# Stealth tax



## ComedyPilot (31 Jan 2010)

Bloke at work is constantly complaining about speed cameras, and has whined that there's one set up in the local village hidden from view on a footpath. 

I said to him that they could paint them green and cover them in DPM, they'll never catch me because I already know they might be arethere and have been given advance warning of the fact.

How do you know, he says, falling for it.

30mph signs on the way into the village, stop below that and they can be as sneaky as they like, they'll never get you.


----------



## Crankarm (31 Jan 2010)

Speed camera whingers - a voluntary tax for the stupid .


----------



## addictfreak (31 Jan 2010)

The people who moan about being caught speeding always amuse me, as you say the speed limit is there for all to see and warnings of speed cameras are usually posted. Add to that warnings given by sat nav and things like road angel.

Its been over 25 years since i was fined for speeding, I never moaned then and would not do so now. If you dont want to be caught then the answer is simple 'don't do it'.


----------



## ComedyPilot (31 Jan 2010)

I have a speeding ticket for doing 60 in a 40.

In Germany.


26 years ago.

I learnt my lesson. I was at fault. I paid the fine. I didn't whine.

Of those 4 statements, today's motoring public will fight tooth and nail not to abide by them.


----------



## Muddyfox (31 Jan 2010)

addictfreak said:


> Add to that warnings given by sat nav and things like road angel.



One of the lads on the Taxi rank that i work actually refused to pay his speeding fine after being caught on a fixed camera because his Sat Nav did'nt alert him to it's presence 

his fine was trebled at the local magistrates court and he had to pay court cost as well 

Simon


----------



## PBancroft (31 Jan 2010)

The important part which people need to remember (and most don't) about the speed limit is in the name itself.

It's a limit, not a target.


----------



## mr_cellophane (31 Jan 2010)

Never been stopped or fined for speeding in a car. Got a telling off once on a motorbike, but that's it.


----------



## Davidc (31 Jan 2010)

My complaint about speed limit enforcement - Inadequate with inadequate penalties.

Increase the number of cameras - at least 10 times as many.
Increase the penalties - to at least the present drink drive standard.
Then reduce the limits. Just keep the numbers, hence signs etc., but make them apply in kph.

Agree with Crankarm (it's becoming a habit, need a politial thread) that it's a tax on the stupid. There are no speeding penalties for drivers who stay within the limit.


----------



## Downward (31 Jan 2010)

Had an argument on someone cause I said that people who get done for speeding are stupid.

If they can't match the accelerator, speedometer and road speed limit should they be trusted to be driving ?


----------



## Davidc (31 Jan 2010)

Downward said:


> Had an argument on someone cause I said that people who get done for speeding are stupid.
> 
> If they can't match the accelerator, speedometer and road speed limit should they be trusted to be driving ?



I've had that argument - and had the recently fined etc. individual conceed!

The second point - no. That's why I'd like to see a 1 year ban and minimum £1k fine for a first offence, with insurance companies pushed into applying appropriate loadings to reinstated drivers.


----------



## downfader (31 Jan 2010)

I love it when people whine about it. Makes me laugh how stupid they are, just like the woman at work. I thought she'd be caught just the once as she was saying how it was a "hidden camera" (it isnt) and there were "no warning signs" (there are loads 3x standard signs up to a mile away, plus the gatso is bloody bright yellow!) 

So I said, thinking this was a one-off, maybe you can appeal? "Oh I tried that the first two times on that camera" 

Eejit.

I dont drive.. but I'm slowly forming the opinion perhaps we need a 3 strikes and you're out policy on them? Caught a third time then license taken away and a proper driving test again before you're allowed back behind the wheel. None of this retraining/re-education courses after the first, too, unless its a serious breach or danger.


----------



## thomas (31 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> I've had that argument - and had the recently fined etc. individual conceed!
> 
> The second point - no. That's why I'd like to see a 1 year ban and minimum £1k fine for a first offence, with insurance companies pushed into applying appropriate loadings to reinstated drivers.




Personally, I think a £1k fine is unfair. If you want a higher fine then you should make it income accessed. £1000 is a lot of money for me (and I'm sure for most people on the board), but £1000 isn't a lot of money to a premiership footballer, wealthy businessman, etc. Anyone hear of the CEO of Nokia who got a £30,000 speeding fine or something like that .

Also, with speeding there are times where to be honest, it doesn't really matter. In built up areas, yes, you should stick to the speed limit...but on a quiet motorway does doing 80mph rather than 70mph really make any difference to road safety? Raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph is the only policy that the BNP have that seems to make sense (though, anyone to vote for them for that issue needs their head testing).

One problem with speed cameras, or very strict speed enforcement is that it makes people spend less time focused on the road. I know this is, 'one of those excuses', but if I relied on a car and didn't have lots of money, what am I going to do - pay loads of attention to my speedo and less on what's further up the road, or not? If I actually hit someone by accident I'd probably be more likely to keep my licence than if I got caught speeding a few times.

Personally, I think there are more dangerous issues on the road. Such as mobile phone use....yet when people are on their phones (like drink drivers) they are probably driving slower to account for it....therefore speed cameras won't get them, and the Police don't care.

The problem really is excessive speed. 65 in a 60 won't generally be a problem...but taking that sharp corner in a 30, at 30 will be a problem. Even doing 30mph in a 30mph past a school could be excessive, but speed cameras don't account for this.

I'm not saying I condone speeding, as long as people aren't driving at an excessive speed for the conditions. When I used to drive (I will drive again!) I used to try to stick to most speed limits, but there were some roads where I wasn't worried about a couple extra MPH here or there. However, unlike some people at least I realise there are times that even though I can do the speed limit, it doesn't mean I should.


----------



## Crankarm (31 Jan 2010)

Black boxes in cars controlling and monitoring the engine management system is the only way. The large minority of drivers have ruined unfettered motoring for the dwindling majority. Drivers who commit motoring offences just do not realise how lucky they are, refusing most of the time, to take any responsibilty for their dangerous actions. Even when they are faced with losing their licenses 99% of the them blame everyone and everything but themselves. CP excluded.

