# Why are people against CCTV and speed cameras on the roads?



## Rahul Sapariya (4 Apr 2012)

I am really for CCTV and speed cameras. I have heard people say that speed cameras are money grabbers but my argument is that the speed limit is there to help save lives. I also believe that if you can't obey the laws then you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Imagine if every road had a speed camera? Would it not make the roads safer? I also think every road should have a camera so that any dangerous moves and stuff like that can be monitored. You could have something like a 3 strike rule where if you do something dangerous 3 times then you get a letter in the post which mentions it. I really would like some feedback on the idea because I honestly think cameras on the road would really help. Plus it could help when you need to prove who's fault an accident was.


----------



## DRHysted (4 Apr 2012)

I would sooner have people looking at the road in front of them, rather then concentrating continually on their speedo.

It has been proven that speed cameras do not reduce accidents.

It is now easier to speed, or dive dangerously because cameras can not do the same job a person can.


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (4 Apr 2012)

Well having signs saying speedcamera up ahead just allows a motorist to slow down and then speed up again. I want there to be speedcameras everywhere. I hate cars who break the speed limit. They risk lives. It is true speed cameras do not reduce accidents but then you must think about the early warning that car drivers get. You even get it on your tomtom now, some alerts. If the roads were watched more by cameras and something done to bad cyclists and bad drivers, wouldn't that make the roads safer?


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Apr 2012)

I'd rather have more traffic police, but that's a pipe dream!

My only issue with speed cameras is when they take a road that used to be a higher speed and change it down when it's not necessary, bunging a camera on it. Leaves a bad taste as if it's a deliberate attempt to catch people out. There's a road near us that used to be a perfectly safe 50mph road. It's a bit of open country road in between two villages, which were 30mph. They have now changed the 50mph stretch to a thirty as well, and put a camera on it. It's genuinely a painful road to drive at 30mph - no houses, no junctions, no bends, just hedges, fields and one pavement!


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Apr 2012)

DRHysted said:


> I would sooner have people looking at the road in front of them, rather then concentrating continually on their speedo.
> 
> It has been proven that speed cameras do not reduce accidents.
> 
> It is now easier to speed, or dive dangerously because cameras can not do the same job a person can.


 
Simply untrue...

A Police Officer is unable to process as many offences as the fixed systems do

As for the "looking at the speedo" that is a sign of a poor driver if they cannot make a reasonable estimate of their speed from other input. It is also the argument used by the Association of British Bad Drivers who are on record as saying that Police vehicles and the Police enforcing traffic are a hazard as "otherwise law abiding motorists" are "forced to look out for Police rather than concentrate on the road ahead"

Fixed systems identify and prosecute millions of traffic offences each year, all we need to do is be stricter with the penalties incurred by such actions.


----------



## subaqua (4 Apr 2012)

do people constantlylook at the speedo. No , they don't. a quick scan acros the dash will show you where the needles are on all gauges and it only takes a few times to know where they should be for most speed limits. and thats the operative word LIMIT , not a target.


----------



## Banjo (4 Apr 2012)

A road by me has 3 major schools on it hundreds of kids crossing the road plus shops and a hospital all within a mile. Being a straight bit of road and the main artery into this bit of town almost everyone did 40 on it. Now with a camera it is very noticeable that speeds have dropped along the entire length of the road not just on the painted lines.

I am 100% in favour of them .All a camera is asking you to do is obey the limit which drivers should be anyway.


----------



## gavroche (4 Apr 2012)

I hate speed cameras. They are simply just there to make money. As for cctv, this is just another infringement of your liberty. Would you like to have one just outside your living room? And now the governement wants to check your e-mails without you knowing! What next? Electronic tabs for everyone so the police always know where you are? And please dont come up with: "if you are a law abiding person, you have nothing to worry about" arguement. I am a law abiding person but I also like my freedom and don't wish to live in a police state, thank you very much. Remember 1984
( Orson Wells) and all that. Well, we are slowly getting there.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

In my county, there is a lot more bias now on unmarked police cars than fixed camera's. Given that when I filter through traffic, and regularly smell Ganja coming from the cars and see people talking on the mobile, eating, driving erratically, skimming the elbows of cyclists etc which would not be detected by a static cam, I think that the resources would be of better effect when in the hands of someone who can detect other things which have the potential to cause many more problems than a simple snapshot of a vehicle moving on an open stretch of road.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Apr 2012)

gavroche said:


> Remember 1984( Orson Wells) and all that. Well, we are slowly getting there.


 
I don't know that book. Is it in any way connected with the George Orwell one that I read? (In 1984 as it happens.)


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

I'd far rather see proper numbers of traffic police and get rid of speed cameras all together. How many cases of uninsured/unroadworthy cars or dangerous/drink driving do speed cameras catch?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Apr 2012)

Because they impinge on many drivers' ''right'' to break the law with impunity. Let's face it, a lot of driving is about pushing beyond the limits without getting caught: exceeding the speed limit beyond the extra 10% we can get already away with, from amber gambling to sneaking through a red and calling it ''London green.'' And cars are overpowered and overprotected for the demands of safe or legal driving so it's not surprising that drivers overstep the limits. And because there's a culture of systematic cheating, there's a feeling that it's unfair to get caught out by a camera they failed to spot when all the others (and cyclists!!!!) get away with it.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Because they impinge on many drivers' ''right'' to break the law with impunity. Let's face it, a lot of driving is about pushing beyond the limits without getting caught: exceeding the speed limit beyond the extra 10% we can get already away with, from amber gambling to sneaking through a red and calling it ''London green.'' And cars are overpowered and overprotected for the demands of safe or legal driving so it's not surprising that drivers overstep the limits. And because there's a culture of systematic cheating, there's a feeling that it's unfair to get caught out by a camera they failed to spot when all the others (and cyclists!!!!) get away with it.


 
I have always considered that the best practice for self and other preservation is to always travel at a speed which you can stop within the distance you see to be safe. All posted speed limits should be guidlines, and no substitute for the above statement.


----------



## simon.r (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> I have always considered that the best practice for self and other preservation is to always travel at a speed which you can stop within the distance you see to be safe. All posted speed limits should be guidlines, and no substitute for the above statement.


 
Which does of course mean that it's sometimes safe to travel in excess of the posted speed limit.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

simon.r said:


> Which does of course mean that it's sometimes safe to travel in excess of the posted speed limit.


 

Who would be the best judge of this ?


----------



## GrasB (4 Apr 2012)

Problem I have with speed cameras isn't that they're actually capturing people speeding, it's the fact they don't effectively police the real problem - dangerous driving. It's very easy to drive in a reckless/dangerous manner well within the speed limit & cameras don't catch this. Unfortunately at best they limit the impact of that dangerous driving, at worst provoke it.

With average speed cameras they tend to bunch the traffic up when the road starts to get busy making the gaps smaller than is truly safe & nothing is done about driving too close, which means that you're mentally drained much more quickly when driving. Single point cameras don't discourage the idiots charging about overtaking people dangerously because they just do near emergency braking just before the camera.


----------



## mangaman (4 Apr 2012)

gavroche said:


> I hate speed cameras. They are simply just there to make money. As for cctv, this is just another infringement of your liberty. Would you like to have one just outside your living room? And now the governement wants to check your e-mails without you knowing! What next? Electronic tabs for everyone so the police always know where you are? And please dont come up with: "if you are a law abiding person, you have nothing to worry about" arguement. I am a law abiding person but I also like my freedom and don't wish to live in a police state, thank you very much. Remember 1984
> ( Orson Wells) and all that. Well, we are slowly getting there.


 
Cracking post!

You like to obey the law but like your freedom not to when it suits.

Hey hum - it's all in 1984 (it was written by Geoffrey Chaucer by the way) - the only flaw in your otherwise impeccable post


----------



## GrasB (4 Apr 2012)

simon.r said:


> Which does of course mean that it's sometimes safe to travel in excess of the posted speed limit.


Safe for a person who has a particular skill level, with a particular car, under particular conditions.Change any one of those & doing the speed limit might be too fast. So the question then becomes how do you set the speed limit for a certain stretch of road?


----------



## mangaman (4 Apr 2012)

DRHysted said:


> It has been proven that speed cameras do not reduce accidents.


 
No it hasn't - it's been proved time and again they reduce the risk of KSIs (google is your friend)

There's even been a different sort of trial when Oxfordshire switched them off and had to switch them on again when the accident rate went up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/01/speed-cameras-oxfordshire-turned-on

Anyway - over to Mr P (I'm surprised he's not here already)


----------



## simon.r (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Who would be the best judge of this ?


 
To quote your post:

_*"I*_ have always considered that the best practice for self and other preservation is to always travel at a speed which _*you*_ can stop within the distance you see to be safe. All posted speed limits should be guidlines, and no substitute for the above statement."

Each individual has to use their own judgement. Sometimes I consider it safe* to travel in excess of the posted speed limit, somtimes I don't, it depends on numerous factors. There is absolutely no way that all of the posted speed limits in this country are 'right'. I can think of numerous examples where anyone with an iota of sense would deem the posted limits to be too high or too low.

*By safe I mean the risks to me and others are within acceptable boundaries. I accept that ultimately it is always safer to travel at a lower speed, but I don't think anyone would suggest that there should be, for example, a 30mph speed limit on motorways.


----------



## GrasB (4 Apr 2012)

mangaman said:


> No it hasn't - it's been proved time and again they reduce the risk of KSIs (google is your friend)


You can 'proved' both ways depends exactly how the data is filtered. In short the location & application of the camera matters & also the exact data set you look at. I know of a case where a camera install was considered a 'success' because it reduced accidents at a junction. Later it was found to have only shifted the accidents 500m down the road


----------



## simon.r (4 Apr 2012)

GrasB said:


> Safe for a person who has a particular skill level, with a particular car, under particular conditions.Change any one of those & doing the speed limit might be too fast. So the question then becomes how do you set the speed limit for a certain stretch of road?


 
You can't. Which is why I agree with some of the comments on here about cameras only catching speeding drivers, not dangerous drivers. If we're serious about reducing bad driving we _need_ more traffic police who can use their discretion. I'm all in favour of drivers being punished for bad driving, which may well be taking place under the speed limit.


----------



## totallyfixed (4 Apr 2012)

The problem with dangerous driving is that the faster you go the more severe the consequences, so in that respect speed cameras do have a role to play. The thing that I find hilarious is that it is necessary to warn and highlight speed cameras to motorists, I'm all for hiding them and moving them around. I'm against CCTV though, that is an entirely different kettle of fish.


----------



## mickle (4 Apr 2012)

Gosh, it's been a while since we've had one of these. They used to be as common as helmet threads.


----------



## DRHysted (4 Apr 2012)

They mark the placement of speed cameras, because they are not there for speed, they are mounted for accident black spots, and are actually called safety cameras. By marking their presence they are warning you of an upcoming accident area, and advising you that you need to control your speed to prevent accidents. In order to get a safety camera fitted in an area, a certain number of accidents must have occured (in one instance a pedestrian falling off an overpass onto the road below counted towards this).

They do not cover dangerous driving, driving whilst under the influance, unattentive driving, and as such are not a replacement for a human being.

Regarding speed, I had the pleasure about a decade ago to read a report regarding speeding that had been compiled from the raw data provided by the Police forces, and it has biased me to any government agency report since. As accidents caused by exceeding the speed limit came 7th on the list. The wording you see used all the time is that speed was a factor, i.e. if they were driving slower the accident would not have happened, well if that is not stating the obvious what is. 

Regarding CCTV, I can't complain about CCTV because I have a 4 camera system installed on my house.


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (4 Apr 2012)

My forum seems to be popular...awesome! For me, using the argument 'cameras are money makers' is rubbish. If you stay in the speed limit then you are fine. The speed on a road doesn't just go down all of a sudden from 50mph to 30mph, there is a sign saying it. And if you cannot see a sign or you can't do a half second glance at your speedometer then you shouldn't be driving...simple-as. I wish there was a mandatory driving test for all drivers every few years...it certainly would reduce the number of bad habits that drivers pick up over the years like when someone wants to join your lane, they signal at the very last second and pull in giving you almost no time to react. I also think cyclists should be given bike lessons on how to cycle safely on the road (bikeability). Cyclists seem to be against this idea but most of those cyclists are too up-themselves to accept help. I just want the roads to be safer and they won't be safer if there are bad car drivers speeding or bad cyclists moving lanes or such without letting a car driver behind you know. And what follows? Violence and hate towards eachother.

So people can talk about this whole 1984 scenario that we are edging forward to (whoever wrote it sounds like a man with a very jaded view on life) but the fact is, we see and hear what we want to see and hear and interpret it the way we want to. I always find it annoying because people probably look down on me because I'm only 22 so if I'm in a car, they expect me to be a bad driver when I think I'm quite good, signalling early...looking in all my mirrors, always passing a cyclist at a safe place and giving a cyclist room.

Why have there been no television adverts on showing that cyclists are traffic too and they need to be on the road? I'd love for there to be a ThinkCyclist advert or something. If there has been one before, make one again because car drivers don't understand still.


----------



## simon.r (4 Apr 2012)

Rahul Sapariya said:


> So people can talk about this whole 1984 scenario that we are edging forward to (whoever wrote it sounds like a man with a very jaded view on life)...


 
PLEASE find a copy and read it.

It was written by George Orwell.

And after you've read that seek out 'The Grapes of Wrath' by John Steinbeck and see if you can relate that to the present day.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

I'm for them, if you aren't speeding you wouldn't get caught, I don't see how this is difficult. If you aren't capable of keeping to the speed limit without constantly checking the speedo then maybe you shouldn't be anywhere near a steering wheel in the first place. I got caught out by one once but it was my own fault and Ive never been flashed since.

It SHOULD also free up police from setting speed traps to police bad driving instead, though no idea if this happens.

I do oppose the catching people out trick, ie suddenly changing the speed limit of a road and sticking a camera there but apart from that Im fine with them.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Apr 2012)

simon.r said:


> Which does of course mean that it's sometimes safe to travel in excess of the posted speed limit.


no it doesn't

I love speed cameras. They're a tax on stupidity


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (4 Apr 2012)

simon.r said:


> PLEASE find a copy and read it.
> 
> It was written by George Orwell.
> 
> And after you've read that seek out 'The Grapes of Wrath' by John Steinbeck and see if you can relate that to the present day.


 
We are not leading to that. You must understand that society is evolving. If I walked from one side of my city to the other, I wouldn't be monitored all the way...there'd be a black spot here and there. Now I have done nothing wrong, but think of it as someone who stole for example, your bike. They stole your bike and rode it off. They were in plain-view of a cctv but the guy has a hood up so no identification. You mention it to the police that there is a cctv and they try to follow the burglar but there are blackspots. You get annoyed that the police can't find your bike. You say the police are understaffed when it is infact that there are blackspots where there are no CCTV's. People complain about the police but at the end of the day, you feel safe at night because they are patrolling. You feel a little more reassured when on the street because there are CCTV's. Talking about 1984, the book is a good read but do I honestly think it will happen...not in the same way. I don't like the law that they might push for monitoring the internet so hopefully it doesn't happen. But 1984 won't happen at all. Without CCTV, some criminals wouldn't be caught.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

You know what annoys me? Fines for shoplifters. I mean, what sort of money grabbing scam is this, where someone can be innocently stuffing some pic 'n' mix down their pants only to have their collar felt by the filth, and fined for it? It's yet another tax on the poor beleaguered British robber, that's what it is.


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

Are we talking about CCTV or speed cameras? CCTV as used in town centres I feel is a little OTT but it may improve peoples safety as long as someone actually responds rather than just watching it. Speed cameras are nothing more than a cash cow for local Police forces and I don't believe that they actually make roads safer as accidents will happen no matter if a camera is recording or not.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> Are we talking about CCTV or speed cameras? CCTV as used in town centres I feel is a little OTT but it may improve peoples safety as long as someone actually responds rather than just watching it. Speed cameras are nothing more than a cash cow for local Police forces and I don't believe that they actually make roads safer as accidents will happen no matter if a camera is recording or not.


 
Rot. Cameras barely cover their costs. And even if they did make a chunk of money, so what? It's an entirely voluntary contribution - don't break the posted limit and you won't have to pay anything.


----------



## mickle (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> The problem with cameras is that they are non discretionary, surely technology exists where some sort of consideration could be given to traffic volumes, road conditions, weather etc to build in some sort of tolerance?
> 
> Take my recent ticket (mentioned up there ^^), 59mph on a motorway, in the middle of the day on a quiet, dry motorway is hardly "a menace on the road", yet i get the same 3 points and 60 quid as some boy racer doing the same in heavy traffic on ice would get.
> 
> Fair? I think not.


Diddums!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> In my county, there is a lot more bias now on unmarked police cars than fixed camera's. Given that when I filter through traffic, and regularly smell Ganja coming from the cars and see people talking on the mobile, eating, driving erratically, skimming the elbows of cyclists etc which would not be detected by a static cam, I think that the resources would be of better effect when in the hands of someone who can detect other things which have the potential to cause many more problems than a simple snapshot of a vehicle moving on an open stretch of road.


I'd like to see more speed cameras, more traffic light cameras, and more average speed cameras, say on the stretches of 50mph road between two 30mph villages a la CopperCyclist above, and the revenue generated from taxing the enjoyment drivers get from speeding, and jumping red lights, this yet-another-tax-on-the-hard-pressed-motorist-blah-moan-winge, this extortion from those whose throttle pedal only seems to go one way, spent on police mobile patrols.

win - win.

But I'm a Taliban Wheeler.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Take my recent ticket (mentioned up there ^^), 59mph on a motorway, in the middle of the day on a quiet, dry motorway is hardly "a menace on the road", yet i get the same 3 points and 60 quid as some boy racer doing the same in heavy traffic on ice would get.
> 
> Fair? I think not.


