Scamera poll
Printed From: Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum
Category: General Forums
Forum Name: General Off Topic Forum
Forum Discription: Discuss off topic issues related to BMWs.
URL: http://www.bavarian-board.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=24094
Printed Date: 01-May-2024 at 08:05
Topic: Scamera poll
Posted By: Nigel
Subject: Scamera poll
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 12:58
|
On another forum, a very likeable, helpful, and well respected Police officer ( Police advanced driving trainer) thinks I'm out of touch with the publics feelings on scamera partnerships and their activities. He assures me that they have wide public support, and everyone loves the Police ! He won't post on here, but will look at things when I point him to them. I may indeed be out of touch, so come on, either let him, or me have it, within forum guidelines of course.
------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Replies:
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 13:06
|
The latest thread where I'm out of touch and in a minority http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=2474.0 - http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=2474.0 ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: Bryce
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 13:17
|
Nigel, Can you put a "They are ok but sometimes I disagree with the location"? Otherwise I will probably choose the "ok" option and be shot for it! ------------- Bryce, Volvo FL614/Saxon (1996)(HFRS). BMW 525i SE touring (1992) Kawasaki ZX6R F1 (1995) |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 13:23
|
I should be able to, but can't work it out.......K, where fore art thou ? ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Bryce wrote:Posted By: Rhys
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 14:09
|
Speed (S)cameras are only there to make money - they are put in stupid locations and can cause accidents by people braking suddenly when they see them. They don't capture dangerous driving which is a far worse menace on the road then safely driving at an appropriate speed (conditions permitting)
Also, did you know that the braking distances in the highway code are based on a Ford Anglia which didn't have discs or seatbelts? ------------- 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... |
Posted By: Bigian
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 18:17
|
Grampian has the most speed cameras from aberdeen to dundee than nearly any other part of scotland you would think of another way to promote road saftey and speed awarness. like others have said when people see them they slam on there anchors whether it be in the outside or inside lane with out thinking who or what is behind them most speed cameras in our area are set at 84mph give to me from a very good source my bro in law who works for a certin police force not to far away from stonehaven ------------- If you can't be good don't get caught -------------------------- |
Posted By: simons5
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 18:46
|
I have loads of respect for the police, they don't have any thing to do with the cammeras and probably hate the cameras as much as we do.
simon |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 19:19
|
Some do, some don't. Were talking about the possibility of speed limiters here http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=2483.new#new - http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=2483.ne w#new ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: billgates e30
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 19:53
|
in Durham County there are no fixed camera sites
and only one or two mobile units that are placed in proven accident blackspots, info of these sites are availble to the public. And they have the lowest record of RTA's in the country coincidence i think not ------------- Bill Gates aka Chris 
http://www.bmwclubne.co.uk - BMW Club NE |
Posted By: shorty
Date Posted: 11-November-2005 at 20:19
|
there you go Nigel another vote to prove to your mate that you are right I hate them ( £160 this year & 9 points all on good clear days ???????? What they don't seam to value is that they are messing with peoples livelihoods , i for one have been told " you loose your license just pack your tools & go !!!" Go on, some smart Alec tell me " if you didn't do over the speed limit you would have a clean license" True But I don't smoke, rarely drink , i don't nick from folks houses,I've never murdered anyone & in general am a law abiding person, my enjoyment is driving my car & feel that we are just an easy target for a quick buck. Nigel had a look on the link to the site you gave us . V- interesting site & by golly a very opinionated "Traffic officer " ( you know the bloke the one with the Police Range Rover in his sig ) that in my opinion is exactly the way that most folks see a "traffic police man " A MAN WITH NO MANORS !!! ( JUST MY OPINION , OR IS IT ??????
-------------  |
Posted By: Goldryder
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 06:52
|
Sorry but they are required in certain areas as there are Richard Craniums who drive like an idiot for the sheer hell of it in a selfish and irresponsible way. Without camera evidence, including the ones on motorway bridges that film tailgating and not just speed...you know, those cameras on gantries, they run on sensors and photograph you if you are tailgating the car infront.