Btw where is V-N?


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Also, with speeding there are times where to be honest, it doesn't really matter. In built up areas, yes, you should stick to the speed limit...but on a quiet motorway does doing 80mph rather than 70mph really make any difference to road safety? Raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph is the only policy that the BNP have that seems to make sense (though, anyone to vote for them for that issue needs their head testing).



Yes, but increase it to 80, and people will think there's nothing so wrong with 90...

Sorry, if you're so important and impatient that you need to travel faster than 70mph, get the train. That way you can do some work at the same time, and drink coffee...

And they should go back to making cars that feel like they are going to rattle to bits at anything over 60....


----------



## joebingo (31 Jan 2010)

> Black boxes in cars controlling and monitoring the engine management system is the only way.


I respectfully disagree there Crankarm. Given how apathetic a significant amount of the motoring public are, not having to watch there speed is, in my view, really dangerous.

It'll lead to a large number of people just sticking pedal to the metal and never even really thinking about speed control. The current technology would even allow the speed limiting devices to use the GPS system to adjust speed to the limit on any road, so people wouldn't even have to think about that.

The problem is that speeding is a 'socially acceptable' motoring offence, much like drink driving was 30 years ago. People just don't see a problem, until they're directly involved in a high speed accident with another road user. 

The penalties should be harsher, repeat offences should result in a significant (minimum 2 year) ban and extended re-test. If you need your car for work? Tough. You should have thought about it before speeding repeatedly.

I've said it before though, and I'll say it again: Speed, in my view, is a minor issue any way. As people have said in this topic and others, people view the limit as a target, and regularly exceed it any way. Driver education is the only way to rectify this, not lowering the NSL to 50 on single carraigeway roads or lowering the speed limit to 20 (tooooo slow in a car, barely feels like you're moving) in all urban areas. If you hit somone at 20, it'll still do significant damage. If you're driving along at 30 and are looking far enough ahead to be able to anticipate any problems that could occur, adjust speed and course enough in advance when any problems arise, then you won't hit them at any speed and all will be well!

As for the motorway speed limit, the Police dont tend to take any action until you're way over 80mph any way. 70 is a good limit, but 80 does feel right on the motorway.


----------



## downfader (31 Jan 2010)

With motorways you have to remember there is a lot of control and management of traffic through barriers, slip roads, three wide lanes all heading in the same direction...

Theres little chance of hitting an oncoming vehicle. 

You do have to consider though - if you increase the speed limit on motorways you also increase stopping distances, so in effect you'd have to have less traffic to be safe at higher speeds. Having been a passenger in others cars I've seen a lot of tailgaiting on motorways. 

Speeding becomes more unsafe where traffic has a chance to meet from opposite directions and there are many junctions. Slip roads glide traffic in, junctions do not.


----------



## automatic_jon (31 Jan 2010)

I have been done for speeding twice, both times doing a little under 70 on a 50 dual carriageway. Not knowing the road and trying desperately not to get lost I wasn't paying sufficient attention to the signs saying the limit had come down. It was a fair cop as ignorance is no defence. I no longer speed, I pay more attention and most importantly I no longer go further north than Kings Lynn.

I can understand people who object to speed cameras as an automated money making machine, the perception that there's no human input and the whole process is impersonal and lacks justice. No one's being tried by a jury of their peers, computer says no.

Ooh, that's a point, those points should come off my licence soon, if I can find it.


----------



## GrasB (31 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> My complaint about speed limit enforcement - Inadequate with inadequate penalties.
> 
> *Increase the number of cameras - at least 10 times as many.*
> Increase the penalties - to at least the present drink drive standard.


Wrong answer imho, if you're talking about static cameras. The problem is most speed cameras are static, fixed, immovable objects that people with any common sense can notice & avoid. Now what you do is reduce the number of static cameras & have those that are visible on proven black spots where speeding in collisions is a real problem. Then you get sneaky, you then have policemen randomly choosing locations, preferably so they're not in easy sight catching people & issuing increased fines. Yes the £60 fine is a joke, maybe we go for £500 or £1000 but at present the standard fine is ridiculously low.


----------



## thomas (31 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> Wrong answer imho, if you're talking about static cameras. The problem is most speed cameras are static, fixed, immovable objects that people with any common sense can notice & avoid. Now what you do is reduce the number of static cameras & have those that are visible on proven black spots where speeding in collisions is a real problem. Then you get sneaky, you then have people randomly choosing locations, preferably so they're not in easy sight catching people & issuing increased fines. Yes the £60 fine is a joke, maybe we go for £500 or £1000 but at present the standard fine is ridiculously low.




Static cameras are fine. Just make them average speed cameras. No point trying to speed through those.

They always seem to work well on motorways in limiting traffic speeds.



> You do have to consider though - if you increase the speed limit on motorways you also increase *stopping distances*, so in effect you'd have to have less traffic to be safe at higher speeds. Having been a passenger in others cars I've seen a lot of tailgaiting on motorways.




The actual stopping distance part (rather than the thinking distance), at a higher speed with modern cars, will be lower than with much older cars stopping from 70mph.

Tailgating will be a problem on motorways, no matter the speed limit. if we could drive at 1000mph people would still tailgate


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Also, with speeding there are times where to be honest, it doesn't really matter. In built up areas, yes, you should stick to the speed limit...but on a quiet motorway does doing 80mph rather than 70mph really make any difference to road safety? Raising the motorway speed limit to 80mph is the only policy that the BNP have that seems to make sense (though, anyone to vote for them for that issue needs their head testing).



It was the inability of the "average motorist" to control vehicles on Motorways that led to speed limits on them in the first place. The same standard of drivers are out there today and would be equally unable to judge.



> One problem with speed cameras, or very strict speed enforcement is that it makes people spend less time focused on the road. I know this is, 'one of those excuses', but if I relied on a car and didn't have lots of money, what am I going to do - pay loads of attention to my speedo and less on what's further up the road, or not? If I actually hit someone by accident I'd probably be more likely to keep my licence than if I got caught speeding a few times.



Same applies to women, short skirts....