Why was it a 50? some kind of temporary restriction?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

The only time I've ever knowingly set off a speed camera is on my bike.

and I passed my full motorcycle test in 1977, and car test in 1981


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> No, permanent on a bend in the motorway to stop lorries toppling over. I suspect my car would be perfectly 'planted' at taking it at 100mph+


Weird, Ive never seen the like, I can sympathize on that one if you aren't aware of it and get caught out.


----------



## DRHysted (4 Apr 2012)

1794614 said:


> Yes reading that link I can see how unreasonable it would be to expect people to slow down a bit for a short while.


 
But that slowing and returning to speed wastes fuel, which as we know is a dwindling resource, and shouldn't be wasted.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Inertia said:


> Weird, Ive never seen the like, I can sympathize on that one if you aren't aware of it and get caught out.


 
Apart from the fairly large and clear signs telling you about the speed limit?


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Apart from the fairly large and clear signs telling you about the speed limit?


Yes


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yeh thats the one.
> 
> I am aware of it but was deep in discussion with a colleague at the time. It is of course, 'my bad', but I would still argue the discretionary point.


Unfortunately how do you decide who deserves to be fined and who not, I'm sure everyone would have an excuse.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I'd like to see more speed cameras, more traffic light cameras, and more average speed cameras, say on the stretches of 50mph road between two 30mph villages a la CopperCyclist above, and the revenue generated from taxing the enjoyment drivers get from speeding, and jumping red lights, this yet-another-tax-on-the-hard-pressed-motorist-blah-moan-winge, this extortion from those whose throttle pedal only seems to go one way, spent on police mobile patrols.
> 
> win - win.
> 
> But I'm a Taliban Wheeler.


 
Well if there were to be any revenue raised from the use of speed cams (which I am suspicious of), I'd like to think that it is spent on making the roads safer for ALL users, and enforcing the relevant laws broken by them.

A HGV is limited to 40mph on single carriageways with good reason, but a Gatso set to 60mph will not catch them out - A speeding 44 tonne vehicle is a lot more difficult to drive and stop than a 1 tonne car and could do immense damage if it all goes wrong.

A cam van or traffic patrol will catch them out though.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> I received a ticket last week...
> 
> 59mph in a 50 in Stockport


 
Oof, not another one


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Rot. Cameras barely cover their costs.


 
It's widely been reported that some cameras rake in millions. Rot, I think not.


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Its not about excuses its about element of danger, which of course is entirely variable. Speed cameras are just a lazy mans sledgehammer to crack a perceived road safety nut.


 
Perceived? We want to slow people down. Cameras are a good way of doing it.


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Perceived? We want to slow people down. Cameras are a good way of doing it for 50 yards.


 FTFY


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Perceived? We want to slow people down. Cameras are a good way of doing it.


So is a Police Officer


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Perceived? We want to slow people down. Cameras are a good way of doing it.


 
They rarely work on locals though


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> It's widely been reported that some cameras rake in millions. Rot, I think not.


 
Got any actual evidence though?


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> So is a Police Officer


 
They both work. Speed cameras are great because they are always on duty, but we'd all like to see more traffic police as well.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Got any actual evidence though?


 
I used to be, but given how generous the remuneration packages are for civil servants, the hidden costs of keeping the depts and seats warm must be very substantial - I would guess that was why some of the depts were abandoned a couple of years ago.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

And the argument that speed cameras are useless because they only catch speeding, and not other dangerous driving is stupid.
It's like complaining that CCTV in a supermarket doesn't stop someone being mugged down a nearby alleyway.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> So is a Police Officer


I think theclaud should have said "cost effective" rather than "good". A police officer is not.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> And the argument that speed cameras are useless because they only catch speeding, and not other dangerous driving is stupid.


I agree, any tasks we can take from police surely means they have more time to do other work that a camera cannot do.


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

Inertia said:


> I agree, any tasks we can take from police surely means they have more time to do other work that a camera cannot do.


 Yeah, The roads are crawling with traffic police now that they have one less task to look out for on the roads.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> And the argument that speed cameras are useless because they only catch speeding, and not other dangerous driving is stupid.
> It's like complaining that CCTV in a supermarket doesn't stop someone being mugged down a nearby alleyway.


 
Does it not worry you that this type of 'policing' will never pick up on the drunk and drug using on the roads ?

I feel that it is lazy enforcement, and is only really effective against those who are by and large law abiding users. There are examples I've seen of poor driving which are far more dangerous than what Smeggers has just fessed up to.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

Inertia said:


> I agree, any tasks we can take from police surely means they have more time to do other work that a camera cannot do.


 
The thing is though, if a patrol stops a speeding driver, they can check for driving unsder the influence - sight test if they suspect that the drivers vision isn't up to it, condition of the tyres, unsafe load etc etc

They will do all this when they stop someone.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> Yeah, The roads are crawling with traffic police now that they have one less task to look out for on the roads.


I imagine there are a lot more of them on the roads now instead of parked on mini hills on the side of motorways watching traffic slow down and speed up as they are passed. A monkey in a car could do that job.

I don't think anyone said we don't want traffic cops out there, I do, I want them out looking for dangerous driving, uninsured drivers etc.


----------



## CopperCyclist (4 Apr 2012)

CCTV is contentious. Nearly everyone seems to be against it, until they become victim of a crime. Let's use a robbery (mugging) for example. At that point, suddenly everyone is pro-CCTV. The victim says "You'll be able to catch them, there was CCTV". The offender when arrested always says "Check duh CCTV, proofs it's nots me innit". (They say this even when guilty, I suspect they have been trained to do so by defence solicitors due to the following point).

The modern view of CPS tends to be a complete fear to charge an offender unless they are guaranteed a 'win' at court. This means we need some irrefutable evidence, like, you've guessed it, CCTV. For me the issue with CCTV isn't 'impinging my civil liberties' - hell if I'm out in public then why do I care about being filmed - but the fact that when it comes to criminal proceedings, rather than being the 'icing on the cake' in the evidential process, it seems to have become the cake itself.

Half the time the CCTV isn't a great help unless there's actively been a controller watching the proceeding and zooming in anyway.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> The thing is though, if a patrol stops a speeding driver, they can check for driving unsder the influence - sight test if they suspect that the drivers vision isn't up to it, condition of the tyres, unsafe load etc etc
> 
> They will do all this when they stop someone.


I agree, but I don't advocate taking police off the roads, this will still happen.


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

Inertia said:


> I imagine there are a lot more of them on the roads now instead of parked on mini hills on the side of motorways watching traffic slow down and speed up as they are passed. A monkey in a car could do that job.
> 
> I don't think anyone said we don't want traffic cops out there, I do, I want them out looking for dangerous driving, uninsured drivers etc.


Where are they then? Last time I saw traffic police out patrolling was just before christmas.

Around here as the amount of Cameras has gone up the amount of traffic police has gone down


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> Where are they then? Last time I saw traffic police out patrolling was just before christmas.
> 
> Around here as the amount of Cameras has gone up the amount of traffic police has gone down


I still see quite a few but to answer your question I don't know where they are in your area but I agree we need more.


----------



## vernon (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Fair? I think not.


 
Of course it's fair.

You broke the speed limit. The penalties are well publicised.

Suck it up.


----------



## vernon (4 Apr 2012)

Inertia said:


> Weird, Ive never seen the like, I can sympathize on that one if you aren't aware of it and get caught out.


 
A visit to Specsavers might assist with the spotting of the speed limit signs.......


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Giving the wombles (motorway patrols) the power of arrest would be a cheaper solution.


 Motorways are our safest roads. Also not much use in areas like mine where there aren't any motorways.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Giving the wombles (motorway patrols) the power of arrest would be a cheaper solution.


I'm showing my ignorance here but I didn't realise they didn't have power of arrest.

I heard from someone once that the traffic cops are looked down upon by regular police, maybe that explains it


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> *All* people *all* of the time in *all* conditions?


 
No, but we want to slow people down _across the board_. I acknowledge that not all speeding offences represent _equally_ dangerous or antisocial behaviour, but (with a very few and specific exceptions) all driving becomes _less_ dangerous and antisocial if slowed down. And the reason there are places where drivers who notionally agree that speeding is generally wrong still feel it is OK to speed, is that the normalisation of speeding in those places is what maintains the conditions that make it seem OK to speed. It's circular reasoning, in other words.


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Although to be serious (just for a mo), its the very _definition_ of speeding that im arguing. Non discretionary innit. I'm not arguing for a minimum speed limit of 100mph, simply that speed cameras in themselves have no perception of 'danger'.


 
You're overcomplicating it. We can use a sledgehammer, because it doesn't matter if we pulverise the nut. If we slow everyone down, it won't matter a jot that some people are slowed down "unnecessarily" or more than is "necessary". The speed that drivers would rather be travelling at is of virtually no interest. Their mistake is to imagine that anyone else gives a shoot.


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Why? Does the world move too fast for you TC? Is it all getting a bit scary? "Stop the ride I want to get off"!!!


 


Not at all, Smeggers. A lot of the time I move faster than cars, and I like it. I think a default urban speed limit of 15mph for motor vehicles, and a notional one of 25mph for pedal cycles, is about right.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> You're overcomplicating it. We can use a sledgehammer, because it doesn't matter if we pulverise the nut. If we slow everyone down, it won't matter a jot that some people are slowed down "unnecessarily" or more than is "necessary". The speed that drivers would rather be travelling at is of virtually no interest. Their mistake is to imagine that anyone else gives a shoot.


 
They don't drive fast all of the time though (exceeding the limit/at a speed which they can't stop within the distance to they see to be safe) - I doubt Smeggers does, and I don't. IIRC, Speeding (breaking the limits) only accounts for 8% of accidents. Nobody is saying that this is insignifficant, but an awful lot of resources have been thrown at automating a system which doesn't realistically do the job of policing the roads effectively at all - it is a one trick pony.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Although to be serious (just for a mo), its the very _definition_ of speeding that im arguing. Non discretionary innit. I'm not arguing for a minimum speed limit of 100mph, simply that speed cameras in themselves have no perception of 'danger'.


The camera isn't the final word, you could always appeal to a judge who has discretion and I'm sure will have a better perception of danger


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Speed limits for cyclists???!!!
> 
> Traitor!!


 
I did say "notional". And I need some help if I'm going to catch Origamist...


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> ... bearing in mind the "anyone else's" (non drivers) are in a massive minority.


 
You couldn't be more wrong. I mean "anyone else" quite literally. Drivers don't give a flying f**k about other drivers. It's the nature of the beast. Everyone else is in the way. You shouldn't mistake the faux solidarity of empathetic whinging for any kind of collective enterprise.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Does it not worry you that this type of 'policing' will never pick up on the drunk and drug using on the roads ?
> 
> I feel that it is lazy enforcement, and is only really effective against those who are by and large law abiding users. There are examples I've seen of poor driving which are far more dangerous than what Smeggers has just fessed up to.


 
I'm in favour of speed cameras *and* increased traffic patrols.
I don't see how the fact that I am in favour of speed cameras means I approve of the reduction in traffic police - I don't.


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Got any actual evidence though?


 
Good places to start

http://servicingstopblog.co.uk/saving-money/speed-cameras-making-3-1-million-a-year/

http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/syscp-20110046


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> They don't drive fast all of the time though (exceeding the limit/at a speed which they can't stop within the distance to they see to be safe) - I doubt Smeggers does, and I don't. IIRC, Speeding (breaking the limits) only accounts for 8% of accidents. Nobody is saying that this is insignifficant, but an awful lot of resources have been thrown at automating a system which doesn't realistically do the job of policing the roads effectively at all - it is a one trick pony.


 
Where does your 8% figure come from? Whilst it may be true that speeding is not that often a _direct_ cause of a collision (although I am unconvinced) it clearly makes any collision, no matter what the cause, both more likely and more serious.


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I think theclaud should have said "cost effective" rather than "good". A police officer is not.


 
What neither good or cost effective


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> It's widely been reported that some cameras rake in millions. Rot, I think not.


excellent! The more the better!


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> Where are they then? Last time I saw traffic police out patrolling was just before christmas.
> 
> Around here as the amount of Cameras has gone up the amount of traffic police has gone down


Brilliant! The police can chase real criminals and the criminals who speed have to pay their tickets. This thread is cheering me up no end! Can we have another one about clamping in private car parks please?


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> excellent! The more the better!


 
Cameras? Millions? or Rot?


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> Cameras? Millions? or Rot?


More cameras = more millions! It's all good!


----------



## 400bhp (4 Apr 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> CCTV is contentious. Nearly everyone seems to be against it, until they become victim of a crime. Let's use a robbery (mugging) for example. At that point, suddenly everyone is pro-CCTV. The victim says "You'll be able to catch them, there was CCTV". The offender when arrested always says "Check duh CCTV, proofs it's nots me innit". (They say this even when guilty, I suspect they have been trained to do so by defence solicitors due to the following point).
> 
> The modern view of CPS tends to be a complete fear to charge an offender unless they are guaranteed a 'win' at court. This means we need some irrefutable evidence, like, you've guessed it, CCTV. For me the issue with CCTV isn't 'impinging my civil liberties' - hell if I'm out in public then why do I care about being filmed - but the fact that when it comes to criminal proceedings, rather than being the 'icing on the cake' in the evidential process, it seems to have become the cake itself.
> 
> Half the time the CCTV isn't a great help unless there's actively been a controller watching the proceeding and zooming in anyway.


 
This is chicken & egg, the CPS stance has come about because of CCTV, not in-spite of it. CCTV has its uses but appears to have become the panacea of crime prevention and detection which it clearly isn't


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> Good places to start
> 
> http://servicingstopblog.co.uk/saving-money/speed-cameras-making-3-1-million-a-year/
> 
> http://www.southyorks.police.uk/foi/disclosurelog/syscp-20110046


 
The first link has no discussion on what it costs to maintain the cameras, so saying they "make" £3.1 million is disingenuous at best.

The second link has total fines for 2010 at £291,420, and total expenditure (servicing, maintenance, &c.) at £1,852,217.88. So the cameras operate at a *deficit* of more than £1.5 million!

So if speed cameras are this massive cash cow, how come they are being cut back in this time of austerity? If they made so much money, you'd think the government would be putting more of them up?

Oh, maybe it's because the idea that they make tons of money is utter rubbish:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...te-than-fines-they-brought-in-86908-22411951/

In any case, fines raised from them goes to the treasury, not the local authority, so your claim that they are "a cash cow for local Police forces" is untrue.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Risk adversity. Wheres the limit to that argument? Is there any speed where accidents* suddenly become "safe"? Erm no.
> 
> [Clue: If there was then they wouldnt be called _accidents_]


 
Well they are very rarely accidents, if you ask me. I don't follow the rest of your post at all. Are you saying that a crash at 40mph is no more serious than one at 30mph?


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> If me, as a driver, went round "not giving a flying (or otherwise) f*ck about other drivers", I would have been killed years ago.
> 
> And by implication I presume you think non drivers are a united front?


 
You're being silly, Smeglington. By "don't give a f**k" I don't mean that they are happy about maiming each other (although they seem to do a fair bit of it anyway). I mean simply when it comes to slowing down, it's only themselves having to go slower that rankles - other people slowing down only annoys them if it makes them reduce their own speed. Whereas from outside the car, slowing down makes everything better for everyone else.


----------



## Paul J (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> total expenditure (servicing, maintenance, &c.) at £1,852,217.88. So the cameras operate at a *deficit* of more than £1.5 million!


 
After installing new cameras that they do not list cost seperate.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Paul J said:


> After installing new cameras that they do not list cost seperate.


 
I don't understand what you're saying. There was a figure for fines raised, and a figure for costs of maintenance. The result was a £1.5 million deficit.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Well they are very rarely accidents, if you ask me. I don't follow the rest of your post at all. Are you saying that a crash at 40mph is no more serious than one at 30mph?


 
A vehicle rarely impacts at the speed it travels at though - I knew that the brake pedal was a good invention


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Are you saying that a crash at 40mph is no more serious than one at 30mph?


If it's a head on crash at 30 and a side swipe at 40 then yes.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> A vehicle rarely impacts at the speed it travels at though - I knew that the brake pedal was a good invention


 
This is true, but doesn't change the fundamental principle that collisions at higher speeds are more serious than those at lower.

I'm slightly amazed that on a cycling forum of all places, some people are of the opinion that speed limits should be down to personal interpretation by the driver.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> If it's a head on crash at 30 and a side swipe at 40 then yes.


 
Oh come off it, it was obvious I meant an otherwise similar collision.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> No, but we want to slow people down _across the board_. I acknowledge that not all speeding offences represent _equally_ dangerous or antisocial behaviour, but (with a very few and specific exceptions) all driving becomes _less_ dangerous and antisocial if slowed down. And the reason there are places where drivers who notionally agree that speeding is generally wrong still feel it is OK to speed, is that the normalisation of speeding in those places is what maintains the conditions that make it seem OK to speed. It's circular reasoning, in other words.


 

I would rather have a sober and focussed driver passing me at 70mph on a 60mph road, than a drunk or drugged driver following them at 50mph - wouldn't you TC ?


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

Alright then what age are the vehicles involved? I'd rather be involved in a crash @ 40 in a 6 month old vehicle then a crash @ 30 mph in a 15~20 year old banger.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> I would rather have a sober and focussed driver passing me at 70mph on a 60mph road, than a drunk or drugged driver following them at 50mph - wouldn't you TC ?