Until 100% of drivers learn to drive properly and be respectful to others on the roads...such as pedestrians, horses etc..then cameras and any other form of enforcement is a neccessary evil. |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 07:22
|
Nigel, perhaps your PO friend needs to get out more often and read less of the brainwash sent out by the Bliar politbureau.Such is the lie,s and distortion of stats now used in this country when Road safety is being discussed, that the voting population does not believe Anything given as so called fact. He is well aware of how the stats are managed to prove anything , from KSI numbers on a road which allow a Scam to be installed( including the suicide jumping off the overhead bridge) to putting stats under different headings , to show reduction in KSI.Safety partnerships which include Police and magistrates, have lost any respect that the motorist once held. Were the so called surveys asking for drivers opinion on Scameras, phased in the usual way?? " Do you think we need More Scameras outside schools, to stop the thousands of children Killed every year" then no doubt a majority would say yes. Strange isnt it--no mention in the Slime spewed out from Bliars people , of the 68 children Killed last year Inside cars---Scameras wouldnt help--Seatbelts used Would!!!!! but no publicity for this-Why??. ------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: B 7 VP
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 08:00
|
[QUOTE=Goldryder]Sorry but they are required in certain areas as there are Richard Craniums who drive like an idiot for the sheer hell of it in a selfish and irresponsible way. Without camera evidence, including the ones on motorway bridges that film tailgating and not just speed...you know, those cameras on gantries, they run on sensors and photograph you if you are tailgating the car infront. What are you talking about ?????????? When was the last time you read that a tailgater had been given points due to the photo taken by a fixed Scam???. Or the selfish middle/outside lane idiot given points Or the Drugged/drunk driver caught on Scam--Tell Me , WHEN??.There is NO ££££££,s in such an idea--you cannot send out automatic fines--you need trafPol and as WE all know they have been made redundant. Scameras dont Train Road users, but professionals working to a well thought out programme and updated content could do---except we have not had any practical Road transport aware Govt in this country, since the Romans.Respect by drivers has to be earn't by the system providers who are working for their benifits---Not the opposite like todays parasites. ------------- SAFETYFAST |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 10:03
|
Just to clear a few things up, should any of you venture onto that site ( which I hope you will). They need to use silly names because they are policemen, and people behave badly towards familys of policmen sometimes ( but I imagine you know that). They are there volunterily, in their own time, to help people who have already fallen foul of the law, to promote advanced driving, and lastly to have a good old chin wag about driving. Safety1st : This chap is a serving traffic policeman, ex army, general good old boy, loves driving ( has a nice powerful car of his own ), he works in his own time for a driving school of types, also as a senior observer for the IAM, and an examiner for ROSPA. Remember his job, he can't be seen to say I think its ok to drive on a deserted road at 100 mph. Vonhossen : This chap is a serving police officer, and is a police advanced trainer. I find he takes a much sterner ( almost judge dredd) stance on the law, and in my view he isn't interested in the "fun" side of driving, as he works and lives in London, he probably gets less chance than the rest of us. There are other police officers on there, doing all sorts of jobs ( same as here, but most of you don't know who they are!) Please if you go over there and post, be polite to everyone, there isn't much to be gained from being otherwise, subjects like PC Mark Milton have been discussed at length, and if you look back through the posts, the lads took a lot of stick. There are people from all sorts of backgrounds, which is what makes it so interesting. Should you decide to look around you will find all sorts of interesting stuff on there, some you may agree with , some you won't, you can get involved in some discusiions ( like the speed limiter one I've been having with Von http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=2483.new#new - http://www.traffic-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=2483.ne w#new ), where there is little hope of either of us agreeing, but its still useful info. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: sharon....