Of course then there was the case recently where the ABD wanted Police vehicles removed as they were causing a distraction by enforcing the law!
Drivers were spending time looking for Police vehicles rather than the road!

Then of course there are all those other awfully dangerous things like scenery.

Control of speed is not down to the speedometer entirely and if you cannot judge by engine noise, gear, observing your surroundings then....... bt of course if you are unable to combine these tasks and miss 3 or 4 warning signs and a massive great yellow box that you already know is there - should they be driving at all with such inadequate observation skills?




> Personally, I think there are more dangerous issues on the road. Such as mobile phone use....yet when people are on their phones (like drink drivers) they are probably driving slower to account for it....therefore speed cameras won't get them, and the Police don't care.



Another red herring........ the present speeding systems and surveillance can and do collar tail gaters, mobile phones, dodgy overtakes and a host of other offences.






> The problem really is excessive speed. 65 in a 60 won't generally be a problem...but taking that sharp corner in a 30, at 30 will be a problem. Even doing 30mph in a 30mph past a school could be excessive, but speed cameras don't account for this.



Which is very naive and another reason why these systems are in place. Most speeding drivers sped habitually the concept that these drivers would magically drive safely if there was no enforcement is laughable. The drivers who speed in the 60mph zone will also be the ones driving too fast in the 30.

It is called "risk taking behaviour" and there is a strong evidential link between speeding and risk taking.[/quote]



> I'm not saying I condone speeding, as long as people aren't driving at an excessive speed for the conditions. When I used to drive (I will drive again!) I used to try to stick to most speed limits, but there were some roads where I wasn't worried about a couple extra MPH here or there. However, unlike some people at least I realise there are times that even though I can do the speed limit, it doesn't mean I should.



As the IAM unequivocally states :


> Excessive or inappropriate speed, regardless of any limit, is dangerous and unacceptable. Speed limits are exactly that – limits, not targets, and advanced drivers know when they need to impose their own speed restraints (below the statutory limits) depending on the circumstances.



OFcourse the answer is in technology - speed limiters triggered according to conditions and local environment


----------



## Arch (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> The actual stopping distance part (rather than the thinking distance), at a higher speed with modern cars, will be lower than with much older cars stopping from 70mph.




And how many of these 'much older cars' are currently on the road? Not many - better brakes and stuff like ABS have been around for yonks. That's a non point. If you up the limit, there won't suddenly and automatically be better cars on the road to compensate. 

I agree that speed isn't everything, we need much much better and more responsible drivers on the road. But if you must allow crap drivers (and it seems we must in this country or risk revolution and national collapse), I'd rather they were limited to lower speeds....


----------



## hackbike 666 (31 Jan 2010)

Speed is a lot if you lose control of the bugger in your testosterone filled enviroment.

I learnt a long time ago after making a mistake that defensive driving is the best way to do it.


----------



## GrasB (31 Jan 2010)

thomas, you'd then have to cover every piece of road. Also average speed cameras can let people do well over the speed limit - In 20mph limit there's a 5 mile stretch of road covered by average speed cameras, the minimum time you can be between these cameras is 15min. Half way between these cameras there's a shop. You enter the camera control area at 30mph, stop off to get a paper & your lunch & then drive out of the speed camera control area at 30mph. Now it takes 5min to get to the shop & another 5min to get to the second camera so it takes 10 min of driving time to cover those 5 miles. However stopping off at the shop means parking up, going into the shop paying etc. this takes 7min so the cameras register 17min to do 5 mile which is 17.6mph, this below the speed limit but the driver was doing 30 while traveling. 




Cunobelin said:


> OFcourse the answer is in technology - speed limiters triggered according to conditions and local environment


Shelve that, just get fully automated cars that need no driver input once their destination is set.


----------



## thomas (31 Jan 2010)

I don't think that ideas of a £1000 fine and similar bans to drink driving is always necessary. Certainly, give good long bans and high fines to those who speed excessively, but I don't feel the same is necessary for lower infractions (or mistakes).

If someone (or myself) got done for speeding I can understand being annoyed, but do think it's silly if they were to start blaming everything else.

I don't see speeding fines as a 'motorist tax'...it's easy to know what the speed limit is, it's easy to control a car so it follows a speed limit. Do those things and it's not a problem.



Arch said:


> And how many of these 'much older cars' are currently on the road? Not many - better brakes and stuff like ABS have been around for yonks. That's a non point. If you up the limit, there won't suddenly and automatically be better cars on the road to compensate.
> 
> I agree that speed isn't everything, we need much much better and more responsible drivers on the road. But if you must allow *crap drivers* (and it seems we must in this country or risk revolution and national collapse), *I'd rather they were limited to lower speeds*....



I'm not against lower speed limits, in places. I do think that some 20mph zones are good ideas and that it is sensible to follow them. There's one near me, it's where there are a lot of shop, lot of foot traffic and a lot of people who could jump of the pavement into the road. I think it'd be a fantastic bit to try a shared space on, but that's just me . I don't like the idea of single carriageway nation speed limit being dropped to 50mph.

I do agree, we have a lot of crap drivers and we do need a better method of testing new drivers and potentially, making sure people are up to scratch later on. However, if someone does 80mph rather than 70mph on a motorway I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. An accident at either speed won't end that nicely.



GrasB said:


> *thomas, you'd then have to cover every piece of road.* Also average speed cameras can let people do well over the speed limit - In 20mph limit there's a 5 mile stretch of road covered by average speed cameras, the minimum time you can be between these cameras is 15min. Half way between these cameras there's a shop. You enter the camera control area at 30mph, stop off to get a paper & your lunch & then drive out of the speed camera control area at 30mph. Now it takes 5min to get to the shop & another 5min to get to the second camera so it takes 10 min of driving time to cover those 5 miles. However stopping off at the shop means parking up, going into the shop paying etc. this takes 7min so the cameras register 17min to do 5 mile which is 17.6mph, this below the speed limit but the driver was doing 30 while traveling.



You wouldn't have to cover every road, but they may have to be strategically placed. You'd place them in 'accident hot spots', or places (such as 20mph zones, outside schools, etc) where speeding is least acceptable. Normal, static, or movable (police in cars) do not cover every stretch of every road.