 
False dichotomy alert.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> This is true, but doesn't change the fundamental principle that collisions at higher speeds are more serious than those at lower.
> 
> I'm slightly amazed that on a cycling forum of all places, some people are of the opinion that speed limits should be down to personal interpretation by the driver.


 
A fair few of the people here have extensive experience and training of other types of vehicles on the roads. The maxim stated in the highway code 'Drive at a speed which you can stop within the distance to be safe' relies on that principle. Sometimes it will be much lower than the posted, sometimes higher. I tow a trailer with standing animals, and rarely do I reach the relevant speed limit for the vehicle unless on a long, straight, flat and uninterupted stretch as I like to have lots of space to slow down. Sure it pees other drivers off as that is lower than the posted limits, but my primary concern is getting from A to B in one piece with the animals intact.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

1794948 said:


> Traffic Cops are Police Officers with the normal power of arrest. Smeggers was talking about the Highway Agency Traffic Officers, using a phrase he has borrowed from his spiritual leader.


Yes I realized this afterwards, thanks for clarifying.  I hadn't heard of the wombles tag though.

I did hear that regular police officers look down on the traffic cops though.


----------



## theclaud (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> I would rather have a sober and focussed driver passing me at 70mph on a 60mph road, than a drunk or drugged driver following them at 50mph - wouldn't you TC ?


 
Linfy - we've covered your logic problem before. In order of preference for drivers passing me, where the first option is the best, and all of the last four are unnacceptable.

Not at all
Sober at <50mph
Sober at 50mph
Sober at 70mph
Drunk at <50mph
Drunk at 50mph
Drunk at 70mph
Which bit are you having difficulty with?


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (4 Apr 2012)




----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> False dichotomy alert.


 
You don't think it is a fair question to put ?


----------



## green1 (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> You don't think it is a fair question to put ?


The new generation of speed cameras has a built in breathaliser don't you know.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> A fair few of the people here have extensive experience and training of other types of vehicles on the roads. The maxim stated in the highway code 'Drive at a speed which you can stop within the distance to be safe' relies on that principle. Sometimes it will be much lower than the posted, sometimes higher. I tow a trailer with standing animals, and rarely do I reach the relevant speed limit for the vehicle unless on a long, straight, flat and uninterupted stretch as I like to have lots of space to slow down. Sure it pees other drivers off as that is lower than the posted limits, but my primary concern is getting from A to B in one piece with the animals intact.


 
That's excellent, and I commend you. However a large amount of drivers don't have this policy. In the absence of a system that can detect whether exceeding the posted limit is safe, I think it's best to just get everyone to drive within the speed limit.



Linford said:


> You don't think it is a fair question to put ?


 
No, because it's not a result of insisting people stick within the limit.


----------



## srw (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> my primary concern is getting from A to B in one piece with the animals intact.


 You know what - that's my concern whenever I'm out on the road too. But the animals in question are usually human. And may or may not be known to me.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Linfy - we've covered your logic problem before. In order of preference for drivers passing me, where the first option is the best, and all of the last four are unnacceptable.
> 
> Not at all
> Sober at <50mph
> ...


 


Living in the perfect world bit - I struggle with this as we don't Claudine, so I'd be happy to settle for sober and focussed road users who are 100% aware of what is going on around them and don't put others at risk by pulling out on them when they don't have right of way, and also drive at a speed which they can stop within the distance to be safe.

You might not like that, but it is IMO a good compromise in the real world. You can be put in mortal danger by having a driver observing the limits, but little else around them.


----------



## srw (4 Apr 2012)

So how do you propose that police identify drunk drivers?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> More cameras = more millions! It's all good!


 
win -win

_"The statistics also have away other interesting pieces of information. This included the A259 in Brighton, East Sussex having 11 cameras in just 12 miles. Those cameras have earned £1 million in just three years through 18,000 drivers."_

The scandal is that that folk are more shocked by the amount of money raised in the fines then the fact that 18,000 drivers are dumb enough to get caught speeding on one 12 mile stretch. What's their freakin' hurry?


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> So how do you propose that police identify drunk drivers?


 A facetious answer would be to plant speed camera's everywhere in the hope they might eventually drive through so many whilst inebriated, that they pick up a ban that way, but a police driver on the ball will see the signs easily enough.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> A facetious answer would be to plant speed camera's everywhere in the hope they might eventually drive through so many whilst inebriated, that they pick up a ban that way, but a police driver on the ball will see the signs easily enough.


 
How about having both speed cameras and traffic police?


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

Don't get me wrong, if you get caught by an officer for speeding and they ask you to take a ticket, then you are banged to rights, but these drivers are experts, and if they feel you are driving in a way which endangers yourself and others, then that should be their call also.

A fixed camera doesn't give the operator any more information to the danger of that driver if they are tailgating, or talking on the mobile than a couple of still pictures taken a second apart showing the back of their head. They could be absolutely hammered, and be happy that there are not many police cars out there who might take the time to study what htey do.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> How about having both speed cameras and traffic police?


 
My force had this, but has been reducing the numbers of static cams in favour of cars.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

User said:


> Speed cameras have a built in lee way.
> 
> You got caught breaking the law - so stop whinging and take it like a man!


 
I didn't think he was whinging TBH - You can be despondent about a situation whilst still accepting it is right and fair - but then again, I just reread it  

Bend over and take it Smeggers


----------



## mickle (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Blah blah blah ... The maxim stated in the highway code 'Drive at a speed which you can stop within the distance to be safe' relies on that principle. _*Sometimes it will be*_ much lower than the posted, sometimes *higher.*... lah blah blah


 
Really? The highway code suggests that it's ok to drive in excess of the posted limit? I must have missed that bit...


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

mickle said:


> Really? The highway code suggests that it's ok to drive in excess of the posted limit? I must have missed that bit...


 
Anything on the wrong side of the limit is 'wrong' in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't neccesarily mean it is putting anyone in danger.


----------



## Inertia (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Anything on the wrong side of the limit is 'wrong' in the eyes of the law, but that doesn't neccesarily mean it is putting anyone in danger.


Personally, Id rather people stick to the speed limit (or less) instead of deciding for themselves what is safe or not. Is it really too much to ask?


----------



## mickle (4 Apr 2012)

Shooting a gun off isn't necessarily going to put anyone in danger, but in a civilized society we accept that certain risky activities must be strictly controlled for the greater good.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

I am a frequent speeder and have paid heavily in the past for my habit.

I am 300% in favour of speed cameras and have been since they appeared, despite being a part of the income stream that in part justifies their use.

I don't like the fact that their presence must be signposted, but accept that it is. It is a measure of how mentally dull we speeding motorists are that so many of us are still blitzed within a short distance of a warning sign that cameras are present. 

Some of my friends say that cameras are dangerous because they make the driver concentrate on the speedometer when they should be concentrating on the road. This argument barely warrants the wry arching of an eyebrow.

Every road car I've driven since passing my test has had a great big speedometer on the dashboard with a needle (or LED) indicating current speed. The trick is to make sure that the indicated speed doesn't exceed the speed shown in the round signs by the roadside. It is not a difficult trick.

Before she was fully literate/numerate my daughter would say to my wife "The sign says a six and a zero and Daddy is doing an eight and a zero". If a three-year-old child can get that, what excuse did I have?

None.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Don't get me wrong, if you get caught by an officer for speeding and they ask you to take a ticket, then you are banged to rights, but these drivers are experts, and if they feel you are driving in a way which endangers yourself and others, then that should be their call also.
> 
> A fixed camera doesn't give the operator any more information to the danger of that driver if they are tailgating, or talking on the mobile than a couple of still pictures taken a second apart showing the back of their head. They could be absolutely hammered, and be happy that there are not many police cars out there who might take the time to study what htey do.


 
In the majority of cases, speeding drivers *are* "driving in a way which endangers yourself and others"

Many drivers witter on about how they are the best driver ever, so it should be up to them what speed they drive at. It's just bollocks.

Why should we allow people the discretion to decide which laws apply to them? We'll be condoning RLJ next!!


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> _*In the majority of cases, speeding drivers are "driving in a way which endangers yourself and others*_"
> 
> Many drivers witter on about how they are the best driver ever, so it should be up to them what speed they drive at. It's just bollocks.
> 
> Why should we allow people the discretion to decide which laws apply to them? We'll be condoning RLJ next!!


 
Is that your opinion, that of a traffic police officer, or of a civilian operator who's job is to process the film, and issue the fines ?


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Is that your opinion, that of a traffic police officer, or of a civilian operator who's job is to process the film, and issue the fines ?


 
My opinion, but I would have thought it was self-evident.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yeh like them stupid yanks being allowed to turn right on a red light. Discretion. Common Sense and grey areas in America.... who'da thought it.


 
Well if you want to, you are free to lobby to have the laws changed.
I don't see how you can argue you should be free to interpret the laws as you wish.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> My opinion, but I would have thought it was self-evident.


 
So if for instance I were followed by a police car, and they clocked me exceeding the posted limit
(and bearing in mind that a traffic officer is regarded as an expert in this field in in a court of law), they pulled me over and charged me for speeding, that is not the same offence as undue care and attention, or the greater charge of dangerous driving.

If they were to want to take it through the courts, and raise the charge to one of dangerous driving, then they would have to present evidence to that effect.

The notion that anybody exceeding the posted limit is automatically guilty of dangerous driving doesn't really hold water, and an uninformed opinion carries no real weight when put to the test.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Apr 2012)

Speed Cameras are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. QED speeding drivers are nuts.

Works for me.


----------



## srw (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> police driver on the ball will see the signs easily enough.


 What signs? In a split second, how do you distinguish mild inebriation from mild distraction with enough certainty to pull someone over?


----------



## srw (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> I dunno, perhaps we could have them hung from gantrys, tell people of the speed limit using matrix boards and call them "Variable Speed Limits".... Maybe even install them at Heathrow M25 and say Birmingham M40 for a laugh?


 Those examples are nothing to do with road safety, and everything to do with smooth traffic flow.

They're also completely useless, because they're not backed up by cameras at every gantry.

If they were, I'd be without my driving licence by now.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> What signs? In a split second, how do you distinguish mild inebriation from mild distraction with enough certainty to pull someone over?


 
I was actually thinking of them in the traffic and observing the behaviour of the vehicles around them - as they do.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> So if for instance I were followed by a police car, and they clocked me exceeding the posted limit (and bearing in mind that a traffic officer is regarded as an expert in this field in in a court of law), they pulled me over and charged me for speeding, that is not the same offence as undue care and attention, or the greater charge of dangerous driving.
> 
> If they were to want to take it through the courts, and raise the charge to one of dangerous driving, then they would have to present evidence to that effect.
> 
> *The notion that anybody exceeding the posted limit is automatically guilty of dangerous driving doesn't really hold water,* and an uninformed opinion carries no real weight when put to the test.


 
I don't think Ben B is making that point. He seems to me to be suggesting that by imposing a speed limit for a section of carriageway, the authoities are implying that any vehicle exceeding that speed without any legal reason to do so is driving at a speed beyond that which is considered safe for the road in question.

One might conclude that the driver is therefore taking risks above and beyond those considered acceptable under law or (by implication) driving in a way which is not safe.

The offence of Dangerous Driving is another kettle of fish altogether and not, I think, what BenB is referring to.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the authorities in a democratic society should introduce a system whereby vehicles passing a given point at greater than a legally imposed and clearly posted speed limit should be subject to a fine and/or further punishment.

In the 'good old days' I benefitted from several 'Gypsy's warnings' from well-meaning traffic officers and then went off to do the same silly thing again. How much fairer to have a system that simply results in my being reported for the offence of speeding every time I trigger a device.


----------



## srw (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> And arent they monitored by Average Speed Cameras* these days?


 If they were, I'd have lost my licence long ago.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> I dont want to interpret the laws at all - I want the lawmakers to stand by their own justification for their enforcement of its laws.
> 
> If a speed camera is put there for "Road Safety", thats absolutley fine by me, would it be so wrong to expect some sort of system to turn the camera off when conditions allow?
> 
> ...


 
I fail to see why the lawmakers need to offer any further justification than "Here's the limit; if you break it we'll fine you".

You're basically saying that you feel you should be free to exceed the posted limit, because you're a really great driver so you can do it safely.

Sounds rather similar to arguments I've heard that go:

"Well obviously if you can't handle your drink you shouldn't drink and drive, but I can take my booze, so just a couple and one for the road and I'm fine"


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I don't think Ben B is making that point...


 
And what he said.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> ... then why do we already have variable speed cameras?


 
Er, because in certain circumstances (e.g.fog) the posted limit is too high, and we can't trust idiot drivers to slow down on their own. Pretty sure there's no variable limit that will make it higher than the "normal" limit.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Yep you're getting it now, variable conditions. You make my point for me. Thanks.
> 
> PS I have never argued for a higher than "normal" limit.


 
Variable - up to the posted limit. The clue's in the word limit.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Indeed. Then why have a permanent lower than limit camera for all conditions? The clues in the word 'permanent'.


 
Where? Unless you mean roadworks.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Its a permanent 50mph camera on a motorway.


 
Where?


----------



## subaqua (4 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> I fail to see why the lawmakers need to offer any further justification than "Here's the limit; if you break it we'll fine you".
> 
> You're basically saying that you feel you should be free to exceed the posted limit, because you're* a really great driver* so you can do it safely.
> 
> ...


 

funnily enough well over 50% of drivers think they are above average drivers. I think that sums it up.

me ,Definitley average.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Its a permanent 50mph camera on a motorway.


 
Oh, and is your argument really:
"There's one or two speed cameras that I think are unnecessary or badly placed, therefore the whole speed camera system is crap"


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Have you not been reading any of this thread? Its ^^ thataway.


 
Oh, I thought that one was where there was a tight bend or something. Can you please link it again, as I can't find the post now.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Remind me again, where I said this?


Here:


User3094 said:


> Yes an un-moveable, non negotiable, non discretionary lee way. Which is rubbish. Really rubbish. More rubbish than a very rubbish thing. Which is very rubbish indeed.


----------



## subaqua (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Same thing innit?
> 
> And arent they monitored by Average Speed Cameras* these days?
> 
> ...


 
some sections are covered by average sped cameras. the M25 by Heathrow does have gantry cameras though. sadly they are the film type not the digital type so are not really much use.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Thats not even an anagram of "all speed cameras are crap"...
> 
> Your gonna have to do better than that Benny boy.


 
Well obviously I was paraphrasing.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Oh, BTW, it's nice to have a debate where, although strong views are being expressed, we're all being (relatively) civil - and no sign of trolls!


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> FTFY


 
Haha, thanks!


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

Smeggers, I'm struggling to understand exactly what your argument is.

There was a clearly posted speed limit, which you exceeded. If you don't agree with the limit, then lobby to have it changed.


----------



## MontyVeda (4 Apr 2012)

blimey... 5 pages in 12 hours!


----------



## subaqua (4 Apr 2012)

there was a revenue generator at the bottom of the M11. then the start of the lower limit got moved to where it should be ( just before the merge from 3 lanes to 2, instead of 200 yds before the camera on the 2 lane section) and the revenue generator isn't as good at taxing idiots who cant read anymore.


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

MontyVeda said:


> blimey... 5 pages in 12 hours!


 
It is a speeding thread


----------



## Linford (4 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I don't think Ben B is making that point. He seems to me to be suggesting that by imposing a speed limit for a section of carriageway, the authoities are implying that any vehicle exceeding that speed without any legal reason to do so is driving at a speed beyond that which is considered safe for the road in question.
> 
> One might conclude that the driver is therefore taking risks above and beyond those considered acceptable under law or (by implication) driving in a way which is not safe.
> 
> ...


 
Have you been caught by a static cam, and have you broken the speed limit since that time ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Have you been caught by a static cam, and have you broken the speed limit since that time ?


 
Good question. Yes, but I exceeded the limit far less after a fine and points than after a 'talking to'.

In the days of the quiet word from a copper (in my 20s and a courier), I dismissed the advice as soon as I was round the corner. The throttle was generally at or near the stop wherever possible. I saw speeding almost as a duty or a sacred calling.

In the days of the static cam that brooks no BS from motorists, my driving was significantly calmer for a good few weeks (months?) after each 3-pointer. On the occasion of a 6-pointer (richly deserved) I slowed down for many, many months. Sometimes my insurance was affected (quite rightly) and this has an effect on behaviour too. So yes, my behaviour was modified *much more* by static cameras than by traffic officers.

Now I speed much less. I took the option of a course for the cost of a fine a couple of years ago and it did wonders for my ability to stay within the law.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

1795420 said:


> A heart warming tale. Imagine how much more could be achieved with more average speed cameras then?


 
I know nothing of the effectiveness of average-speed camera systems. However, I am strongly in favour of the wide use of the type of roadside camera that caught me many times.

The tale wasn't meant to be heartwarming, but I'm glad it touched a human heart.


----------



## atbman (4 Apr 2012)

As far as I can tell, the safe speed judgement argument goes roughly like this (points are, I believe, awarded for the driver's level of ability):

I'm a good driver and can judge what speed is safe even if it's higher than the limit (3 points)
I'm a very good driver and am able to exceed the speed limit safely by a sizeable margin because of that (6 points)
I'm so good, I can go 50% faster than the speed limit in perfect safety (9 points)
I'm an absolutely brilliant driver who can do 80 in a built-up area and 140 on the motorway (12 points). This means that banning me for 12 months has actually increased the relative danger on the roads because they've taken such a brilliantly safe driver off it
I read somewhere that about half of all drivers done for speeding have had an insurance claim accident in the preceding 6 months


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (4 Apr 2012)

11 Pages in a day...personal best for a forum I made :

Anyway, for me the law is the law. There is no point in trying to think it is safe to drive over the speed limit of a road because it seems logical. I think this way because there are gonna be bad drivers who try to drive faster and they fail at it by not being safe. Then, as you grow older, your reaction times don't work as well as they used to. I see so many drivers who still don't keep to the 2 second rule, and too often have I seen cars who nearly crash into the car ahead of them because they don't keep a safe stopping distance away from the car ahead of you. Plus, you sometimes get people who have done driving lessons in a different country and then they come over to here and just do a few lessons and pass. Driving cars has to be well regulated and watched because it isn't a stroll in the park, this is a 2 ton machine that can kill.