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 12:02
|
im all for more in built up areas limits are there for a reson and its not too p us off. so its simple really DONT SPEED ------------- look....cut the cr4p and show us ya willy |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 13:45
|
Your reasoning used to be true Sharon, not any more. There are lots of speed limits about just because people can't maintain their basic dsa standard test pass level. Limits are largely there as some people want the road to be a playground for children, rather than a piece of tarmac for vehicles to travel along. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 15:27
|
Hi Newbie here with a first post so please be gentle, particularly as it looks like I might be a bit of a minority voice. I am really struggling to see how cameras are about making money , which seems to be the concensus view. If you want to make money from motorists surely slipping half a penny extra on a litre of fuel would be far easier, less aggravation, less polarising for the government & be guaranteed to raise far more money. With cameras there is no control over how much money you can raise, infact no guarantee of raising any at all (especially if nobody is speeding). They are painted yellow (not good if you want to hide them & make money). They have them listed on websites & where they are situated (not a good move if you want to make money) You can legally use GPS warning devices that warn you of their location (not a good move if you want to raise money) If you also look at what happens with tickets you get both a small fine & points. In giving points you are moving people towards disqualification. You are effectively getting a customer base & then banning them from being customers (not a good move for any business that wants to make money). Surely if it's about money they would make it no points & bigger fine wouldn't they ? What appears to have been lost here is that speeding is an offence & don't we expect that people who commit offences should be punished? I know someone will say that there are more serious offences & that's true there are, but surely that just deflects from the fact that speeding is still an offence & should be punished as the law has been broken. With regards to the speed limiter topic on the link that Nigel mentioned, surely if they are talking about speed limiters that will completely remove any chance of getting money from speeders on camera. Why invest all that money in cameras to catch speeders & then make them put adevice in the vehicle that stops them speeding if you want to make money ? Doesn't that show that it is about reducing speeding ? If it is about revenue & we hate it, why do we supply them with it by speeding ? |
Posted By: steven.seed
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 16:37
|
I have to admit I am pretty anti speed camera because they are a gut reaction to the problem of death and injury on our roads. I also admit I exceed the speed limit quite often when the road and conditions suit, but I do not believe speeding makes someone a bad driver. However we have become a 'blame it all on speed' society when in fact there are lots of different things that cause accidents. We have all forgotten that the simplist of things can result in an accident. For example how many people jump in the car on a frosty or misty morning and drive off without clearing ALL their windows off properly so they have clear vision. 18 years ago, my then 16 year old younger brother was killed by a driver who could not see him thru his misted windows. He was not speeding but he was guilty of being a negligent driver thru not taking a minute to wipe off his windows. There is a place for speed cameras but we need the Road Traffic Police on the roads in much greater numbers to remove the bad drivers from the roads and drivers need better education in being aware of what is going on around them. Accidents are caused by lapses in concentration and distractions. If people concentrate on their driving and not what's on the stereo, whose on the mobile, reading the satnav screen, admiring the view etc etc etc then they are unlikely to have accidents. ------------- 1998 E36 318iS Saloon 1989 E30 318i. Coupe 2000 E39 520i Touring 
|
Posted By: skull
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 16:44
you are 100% correct m8 brunstum i think thats his name says a speeder is the same as a mugger , burgaler, rapist, child abuse, etc etc etc, ok so if that is correct is doing 31mph in a 30 or 75mph on a motorway speeding , and i then should be put in prison for it yes ? so how many times does any of the above not hurt people , if i mug someone they are hurt , same as the other offences, but if i speed in the middle of nowhere on my own on a empty road who did i hurt ? but if i am caught by a speed camera i am still classed as a criminal. dangerous driving does not nesseserily involve speed, driving with undue care and attention doesnt either, nor does drunk driving , driving while tired, using a mobile phone ,putting lipstick on or shaving while driving but all these acts can still kill a child under 30mph. i have posted this before only around 17% of accidents are directly linked to speeding or unapropriot speed. this is from several different souces including the government and indipendents. thats 83% from other causes , if 83% of people getting mugged ,murded , etc etc was happening you would not be able to even leave your house let alone drive your car. so why are these causes not sorted out is they dont create money in policing them. the police can see every factor in a persons driving ,if they deem them to be unsafe or dangerous they are stopped or radioed in for a plate check , computers dont replace humans regardless of what they do so having a computer limit what we do is crazy. having a computer in control of human insticts for speed ,control etc is bound to end in tears. i am sorry for the long post and the spelling but i am tired mentaly of this stupid single minded attitude people have.  ive had enough .------------- just a little crazy. My drive E46 M3 COUPE [MAN]CARBON BLACK GREY LEATHER H/K 19"s LED REARS S/B. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 16:59
You are the Reverend A. J. Blair, and I claim my £5. ------------- Ciao, Spokey 
|
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:09
|
Interesting point re-visited in todays D. Telegraph motoring section. Why, if camera's are to encourage you to keep within the speed limit, is the actual speed-limit not shown on the back of the Camera??