As for being able to stop. Certainly, on a motorway, I could do 100mph for the first half through average speed cameras, then reduce my speed accordingly for the second part so I don't get done.

As for your situation, I'm not saying average speed cameras would work everywhere, but a lot of people won't be stopping at the shops and therefore they will need to stick to the speed limit, which in turn limits the other drivers speeds. So if you stop for a sarny and want to speed, then I come along....and I was clever enough to make a packed lunch, then you'll be stuck behind me doing the speed limit .

Anyway, static speed cameras allow for the same thing as your problem with average ones. 'When I see a speed camera I drop my speed....after them I speed back up'. Having effected the average speed of the road very little.


----------



## TheDoctor (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> The actual stopping distance part (rather than the thinking distance), at a higher speed with modern cars, will be lower than with much older cars stopping from 70mph.



Not sure that it will, TBH. My old Metro with drum brakes had enough braking power to lock the wheels. Plus, cars are much heavier than they used to be, so there's much more momentum to dissipate.
You're still relying on an small patch of rubber gripping the road.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> However, if someone does 80mph rather than 70mph on a motorway I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. An accident at either speed won't end that nicely.



Except that you are more likely to be involved in a crash the faster you are going. You have much less time to react, and require much greater stopping times and distances.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> I do agree, we have a lot of crap drivers and we do need a better method of testing new drivers and potentially, making sure people are up to scratch later on. However, if someone does 80mph rather than 70mph on a motorway I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. An accident at either speed won't end that nicely.
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't have to cover every road, but they may have to be strategically placed. You'd place them in 'accident hot spots', or places (such as 20mph zones, outside schools, etc) where speeding is least acceptable. Normal, static, or movable (police in cars) do not cover every stretch of every road.



Police cars are dangerous (ABD) as Police enforcing the law mean drivers have to look out for them and this means they are not paying attention to the road!


The rest is down to the drivers. The ones who slow down and then speed up are simply unwilling to drive to an accepted standard and are the dangerous ones.

The evidence point to high risk activities such as speding, dangerous overtaking, tail gating and aggressive drivimg as being comonly linked to "Risk taking behaviour" and these drivers need to be identified.

Firstly we should be taking speding and the other offences as a possible signal, or red flag that the driver is a risk taker and then address this as an issue.

Identification and education of such drivers has been used in fleets for some time and a program of psychometric testing and training by Arriva halved the accident rates that the company was experiencing.

The greatest advantage is that you can also spot these traits before the driver gets behind the wheel, and could easily be incorporated into the test structure.

However the difficult point here is that you will (sooner rather than later) come across the drivers who are simply unsuitableto drive and should not be allowed on the roads, but at least we can get them off quickly.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> Not sure that it will, TBH. My old Metro with drum brakes had enough braking power to lock the wheels. Plus, cars are much heavier than they used to be, so there's much more momentum to dissipate.
> You're still relying on an small patch of rubber gripping the road.



... and older cars did not need to have anti skid surfaces at every junction.

You used to be able to stop aMorris Minor at a junction, yet now it is not possible to stop a modern car atthe same junction with improved braking, better tyres and assistance such as ABS?

Couldn't be the fact that it is the drivers that are the problem not the vehicles?

No matter how efficient you make a vehicle's brakes and tyres there will always be thise who will drive outside the performance envelope.

Again lets spot these drivers and remove them


----------



## GrasB (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> You wouldn't have to cover every road, but they may have to be strategically placed. You'd place them in 'accident hot spots', or places (such as 20mph zones, outside schools, etc) where speeding is least acceptable. Normal, static, or movable (police in cars) do not cover every stretch of every road.
> 
> ...
> 
> So if you stop for a sarny and want to speed, then I come along....and I was clever enough to make a packed lunch, then you'll be stuck behind me doing the speed limit .


The difference between static & a relatively large number of mobile speed traps is the latter doesn't have to cover everywhere to be effective everywhere! If there's a threat that there's a policeman with a speed gun in a concealed location you're getting to the situation where to have to watch your speed everywhere not just where you know there's a camera.

The rolling road block thing doesn't really work for me as I see people doing 20mph (in a 20) being overtaken most times I go to the shops!


----------



## MacB (31 Jan 2010)

I'm with the limiting technology idea here, remove the option to exceed speed limits, then we can focus resources on better driving and appropriate speed.


----------



## GrasB (31 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> I'm with the limiting technology idea here, remove the option to exceed speed limits, then we can focus resources on better driving and appropriate speed.


Before we go near speed limiting, tbh just remove the driver completely imo, we need a technology that can accurately sense which road you're on. I've come across a fair few occasions where GPSs can't work out if you're on the new multi-lane A-road or the old local roads running parallel to the new one.


----------



## MacB (31 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> Before we go near speed limiting, tbh just remove the driver completely imo, we need a technology that can accurately sense which road you're on. I've come across a fair few occasions where GPSs can't work out if you're on the new multi-lane A-road or the old local roads running parallel to the new one.



I like the idea of removing the driver but that technology isn't there yet, whereas limiting stuff is.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Jan 2010)

GrasB said:


> Before we go near speed limiting, tbh just remove the driver completely imo, we need a technology that can accurately sense which road you're on. I've come across a fair few occasions where GPSs can't work out if you're on the new multi-lane A-road or the old local roads running parallel to the new one.



But can it/could it reliably sense hazards? The deep pothole, or the cyclist who is swerving to avoid it? The old fellow who steps out into the road without looking? The horserider with a nervous steed?

No thanks, I'd rather be in control or pass the control to another human being, as flawed as that option may be. The rules need to be stricter, but once automation creeps in I'll keep out.


----------



## Davidc (31 Jan 2010)

I'm totally unconvinced by arguments against draonian sentencing and strict enforcement.

It's the only way most speeders will do as they're required to do.

My suggestion above is me being mild. 30.03 in a 30 limit = off the road for a year, huge fine (2 months gross salary if you like Thomas - that's proportional to income then) and the car crushed.