When I talk about CCTV and speedcameras, I mean where speedcameras catch your speed but also when CCTV catches a stupid car driver...how I just want the police to stop him/her and tell them what they did wrong. People complain about the fines but for me, I just keep thinking 'next time could be much worse'.

I hate average speed cameras myself because it does stop speeding but it can also aggrevate fellow drivers. The main aim of speedcameras and CCTV is to save lives and to reduce bad car driving, not to annoy car drivers...there would be some over-lap but it'd be worth it in my opinion.

I read somewhere that AA or some other car insurance company were thinking of introducing this black box that is fitted in your car. With that, what could happen is that if the black box thinks you are driving like a moron or speeding and that sort of thing, the company would post a letter to your house about the situation. Also, if you are a good car driver, then you get benefits such as cheaper car insurance and such. I think this would be a good idea. I'd love for it to be a compulsory thing in all cars.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

My sentiments are strongly with abtman's post above, up to a point.

I'm not sure speeders are quite that cocky, but there does seem to be a part of the human mindset that sees a limit as a challenge.

On the insurance-claim incident point, I am sceptical. I have no data to back up my scepticism, but I am claim-free for twenty years. Most drivers my age whom I know are fairly frequent breakers of the speed limit and none that I can think of has had an accident-related claim for five or more years. For most it is more than ten years.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Apr 2012)

I love the bleating.....

Lets take the claim that Police Officers are more effective than speed cameras in identifying and apprehending motoring offences.

They did this in Manchester, with traffic control cars apprehending traffic offences.

The bleating commenced immediately!

The ABD claimed that they were dangerous by making drivers look for the police enforcing traffic rules, the AA claimed that by issuing tickets for poor driving the Police were "failing to engage with the motorist", and of course then came the claim that Police were only enforcing traffic law to raise money.

Bizarre,but very ironic that all the speedophiles want Police on the streets except when they get what they claim to want and the Police start enforcing the law... which then again becomes acceptable!


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> That a certain camera on the M60 near Stockport, is rubbish, really rubbish, really really rubbish.....
> 
> So you see my fellow foaming mouthed speed-is-worse-than-paedophilia cyclists..... the truth is more boring than the one you are all trying to invent. Sorry! pip pip!



So lobby to get it changed.
I just can't see why you are complaining about it when (presumably) there was clear signing informing you of the speed limit.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> That a certain camera on the M60 near Stockport, is rubbish, really rubbish, really really rubbish.....
> 
> So you see my fellow foaming mouthed speed-is-worse-than-paedophilia cyclists..... the truth is more boring than the one you are all trying to invent. Sorry! pip pip!


 
The truth is very boring -you are right!

Speeding is unequivocally linked with poor driving, risk taking behaviour and increased accident rates.

For instance drivers with speeding convictions are twice as likely to have an injury accident in the following twelve months than a driver without.


Speeding is simply a diagnostic of a whole range of factors that can (and do) identify the dangerous drivers whose behavior needs to be addressed.


----------



## 400bhp (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> That a certain camera on the M60 near Stockport, is rubbish, really rubbish, really really rubbish.....


 
I know which one you meam - utterly pointless, a camera for the fcking useless who can't turn a corner.


----------



## mickle (4 Apr 2012)

Re: the corner in question, Instead of a camera they could remove the Armco and replace it with a deep drop into a body of water, possibly filled with sharks...


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

I worry about increasing rates of obesity in sharks.

I believe the proposed change in speed-abating measures would serve largely to worsen an already grave situation.

Many sharks are already slightly on the tubby side and this would only add to the problem.


----------



## mickle (4 Apr 2012)

1795738 said:


> And this or wouldn't modify behaviours?


What you said, yeah.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

1795752 said:


> Do you have any evidence for this?


 
Yes, look on tubbysharks.com or mysharkbmifear.com

Or... ask yourself why the White Shark is now known as the *Great* White Shark.

If either of the above websites doesn't exist then sadly... no, I have no proof.

But it seems like common sense to me. 

So I think it must be true. And be honest, when is the last time you saw a thin-looking shark?


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Apr 2012)

1795772 said:


> Great White not Fat Bastard White.


 
Well pardon me very much for not being a world-famous Marine Sharkologist...

They look fat, anyway.


----------



## benb (4 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Bore off.



You mean I should drill a hole in something?
I don't see how that's relevant.


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Apr 2012)

mangaman said:


> Hey hum - it's all in 1984 (*it was written by Geoffrey Chaucer by the way*) - the only flaw in your otherwise impeccable post


 Sorry, I think you'll find that Geoffrey Chaucer was written by Richard Bacon ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (4 Apr 2012)

1795786 said:


> You cant judge a fish by human standards.


 What kind of cod philosphy is that?


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. I mean "anyone else" quite literally. Drivers don't give a flying f**k about other drivers. It's the nature of the beast. Everyone else is in the way. You shouldn't mistake the faux solidarity of empathetic whinging for any kind of collective enterprise.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

atbman said:


> As far as I can tell, the safe speed judgement argument goes roughly like this (points are, I believe, awarded for the driver's level of ability):
> 
> I'm a good driver and can judge what speed is safe even if it's higher than the limit (3 points)
> I'm a very good driver and am able to exceed the speed limit safely by a sizeable margin because of that (6 points)
> ...


 

1. This happens all the time (people exceeding the limits) - it doens't automatically make them dangerous it reverts to the judgment call stated in the highway code (it is a lazy argument to say otherwise IMO)
2. Ditto again - the fact that people do this and whilst risking getting caught do not put themselves in significant danger (it is all about risk assesment, and using the experience they have gained to make that call)
3. Once again we go back to risk assessment and application of experience gained (stop within the distance you see to be safe) If a driver is deemed competent enough to make that judgment call at 60 on a 50 limit, then what is the difference between them doing the same at 50 on a 40 limit ? This is what they are trained to do isn't it. Driving is all about making series of judgment calls throughout the journey isn't it. That is what keeps the vehicles apart at the end of the day.
4. I certainly wouldn't agree with the first part as I do feel that the lower limits are put there for a very good reason, but provided there are no others around, I've seen this done many times, and no kittens were harmed in the process.

Now a candid answer to your final point as it doesn't define who was at fault in the claims though (and I do expect the gales of derision for it) - To quote your example (and this is not a boast, but an account , I got 3 points last november for speeding - Honest cop guv !! 

I didn't take my eye off the ball in relation to where I was going or what was in front but I was winding it on going up a big hill, and didn't see him drop in behind me in my mirrors from a slip road on a dual) It took him a while to catch me as I had a lot more perfomance than his plod beemer (I got stuck in traffic at the end of a dual, matched the traffic speed then and sat in it - at which time he came roaring up behind me with the lights and sirens on which must have made his day) Anyway, if it had been a static camera, I'd have never got the ticket as I know where they all are sited in the area so I do feel they are much more effective than a static cam.
What does keep my speed down more so on the NSL's is the very many unmarked cars on the roads now. I was substantially exceeding the limit, but only picked up the 3 points and £60 fine as whatever I was doing, he (as an expert witness in traffic matters) obviously didn't regard any of my actions to be that which was either reckless or dangerous (I didn't cause any risk to others, wasn't racing or running, and he had it on cam so would have been easy to substantiate either way)

I would looking back maintain that I didn't take any substantial risks, but I did break the law to which I bent over and took what was handed out - I have no issue with that.

The risk of increasing my insurance premiums or the risk of a ban if I get stopped again has slowed me down so I do appreciate the value it has (and always have done TBH), and I do appreciate the value of the limits but won't whinge about getting caught as breaking them was elective decision I consciously made.

I also had an insurance claim last summer prior to this when I was strapping my 18 month old grandaughter into her car seat on the side of the road, which caused a bit of an obstruction on my side and forced them to queue up to get past. I had the door open and was leaning in , and the majority of cars stopped and waited for a gap - apart from one woman who squeezed the gap, clipped my open door with her mirror which then pulled open and folded forward (full liability on her part)


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> . I was substantially exceeding the limit, but only picked up the 3 points and £60 fine as whatever I was doing, he (as an expert witness in traffic matters) obviously didn't regard any of my actions to be that which was either reckless or dangerous (I didn't cause any risk to others, wasn't racing or running, and he had it on cam so would have been easy to substantiate either way)


 
Be very careful with that assumption. The police officer will have been given instruction (orders) to automatically send you to court if you are x%/ymph over the speed limit, regardless of whether they perceived your driving to be dangerous. I know this.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> Be very careful with that assumption. The police officer will have been given instruction (orders) to automatically send you to court if you are x%/ymph over the speed limit, regardless of whether they perceived your driving to be dangerous. I know this.


 
He was accompanied by another officer so was also under scrutiny for the decision he made at that point to give me a FPN. He (as regarded as an expert in a court of law) did say that it would have been an automatic ban if it had gone to court, but he (as an expert who's job it is to monitor these things in the real world) made the call that what I did wasn't either worthy of the court time, or that it wasn't something which created a real danger to myself others around me.


----------



## Inertia (5 Apr 2012)

I think this thread may have jumped the shark


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> He was accompanied by another officer so was also under scrutiny for the decision he made at that point to give me a FPN. He (as regarded as an expert in a court of law) did say that it would have been an automatic ban if it had gone to court, but he (as an expert who's job it is to monitor these things in the real world) made the call that what I did wasn't either worthy of the court time, or that it wasn't something which created a real danger to myself others around me.


 
He was playing you.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> He was playing you.


 
How do you mean ?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

You beleived his story -for one there is no "automatic ban" - the mags would weigh up the circumstances and mitigation and may ban OR impose points (not both). It is more likely that the officer was under instruction, for a variety of reasons, not to send particular offences to court.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

1796084 said:


> Like a stradivarius


 
More likely an old piano


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> You beleived his story -for one there is no "automatic ban" - the mags would weigh up the circumstances and mitigation and may ban OR impose points (not both). It is more likely that the officer was under instruction, for a variety of reasons, not to send particular offences to court.


 
So what instruction would you say that is as I certainly wasn't hanging around ?. I personally know others who have lost their licenses for less than what he pulled me up for.


----------



## GrasB (5 Apr 2012)

GrasB said:


> Problem I have with speed cameras isn't that they're actually capturing people speeding, it's the fact they don't effectively police the real problem - dangerous driving. It's very easy to drive in a reckless/dangerous manner well within the speed limit & cameras don't catch this. Unfortunately at best they limit the impact of that dangerous driving, at worst provoke it.


Example of why I hate speed cameras this morning; doing 30mph in a 30mph limit, motorist overtakes me at 35-37mph just before a speed, after they cut me up pulling back into their normal road position they slam on the brakes down to about 20mph to go over the speed camera marks on the road & then accelerate aggressively away. It's not the camera that's the problem, its drivers reactions to them.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

1796100 said:


> The application of law is not uniform.


 
If that were the case, and all should be judged by the same yardstick, then somebody's rush to hospital which had tripped a cam on the way and earned the driver a fine/points is far more valuable to society than the fact that their actions could have saved a life.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> It is with static bloody speed cameras!!!


 

Touche


----------



## GrasB (5 Apr 2012)

1796127 said:


> No it isn't. I have triggered several but only ever had a letter on one occasion.


There may be problems with the photo or the camera wasn't loaded, etc. The fact you've 'triggered' many might be a suggestion to alter your driving.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

GrasB said:


> Example of why I hate speed cameras ... It's not the camera that's the problem, its drivers reactions to them.


 
So it should be stupid drivers you hate, not speed cameras.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

1796143 said:


> It might be, were they not all bar one on my bike.


 
Then your argument with Smegma falls down.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> 1. This happens all the time (people exceeding the limits) - it doens't automatically make them dangerous it reverts to the judgment call stated in the highway code (it is a lazy argument to say otherwise IMO)
> 2. Ditto again - the fact that people do this and whilst risking getting caught do not put themselves in significant danger (it is all about risk assesment, and using the experience they have gained to make that call)
> 3. Once again we go back to risk assessment and application of experience gained (stop within the distance you see to be safe) If a driver is deemed competent enough to make that judgment call at 60 on a 50 limit, then what is the difference between them doing the same at 50 on a 40 limit ? This is what they are trained to do isn't it. Driving is all about making series of judgment calls throughout the journey isn't it. That is what keeps the vehicles apart at the end of the day.
> 4. I certainly wouldn't agree with the first part as I do feel that the lower limits are put there for a very good reason, but provided there are no others around, I've seen this done many times, and no kittens were harmed in the process.


 
Well you'll forgive me for not trusting drivers to make their own judgement as to when it's safe to speed.

You could make a similar argument that as people react to alcohol in different ways, we should give drivers the leeway to decide themselves whether it is safe to drive after a pint or two.

Many drivers have shown that they cannot be trusted to drive safely - they must be forced to do so. The fact that this inconveniences "safe" drivers who can safely exceed the posted limit is the price we must pay for having idiots in society!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> You beleived his story -for one there is no "automatic ban" - the mags would weigh up the circumstances and mitigation and may ban OR impose points (not both). It is more likely that the officer was under instruction, for a variety of reasons, not to send particular offences to court.


Just confirmed with a Sargent of Sussex traffic police. What goes to court and what doesn't varies over time, depending on the instructions given by his inspector.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Apr 2012)

1796127 said:


> No it isn't. I have triggered several but only ever had a letter on one occasion.


to be fair....you had help. Mind you, I was worried. I had my Cheam and Morden top on......


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (5 Apr 2012)

In regards to car drivers overtaking a cylist and then slamming on the brakes because of a speedcamera...wouldn't a camera that viewed your driving ability help? Imagine if someone overtook you dangerously and a camera spotted it so it sent a fine to your house? People say the death penalty is a deterrent against crime but America proves otherwise. What about taking money from people? Now that'd screw them up more.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

1796165 said:


> Sorry, I forgot to use a yellow face to indicate intended humour.


 
so did i


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Apr 2012)

Rahul Sapariya said:


> In regards to car drivers overtaking a cylist and then slamming on the brakes because of a speedcamera...wouldn't a camera that viewed your driving ability help? Imagine if someone overtook you dangerously and a camera spotted it so it sent a fine to your house? People say the death penalty is a deterrent against crime but America proves otherwise. What about taking money from people? Now that'd screw them up more.


 
I've probably mentioned this before, but one of the original ideas for the Galileo satellite system was speed control and monitoring of motor vehicles.
If that reappears now the system is being put in place things could get interesting.


----------



## theclaud (5 Apr 2012)

1796165 said:


> Sorry, I forgot to use a yellow face to indicate intended humour.


 






Hmmmm. I'm not sure it works...


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Well you'll forgive me for not trusting drivers to make their own judgement as to when it's safe to speed.
> 
> You could make a similar argument that as people react to alcohol in different ways, we should give drivers the leeway to decide themselves whether it is safe to drive after a pint or two.
> 
> Many drivers have shown that they cannot be trusted to drive safely - they must be forced to do so. The fact that this inconveniences "safe" drivers who can safely exceed the posted limit is the price we must pay for having idiots in society!


 

Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances removed the ability to accurately make any appraisal of the circumstances as they present. I find this argument to be a bit of a straw man. Irrespective of the speed travelled at, if the maxim is followed, then it matters little what speed is attained as long as enough time is made to react correctly to it. If a car hit you head onat 40 mph, you would be no less likely to survive than if at 50mph

We have no other choice than to trust the judgment of other on the roads in their vehicles as we have seen on here a few instances where a car has been used as a weapon that people have died.


----------



## mickle (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances removed the ability to accurately make any appraisal of the circumstances as they present. I find this argument to be a bit of a straw man. Irrespective of the speed travelled at, if the maxim is followed, then it matters little what speed is attained as long as enough time is made to react correctly to it. If a car hit you head onat 40 mph, you would be no less likely to survive than if at 50mph
> 
> We have no other choice than to trust the judgment of other on the roads in their vehicles as we have seen on here a few instances where a car has been used as a weapon that people have died.


 
You really have totally convinced yourself that it's ok to drive as fast as you like haven't you? So what, precisely, is the big difference between you and any other speeding muppet in their badly slammed Corsa? And how would _the powers that be_ tell the difference?


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Just confirmed with a Sargent of Sussex traffic police. What goes to court and what doesn't varies over time, depending on the instructions given by his inspector.


 
He claimed I was 50mph over the NSL, I would have argued that it was an indicated 45mph over the NSL which is actually closer to 40mph over it, and the disparity between what he saw, and what I momentarily glanced down and saw when I shut off came from the much greater acceleration I initially achieved against what his vehicle could muster, and the peak was what he needed to attain to make ground on me (by which time I was already slowing down) Either way, both would have resulted in a ban which whilst not happy with, I would have also accepted as would have been his right to pursue.
I argue that he chose to not do this as whilst I was obviously winding it on, did not do anything which would have caused an obvious and measured danger to other - people usually hit 70 up there anyway.
Going back to Smeggers point, a static cam will never make the judgement of whether the speed is a particularly dangerous act and indeed it is possible for vehicles to tailgate at below the limit and be a real danger to others (HGVs do it all the time)


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

mickle said:


> You really have totally convinced yourself that it's ok to drive as fast as you like haven't you? So what, precisely, is the big difference between you and any other speeding muppet in their badly slammed Corsa? And how would _the powers that be_ tell the difference?