Because they aren't there for that reason at all!
They are there to make money!
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:42
Thanks for the warm welcome. Nice, really nice. I didn't think I was being rude or dismissive in posting my thoughts or questions, but clearly it is what I deserve for daring to question the obvious majority view here. As I said I am struggling to understand how the government, Police or whoever are to blame for any of us speeding & my questions were an offer for me to be educated in this. Clearly though posing questions on such matters labels me as a Blairite which could not be further from the truth actually. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:52
Surely the question isn't how many collisions occur in a county , but do the counties/areas that have cameras see a greater reduction in the number of collisions. If we look at the reductions in collisions between 2003 & 2004 the North East were one from bottom of the table in reduction numbers. London, The South East , The Midlands etc performed much better in contributing to the reduction in death & serious injury numbers. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:54
|
Livvy - for once it wasn't me that replied to your post in such a manner - nevertheless I will apologizs on their behalf for any offence made We all accept - I think - that speeding is an offence. The issue here is the prolification and location of cameras. No sensible person would object to them outside schools - but on a motorway? Well???????? The current speed limits - out of town - are stupid. 70mph on a motorway where we are all going the same way?? Speed does not kill - FACT Inappropriate use of speed DOES! discuss........... ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:57
Unfortunately there are very strict rules over signage . If the limit is not clearly posted as per the regulations then the limit is invalid & you can't be prosecuted. If it's a correctly posted limit any reasonably observant driver should be aware of the limit they are in. It was after all a basic requirement for our driving tests, as was complying with that limit. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:03
|
I'm sorry I'm not having this! There are many many roads where the limit changes time and time again, so there becomes a very real danger that - no matter how good a driver you are - you find a camera, and are not sure what the limit should be, so slow down to what it could be. If - as you say - there are strict rules on signage then they need to be changed, otherwise we will always say that the majority of cameras are there for only one reason - to make money. ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:03
|
Livvy, welcome, and if you find anything offensive hit the report post button, and the post & poster will be dealt with. Signage ? I wonder where your coming from here, the sinage regs for speed limits are a joke, most of them have been relaxed ! No min distance for repeaters is a good one, councils being allowed to put speed limit changes before hazards is another The more sceptical of us ( me being one of them) link this in with the massive amount of speed cameras, and all the cow pooh that goes along with them ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:07
Thank you thepits , perhaps it isn't all unfriendly here after all  6,000 cameras on all or miles of network. Not that many really is it when you think of how many miles of road we have at our disposal. Interesting that you suggest them being outside schools. This is a common view stated, but I personally think that cameras are best placed where the fatal collisions actually occur. Nobody likes to see a knee jerk reaction to a problem & rather than acting on a gut feeling on where cameras should be sited (they are expensive after all & there is a limited number available) they should surely be placed where the evidence shows that collisions do actually occur in greatest numbers. That evidence shows that very few primary school aged children are killed on or to the journeys from school, but are instead killed in the roads in which they live. As children grow older they are killed further from home & on busier faster roads. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:11
You can't have a change of limit without correctly placed & visible signs. If they are not there then it is not enforceable. If we don't then see them surely that is down to us & a defeciency in our observation skills. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:11
 ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:13
Thank you for the welcome Nigel (& I'll remember about the button, though I don't think in this case it warranted hitting it). I'd have thought persoanlly that a reduction in speed just prior to a hazard might be a good thing. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:15
|
Define! Motorway - hazard?? ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:21
I've seen very few on motorways (& I use them quite a lot), the exception being in roadworks etc. I know there was a section introduced on the M4 that caused a fuss but wasn't that in response to that section of motorway having had quite a few fatal & serious collisions just prior to the cameras going up ? You've got me thinking though, if there are lots on our motorways & they are our safest roads, perhaps that's because they are there. |
Posted By: Floody
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:21
You get my vote Nigel  I live in Co.Durham (think) Dave has said this,and my other half work's in the police "Ticket" office.