After the first couple were reported, with great gnashing of teeth and wailing, by the DM we'd have little or no speeding and much safer roads. There would probably be fewer people prosecuted for speeding than there are now.

Same penalty for using a mobile phone, not signalling correctly, and many other offences.

It won't happen - lives are less important in Britain than the right to drive as you wish where you wish.

(I know I'm an extremist - and I'll stay that way).


----------



## joebingo (31 Jan 2010)

Or, you could just hang everyone who drives a car to a slightly poor standard, David.


----------



## MacB (31 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> I'm totally unconvinced by arguments against draonian sentencing and strict enforcement.
> 
> It's the only way most speeders will do as they're required to do.
> 
> ...



I can agree with the principle but I don't like the focus this would place on speed control. My concern would be attention diverted away from the road. This is why I'd use limiting technology to exclude speeding as an option. I did this to death on another thread so won't revisit entirely here

But once limiting technology was in place I'd happily place you in charge of all other traffic offences


----------



## Davidc (31 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> I can agree with the principle but I don't like the focus this would place on speed control. My concern would be attention diverted away from the road. This is why I'd use limiting technology to exclude speeding as an option. I did this to death on another thread so won't revisit entirely here
> 
> But once limiting technology was in place I'd happily place you in charge of all other traffic offences



I think I may have joined you! I listed about a dozen offences that would get the same treatment.

I have no issue with speed limiters. There's one on my car and I have it engaged much of the time when in 30 and 40 limits. It would be exellent if the technology was available to operate it automatically. If for good reason I need to disengage it quickly there's a kickdown function which does it.

I just don't think we should allow anyone on the road if they can't follow the rules which are there to protect all road users = practically everyone.


----------



## downfader (31 Jan 2010)

If you argue for removing driver controls then surely yu could equally be arguing for better public transport systems?

Just a thought, but if we really did want an autopilot then surely its better to have someone else incontrol?


----------



## Dilbert (31 Jan 2010)

The problem with speed cameras is that they have become the main Road Traffic Enforcement tool to the detriment of using police officers to target bad driving. On the rare occasions police officers are sent out they just seem to rack up more speeders. Cameras don't deter the increasing number of European drivers on our roads because its to much like hard work for Camera Partnerships to pursue them, or the increasing number of people with false number plates etc.

Speed limits are also entirely random, my street which is narrow with cars down both sides has the same limit (30mph) as the main dual carriage way leaving town. 29 Mph up my street is lunacy but its within the limit.

It is bad driving that causes most accidents, not speed, although excessive speed will normally make things worse, it is only the cause in a minority of accidents and even then it is often excessive for the conditions not the speed limit. More focus on driver training and harsher punishment for sins of commission such as mobile phone use, excessive speed or dangerous overtaking are required. Doing loads of people for doing 30.00001 Mph will simply lead to the courts being clogged with appeals about equipment calibration and the road safety message will be lost forever.


----------



## mcshroom (31 Jan 2010)

If speed cameras are a stealth tax then I wish all stealth taxes were the same, then I wouldn't pay any.

Speeding is an issue that cars have had almost since the point that flag carriers in front were removed, but for some reason it has never been socially unacceptable, even with the efforts of campaigns like 'Think!'. The issue with speeding though should not, IMHO be a case of increasing the punishments or lowering speed limits per say, but rather that of enforcing the limits that are already there. I would suggest that the following would make a greater impression on speeding than draconian punishments that would make more law abiding drivers feel under siege and may encourage more people to see the limit as the target and not think abaout driving at a safe speed for the conditions.

*Speed cameras*
With respect to speed cameras, I would suggest two 'improvements'. Firstly on roads with limited entry/exit points (like motorways) it should be simple enough to install ave. speed cameras at each junction. This would mean that the whole motorway system could be kept at speed limits, and would have the added benefit of allowing variable speed limits to be introduced like those on the M42. Secondly why not camourflage the speed cameras instead of painting them bright yellow. This would make it far harder to 'camera surf'.

*Speed limits*
I would favour the lowering of 30mph limits to 20mph in post urban areas rather than lowering 60mph to 50mph roads. Firstly there are far more non-motorist users of urban roads than rural roads and also from a purely personal motive lowering speed limits on trunk roads in areas like Cumbria where motorways don't exist would leave us even more cut off than we already are.

What may be an intereting trick would be to switch from mph to km/h, as from trips to the continent I feel psycologically it feels like you are going faster at the same actual speed.

*Others*
I would be perfectly happy with changing a speeding offence to 4 points from 3, and removing the "I need a car for my job" defence at court for those who hit 12 points. Would it also be sensible to have a scale of points and fines depending on where and when a speeding offence occured, as it is more dangerous to speed at some times and in some places than others (though all speeding and is just as wrong)

Also enforcing a defensive driving course to be taught to all drivers, including those who already hold licenses, and introducing more shared space areas to remove the defining and percieved ownership of certain areas of the road would both be benifical IMHO.


----------



## thomas (31 Jan 2010)

Kaipaith said:


> Except that you are more likely to be involved in a crash the faster you are going. You have much less time to react, and require much greater stopping times and distances.



Going faster doesn't increase the probability of having a crash. Just, the faster you're going, the worst the crash may be.



GrasB said:


> Before we go near speed limiting, tbh just remove the driver completely imo, we need a technology that can accurately sense which road you're on. I've come across a fair few occasions where GPSs can't work out if you're on the new multi-lane A-road or the old local roads running parallel to the new one.



Removing the driver is fine, until the person who owns the car decides to do the service them self. 'Self-driven' cars are not at a stage to be practical.



Dilbert said:


> Doing loads of people for doing 30.00001 Mph will simply lead to the courts being clogged with appeals about equipment calibration and the road safety message will be lost forever.



Couldn't agree more...David's comments on making a making someone who does 0.03mph over the speed limit loose 2 months salary, the ability to drive for a year and another few thousand pounds worth of car is ridiculous. It's a worst punishment that you'd get for robbery or assault.

I would much rather be overtaken by someone doing 30.03mph, who is paying lots of attention to the road, than hit by someone doing 29mph, who is paying attention only to their speed.