 
No I haven't, I acceptedthe punishment handed down and it has changed what I do. The powers that be was the officer who followed me who not only clocked me speeding and handed out a fine, but also decided that there was no other case to answer and let it go at that.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


>


 
You already knew that smeggers


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> He claimed I was 50mph over the NSL, I would have argued that it was an indicated 45mph over the NSL which is actually closer to 40mph over it, and the disparity between what he saw, and what I momentarily glanced down and saw when I shut off came from the much greater acceleration I initially achieved against what his vehicle could muster, and the peak was what he needed to attain to make ground on me (by which time I was already slowing down) Either way, both would have resulted in a ban which whilst not happy with, I would have also accepted as would have been his right to pursue.
> I argue that he chose to not do this as whilst I was obviously winding it on, did not do anything which would have caused an obvious and measured danger to other - people usually hit 70 up there anyway.
> Going back to Smeggers point, a static cam will never make the judgement of whether the speed is a particularly dangerous act and indeed it is possible for vehicles to tailgate at below the limit and be a real danger to others (HGVs do it all the time)


 
You really don't get it do you. I thought you were of reasonable intelligence too.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

I didn't


400bhp said:


> You really don't get it do you. I thought you were of reasonable intelligence too.


 
I didn't say what I did was right though did I. I did the crime, I accepted the penalty.

I take it you have never touched 100mph on the road before ?


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> I didn't
> 
> 
> I didn't say what I did was right though did I. I did the crime, I accepted the penalty.
> ...


 
Of course, and have probably travelled faster than yow (and been caught too).


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Ah, this will be some that "_faux solidarity of empathetic whinging_", that TeeCee was wibbling on about will it?


 
nope


----------



## growingvegetables (5 Apr 2012)

OT - but


----------



## theclaud (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Ah, this will be some that "_faux solidarity of empathetic whinging_", that TeeCee was wibbling on about will it?


 
Wibbling? How very dare you!


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> Of course, and have probably travelled faster than yow (and been caught too).


 
It isn't big, and it isn't clever !!!!


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> It isn't big, and it isn't clever !!!!


 
Stop it - you'll be saying it is wrong to speed next.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

400bhp said:


> Stop it - you'll be saying it is wrong to speed next.


 
I had one of these before my current bike 

Glad to get rid as it was boring chugging it everywhere.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Driving under the influence of alcohol or other substances removed the ability to accurately make any appraisal of the circumstances as they present. I find this argument to be a bit of a straw man. Irrespective of the speed travelled at, if the maxim is followed, then it matters little what speed is attained as long as enough time is made to react correctly to it. If a car hit you head onat 40 mph, you would be no less likely to survive than if at 50mph
> 
> We have no other choice than to trust the judgment of other on the roads in their vehicles as we have seen on here a few instances where a car has been used as a weapon that people have died.


 
It's not up to you, and nor should it be. The speed limits are there to make the road safer for everyone - why do you insist that you should be allowed to ignore the laws, because you think you can do so safely?


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Are you still wobbling on, I can almost here your adenoids from here?


 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Feel free not to read my posts if you like - I won't mind.


----------



## Norm (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> It's not up to you, and nor should it be. The speed limits are there to make the road safer for everyone - why do you insist that you should be allowed to ignore the laws, because you think you can do so safely?


The problem with speed cameras for me is that they only enforce the limits for cars.

A van doing 60 on an NSL road is, IMO, a greater danger (momentum, vehicle ability etc) than a car doing 70 and both are equally 10mph above their limit, but only one will trigger a camera.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Do you drive a car?
> 
> If so, please provide make, model and annual mileage.
> 
> Thank you.


 
Why do you want to know?


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> The problem with speed cameras for me is that they only enforce the limits for cars.
> 
> A van doing 60 on an NSL road is, IMO, a greater danger (momentum, vehicle ability etc) than a car doing 70 and both are equally 10mph above their limit, but only one will trigger a camera.


 
I don't understand this argument. Just because it doesn't detect all motoring offences, doesn't mean there's something wrong with it. CCTV in a supermarket doesn't prevent someone being mugged nearby.

I agree that both are a problem, but short of GPS speed limiters, only traffic police can detect the van. I have consistently said I also want to see more traffic police as well as cameras.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> A GSXR is faster accelerating whilst doing a wheely than a Lambo??!!!


 

Erm - yes, the performance is balistic. As a reference of not just the acceleration, but the braking as well, it could do the 0-100-0mph in 10.5 seconds - or 1 second slower than a Veyron, or 5 seconds faster than an Audi RS4 - I was happy to hand it back as you can't enjoy something like that on the roads and stay on the right side of the law - 1st gear was very tall to keep the front wheel down and it would do a ton in 1st because of it. Few riders who ride them on the track have the ability to use all of the performance, and you certainly can't ride it in a spirited manner for any length of time and keep your license on the road.


----------



## Norm (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> I don't understand this argument.


Oh, sorry about that, and it's not an argument, just an opinion.

Speed cameras are put about as some sort of panacea (usually, as seen above, alongside the BS that speeding drivers cause 1/3 of all fatalities). IMO, they are one weapon in the arsenal against crap driving and not a very significant one at that.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> It's not up to you, and nor should it be. The speed limits are there to make the road safer for everyone - why do you insist that you should be allowed to ignore the laws, because you think you can do so safely?


 

I'm not insisting anything though - each and every one of us irrespective of what we ride or drive have the ability to break the laws (show me someone who hasn't)

I did, got caught, and have been frank enough (like smeggers) to share that with you.

It doesn't mean I do that all the time, it started out as a quick spin on a fine day on the last day of the autumn before the bike was laid up for 5 months, and I let the spirit of the moment run away with me after deciding to run up the hill instead of takin gthe exit and dropping in to see my mate.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> Oh, sorry about that, and it's not an argument, just an opinion.
> 
> Speed cameras are put about as some sort of panacea (usually, as seen above, alongside the BS that speeding drivers cause 1/3 of all fatalities). IMO, they are one weapon in the arsenal against crap driving and not a very significant one at that.


 
OK. I would agree that cameras are only one part of road safety, but I firmly believe that speeding should be firmly clamped down on - we need to remove the attitude that speeding is OK. It's not.

Speeding may not be the direct cause of most collisions (I wish people would stop calling them accidents) but as I have already said, all other things being equal, speeding will make any collision more likely and more serious.

Speeding is a serious problem, and should be stamped out - along with other dangerous driving.

This is worth a read - I haven't read it all, but:


> Almost 50% of the accidents were judged to be speed related but among drivers
> aged under 25 years speed was a factor in between 65% and 75% of their accidents
> (see Figure 3.2). Men were found to be involved in a far greater number of ‘to
> blame’ speed-related accidents than women (57% and 31%, respectively). Men were
> ...


 
Because some drivers cannot be trusted to safely exceed the posted limit, then I'm afraid we must insist that no drivers may exceed it. That means that drivers that can safely exceed the limit are inconvenienced, but that's just tough.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> So you agree that speed cameras are indiscriminate then, at last, about loody time too, peace to all men etc etc.


 
I never said otherwise, but so what? I don't want people to speed - regardless of whether they think they can do so safely.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Do you drive a car?
> 
> If so, please provide make, model and annual mileage.
> 
> Thank you.


 
OK, but I don't know why you care.
Skoda Fabia estate. I reckon between my wife and I we do about 7-8,000 miles a year.


----------



## theclaud (5 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> Oh, sorry about that, and it's not an argument, just an opinion.
> 
> Speed cameras are put about as some sort of panacea (usually, as seen above, alongside the BS that speeding drivers cause 1/3 of all fatalities). IMO, they are one weapon in the arsenal against crap driving and not a very significant one at that.


 
It's not _only_ about preventing fatalities, though, is it? It's about making our roads more congenial. See Smeggers' circular arguments above.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> I don't understand this argument. Just because it doesn't detect all motoring offences, doesn't mean there's something wrong with it. CCTV in a supermarket doesn't prevent someone being mugged nearby.
> 
> I agree that both are a problem, but short of GPS speed limiters, only traffic police can detect the van. I have consistently said I also want to see more traffic police as well as cameras.


 
I dislike this detection method because in my opinion, it makes an example of the lesser offender whilst ignoring the greater danger created by large vehicles carrying more mass and doing silly speeds for their class. commercials are speed limited for a reason but people get their arses out when they get held up by HGVs cos they always push on way above their 40 mph limit on NSL's - few actually observe this as they know that there are no real detection methods in placeto target them than either a bloke with a speed gun or a patrol car. speed cams cost a lot to run, but only do half a job. They just aren't effective enough (the gov were sold a pup)


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Neither do I - but I would also like our law makers to be reasonable and consistent too, is that so much to ask?


 
They _are_ consistent - if you are caught breaking the speed limit you get points and a fine. I can't think of anything more consistent than that.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> On my speed awareness course, one the instructors kept telling us how he drove a 'high performance car', he was a horrible little man and incredibly patronising.
> 
> Anyway, it later transpired that his "high performance car" was a Fabia VRS.... the BMW M5 driving chap sat next to me nearly wet himself.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> I dislike this detection method because in my opinion, it makes an example of the lesser offender whilst ignoring the greater danger created by large vehicles carrying more mass and doing silly speeds for their class. commercials are speed limited for a reason but people get their arses out when they get held up by HGVs cos they always push on way above their 40 mph limit on NSL's - few actually observe this as they know that there are no real detection methods in placeto target them than either a bloke with a speed gun or a patrol car. speed cams cost a lot to run, but only do half a job. They just aren't effective enough (the gov were sold a pup)


 
False dichotomy. Detecting both crimes is entirely possible - one with speed cameras, and one with traffic police. Just because we don't have enough traffic police shouldn't be used as a criticism of speed cameras.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> OK. I would agree that cameras are only one part of road safety, but I firmly believe that speeding should be firmly clamped down on - we need to remove the attitude that speeding is OK. It's not.
> 
> Speeding may not be the direct cause of most collisions (I wish people would stop calling them accidents) but as I have already said, all other things being equal, speeding will make any collision more likely and more serious.
> 
> ...


 

Do you appreciate what the term 'speed related' means though as I feel it is being quoted out of context. Speed related means 'inappropriate speed' and that is in reference to a speed which the driver cannot stop within the distance they see to be safe. That is not neccessarily over the postedd limit. Young drivers get it wrong because they don't have the experience to judge this mantra. Overall, it works out at 8% of the age range of all the drivers as I mentioned earlier IIRC


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> False dichotomy. Detecting both crimes is entirely possible - one with speed cameras, and one with traffic police. Just because we don't have enough traffic police shouldn't be used as a criticism of speed cameras.


 

If they weren't throwingthe money at these expensive and ineffectual speed cams, they would have more money to spend o real police - they caught me didn't they (Average speed cams don't work on m/bikes either BTW)


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> Do you appreciate what the term 'speed related' means though as I feel it is being quoted out of context. Speed related means 'inappropriate speed' and that is in reference to a speed which the driver cannot stop within the distance they see to be safe. That is not neccessarily over the postedd limit. Young drivers get it wrong because they don't have the experience to judge this mantra. Overall, it works out at 8% of the age range of all the drivers as I mentioned earlier IIRC


 
Well you're choosing to only see speeding as a problem where it is the prime cause of a collision. How many times do I have to repeat that in any situation, higher speeds will make a collision more likely and more serious - regardless of what the primary cause is.

Even if someone can stop in the distance they can see to be safe, another factor could cause a collision, and any excess speed will make that more serious.

I don't care that some drivers can speed safely. The fact is that many can't, so we must insist that all drivers observe the speed limit.


----------



## Norm (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> This is worth a read - I haven't read it all, but:
> Almost 50% of the accidents were judged to be speed related but among drivers aged under 25 years speed was a factor in between 65% and 75% of their accidents (see Figure 3.2). Men were found to be involved in a far greater number of ‘to blame’ speed-related accidents than women (57% and 31%, respectively). Men were more likely to commit deliberate risk actions than women and are more likely to exceed the speed limit or deliberately drive too fast for the conditions. By contrast, women were more likely to have been ignorant of the correct speed limit or to be travelling too fast for the conditions rather than deliberately speeding (Clarke et al., 2007).


This is the sort of thing that I meant above. Speed-related does not mean that the vehicles were travelling in excess of the posted limits. They are very keen to break this stuff down into boys and girls, kids and wrinklies but there's no mention of whether they were speeding.

For instance, the horrific collision on the M5 last November, or the lorry driving into the back of a bus a few weeks ago. It's possible that both were recorded as having speed as a factor but that doesn't mean that the vehicles were breaking the limits.



benb said:


> False dichotomy. Detecting both crimes is entirely possible - one with speed cameras, and one with traffic police. Just because we don't have enough traffic police shouldn't be used as a criticism of speed cameras.


But there were many reports, when cameras first appeared, that traffic units were closed and the policing was to be left to cameras. I believe there are not many forces which still have traffic sections and, even though I commuted 40+ miles of M4 and M25 until recently, I can't remember the last time that I saw a marked traffic car.

For that, I resent speed cameras.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> It's not _only_ about preventing fatalities, though, is it? It's about making our roads more congenial. ...


 
My thoughts exactly. 

Why is the act of going somewhere being turned into a battleground my so many people?


----------



## srw (5 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> Speed cameras are put about as some sort of panacea


By whom? Cite your sources, please, or don't engage in straw-man arguments.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> But being as they are [supposedly] put there for "road safety" reasons, whether that speed is done by a 10 ton truck in the snow in the fog in the dark in the traffic, or by an incredibly skillful good looking Skoda driving god* in the middle of a mild spring day with zero traffic..... is irrelevent is it?
> 
> * Thats me in case you were wondering.


 
They are there to catch people who break the speed limit, that's all.

Of course they don't catch people driving too fast (but under the limit) in fog - they are not designed to.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> If they weren't throwingthe money at these expensive and ineffectual speed cams, they would have more money to spend o real police - they caught me didn't they (Average speed cams don't work on m/bikes either BTW)


 
I just don't think that's true, as funding for speed cameras is separate from funding for police forces (as far as I know - I may be wrong).


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Well you're choosing to only see speeding as a problem where it is the prime cause of a collision. How many times do I have to repeat that in any situation, higher speeds will make a collision more likely and more serious - regardless of what the primary cause is.
> 
> Even if someone can stop in the distance they can see to be safe, another factor could cause a collision, and any excess speed will make that more serious.
> 
> I don't care that some drivers can speed safely. The fact is that many can't, so we must insist that all drivers observe the speed limit.


 
We can't insist on anything though, we can ask that drivers observe the conditions of their license and if they contravene those, then the license is either penalised or withdrawn. They are innocent until they break the laws (and get caught ) innit


----------



## green1 (5 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> If they weren't throwingthe money at these expensive and ineffectual speed cams, they would have more money to spend o real police - they caught me didn't they (*Average speed cams don't work on m/bikes either BTW*)


 Or if you change lanes (Unless the its been changed recently).


----------



## green1 (5 Apr 2012)

benb said:


> Well you're choosing to only see speeding as a problem where it is the prime cause of a collision. How many times do I have to repeat that in any situation, *higher speeds will make a collision more likely and more serious* - regardless of what the primary cause is.


If that's the case why are motorways our safest roads?


----------



## theclaud (5 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> If that's the case why are motorways our safest roads?


 
So safe you're not allowed to walk or ride on them?


----------



## Dan B (5 Apr 2012)

Rahul Sapariya said:


> In regards to car drivers overtaking a cylist and then slamming on the brakes because of a speedcamera...wouldn't a camera that viewed your driving ability help? Imagine if someone overtook you dangerously and a camera spotted it so it sent a fine to your house?


When I first read that I thought it was a brilliant idea. But checking again, it turns out you didn't write "set fire to your house" after all. Shame


----------



## DRHysted (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> So safe you're not allowed to walk or ride on them?


 
I just read this reply, and wondered of maybe that is why they are so safe.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

Is there any chance we can spice this thread up - everybody is being very civilised in putting their arguments across


----------



## DRHysted (5 Apr 2012)

The biggest problems motorised road users have now adays is that speed limits for roads are not being set by the engineers that design the roads (before a road is opened the engineers examine the road and advise the ruling authority what speed is safe for motorised vehicles), but by politics. This tends to make motorised road users start to simply look at a speed limit and think "that's wrong" and go thier own way. Motorised road vehicles have been designed to safely travel at much faster speeds (mine does 70mph at 2000rpm).

Now I may be wrong because I don't live or travel in a built up area, and the roads I drive on really do not warrent anything under 30mph. Most of them are 60mph, and I commute on push bike along those same roads. Without fear, as nearly all the motorised road users give as much room as they can, and in return I give them as much room as is safe, so we share the roads.

Four years ago after a motorcyclist was killed by a car pulling out from a side road in front of him. They reduced the speed limit for a section to 40mph, which was purely political because at 40 he still would have been killed. The only time people do 40 is 6am Christmass and Boxing day morning when the Police sit in the layby, even the Police do not do the speed limit. Here is why we have issues with speed limits.


----------



## Dan B (5 Apr 2012)

I had no idea that the safety of a motor vehicle was inversely proportional to engine rpm, so thank you for enlightening me


----------



## MacB (5 Apr 2012)

Will insurance take it out of most of our hands anyway?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/05/car-insurance-premiums-telematics-satellite-box


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

green1 said:


> If that's the case why are motorways our safest roads?


 
Because of changes in the other variables:

All traffic travelling in one direction.

No traffic signals, Give Way signs or Stop signs.

No sharp bends.

No vehicles that are restricted to speeds which vary greatly from the National Speed Limit.