Durham only have 1 mobile camera and no "Fixed" ones, they only use this (normaly) outside School's, built up area's etc. 
What they do have is a "ANPR" van "automatic number plate reader" this tell's them all the drivers on the road without Tax, M.O.T and ins. They then take the car and,after 10 day's if the driver can't ins/tax it they "crush" it, this to me makes more sence ------------- Mark E30 M3 RHD!!! now sold !!! still crying!!!! E36 318 is in technoviolet, for sale Thank's for the photo Coasting, Flood's on tour!  
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:22
I was replying to Nigel's post about councils putting them in just before hazards. I didn't take that to mean motorways because it would be the Highway's Agency placing them there not council's wouldn't it ? |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:22
|
Livvy Not if concentrating on the hazard causes you to miss the sign, then a lack of repeaters, then flash, oops £60 3 points etc etc ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:26
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. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:28
|
But why on motorways at all? We all agree that speed should be reduced when there is danger, don't we? And no-one should object to cameras where there is a known hazard? But they are regularly positioned in places for no apparent reason. Other than to make money? http://www.speedcameras.org/index.php?poll_show_results=benefits&option_select=16&Submit=Submit&page=poll&view_type=results - http://www.speedcameras.org/index.php?poll_show_results=bene fits&option_select=16&Submit=Submit&page=poll&am p;view_type=results
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:30
|
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. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:34
I'm still struggling on how they can do this if we are obeying the law & the limit as we all should be. Surely it is our choice on whether we put ourselves up for giving them money or not. I choose not to by obeying the limit, if somebody else chooses to speed, are they not giving the government tacit permisssion to fine them knowing full well the rules ?
I don't see that 3,500 road deaths should be dismissed as not
important & shouldn't be addressed because 5,000 people die in
hospital. Surely both should be addressed by the agencies concerned, it
doesn't have to be one or the other. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:34
|
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. |
Posted By: spokey
Date 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
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:37
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)) |
Posted By: Nigel
Date 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 |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:42
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. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:43
It's 2 (or maybe 3!) against one here Nigel - is that fair???