Speeding doesn't kill. Excessive speed does. A lack of anticipation does.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (31 Jan 2010)

Davidc said:


> I'm totally unconvinced by arguments against draonian sentencing and strict enforcement.
> 
> It's the only way most speeders will do as they're required to do.
> 
> My suggestion above is me being mild. 30.03 in a 30 limit = off the road for a year, huge fine (2 months gross salary if you like Thomas - that's proportional to income then) and the car crushed.



While I agree in principle - I've always driven to the limit and not to the cameras - is your speedo really accurate to two decimal places? I'm pretty sure it isn't.


----------



## thomas (31 Jan 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> While I agree in principle - I've always driven to the limit and not to the cameras - is your speedo really accurate to two decimal places? I'm pretty sure it isn't.





Even if it is, my foot isn't. Occasionally, however hard I'm trying I might hit 31mph for a moment. I certainly wouldn't expect to loose thousands for pounds for it. If however someone was doing 70mph in a 30 then certainly take their licence away and fine them all you want. No excuse.


----------



## PBancroft (31 Jan 2010)

thomas said:


> Going faster doesn't increase the probability of having a crash. Just, the faster you're going, the worst the crash may be.



No, sorry. You're wrong.

Or rather, you're not entirely right. Speed does increase the likelihood of a crash for the reasons I outlined in my post and more. However you are correct - it also makes the "accident" that much worse.


----------



## snorri (31 Jan 2010)

mcshroom said:


> rather than lowering 60mph to 50mph roads. Firstly there are far more non-motorist users of urban roads than rural roads and also from a purely personal motive lowering speed limits on trunk roads in areas like Cumbria where motorways don't exist would leave us even more cut off than we already are.



Lowering trunk road speed limits is required in locations where the trunk road is the only viable link between communities, the present limits act as a serious disincentive to the active traveller.


----------



## Dan B (31 Jan 2010)

Hate to say it, but almost none of the road traffic accidents I've seen, been a part of, or heard about, have involved anyone breaking the speed limit: the direct cause has almost always been that someone was driving or riding like a twonk.

I don't have any sympathy with anyone who claims that a bright yellow camera is a form of stealth taxation, but do some of us maybe need a bit more of a sense of proportion? On-the-spot car crushing for aggressive tailgating, intimidating pedestrians, driving through honking great puddles at 30 when there are people standing on the pavement, U-turning without looking, I might go along with (are the passengers allowed to get out first?). But for a momentary 31 in a 30? Keeping within 3% of the speed limit at all times is not a measure of anything other than an ability to jump through hoops - it has as much relevance to road safety as being able to trackstand a bicycle


----------



## thomas (31 Jan 2010)

> It does, because your reaction distances are shorter, so it's harder to avoid an incident.





Kaipaith said:


> No, sorry. You're wrong.
> 
> Or rather, you're not entirely right. Speed does increase the likelihood of a crash for the reasons I outlined in my post and more. However you are correct - it also makes the "accident" that much worse.




Those were quite eye opening...about a 1kph making a difference. Sooo, Finnnnnneeeeee! I was wrong. I was mainly just being difficult


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Jan 2010)

Dilbert said:


> The problem with speed cameras is that they have become the main Road Traffic Enforcement tool to the detriment of using police officers to target bad driving. On the rare occasions police officers are sent out they just seem to rack up more speeders. Cameras don't deter the increasing number of European drivers on our roads because its to much like hard work for Camera Partnerships to pursue them, or the increasing number of people with false number plates etc.



Again mythology, the number of Police dedicated to Trafic has not changed any differently than other areas of Policing. Equally there are now reciprocal agreements for speeding and other offences with most EU countries.

The false plates are merely another aspect of criminality and to suggest that Camera Partnerships "can't be bothered" is desperate. No POlice Officer, no matter how magic you believe their abilities to be is any better at spotting false plates - in fact a camera with ANPR may be better!




> Speed limits are also entirely random, my street which is narrow with cars down both sides has the same limit (30mph) as the main dual carriage way leaving town. 29 Mph up my street is lunacy but its within the limit.



Which simply proves that some drivers need to be taken of the road!



> It is bad driving that causes most accidents, not speed, although excessive speed will normally make things worse, it is only the cause in a minority of accidents and even then it is often excessive for the conditions not the speed limit. More focus on driver training and harsher punishment for sins of commission such as mobile phone use, excessive speed or dangerous overtaking are required. Doing loads of people for doing 30.00001 Mph will simply lead to the courts being clogged with appeals about equipment calibration and the road safety message will be lost forever.



More mythology... There is a very generous allowance for speeding before you are "done"

At present in a 30 MPH you have to be doing 35 for a fixed penalty and 50 for a summons. In a 50 mph zone it is 57 (FP) and a summons is at 76

I know of many professions where such an error would be unacceptable. 

Imagine if next time you buy a 5mm bolt for your rack it was 6mm or 7.5 mm - would you find that acceptable?

If your doctor was regularly overdosing or pharmacists making drugs by 50% or more - would that be acceptable?


----------



## HJ (31 Jan 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Speed camera whingers - a voluntary tax for the stupid .



+1

I find my self in the odd position of agreeing with Crankarm


----------



## mangaman (31 Jan 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Again mythology, the number of Police dedicated to Trafic has not changed any differently than other areas of Policing. Equally there are now reciprocal agreements for speeding and other offences with most EU countries.



Thnks for the heads up on that Cunobelin - I was about to challenge Dilbert on his assertion but didn't have the figures.

I spend a lot of time driving in Spain. They have really targetted road safety recenty and have reduced fatalities more than anywhere else in Europe I believe (from a high starting point).

They only introduced penalty points on licences in, I think 2006, and have a lot of unmarked plod with radar guns.

I have never had a penalty point in England in 25 years of driving but I am even more careful in Spain. The traffic police can be anywhere.