... and many more.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> So safe you're not allowed to walk or ride on them?


 
Safe in part because you can't walk or cycle on them.


----------



## Norm (5 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> By whom? Cite your sources, please, or don't engage in straw-man arguments.


Nice try but you don't need to look beyond the first post on this very thread.



benb said:


> They are there to catch people who break the speed limit, that's all.
> 
> Of course they don't catch people driving too fast (but under the limit) in fog - they are not designed to.


Then can I suggest that you don't quote such figures in statistics which you consider to be supporting speed cameras .


----------



## Norm (5 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> No vehicles that are restricted to speeds which vary greatly from the National Speed Limit.


Sorry, Bicycle... ahem, Boris, but that's not true either. Coaches, goods vehicles, any vehicle towing something etc, all have limits below 70mph.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> On my speed awareness course, one the instructors kept telling us how he drove a 'high performance car', he was a horrible little man and incredibly patronising.
> 
> Anyway, it later transpired that his "high performance car" was a Fabia VRS.... the BMW M5 driving chap sat next to me nearly wet himself.


 
Ever since men have been aware that penis size varies, they have had a fascination with comparison in that area.

Most people not wrapped up in a schoolboy fascination with this passtime would say that a Skoda Fabia vRS is a performance car.

That it is not as fast as an M5 is academic. I may be alone in this, but I get a sense from this post that there may be rather too much concentration on BHP and willy size, that might helpfully have been left behind before we reached school-leaving age.

I may be very wrong. I often am.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> Sorry, Bicycle... ahem, Boris, but that's not true either. Coaches, goods vehicles, any vehicle towing something etc, all have limits below 70mph.


 
Quite so Norm. I used the phrase 'vary greatly' to suggest the meaning 'vary greatly'.


----------



## Norm (5 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Quite so Norm. I used the phrase 'vary greatly' to suggest the meaning 'vary greatly'.


Ah, right, I'll allow you that then.


----------



## srw (5 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> Nice try but you don't need to look beyond the first post on this very thread.


 Which doesn't actually correspond to your straw-man argument - in fact it undermines it completely.

(Hint: "panacaea" means "cure-all" not "good at one job".)


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (5 Apr 2012)

I've always considered cyclists to be polite when talking to eachother until I read some of the comments on here....if someone has a differing view, immediately people exaggerate that view or ridicule it. How about some nice banter? A nice debate, rather than a petty argument?

My main priority for cycling would be for there to be an advertising campaign that had a ThinkCyclist motto. Something that really explained to drivers that cyclists are on the road and they have the same rights as car drivers. I'm loving that Times cycling hazard map atm. It has been updated so much and I've added like 10 hazards myself. Just like how London has had all this money injected into it, how about the same happens for cycling in different cities? I think tax payers money should have the publics vote or something like that. Like where I live, in Leicester...the council may be thinking about having a boris bike thing but it wouldn't work in Leicester because Leicester isn't big enough. How about putting the money into something better like more cyclepaths or perhaps making the rubbish cyclepaths, that are barely the width of your handlebars, wider? Perhaps more inter-county cyclepaths so you have one dedicated path to Nottingham or soemthing like that? Leicester was going to have a specific straightish route straight to Birmingham but it didn't work out because Birmingham wouldn't put any money into it. It is these decisions which are made without taxpayers money that annoy me.

For me, cycling is about fun and you can't have that with dangerous motorists and cyclists. That's why every spring to autmn, I have a nice 20 mile bike ride each day at like 4am which is very relaxing, the motorists are very polite and you enjoy a nice sunrise. Why can't commuting to work be like that? Why can't we just cycle and not worry about being hit? Because it happens too often and we see it happen to other people or we have close-calls. What about if we reduced cars top-speeds? Would that not stop speeding? But we all know car drivers will be against it because for some reason, they think it should be allowed...but of course they can't use the reason that doing 90 on the motorway is quicker.

I really wish we had an MP in Leicester who was a big cyclist...perhaps me? Vote for Rahul


----------



## theclaud (5 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Safe in part because you can't walk or cycle on them.



Which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, to make a nonsense of the idea that they are "safe". Motorways are spaces so outrageously dangerous that almost all forms of human activity and interaction have to be banished from them, or carnage would certainly ensue. A road you cannot cross is not safe- it is a no-go area. It's relatively safe for a certain class of user, of course. I'm sure downtown Kandahar is "safe", just so long as you are the nastiest mother****er on the block, with a truckload of thugs ready to eliminate anyone who dares to cross your path with an ankle showing, or whilst sporting the wrong kind of beard.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

Rahul Sapariya said:


> I've always considered cyclists to be polite when talking to eachother until I read some of the comments on here....if someone has a differing view, immediately people exaggerate that view or ridicule it. How about some nice banter? A nice debate, rather than a petty argument?
> 
> My main priority for cycling would be for there to be an advertising campaign that had a ThinkCyclist motto. Something that really explained to drivers that cyclists are on the road and they have the same rights as car drivers. I'm loving that Times cycling hazard map atm. It has been updated so much and I've added like 10 hazards myself. Just like how London has had all this money injected into it, how about the same happens for cycling in different cities? I think tax payers money should have the publics vote or something like that. Like where I live, in Leicester...the council may be thinking about having a boris bike thing but it wouldn't work in Leicester because Leicester isn't big enough. How about putting the money into something better like more cyclepaths or perhaps making the rubbish cyclepaths, that are barely the width of your handlebars, wider? Perhaps more inter-county cyclepaths so you have one dedicated path to Nottingham or soemthing like that? Leicester was going to have a specific straightish route straight to Birmingham but it didn't work out because Birmingham wouldn't put any money into it. It is these decisions which are made without taxpayers money that annoy me.
> 
> ...


 

Stop the press - cyclist hijacks car thread


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, to make a nonsense of the idea that they are "safe". Motorways are spaces so outrageously dangerous that almost all forms of human activity and interaction have to be banished from them, or carnage would certainly ensue. A road you cannot cross is not safe- it is a no-go area. It's relatively safe for a certain class of user, of course. I'm sure downtown Kandahar is "safe", just so long as you are the nastiest mother****er on the block, with a truckload of thugs ready to eliminate anyone who dares to cross your path with an ankle showing, or whilst sporting the wrong kind of beard.


 
Well... Yes and no. 

Children's play areas are safe partly because Motorway traffic is kept off them. Much about what is safe can be qualified in terms of the safety being derived in part from what is excluded.

I know nothing of Kandahar (and am grateful daily for that) but spent much of my early adult life in and around the concatanations of beastliness in the western Balkans. Even in the most upsetting and inhumanly bleak setting one could be 'safe'. Part of that safety was knowing which areas to avoid. You could call them 'No-Go Areas'. 

In the same way, I didn't let my children near the sharper knives in the kitchen until they were old enough to use them. The knives themselves are not 'outrageously dangerous', but might be headed that way if mixed with the curiosity and inexperience of toddlers and small children.

Motorways are relatively safe because vehicles that might render them less so are excluded from them. This (up to a point) is the theory behind cycle lanes. I never use them, but I'm told that is the thinking. 

Similarly, in primary schools the KS1 pupils are generally shepherded into a playground apart from the KS2 kids. I do take your point, but I'd no more want to walk along the M4 than I'd want to play tennis on a tightrope 40 metres above the streets of London.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Which is, as I'm sure you appreciate, to make a nonsense of the idea that they are "safe". Motorways are spaces so outrageously dangerous that almost all forms of human activity and interaction have to be banished from them, or carnage would certainly ensue. A road you cannot cross is not safe- it is a no-go area. It's relatively safe for a certain class of user, of course. I'm sure downtown Kandahar is "safe", just so long as you are the nastiest mother****er on the block, with a truckload of thugs ready to eliminate anyone who dares to cross your path with an ankle showing, or whilst sporting the wrong kind of beard.


 

A beard the size of a Fist and nothing less 

Motorways are the safest roads in the land and that is probably in no small part to the fact that the only ones allowed to use them are those who have been trained to a minimum standard and can integrate with the flows (not try and go against or across them)
innit !


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

1796849 said:


> After 17 pages I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is not going to be much meeting of *minds* on this one.


 
Minds?

You flatter us all.

I forget what my view was on this thread (or even what the thread was about) but you can rest assured that I was right.

If and when one of my statements contradicted another, I was doubly right. By law. So there.


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

1796849 said:


> After 17 pages I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is not going to be much meeting of minds on this one.


 
Its a speeding thread, it could be an epic one - if people remember their manners.....


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Apr 2012)

Speed cameras are very effective, that is why they are unpopular!

The new models like the "ASSET" will (and do) pick up:

Speeding,
Tailgating
Tax discs
Insurance
Mobile phone use
Failure to wear seatbelts

... and it will pick up and deal with far more offenders than a Police Officer on the same road could do.


Then of course the "Motorway Myth" they are (as above) only "safer" because vulnerable groups sre removed. If you remove the stats for these groups from urban roads the figures are similar.

The difference being that you are 5 times more likely to be killed in a motorway accident than in an accident on the urban road


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Apr 2012)

The other "myth" that drivers are capable of determining their "safe speed" and that they should be allowed to drive at the speed they see to be appropriate regardless of the speed limit



> _*Max Power*_ was a UK-based magazine, headquartered in Peterborough, which covered the performance-tuning car market, boy racers and softcore pornography.


 
So we can estimate the average demographic of the magazine. Funnily enough they used to carry out surveys and the results were interesting.

80% of their readers considered themselves above average drivers.

So there you are.....

Next time you see a couple of "Boy Racers" speeding through a residential area be assured that it is safe for them to do so because they are above average drivers and are only driving at a speed that they have judged to be safe.


----------



## mickle (5 Apr 2012)

1796849 said:


> After 17 pages I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that there is not going to be much meeting of minds on this one.


I agree.


----------



## theclaud (5 Apr 2012)

User3094 said:


> Is driving really really fast not considered a human activity? Damned good use of space if you ask me.



Passing over your deliberate omission of the qualifier... Motorway driving isn't actually about driving "really really fast". It's about making extremely dull journeys at a speed fast enough to endanger others but too slow to be genuinely exciting. I can see the fun in various forms of motor racing, but not in hitting Swindon twenty minutes ahead of schedule.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Passing over your deliberate omission of the qualifier... Motorway driving isn't actually about driving "really really fast". It's about making extremely dull journeys at a speed fast enough to endanger others but too slow to be genuinely exciting. I can see the fun in various forms of motor racing, but not in hitting Swindon twenty minutes ahead of schedule.


 
Indeed. The only fun there would be hitting Swindon twenty minutes late... Awful place.

But Port Talbot twenty minutes ahead of schedule? That's like waking up and finding out that bread&butter pudding with custard has been officially classified as all of my five a day. 

Maybe even better...


----------



## Crackle (5 Apr 2012)

theclaud said:


> Passing over your deliberate omission of the qualifier... Motorway driving isn't actually about driving "really really fast". It's about making extremely dull journeys at a speed fast enough to endanger others but too slow to be genuinely exciting. I can see the fun in various forms of motor racing, *but not in hitting Swindon twenty minutes ahead of schedule*.


 
Having been a regular visitor to Swindon, the earlier you get there, the quicker you get out.


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (5 Apr 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17621921

That's a good website that demonstrates why having a driving lesson and having a driving exam every few years could help.


----------



## Dan B (5 Apr 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Motorways are relatively safe because vehicles that might render them less so are excluded from them. This (up to a point) is the theory behind cycle lanes. I never use them, but I'm told that is the thinking.



That's a bit like saying that the lion's den is a safe place provided that those dangerous wildebeest are kept out of it


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Apr 2012)

Three things come to mind at the moment:
1. I've never been to Swindon
2. How many pages was the longest speeding thread?
3. Aren't the roads lovely and clear when the schools are shut?


----------



## acrybb (5 Apr 2012)

Rahul Sapariya said:


> I am really for CCTV and speed cameras. I have heard people say that speed cameras are money grabbers but my argument is that the speed limit is there to help save lives. I also believe that if you can't obey the laws then you shouldn't be driving in the first place. Imagine if every road had a speed camera? Would it not make the roads safer? I also think every road should have a camera so that any dangerous moves and stuff like that can be monitored. You could have something like a 3 strike rule where if you do something dangerous 3 times then you get a letter in the post which mentions it. I really would like some feedback on the idea because I honestly think cameras on the road would really help. Plus it could help when you need to prove who's fault an accident was.


 

I am also not against the idea of CCTV etc on the road nothing to hide nothing to fear and all that. I do feel however the SPECS and GATSO cameras can be as much a danger as they cant be a preventative measure. Where would you rather a drivers eyes? On the road or on his/her speedo? More police cars with the power to apply common sense to a situation should be whats happening. I think that catching people who are actually being careless on the roads is the best course of action. The 20/30mph zones should be strictly policed they are 20/30mph for a reason. motorways are exactly that, i believe at certain times of the day a speed limit is beneficial however if the roads empty then its down to common sense.


----------



## Fab Foodie (5 Apr 2012)

wibble


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Apr 2012)




----------



## ufkacbln (5 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> I am also not against the idea of CCTV etc on the road nothing to hide nothing to fear and all that. I do feel however the SPECS and GATSO cameras can be as much a danger as they cant be a preventative measure. Where would you rather a drivers eyes? On the road or on his/her speedo?


 
Simply poor driving skills if you really need to drive like this. a GAtso is no more dangerous than a girl in a short skirt, perhaps we should ban girls and short skirts after all where would you rather have a driver's eyes?



> More police cars with the power to apply common sense to a situation should be whats happening. I think that catching people who are actually being careless on the roads is the best course of action. The 20/30mph zones should be strictly policed they are 20/30mph for a reason. motorways are exactly that, i believe at certain times of the day a speed limit is beneficial however if the roads empty then its down to common sense.


 
Manchester did this and we had bleating that Police were a danger as motorists had to look out for Police enforcing the law, thus meaning that they could not have their eyes on the road. Where would you rather have a drivers eyes? On the road or looking for Police?


----------



## acrybb (5 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Simply poor driving skills if you really need to drive like this. a GAtso is no more dangerous than a girl in a short skirt, perhaps we should ban girls and short skirts after all where would you rather have a driver's eyes?


 
Maybe so im fairly sure that i can maintain a 30mph speed limit. However when faced with the possibility of 3 points and £60 i will make sure i dont break the speed limit. I have cruise control and therefore use it through specs controlled areas. There are lots of cars with no cruise control and lots of cars with no cruise control and poor drivers. Therefore eyes are not on the road.

The problem with a Gatso is that what happens is that people stray over the limit then realise that a gatso has appeared slam on the brakes the person behind also not paying attention hits him. There is where the problem lies. again its bad driving but bad driving is a part of modern driving. It shouldnt be but it is.



Cunobelin said:


> Manchester did this and we had bleating that Police were a danger as motorists had to look out for Police enforcing the law, thus meaning that they could not have their eyes on the road. Where would you rather have a drivers eyes? On the road or looking for Police?


 
Manchester police may well have done this. Very good. I think the point im making is that the police need to be more visible rather than driving around in unmarked cars this is what people end up looking for the unmarked cars therefore concentration is not on the road. If the cars were all marked the police might not catch anyone breaking the law.

That would be because they arnt doing so. Why? Because they know the police are there.


----------



## mickle (5 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> The problem with a Gatso is that what happens is that people stray over the limit then realise that a gatso has appeared slam on the brakes the person behind also not paying attention hits him.


 
Really? You have any evidence for this assertion?


----------



## acrybb (5 Apr 2012)

Yes stand at a gatso long enough you will see it happen. 

Anyway. Let's me say one last thing and I'll get off your toes. 

Would it not be best to patrol the whole road rather than a hundred yards of it people who know its there speed up to it slow down for it and speed up for it. 

I'm not saying they are a bad idea or even useless. I'm saying that more visible police are a far better deterrent to bad driving than any camera. 

Would you not agree with the last statement at least ?


----------



## Linford (5 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> Yes stand at a gatso long enough you will see it happen.
> 
> Anyway. Let's me say one last thing and I'll get off your toes.
> 
> ...


 
Gatso's don't worry me if I'm honest, but the prospect of getting tailed again by an unmarked car with a camera on the dash always makes me think very hard about what the needle is doing on the dash, if and when I want to wind it on. I was in control of the throttle, and I gave it a big handful. If I'd have suspected for a moment that have police were following me, would I have given it some - absolutely not.

That is my argument against Gatso's and anyone can read into it whatever they want to. They aren't an effective deterrent....


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> I am also not against the idea of CCTV etc on the road nothing to hide nothing to fear and all that. I do feel however the SPECS and GATSO cameras can be as much a danger as they cant be a preventative measure. Where would you rather a drivers eyes? On the road or on his/her speedo? More police cars with the power to apply common sense to a situation should be whats happening. I think that catching people who are actually being careless on the roads is the best course of action. The 20/30mph zones should be strictly policed they are 20/30mph for a reason. motorways are exactly that, i believe at certain times of the day a speed limit is beneficial however if the roads empty then its down to common sense.


 
But how do you sort the drivers with common sense from the drivers without common sense? And speed cameras have little give when it comes to speed so in a 30mph, 35mph is acceptable. And looking at your speedo takes a split second glance. My annoyance is the ones who go 10+ mph higher than the speed limit on a given road. It takes someone longer to stop and hitting them at a higher speed has a higher chance of death. It is damn near impossible to separate good drivers from bad drivers without having public outrage in terms of who can judge when it is safe to drive faster, so have the same set of rules for everyone.


----------



## DRHysted (6 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Simply poor driving skills if you really need to drive like this. a GAtso is no more dangerous than a girl in a short skirt, perhaps we should ban girls and short skirts after all where would you rather have a driver's eyes?