Even if livvy is wrong! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:45
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 ? |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:48
|
So that's 70mph on a motorway / dual carriageway then? ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:48
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 |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:50
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. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:50
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
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:52
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. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:53
|
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. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:57
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. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:59
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. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:59
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
|
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:01
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. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:02
In my experience lack of signage poses a greater risk than over signage on our roads. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:04
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. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:07
|
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. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:08
Well, you see both. I see places where I wonder what on earth is going on because there is so much signage, and then I see places where I think "a sign before that bend might have been helpful." Sadly, people have to die before that problem gets fixed. I wonder how many deaths are attributable to signage overload or underload (for want of a better term)? Still, stick up a camera, don't worry about the signs. People will slow down. That will fix everything. Safety partnerships ROCK! ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:10
|
The law is an ass. The speed limits we now have were inflicted on us many years ago - things have changed - even the police accept that the limits have not changed with the times. Do you NEVER break ANY law EVER??? ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:10
|
The speed limit changes are very easily dealt with, countdown markers should be used at every downward speed limit change. Please don't play the safety card with me Livvy, Hm gov have rendered that one useless with all their cow pooh, it just causes people to switch off now. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: Peter Fenwick
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:10
|
Wow, this subject certainly has people fired up. the trouble is your posts are all too long and i've had too much to drink to read them all
The trouble with speed cameras is that they only look at one aspect of road safety. Sure in some cases exceding the speed limit does cause accidents and fatalities but so do a lot of things. Lack of concentration/attention, tiredness, alcohol, driving too close etc etc. In fact in my 12 years of driving I have found that the two things that have made me feel most uncomfortable are people driving too close and a general lack of attention caused in most parts by mobile phones. The bulk of the crashes I have seen have been caused by Tail gating and or not noticing the car in fronts brake lights. Unless my years of driving have been totally unrepresentative of what happens on the roads today, why is the focus on just on speeding? Simple, it's easy to catch speeders, requires minimal manpower, which in a world of staff cutbacks is great for the bean counters and it makes money. Let me put it this way. Any one who drives too close is driving dangerously and endangering lives. The same cannot be said for everyone who breaks the speed limit. So why is the focus on speed?
------------- Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:12
|
Because its a money spinner Peter ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:15
|
and we'll never get livvy to agree ...... ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:16
I drive over quite a bit of the country, I've NEVER felt burdened by signage, infact I value it taking the view that if somebody has gone to the great expense of putting up signs or painting the road, then they think there is something I should know about. Like I say I travel at a speed that I can process it & deal with it. It doesn't make me miss the speed limit signs or any other important information. I have also driven down many roads where I've considered the amount of signage inadequate for the severity of the bend. Experience ? What how long have I been driving ? Is it relevant ? 22 years. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:17
Go for a drive, it will clear your head. Just don't break the speed limit, OK? (PS That was a joke! Don't drink and drive, even if you can get past a scamera with impunity!) ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:24
But none of this means we shouldn't have cameras to enforce our speed limits. I'm not suggesting that the Police should just prosecute speeders,
they should be dealing with all offences, but there seems to be an
under current here that they should deal with other offences & NOT
speeding specifically, only because you want to speed. This still doesn't detract from my question (that I have asked
several times) how can it be about money when it is you who decides
whether you speed or not (Not the Police or government) ? And I say
again that if you miss the signs then you are not paying enough
attention or are travelling too quickly for you to process the required
information, both of which are dangerous. (Unless of course the signs
are not placed correctly in which case you couldn't get prosecuted for
speeding anyway) |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:25
|
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:28
But cameras are not supposed to get drink drivers, the fact they don't doesn't invalidate them. Their purpose is to disuade, or in the event of non compliance detect, speeding. Which they are evidently very good at. Drink drive is dealt with by other more traditional methods, it isn't ignored. In fact speed cameras could besaid to free up Police to deal with those matters instead of speed enforcement. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:31
You were complaining a couple of minutes ago about too much signage. As I've said already if they are sufficently posted & clearly visible as per the regulations if you are travelling at a correct speed & paying attention you should not miss them. We all managed it for our driving tests, shouldn't we be getting better with experience not worse. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:31
unless livvy knows different? ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: skull
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:32
|
the government say speed cameras work .