2 things I like in Spain

1) The police with radar move, so you don't just automatically slow down for each fixed speed camera

2) The regional newspaper (La Verdad de Murcia) has a feature every Monday on the front page of all deaths on the roads in the past week. Everyone there reads La Verdad and it personalises road KSIs which we in England resolutely refuse to do


----------



## Crankarm (31 Jan 2010)

HJ said:


> +1
> 
> I find my self in the *odd* position of agreeing with Crankarm



Err ......... why do you find it odd ?

What are you implying?


----------



## Brains (31 Jan 2010)

Without getting involved in this argument can I just point out that the technology to limit the speed of a vehicle, road by road, connected to the GPS system already exists.

Therefore it would be relatively easy and cheap to insist that all vehicle from this day forth were fitted with GPS speed limiters (and black box recorders)

The fitted vehicles would keep the speed down of the non-fitted vehicles until, after about a decade they were in the majority. There would of course be those who bypassed the system, so the current cameras etc would stay for a couple of decades or more, but with the added 'felony' of speed limiter bypass.

As a byproduct of the reduced speed, think what that would do for the countries CO2 emissions. Add to that a new stealth tax of £5 every time you drive the first 1km in your car and a £1 per KM thereafter the government of the day could make a fortune, and reduce CO2 at the same time

Of course this will not happen in the UK for decades as the Government of the day is not serious about reducing speeds or CO2. (However the Danes are looking into this seriously now)


----------



## Crankarm (31 Jan 2010)

A few years ago VW even produced a Golf that drives itself, no driver necessary. Think what that could mean ..........


----------



## PBancroft (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Those were quite eye opening...about a 1kph making a difference. Sooo, Finnnnnneeeeee! I was wrong. I was mainly just being difficult



I know. I forgive you.


----------



## Cab (1 Feb 2010)

What a delight to come home after a weekend away and find such a courteous, well informed and interesting discussion going on here. I applaud you all 

Two things that I think have been touched on but need further thought are the impact of stopping distances and overtaking. A few musings from coming home last night by car (hire car because we don't have one, thats down from Hull to Cambridge on the A15/M180/A15/A46/A1/A1M/A428/A14 - so thats a broad assortment of 'fast' roads - dual carriageway, single carriageway A road, and motorway). 

The impact of speed cameras on roads that didn't formerly have them is massive. I mean, the difference on the A14 and A15 (averaging speed cameras on the former, simple ones on the latter) between now and way back before cameras is enormous. Way less dangerous overtaking on the A15 - it used to be quite obvious that you'd be doing 60mph behind another car also doing 60mph, with a safe gap between you and the car in front, and you'd be leapfrogged by someone who wanted to do 80mph. You therefore had the simple choice of leaving insufficient safe space in front of you, or the certainty that some wasserk would be in that space anyway. And the number of times you'd have someone cut back in a crazy close distance in front was staggering; hardly surprising there were many accidents on that road!

Since speed cameras, that hardly ever happens. Its still an impatient road (aren't they all?), but the very high speed risk taking is way less common.

On the A14, with the averaging cameras, theres still far too much weaving in and out of lanes and silly overtaking, but again, comparing it with how it was before the average speed cameras, its hugely, massively better than it was. You can tell when you're on it or even just staring down from the cycle bridge; with most of the traffic doing nearly the same speed there is far less of the risk taking we used to see.

But on all of these roads the same major flaw in British driving is still apparent; they might all be doing 50, 60 or 70mph (or thereabouts), but the gaps left to the vehicle in front are far, far too short. Frankly, its a wonder that every single shunt on every major road in the UK doesn't end up a multi-car pile up. Either the British driver doesn't know, doesn't care, or can't use the guidance and rules we have for safe stopping distance. Whatever the speed limit of the road the distance left seems very similar, and it is all too often too short.

This isn't regularly enforced. Its not going to be regularly enforced. The only alternative is to limit the severity and likelyhood of accidents being caused by or worsened by this, and the way you do that is with speed control. 

So, controlling speed isn't just a goal in itself, the impact it has more broadly on road safety is huge. Stealth tax? In the form of bright road signs and brighter cameras? Only if stealth now means 'sensible way of stopping people doing stupid things in a bleeding obvious way'.

I don't favour massive fines for speeding, but I would certainly favour a 'two strikes and your out' policy. One mistake? Fine, happens. Do it twice, get the hell off the roads.


----------



## Davidc (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Going faster doesn't increase the probability of having a crash.



Yes it does.




thomas said:


> Couldn't agree more...David's comments on making a making someone who does 0.03mph over the speed limit loose 2 months salary, the ability to drive for a year and another few thousand pounds worth of car is ridiculous. It's a worst punishment that you'd get for robbery or assault.


Robbery and assault carry the likelihood of custodial sentences, which probably wouldn't be appropriate for a first speding offence.

Exceeding speed limits kills. It needs an appropriate punishment. I view speeders as far worse criminals than most others

I consider what I have suggested here to be mild. As with all crimes there's no need for anyone to receive the puishment, all thats needed is to obey the law.


----------



## Debian (1 Feb 2010)

Davidc said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you.

There is no need for and no excuse for speeding. There's no excuse for getting caught speeding so whether or not you agree that "speed kills" there's no excuse for breaking the law.

As far as I'm concerned penalties for all motoring offences, including speeding, should be far more severe than they are currently. IMO being caught speeding by more than 10% of the posted limit twice within a ten year period should be an instant ban with no mitigation possible; caught three times then your vehicle is confiscated and crushed.


----------



## BentMikey (1 Feb 2010)

There's no need for harsher penalties, IMO. Just more enforcement of all traffic offences, not just speeding. More enforcement, including hidden cameras, would have an excellent effect on people's driving.


----------



## Cab (1 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> There's no need for harsher penalties, IMO. Just more enforcement of all traffic offences, not just speeding. More enforcement, including hidden cameras, would have an excellent effect on people's driving.



The evidence available from roads where averaging speed cameras are being used suggests that this is so. To extend that to monitor other road traffic offences seems like the obvious next step.


----------



## Davidc (1 Feb 2010)

I agree totally about better enforcement. IMO we should have both, better enforcement and much harsher punishment.