 
There have been times when a short skirt has caused a near miss or two, but they are pleasurable, so I wouldn't ban them.
Now billboards.................................


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

Rahul Sapariya said:


> But how do you sort the drivers with common sense from the drivers without common sense? And speed cameras have little give when it comes to speed so in a 30mph, 35mph is acceptable. And looking at your speedo takes a split second glance. My annoyance is the ones who go 10+ mph higher than the speed limit on a given road. It takes someone longer to stop and hitting them at a higher speed has a higher chance of death. It is damn near impossible to separate good drivers from bad drivers without having public outrage in terms of who can judge when it is safe to drive faster, so have the same set of rules for everyone.


 
Yeah like i say gatsos are a great deterrent for about a hundred yards or what ever they are. They are also useless once everyone knows where they are. Having more visible police on the roads are a deterrent everywhere all of the time. There is no point in preventing speeding for a small portion of a road. You can still drive dangerously at 30mph as you lot will know.


----------



## srw (6 Apr 2012)

That's easy to rectify. Stop painting them orange and start moving them around.


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

Maybe so. There are mobile cameras and police speed check areas. You can't keep digging holes to pop in a speed camera. So potentially you will learn where they put it

However I still do not think that it's as good as overtly policing the roads properly. There is no point In checking a hundred yards of a 20 mile road is there? Look at th A82 on a road map northbound I think there is 1 camera between Glasgow and fort William. Southbound I think there is also 1 Yet there are quite a few deaths per year on that road.


----------



## Linford (6 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> That's easy to rectify. Stop painting them orange and start moving them around.


 
Also, how about putting them in cars and have someone monitor them in real time as well ?


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

Sorry I don't understand? Put them in police cars? That already happens.


----------



## Linford (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> Sorry I don't understand? Put them in police cars? That already happens.


 
I thought static sites with Gatso's were a daft idea as well. 

I put this example up a little while ago



> I did an advanced riding course a few years ago (m/cycle), and part of it consisted of the following which we can draw parallels from.
> 
> 1) Riding around a blind bend for the first time, a rider does it at 25mph.
> 2) The following day, he gets a bit more confident as he knows how tight it is, he takes it at 35mph
> ...


Now if the rider/driver isn't aware of the Gatso 'hazard' due to lack of local knowledge, they will more likely traverse the road at a lower speed if they think there might be a car/van at 'some' mobile point, but if they know exactly where it is because it is nailed down, they will adjust their speed upwards around that static site as they are familiar with the arrangement.

Because the road is already policed, the force would be accused of overkill if they used a mobile vehicle and a gatso on the same road.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> Yeah like i say gatsos are a great deterrent for about a hundred yards or what ever they are. They are also useless once everyone knows where they are. Having more visible police on the roads are a deterrent everywhere all of the time. There is no point in preventing speeding for a small portion of a road. You can still drive dangerously at 30mph as you lot will know.


 
Which is actually looking at this in a very limited way.

The problem is that they are signed and notified, and fixed.

What we need to do is invest in more mobile units and take away the absurd requirement to notify their presence.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> Maybe so im fairly sure that i can maintain a 30mph speed limit. However when faced with the possibility of 3 points and £60 i will make sure i dont break the speed limit. I have cruise control and therefore use it through specs controlled areas. There are lots of cars with no cruise control and lots of cars with no cruise control and poor drivers. Therefore eyes are not on the road.
> 
> The problem with a Gatso is that what happens is that people stray over the limit then realise that a gatso has appeared slam on the brakes the person behind also not paying attention hits him. There is where the problem lies. again its bad driving but bad driving is a part of modern driving. It shouldnt be but it is.
> 
> ...


 
Nope - Manchester used marked cars with CCTV capability to monitor traffic, they were in full livery and not unmarked or hidden. Yet the ABD amongst others claimed this was dangerous as drivers were "forced" to look for the Police Vehicles instead of concentrating on the road.

This is why the "more Police" is such a ridiculous red herring!

1. The answer is more Police
2. Using marked cars is dangerous as they distract motorists from the road and cause accidents
3. Using unmarked cars is also dangerous as motorists "end up looking for the unmarked cars therefore concentration is not on the road"
4. Police running road high publicity safety campaigns are a distraction as again motorists are distracted from the road looking forthem


So the answer is more Police, yet their being anywhere near a road or actually enforcing the law is a danger?

Anyone care to explain how thy can function given these limitations?


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

The other myth about "more Police" is the "patrolling" one.

Firstly they are no more effective than a GATSO or other system as they too can cover only a hundred metes of road at an time. THey also (allegedly) impose the same dangers with panic braking and distracting motorists used to dismiss any other enforcement of the law.

Then let's take a speeding motorist...

The Police pull them over, and "have a word" that leaves the road "un-patrolled" for the next few minutes.

The whole "more Police" is more about lowering the chances of getting caught, hence the bleating, wailing and tantrums when the Police presence is increased


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

No because we don't care. 

More police presence will prevent a bigger range of road traffic offences. 

A safety cameras sole function is to deter people from speeding in a zone deemed to need it. They cannot prevent dangerous driving drink drug driving inconsiderate driving motoring offences towards cyclists people doing donuts on the road etc etc etc. 

Safety cameras are good to stop rookie speeding outside schools etc but not much else. 

I think I'm done on the debate as you wi say green toy yellow every time until I 100% agree with you. 
I believe I have made a clear argument supporting a gatso in it proper best use and argued properly its downfalls and suggested a better way to keep everyone safer

A far more visible police presence will mean people will grow to accept they are there and no longer need to look for them. Therefore people will have to drive properly and safely. As opposed to driving looking out for something they know is there.


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

I'm guessing your either a gatso lover or against road safety ? Which is it lol


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> I'm guessing your either a gatso lover or against road safety ? Which is it lol


 
Neither.... I simply feel that there are a lot of muppets out there who are being effectively and regularly identified by a system that works well. High profile Policing and the use of automatic systems such as ANPR, ASSET and others (GATSO is outdated but still identifies the stupid, incapable and ignorant) are effective - that is why they are unpopular.

The problem is that as soon as any enforcement occurs, whether it be speeding, parking, mobile phones, drink driving etc the bleating and wailing starts

I asked a simple question?

Given the claims that Police endanger road users by simply being there, and pose an (allegedly) unacceptable risk how they are supposed to function?

It is such a massive irony that this was always the speedophile "Gold Standard" - until it actually happened!


----------



## Norm (6 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I asked a simple question?
> 
> Given the claims that Police endanger road users by simply being there, and pose an (allegedly) unacceptable risk how they are supposed to function?


If you are actually waiting for someone to justify the position of the ABD, can I suggest you get yourself comfortable with a good book, as you may be there some time.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> No because we don't care.
> 
> More police presence will prevent a bigger range of road traffic offences.


 
No t won't - tey cause accidents (see above)



> A safety cameras sole function is to deter people from speeding in a zone deemed to need it. They cannot prevent dangerous driving drink drug driving inconsiderate driving motoring offences towards cyclists people doing donuts on the road etc etc etc.


\

Entirely wrong, look up ASSET for instance.

Besides even if the Police are allowed on the roads (see above) then they are not the omnipotent and magic entity that we would be led to believe, They too cannot prevent or deal with anything outside their immediate presence. Their function is also to deter. BOth can only deal with offences in the immediate vicinity.

Using both systems is effective.




> Safety cameras are good to stop rookie speeding outside schools etc but not much else.


 
Have you ever seen a demographic of speeding motorists - a world away from your claims.



> I think I'm done on the debate as you wi say green toy yellow every time until I 100% agree with you.
> I believe I have made a clear argument supporting a gatso in it proper best use and argued properly its downfalls and suggested a better way to keep everyone safer
> 
> A far more visible police presence will mean people will grow to accept they are there and no longer need to look for them. Therefore people will have to drive properly and safely. As opposed to driving looking out for something they know is there.


 
Yet as above we have claims form the AA, RAC, ABD, S@fespeed, and others that this Police presence should not be allowed as it is dangerous.

The "Green / Yellow is probably an accurate assessment of our opinions.. I am for the use f any device that improves the safety of the roads, you want to limit this.[/quote][/quote]


----------



## DRHysted (6 Apr 2012)

My only accident in 20 years of driving, where I have covered over 350,000 miles (of which about 100,000 was as a responce driver), was done 10mph under the speed limit. I will admit that if I was doing 15mph less than that it would not have occurred (which would back up the governments statistics), but then I would only have been travelling at 5mph, and my average cycling speed is 18mph.

Safety cameras have to be marked because of politics, they're locations are set due to politics, and politics create a slight red mist in me. In an ideal world where politictions kept their noses out, and things were done with uncommon sense (I would call it common sense but it appears to be rare nowadays) then we would not have the problems we get. Yes you would still get the idiots, but then you get them everywhere, as I found out last night when returning from walking the dogs at 23:30 and I came across three cyclist out for a night ride using both lanes of a single carrigeway after a blind bend (good job I always slow down because of deer).


----------



## DRHysted (6 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Besides even if the Police are allowed on the roads (see above) then they are not the omnipotent and magic entity that we would be led to believe, They too cannot prevent or deal with anything outside their immediate presence.


 
They always manage it when there is a camera crew in the car with them


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

The other aspect that we miss is failing to use the information given by the fixed and other systems, also by the Police.

There is unequivocal evidence that persistent speeding is diagnostic of a high risk taking mentality and is linked with other poor driving such as failing to give way, close and inappropriate overtaking, poor discipline and tailgating.

Where we are failing is to recognise this and act appropriately.

Arriva buses looked at staff who were involved in speeding or accidents and undertook psychometric testing on these drivers. They then used these results to educate and train. The result was a 50% decrease in accidents. MAny other fleet operators now use this with similar results.

Use the information supplied by the fixed units (and Police units) to identify these risk takers, and then test, educate and retrain. THat would be an excellent opportunity to address the poor drivers

Of course it would be unpopular as once again it would show the efficiency of teh present enforcement systems, but also infringes the percieved right of drivers to act like muppets without any censure


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

I agree yes there are a lot of muppets which these systems are taking care of. (ann common ground). I do think that gatso cameras do have the potential to create a panic braking which is why they have to be brightly marked. 

My point is that they don't stop all the problems hence more police argument. 

Like I said if uk wide there was a bigger police pressance then people would have to drive in a safer manner all of the time. 

To answer your question. They cannot perform their function. If they are more visible and more plentiful then the element of surprise is removed then do is the danger associated with it


----------



## mangaman (6 Apr 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> ...
> 2. How many pages was the longest speeding thread?
> ...


 
Crikey - this is a relatively sensible one. During Linford's previous incarnation these speed camera threads would go on for hundreds of pages with fewer and fewer posters (usually just Linford and MrP (who hasn't appeared on here for some reason) still left.

Pantomime posting - "Oh no it isn't" vs "Oh yes it is" ad nauseum.

It got so much fun Admin made them their own little room called Room 101 to play in.

This thread still has a variety of posters and plenty of legs left in it I fancy


----------



## Glenn (6 Apr 2012)

To my mind the answer is driver education, how many current road users including cyclists, would pass a theory test if they had to sit or resit it? http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2012/02/13/i-challenge-you-to-take-the-driving-theory-test/ I scored 47


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

I don't want to limit it at all I believe that automated traffic enforcement is limited as it is automated it is a black white assessment of a situation a snap shot. 

So ultimately I would like to see the same thing. I think what differs is our opinions on how it best enforced. So I think it's best that we agree to agree. A weird situation. 

Personally in an urban environment I don't speed. On country roads I'll drive to the speed limit within my own ability and road conditions. On the motorway again road conditions time of day. 

On 12 years of driving I have never had a proper accident a couple of car park altercations. Nothing more. I have also held a clean licence. So altogether not a bad driving record.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

Norm said:


> If you are actually waiting for someone to justify the position of the ABD, can I suggest you get yourself comfortable with a good book, as you may be there some time.


 
Someone already has!


----------



## MacB (6 Apr 2012)

The answer will be to alter the technology, speed cameras and traffic calming measures will become history as the technology is moved into the vehicles. It doesn't matter how much people bleat about driver freedom or driver education the writing is on the wall.

The question should be how many years before insurance companies insist on black box technology followed by legislation to make that data freely available to the police?


----------



## Linford (6 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The other myth about "more Police" is the "patrolling" one.
> 
> Firstly they are no more effective than a GATSO or other system as they too can cover only a hundred metes of road at an time. THey also (allegedly) impose the same dangers with panic braking and distracting motorists used to dismiss any other enforcement of the law.
> 
> ...


 
What happens with ours is that the unmarked cars have illuminations in the back of their vehicles, and cams running all the time. When the pull someone over, the illuminations go and passing users become aware of the presence, and that the cars look very very normal when they are switched off makes people generally a lot more wary about where and when they might be tempted to wind it on.


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

I think there will be a bigger limiting factor than that sooner 

Cost of fuel


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

Linford said:


> What happens with ours is that the unmarked cars have illuminations in the back of their vehicles, and cams running all the time. When the pull someone over, the illuminations go and passing users become aware of the presence, and that the cars look very very normal when they are switched off makes people generally a lot more wary about where and when they might be tempted to wind it on.


 
Briliant!

But does not address the issue of what happens outside their limited area or how the area is supervised whilst they are dealing with that driver.

As for looking "normal" that is (allegedly) the dangerous part!




acrybb said:


> ...... people end up looking for the unmarked cars therefore concentration is not on the road.


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

Yes maybe so. 

How about this? Let's be overt. Everybody knows they are there. Someone being caught covertly means they have already been a danger. So would it not be bette to have a highly visible prevention rather than a cure?


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

I would also say that the very reason the gatso is as ineffective is the very reason the extra visible police could be successful. 

Gatso: people see it know its there slow down. 

Would it not be conceivable that the same logic would apply to a bigger more visible police pressance? People know its there and therefore slow down for it and drive safer?


----------



## snorri (6 Apr 2012)

Glenn said:


> To my mind the answer is driver education, how many current road users including cyclists, would pass a theory test if they had to sit or resit it?


The group most likely to pass a theory test will be the group who have most recently passed a driving test, the same group which insurance companies seem to consider to be higher risk.


----------



## srw (6 Apr 2012)

MacB said:


> Will insurance take it out of most of our hands anyway?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/05/car-insurance-premiums-telematics-satellite-box


Not impossible, if insurance companies can ever work out how to cope with the volumes of data generated. They're used to one piece of data per policy per year, plus an additional one every five years or so (premium and claims respectively). Telematics introduces the possibility of one piece of data per policy every minute. That's more than a step change.

As far as I know, all the telematics experiments so far have been "pay as you drive" - the risk is assessed outside of the telematics box, and you pay a premium which is a pure function of the distance you drive. I believe that even the experiments with differential pricing by time of day have been abandoned. You'd need to go to "pay _how _you drive", which is very different, and very difficult.


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> Yeah like i say gatsos are a great deterrent for about a hundred yards or what ever they are. They are also useless once everyone knows where they are. Having more visible police on the roads are a deterrent everywhere all of the time. There is no point in preventing speeding for a small portion of a road. You can still drive dangerously at 30mph as you lot will know.


 
The problem with having more police is that there aren't enough police to go around. If you hire new police officers then that costs money and that is something this country doesn't have unforuntately. Also, police don't police them enough. 10mph higher than the speed limit seems to be alright for the police to let go however doing more than that and they go after them. The laws are the laws, right?


----------



## MacB (6 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> Not impossible, if insurance companies can ever work out how to cope with the volumes of data generated. They're used to one piece of data per policy per year, plus an additional one every five years or so (premium and claims respectively). Telematics introduces the possibility of one piece of data per policy every minute. That's more than a step change.
> 
> As far as I know, all the telematics experiments so far have been "pay as you drive" - the risk is assessed outside of the telematics box, and you pay a premium which is a pure function of the distance you drive. I believe that even the experiments with differential pricing by time of day have been abandoned. You'd need to go to "pay _how _you drive", which is very different, and very difficult.


 
which are a series of technological problems well within existing tech to solve. Personally I'd say the Telematic database would need to be a seperate entity, ie not tied to one insurance company. Both drivers and insurance companies pay for membership...after a while it would become compulsory like VED. Then it's just a case of initial setup of parameters and alerts based on those parameters being exceeded. The requirement and practicality of storing all data and updating it realtime is maybe a bit beyond current tech. You just need to have vehicle classifications and trigger points for alerting insurance agents or the police. It would have the USP of enabling insurance per individual rather than per demographic.

IMO the only thing that'll stop this is a collapse in vehicle useage due to fuel costs.


----------



## srw (6 Apr 2012)

MacB said:


> which are a series of technological problems well within existing tech to solve.


Touché.


> Personally I'd say the Telematic database would need to be a seperate entity, ie not tied to one insurance company. Both drivers and insurance companies pay for membership...after a while it would become compulsory like VED.


That's more or less what's happening.


> IMO the only thing that'll stop this is a collapse in vehicle useage due to fuel costs.


Or the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public - or the suspicion of "big brother" devices.

Bear in mind that most of Europe doesn't even use the sex of the driver as a rating factor*, so complex algorithms for pricing insurance dynamically is way beyond them.

(*And I know it's being outlawed - but it will more or less only affect the UK).


----------



## MacB (6 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> Touché. - I thought you'd like that one
> 
> That's more or less what's happening.
> 
> ...


 
I'm sort of taking the view from two angles, examples of what's happened so far and thoughts around how it would all be done if we were starting from scratch and didn't already have an evolved car culture. The latter is the real variable as your comment on innate conservatism etc indicates. It's those known unknowns again and these ones are pretty susceptible to timing and significant triggering events.