so why are road deaths up year after year in most areas with cameras. nigel your right when you say "You prioritise what you are seeing, subconciously, and with experience". who is the more dangerous , nigel doing 80mph on a empty motorway or a 17 year old who has just pasted thier test doing 30mph in a 30 limit. personnaly i would trust nigel or anyone with experience than anyone with just a year or two driving. the reason we have so many accidents is the easy and useless test system we have that allows half blind sloppy careless drivers to be in control of any veihcle. if i can drive higher than the speed limit taking in all that is around me safely and another cannot then why am i in the wrong, i am made to comply because of others lack of common sense and ability. so livvy if the government changed the limit tomorrow on a motorway to 80mph that would be ok for you because we must follow like blind sheep what somebody that dont even drive themselves has said we must do. ------------- just a little crazy. My drive E46 M3 COUPE [MAN]CARBON BLACK GREY LEATHER H/K 19"s LED REARS S/B. |
Posted By: Floody
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:32
|
I'm with Thepits all the way on his posts,Livvy, are you saying you have never been on a totaly empty m/way and gone over 70??? and on a rainy/thick fog/ thick traffic you would stay at 70??
Me (could get busted for this)!!! m/way dry, 4am 100 + M/way thick fog,/ thick rain/snow/ice /heavy traffic,or road work's I'm the guy in the in side lane
speed limit's should be down to condition's not the road ------------- Mark E30 M3 RHD!!! now sold !!! still crying!!!! E36 318 is in technoviolet, for sale Thank's for the photo Coasting, Flood's on tour!
|
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:34
|
 ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:35
How come I NEVER EVER see a policecar on the motorway doing anything but sitting in a layby with the laser gun out? You can pass the buck on "safety partnerships" but I don't ever see the police pulling people for anything other than speeding. I don't doubt that they do other things, but frankly the weight of my personal experience is that the police appear to be entirely focused on speed only. So it's not freeing them up at all in my experience. ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:37
Things have changed since they were introduced, far more cars on the road, far less tolerance, far more aggressiveness, far more road rage, far less patience, far less courtesy.
I don't think so, certainly not knowingly. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:37
|
Thanks Floody! I've said it before - so I'll say it (yet!) again Speed does NOT kill! Inappropriate USE of speed DOES! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:39
I see very few Police doing any speed enforcement at all. I do see Camera Partnerships, but not regular Police. I do see them running around to other stuff & dealing with collisions though. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:40
|
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:43
Where is everybody getting that I am saying you should always be driving at the limit irrespective of conditions ? I am saying you shouldn't be above it irrespective of conditions. You shoudl only be driving at a speed safe for the circumstances up to it. So in thick fog you certainly wouldn't be driving at the limit if vision didn't allow it. You should always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear on yoru side of the road. If you drive at 100mph on the motorway at whatever time or conditions, then you are risking your licence & livelyhood if you rely on it. For me that would be madness. |
Posted By: spokey
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:45
Why are these things not targeted? Why are people allowed to park in the middle lane for 50 miles down a motorway? Why aren't people at least lambasted for driving stupidly? How often do you see people who aren't even aware that an emergency vehicle with blues and two's is trying to get past them? Or anyone else for that matter? You are correct: less tolerance, less courtesy, more aggro, less patience. Why? Because driving is deeply unpleasant: you pay the earth for rubbish roads and advertising campaigns that demonise you. You are monitored for a trivial infraction and penalised blindly and arbitrarily. No sign of any improvement in your lot appears anywhere. Lots of talk from politicians about making it even more draconian. But it's OK. Stick up some more cameras. People will drive more slowly. That will fix everything. (I'm hoping that if I say it enough I might start to believe it.) ------------- Ciao, Spokey
|
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:45
|
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:46
|
