. Scameras are the symptom, not the cause. But they do help to sustain the cycle of bad thinking about road safety, because they're so "effective" catching people for something which is harmless 99.9% of the time. Even where it is a factor in accidents, it's only a factor. I think where scameras and speed law fundamentally fall down is in the overall strategy. I get so annoyed when I drive into a village and I see a sign saying not "Drive Carefully", but "Drive Slowly". So, keep your eyes focussed on your speedo and don't go a mile and hour over the limit, but feel free to ignore kids playing by the roadside, etc.

I believe you are absolutely correct, now prove it, against a Gov that pays for research from establishments that the same gov also gives grants too.

They have all the figures to back up the "scameras saves lives" lie, and will always fall back on they are only upholding the law.

I am also advised that speeding is a criminal offence, so if your convicted your a criminal.

Horsey or Jonners, is this true of false ?

Its still surprising though, that even when we know speed cameras aren't needed, aren't achieving anything, etc etc, we still haven't come up with a good argument for having them removed.

Its a good one that " they are upholding the law, whats wrong with that ?, you support law and order don't you ? "

Praktisk wrote: Nigel wrote: Just something to make you smile Toby. I have a Tom Tom Go sat nav system, a snooper radar detector, and a road angel gps camera detector, it was pointed out to me recently, by one of my collegues who doesnt like these devices, that all three units are mounted so as to be within the sweep of my windscreen wipers, making all of them illegal, well the mounting of them anyway ! Your dashdoard must be on a parr with that of the Nebuchadnezzar(Matrix ship) Nigel. So many buttons to press, so little time eh?  ... <Snooper S5i - "beep beep beep beep">  - "Damn, false alarm, it's only a pelican crossing!" Put mine on Ebay last month, was doing me blinking nut in.

Sounds like mine, Sat Nav, Phone & Radar, no time to watch Road !

in car distractions...

what about out of car distractions ..

today i was doing the M62  doing about 90 ish as is the genral flow at that sort of time .and as i was passing a slip road.as i allways look what comes on and off .them .today exiting one.there was this volvo but with the not the norm lights on in daytime rouitine.coming off the slip.mr pma slows to 75mph ....just in case the lilly law were embarking on the rd.and the police have that canny knack of making volvo lights turn off on request..dony they

 Item on BBC Look East.Bank Manager appeared at Peterborough on charge of Not being in control of car.Accused was seen by traffpol to be Brushing his Hair with hairbrush.Bloody fool--serves him right.

Accused agreed he did use brush--- while Stationary in a gridlocked traffic jam, which included the t/poll.Nobody could move.Case dismissed---as was the last grain of commonsense and respect.

mr coasting

there was a rant in there ...but i think or presume .that it has been edited for some reason or another ..

Wow, lots of strong veiws.

A couple of things spring to mind.

Skull, the bloke who was jailed for hitting the old bloke. Well if he genuinely only looked at the speedo then hit him he must have had his eyes down for a while. Unless of course the old bloke was running very fast. Otherwise he would have seen the man at the side of the road before he looked at his speedo. Also I can glance at my speed in a second. Not long enough for some old bloke to get from the kurb to in the middle of the road.

B7VP, you do like to make lots of anti labour statements including Bliars slime etc etc. If you think any other party will do it better then vote for them in the up coming election. How many of them have said they will remove speed cameras if they are elected? Er that would be none. 

Spokey, your ideas for making the roads safer are all very interesting. The thing that strikes me is that they would probably meet with the same kind of response as speed cameras. Can you imagine people wanting to take there test every 5 to 10 years!!

Coasting made a very good point. It's very easy to critisise, but not so easy to come up with a vaible alternative.

Don't get me wrong, I hate speed cameras and the whole idea behind them.

LOL...thankfully my job isn't dependant on having a driving license.

I don't think ignoring the situation will make it go away, I just don't think that any party (that is likely to win an election) will do anything to change it. Also the biggest obstical in the way is that a lot of people support the whole anti speeding issue. If there was a lot of support for getting rid of cameras the opposition would have jumped on the bandwagon in an attempt to get more votes. The anti speed camera lobby is either a minority not worth listening too (from a politicians point of view) or the issue itself is not considered important enough to affect an election outcome.

What you need to do is convince the general public that the issue is worthy of their attention. Once everyone cares about it then it will become an issue that the politicians will address. You need to get a news paper onside to tackle it in a way like the Daily Mail has done with imigration. It has been constantly kept in the public eye so that the polititians now have no choice but to deal with it.

Also don't forget that with many issues such as speed cameras, imigration, i.d cards etc etc, a lot of people simply don't agree with you and never will. Since we live in a democracy you can't have it all your own way. The only way that would happen is if you were a totallitarian dictator who made everyone live by your rules.

A final though. No matter how right anyone ever thinks they are, there will always be people who think they are wrong and almost every aspect of life is ruled by politics. I learnt that very quickly at work!

We have no politics at work.

What I say goes.

(thats a joke guys, please don't accuse me of being a dictator next...!)

spokey wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: Spokey, your ideas for making the roads safer are all very interesting. The thing that strikes me is that they would probably meet with the same kind of response as speed cameras. Can you imagine people wanting to take there test every 5 to 10 years! Where I come from, the concept of having your car MOTed annually would incite a revolution. I think most people would moan, but giving your car a basic safety check once a year is just accepted -- why shouldn't your driving skills be vetted once a decade?

I personally think it would be a good idea. I just know how hard it is to please people. No matter what you do there will always be someone who thinks you are doing the wrong thing.

Coasting. That's ok if your the boss. Sadly where I work, if you surname isn't Huntsman, you'll never be the boss.

Just a thought on speed cameras. If no one speeds then they will generate no money, so they will not pay for themselves, so the scamera partnerships will have to be disbanded. Once they are gone we can all go back to driving the way we did!  

Because it only occured to me after I got caught!

However I cannot deny that I am not always the best person for following my own advice.

I am now determined not to get another one, even if it means holding up a queue of cars on the stretch where I was caught.