But I do think that people are getting pretty sick of the spiralling costs of their insurance, in this respect we're very much not all in it together. It's amazing how much 'innate conservatism' can be overcome when it saves someone dosh.


----------



## Norm (6 Apr 2012)

I wonder if it is time to share this one...


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> Yes maybe so.
> 
> How about this? Let's be overt. Everybody knows they are there. Someone being caught covertly means they have already been a danger. So would it not be bette to have a highly visible prevention rather than a cure?


 
There is unfortunately a bit of a problem with UK law in that you actually have to commit an offence before you can be censured for it!

Motoring offences are not exempt from this!

Whether the Police / Cameras or CCTV are overt or covert this remains the case

Again we have a massive red herring... A visible Police car only controls the immediate area in the same way as a speed camera does.

This magic, put a Police car on the road and everyone within a hundred miles will drive properly just simply does not happen... The drivers will behave properly when in it's vicinity and then speed, and drive badly as soon as they are out of it's sight.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> I would also say that the very reason the gatso is as ineffective is the very reason the extra visible police could be successful.


 
They are very effective in spotting poor inadequate drivers!
What we need to do is to be more proactive in dealing with these drivers.



> Gatso: people see it know its there slow down.


 
Same with police vehicles, people see it and slow down, then speed up as soon as they are out of it's sight!



> Would it not be conceivable that the same logic would apply to a bigger more visible police pressance? People know its there and therefore slow down for it and drive safer?


 
Naive, it simply odes not happen


----------



## mangaman (6 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> Not impossible, if insurance companies can ever work out how to cope with the volumes of data generated. They're used to one piece of data per policy per year, plus an additional one every five years or so (premium and claims respectively). Telematics introduces the possibility of one piece of data per policy every minute. That's more than a step change.
> 
> As far as I know, all the telematics experiments so far have been "pay as you drive" - the risk is assessed outside of the telematics box, and you pay a premium which is a pure function of the distance you drive. I believe that even the experiments with differential pricing by time of day have been abandoned. You'd need to go to "pay _how _you drive", which is very different, and very difficult.


 
That's interesting srw as I have recently been looking for some sort of system for reducing my premium (28 years of driving - no points / never had an accident / never claimed / don't speed).

I can see it would be a pain for the insurance companies and not necessarily in their interests to introduce complex technology (presumably, the higher the average premium, the happier they are).

The distance you drive is important, although I'm less convinced of the times - speed and excessive use of accelerator/brake would be great but more difficult. Even a breathaliser to puff into on entry to the car, that if you fail, immobilises the car would be superb.

I don't think any of that is that technologically difficult, but not really in the interest of the insurers who don't want to drive down insurance prices. And I can't see any other groups with any influence being interested, unfortunately.

In the end I gave up my search and renewed my old policy.


----------



## srw (6 Apr 2012)

Insurance companies are perpetually in search of lower prices. Personal insurance is bought almost entirely on price, so if you can identify the best risks and charge them the lowest price you win their business. Overall, motor premiums need to go up, but the holy grail is to find the people who will claim and get them to pay more, while allowing the people who won't claim to pay less.

If you can do that while being societally useful - for instance by finding a way to let 21-year-olds learn to drive without charging them more than they can afford - so much the better.

You've also got the first inklings of moves from Europe to ban certain rating factors traditionally used to rate insurance. You won't be able to price on the sex of the driver for much longer, because a Belgian consumer association has successfully argued it's discriminatory. There is certainly speculation that age is next, and it doesn't stretch the argument too much to rule out address sometime in the future.

When all that's left to identify good drivers is the car and any information on driving style you can collect from a black box in the car I suspect, with MacB, that the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public will be overcome. But it'll take years.


----------



## acrybb (6 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> They are very effective in spotting poor inadequate drivers!
> What we need to do is to be more proactive in dealing with these drivers.
> 
> 
> ...


 

I think im gonna unsubscribe cant be bothered. with this any more

Your gonna get peanuts on the road whatever you do. A machine will never ever be as good at this job as an actual person.

Your just trying and up to now succeeding in getting a rise from me. I thought you were actually wanting a proper debate. But you dont. You want the last word you want me and others around you to accept that you and you alone can only be right.

Here are the facts.

1. Gatso cameras do what they do well. The catch and prevent people from speeding at a pre determined point on a road however long it may be.

In my opinion That isnt much use on a road that is 20 miles long. A police car moving all the time means people have to behave on the road all of the time and not just at the pre determined point So having 3 or 4 cars on that road means that those 3 or 4 cars will always be patrolling even if they are stopped people know they are there because they see them at that point and know that they will be at other points.

2. Yes we need to proactive. There is no point in catching someone doing something. If they have been caught the danger has already occurred we need to stop it happening in the first place. Prevention is always always better than a cure. The gatso does this well at the predetermined point at that point in the road it has prevented an incident.

In my opinion a more visible and higher police presence on the road will show people that this type of behavior is being clamped down upon and is no longer acceptable. If you do it you will be caught rather than you might get caught by the camera you do or dont know about. A better way to deal with it (and you said i think) is education. Not everything can be educated away though. Some has to be stopped through other methods.

3. Yes this will happen with a police car

However in my opinion you wont ever know when its coming up so therefore you need to be more vigilant and pay more attention to the road. If you know they will be on the road then you will be less likely to take the risk.

So i respect your opinion but i am no longer going to argue or post on this thread.

So if you wish the last word. Have it

Good luck


----------



## mangaman (6 Apr 2012)

srw said:


> ,,,,
> When all that's left to identify good drivers is the car and any information on driving style you can collect from a black box in the car I suspect, with MacB, that the innate conservatism of the insurance industry and the British public will be overcome. But it'll take years.


 
Sadly I agree with you both, despite the obvious benefits to me of having a black box. Hey hum.

Especially when 80% of fast cars owners think they are above average drivers.

It reminds me of the Labour health minister a few years ago saying he didn't think there should be any below average doctors!

You wonder if they attended primary school maths sometimes.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Apr 2012)

Insurance is another area where we need to start actually looking at the cost and drivers actually paying realistically.

In 2010 the amount paid out in vehicle accidents was some 2 billion pounds greater than that collected in policy payments.

This deficit is subsidised from other insurance payments such as personal and household policies


----------



## MacB (6 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Insurance is another area where we need to start actually looking at the cost and drivers actually paying realistically.
> 
> In 2010 the amount paid out in vehicle accidents was some 2 billion pounds greater than that collected in policy payments.
> 
> This deficit is subsidised from other insurance payments such as personal and household policies


 
but we also need to understand what makes up those payouts, some insurance agents didn't come out smelling of roses when Watchdog looked at the tie in they had to medical claims. Isn't that a big part of higher insurance premiums for all especially younger drivers?


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Apr 2012)

There are also suggestions that "whiplash" is a big issue with claims.

However whether the claims are legitimate or not, the subsidy is still there


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Apr 2012)

We were also involved with another scam, a company called "DriveAssist"

Our ca was hit by another driver whilst stationary in a car park, and DriveAssist "dealt" with the matter incuding a replacement car

When it arrived the "family car" to allow us to take an elderly relative out was a high end sports soft top.

That is all they provide, with a higher fee reflecting this. We were also given a handheld device to "sign", as we were unable to read we wrote... "I have not been allowed to read these terms"

The repair went well, and the replacement car then spent three weeks on our drive awaiting collection.

We notified the insurance company and pointed out that we were not only paying a high rental, but for four weeks instead of one and asked for an explanation.

None was forthcoming, but we were delighted to see them on Watchdog a few weeks later!


----------



## MacB (7 Apr 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> There are also suggestions that "whiplash" is a big issue with claims.
> 
> However whether the claims are legitimate or not, the subsidy is still there


 
I don't think it can just be dismissed like that as there is a growing awareness that there are a small group around insurance, as with everything, that are doing rather well at the general expense. The make up of the grouping is normally a few movers and shakers with a hodgepodge of middlemen buffering and enabling them, lawyers, accountants, doctors, insurance 'professionals' and various adhoc others.

It feels, whether it's real or not, like victim blaming and then actually placing the costs on the victims. Like we pay higher home insurance premiums, need to buy better security and change our habits, but do nothing additional to tackle the root cause. Unlike that area car insurance does have technological solutions available that can not only act as a deterrent but can also place the costs firmly in the court of the miscreants.


----------



## lukesdad (7 Apr 2012)

1797634 said:


> I can see the possibility of an interesting cross over, using a technology the opposite way round from current. F1 teams monitor their cars' everything all the time to maximize speed, so they probably have a working method that someone could sell to monitor speed limit compliance. The GPS companies could readily add the local speed limits, advisory limits on specific corners and known black spots to their data, if not already done.


Yep its called a pit lane limiter and can be operated remotely. The trouble is it works on engine revs not speed herein lies the problem gearboxes.


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (7 Apr 2012)

acrybb said:


> I think im gonna unsubscribe cant be bothered. with this any more
> 
> Your gonna get peanuts on the road whatever you do. A machine will never ever be as good at this job as an actual person.
> 
> ...


 
You're gonna give up? Imagine what would happen if the PM resigned at a time when the country was the most screwed up? Not saying it is the same thing but can you see what I mean? Giving up is the same as quitting something because it is not going your way. For me, it is the same as someone who doesn't vote and then complains. Discuss the topic and if you have differing views then so what? We aren't sheep. When I created this thread, I asked why people seem to be against CCTV and speedcameras even though they save lives, catch criminals and such. And then someone spouted something about 1984 and I'm just thinking what an idiot, right? But he is entitled to his own opinions, regardless of how paranoid it sounds.

If you can't accept someone elses opinion then you are the type of person who is against the diversity of this country and its very differing views.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Apr 2012)

[QUOTE 1799349, member: 45"]Gatsos have their place. For those who point out that they aren't much use over a 20 mile stretch of road, there's the average speed camera.[/quote]

The reason that there is a fixation on the GATSO system is that the new systems are doing many of the things that used to require Police.. Untaxed, uninsured, stolen, tailgating, mobile phone use and other offences can all be picked up. Of course this means that cameras are effective, and that cannot be accepted

Limiting the speed camera argument to GATSOs is the only way that the argument can stand.


----------



## Ashtrayhead (8 Apr 2012)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvYxXBMqEOM&feature=player_embedded


----------



## benb (9 Apr 2012)

Ashtrayhead said:


> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvYxXBMqEOM&feature=player_embedded



Hmm, flashing a bright light in a pilot's eyes when they're flying a plane is a pretty stupid thing to do.


----------



## BentMikey (9 May 2012)

Apparently speeding drivers != dangerous drivers. Well, mostly, they are.

It's a Venn diagram, sure, but the overlap between the two is almost 100%.


----------



## Norm (9 May 2012)

Wasn't really worth waiting a month to post that, was it?


----------



## Rahul Sapariya (9 May 2012)

So overall, what people have said about speed cameras and CCTV.

Pros: stops people speeding in certain areas and can be used as evidence.

Cons: Expensive (supposedly money-grabbers), not as good as having actual police (not really viable seeing as the police have had cuts) and sometimes it is alright to break the speed limit.

You might be able to tell that I am for speed cameras and CCTV. The law is the law so if there is a 30mph road, do 30mph max. People say that if someone is a good driver then it's alright do break the speed limit. I ask, how do you distinguish between a good and bad car driver? You can't really so just keep it simple and have the speed limit as it is, no confusion.


----------



## slowmotion (10 May 2012)

I'm very surprised at the touching faith some people seem to have in the sleazy insurance industry as some kind of force for good. The company van was insured for 8000 miles a year. Last week, I told them that we would be happy to lower that to 3000 miles. Guess by how much the £300 annual premium was reduced?

£3.

 Utter bastards.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 May 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I'm very surprised at the touching faith some people seem to have in the sleazy insurance industry as some kind of force for good. The company van was insured for 8000 miles a year. Last week, I told them that we would be happy to lower that to 3000 miles. Guess by how much the £300 annual premium was reduced?
> 
> £3.
> 
> Utter bastards.


 
... and just imagine how much it would be without the subsidy!

In 2010 almost £ 2 Billion more was spent by the insurance companies on motor related claims than was gained in policy fees!

Motor insurance is propped up by income from household and personal insurance


----------



## Bad Company (28 May 2012)

Ah another speed camera argument. Shame Paul Smith is no longer with us.

As somebody said earlier in the thread there are too many revenue\speed cameras and creeping cctv. We are getting close the 1984 all the time.


----------



## mickle (28 May 2012)

Bad Company said:


> Ah another speed camera argument. Shame Paul Smith is no longer with us.
> 
> As somebody said earlier in the thread there are too many revenue\speed cameras and creeping cctv. We are getting close the 1984 all the time.



Wibble.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 May 2012)

well, if we are it was good to see on the A614 yesterday. Speed cameras by the dozen. And everybody sticking to 50mph, which is nice if the love of your life is doing about 6 up hill. We could have done with the same on the ride in to Worksop.


----------



## benb (28 May 2012)

Bad Company said:


> Ah another speed camera argument. Shame Paul Smith is no longer with us.
> 
> As somebody said earlier in the thread there are too many revenue\speed cameras and creeping cctv. We are getting close the 1984 all the time.


 
Anything which enforces speed limits is a good thing. I think we also need more traffic police, but I would be in favour of an increase in speed cameras too.

I would design them so they all feed into a central processing database, and would flag up any drivers that were over the posted limit at a specific camera, and also flag up ones that were over the limit on average over any stretch of the network. The second part would discourage people from speeding and then slamming on the brakes when they saw a camera.

Oh, and I'd hide and camouflage them as much as possible, and remove the warning signs.


----------



## Inertia (28 May 2012)

benb said:


> Oh, and I'd hide and camouflage them as much as possible, and remove the warning signs.


I would do this also, though I'm very unpopular when I mention it in company. Its an amazing marketing job that normally right minded people think its unfair that cameras set up to catch speeders should be hidden.

In no other crime (that I can think of) do we give the perpetrator a sporting chance to avoid being caught.


----------



## dellzeqq (28 May 2012)

benb said:


> I would design them so they all feed into a central processing database, and would flag up any drivers that were over the posted limit at a specific camera, and also flag up ones that were over the limit on average over any stretch of the network. The second part would discourage people from speeding and then slamming on the brakes when they saw a camera.


they have this on some roads - including the M25


----------



## subaqua (28 May 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> they have this on some roads - including the M25


 
they have it on a good section of the major routes into nottingham too. i have a friend who didn't listen to my warnings


----------



## srw (28 May 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> they have this on some roads - including the M25


Not noticeably. Don't ask me how I know...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 May 2012)

this hoary old chestnut came up over dinner on friday night. apparently they are putting up stealth speed limit signs on A roads in south surrey.

what a load of cobblers.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 May 2012)

There's apparently a hidden speed camera in the next parish to mine.

Everyone's saying how simply marvellous it is, but I can't see it myself.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Thjere's apparently a hidden speed camera in the next parish to mine.
> 
> Everyone's saying how simply marvellous it is, but I can't see it myself.


A local village got blanket 20mph against the limit.

chairperson of the organising committee was the first one to get a ticket.


----------



## colly (28 May 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ... and just imagine how much it would be without the subsidy!
> 
> In 2010 almost £ 2 Billion more was spent by the insurance companies on motor related claims than was gained in policy fees!
> 
> Motor insurance is propped up by income from household and personal insurance


 
I have heard this before, mainly from spokespeople of the insurance industry. If it _really_ is the case that motor insurance is a loss maker why are they queuing up to sell me insurance policies on which they are losing money? They can not ALL be so desperate to go out of business.

It sounds like a sob story to justify exorbitant premiums. Further to that we are told that the premium is based on the actuaries calculation of risk based on previous experience. Really? If that were the case then pretty much all premiums for similar risks would all be within a spit of one another. We all know they vary by a massive margin.

As for speed cameras? I'm all for them, even if they are just revenue raising. I'm all for people volunteering to pay more tax.  I've done it myself.



I think Slowmotion had it about right.


----------



## srw (28 May 2012)

colly said:


> I have heard this before, mainly from spokespeople of the insurance industry. If it _really_ is the case that motor insurance is a loss maker why are they queuing up to sell me insurance policies on which they are losing money? They can not ALL be so desperate to go out of business.
> 
> It sounds like a sob story to justify exorbitant premiums. Further to that we are told that the premium is based on the actuaries calculation of risk based on previous experience. Really? If that were the case then pretty much all premiums for similar risks would all be within a spit of one another. We all know they vary by a massive margin.


The 2011 results are just out. The UK motor insurance market lost about £600m. Those figures came from a firm of consultants, using data which is available to anyone who cares to pay (surprisingly little) for it. Any hardness in rates in 2010 and 2011 is now vanishing.

As Cunobelin points out, they're surviving by cross-subsidy from other classes. No-one wants to withdraw from private motor (a) because it's a flagship product, (b) because it's filthily difficult to tell what the actual rate should be, alarmingly easy to get it wrong and absurdly easy to kid yourself that you're making money when you're losing money and (c) because the advent of aggregators means that the game has changed and no-one really understands it at the moment - and it's easy to assume that you do.

Based on the inflation of claims (something like 8% to 10% a year for third-party, based solely on court judgements and out-of-court settlements, and 3% a year for own damage, based on what motor manufacturers and garages can get away with charging), motor rates ought to be going up by 6% or so a year. Instead, for much of the last decade, they've been static.

As for your comment about variability in premiums - if an actuarial team had data from the entire motor market in the USA to deal with, and only 5 or 6 rating factors, then they could get a very accurate rate. Instead, no-one's got more than about 10% of UK data, and they're working with over 20 rating factors. In those circumstances it's amazing that anyone is able to make money.


----------