Livvy We need correct, applicable, and well placed sinage. We do not have this in all cases now, we also have a lot of pc sinage, I often drive in wales, and welsh police officers I know recognise this problem, you have welsh/englsih, them english/welsh, then the two side by side variants. You have a lot of incorrect sinage, speed limit signs with no background, with yellow , green, and even blue ( on A roads !) You have speed limit signs which aren't speed limit signs, they look real but have black borders, after the area they are dealing with has finished, you then don't have another correct limit sign, how many people here know what a speed limit sign with a black border means ? You have the highways agency at the end of speed limit roadworks putting road works end signs, but not returning you to the correct speed limit, when challenged they say you should know that the speed limit has changed as the road works have ended, then on another stretch of road you have a quarter of a mile after the road works have ended sign a speed limit sign returning you to nsl, and inbetween the two is a speed camera. The big problem here is we have a lot of drivers who haven't kept themselves to at least dsa pass level, instead of addressing this in the correct way, they are attempting to dumb down the rest of us to that level via restrictions, .........we don't like it. ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:47
|
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:48
I agree and haven't said otherwise. It is inappropriate speed that kills not speed itself. But that doesn't mean you can decide on the appropraiteness of speed above our limits. Well actually you can because of persoanl choice, but in doing so you have to accept that you render yourself open to prosecution if caught & in knowing that it would be nobodies fault but your own if you were prosecuted. |
Posted By: Floody
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:48
That " My Honour" is the case for the "Defence" Over to the prosecution?? and more money in the bank??????????------------- Mark E30 M3 RHD!!! now sold !!! still crying!!!! E36 318 is in technoviolet, for sale Thank's for the photo Coasting, Flood's on tour!
|
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:49
In your opinion, not in mine. As I said you OR I can take the chance, but then we are the asses if we don't want to get caught. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:55
|
We will never agree on this! The current speed limits as applied are stupid and a hang-over from bygone days. Never-the-less they are the law, so the name of the game is..... Don't get caught!
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Floody
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:57
|
Come on livvy, lets get in the real word. I go down to Southampton from Durhan 5/6 time's a year to see my daughter. Sometimes I get away at 4/5am, in the summer me 100+,hit traffic down to 40/50, or even 30, if the nutter's are on the road, then if it's empty back to 100+, I like it think im a good driver. Speed limits should change according to conditons 4 am 100 4pm 40, let's get real ------------- Mark E30 M3 RHD!!! now sold !!! still crying!!!! E36 318 is in technoviolet, for sale Thank's for the photo Coasting, Flood's on tour!
|
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 19:59
|
We need a tierd system of limits, depending on what licence you hold ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:02
Unfortunately Floody that is so right. In the "good old days" if caught speeding (100mph at 3am on the M1) by a real Policeman there was a chance he would have used his discretion. Cameras? no chance! Computers??? Pah!!!!!!!!!! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:03
If the signs are not to spec they are not enforceable so you have an outer if prosecuted, but even if they aren't to spec don't dismiss them they may hold valueable information to build into your driving plane. Yes it is dumbing down, but you say yourself that peopel don't keep their skills upto date. Better than that we account for it with our limits. Setting higher limits just means that those you have identified will drive at them because they don't think they are poor & that will increase danger. Better to have limits that all should be able to cope with hazards in rather than have them that only the best can & encourage those with less skill to travel at. Speed may not be the major factor in most collisions, but reducing it could be a major factor in reducing collisions, because it gives people that golden nugget *time*. Time to cover their other inadequacies & aboid the collision. Speed just serves to exaggerate those inadequacies instead. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:04
|
Elucidate oh wise one! ------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:05
|
So taitors to those of us that bother to keep our skills up then ? ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:05
Cameras are actually set in line with ACPO guidelines, so they are infact set to prosecute at speeds which the Assosciation Of Chief Police Officers decree is the minimum for which action should be taken. |
Posted By: Nigel
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:05
|
Cameras are not set in line with apco guidelines....do you have access to the IAM forum Livvy ? ------------- Best Wishes Nigel |
Posted By: livvy
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:06
No, you will benefit from the extra safety zone that your skills create for you. Those skills don't mean that you can speed. |
Posted By: thepits
Date Posted: 12-November-2005 at 20:07
|
------------- Cats know your every thought. But don't care. |