There are unnecessary deaths and injuries in vast numbers on the roads. Until there are none there can be no excuse for breaking driving and road law, and our politiciaand bear a heavy responsibility by not enforcing the laws which are there already.

To describe speeding fines as a stealth tax is amoral.


----------



## snorri (1 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> There's no need for harsher penalties, IMO. Just more enforcement of all traffic offences,


The present penalties do not sufficiently influence driver behaviour.
Better enforcement would result in more people being caught, but with the present penalties, being caught is no big deal.
It would give us safer roads if drivers were worried about the penalty of being caught rather than the stigma and inconvenience of being caught.


----------



## Debian (1 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> The present penalties do not sufficiently influence driver behaviour.
> Better enforcement would result in more people being caught, but with the present penalties, being caught is no big deal.
> It would give us safer roads if drivers were worried about the penalty of being caught rather than the stigma and inconvenience of being caught.



+1!

Someone in a hurry and late for a meeting thinks:

1. ) "If I put my foot down I might just make it. The risk? Three points and a small fine. I'll risk it"

2. ) "If I put my foot down I might just make it. The risk? A years ban and my car confiscated permanently. Maybe not then."


----------



## BentMikey (1 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> The present penalties do not sufficiently influence driver behaviour.
> Better enforcement would result in more people being caught, but with the present penalties, being caught is no big deal.
> It would give us safer roads if drivers were worried about the penalty of being caught rather than the stigma and inconvenience of being caught.



Wrong - because there's very little risk of being caught. If the risk went up, then the penalties would quickly accrue for the many people getting away with it.

Driver bans and eventual jail time do happen, but not as much as they should simply because there's so little enforcement.


----------



## Debian (1 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Wrong - because there's very little risk of being caught. If the risk went up, then the penalties would quickly accrue for the many people getting away with it.
> 
> Driver bans and eventual jail time do happen, but not as much as they should simply because there's so little enforcement.



Understand what you say but the penalties still need to be more severe. Currently, a speeding driver could be caught four times and still get away with it by saying he needs the car to earn a livelihood. If the rule was - caught twice and you're banned, three times and you lose your car - it would make drivers think twice from the outset.

I also think the owner of the vehicle should be made liable as well as the driver. In the case of company cars that might just concentrate the minds of the employers. Say for the second and all subsequent speeding offences the owner is fined £1000 the those employees who habitually speed would soon be downsized.

A motor vehicle is a lethal weapon, more dangerous in the wrong hands perhaps than a handgun so the penalties for misuse should be at least as severe as those for misusing a handgun.


----------



## atbman (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> One problem with speed cameras, or very strict speed enforcement is that it makes people spend less time focused on the road. I know this is, 'one of those excuses', but if I relied on a car and didn't have lots of money, what am I going to do - pay loads of attention to my speedo and less on what's further up the road, or not?



Why spend more time focussed on the speedo? How long does it actually take to check your speed? One second? Not as long as it takes to check your rearview or door mirrors and assess what you see in them.

I think there have only been a couple of occasions in 49 years of driving have I not been aware of the speed limit I was in.

Check speedo, ease off (if necessary).
Gradient changes, check speedo.
Speed limit changes downwards, slow down, check speedo, etc.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Feb 2010)

atbman said:


> Why spend more time focussed on the speedo? How long does it actually take to check your speed? One second? Not as long as it takes to check your rearview or door mirrors and assess what you see in them.
> 
> I think there have only been a couple of occasions in 49 years of driving have I not been aware of the speed limit I was in.
> 
> ...



Exactly. That's how I've always driven. It's not difficult.


----------



## Davidc (1 Feb 2010)

I learnt very quickly when I started driving how to guage speed by listening to the notes (frequencies) made by bits of the car, meaning there's little need to look at the speedo.

It isn't that difficult not to get a speeding fine, I haven't had one in 35 years and upwards of 1.5 million miles of driving and don't intend getting one in the future. There's no magic or luck about it. All that's needed is to stay under the limit. There's no excuse, and many more drivers would suddenly learn how if the penalties were harsh &/or detection rates increased. The results would be safer roads for all of us.


----------



## thomas (1 Feb 2010)

Davidc said:


> Robbery and assault carry the likelihood of custodial sentences, which probably wouldn't be appropriate for a first speding offence.



I had someone come up to me one (on the street, day light). Claimed I called his sister something (just a pikey excuse) and he thumped me. Gave me a big black eye. I just walked off quite quickly as I wasn't interested in getting in a fight or anything. The Police were involved, yet chose not to prosecute the person.

Now, in my books. That is more serious than someone doing 30.03mph.



Debian said:


> +1!
> 
> Someone in a hurry and late for a meeting thinks:
> 
> ...



The thing is though, people won't think until after as they "won't" get caught. Bit like how the death penalty doesn't stop murders.



atbman said:


> Why spend more time focussed on the speedo? How long does it actually take to check your speed? One second? Not as long as it takes to check your rearview or door mirrors and assess what you see in them.




No, I know it's not that hard...but for some people, if worried about a thousand pound fine, loosing their car, licence (livelihood, freedoms, etc) then they may spend a disproportionate amount of time focused on the speedo.

I know when I was learning to drive I checked the speedo every time I looked in my mirrors, (so every 6 seconds or so?), but I still may deviate up a mph by mistake.


----------



## Arch (1 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> 2) The regional newspaper (La Verdad de Murcia) has a feature every Monday on the front page of all deaths on the roads in the past week. Everyone there reads La Verdad and it personalises road KSIs which we in England resolutely refuse to do



I think this would be excellent. One person can die in a train crash and it's over the news for days and something-must-be-done-about-it, and yet in that time, 30 people may have died on the roads, without a mention even on local tv news. Local papers may just about mention them, if nothing more exciting has happened.

I'd love a national paper to be brave enough to cover every road death, say for a month, to make a point.


----------



## mangaman (1 Feb 2010)

Arch said:


> I think this would be excellent. One person can die in a train crash and it's over the news for days and something-must-be-done-about-it, and yet in that time, 30 people may have died on the roads, without a mention even on local tv news. Local papers may just about mention them, if nothing more exciting has happened.
> 
> I'd love a national paper to be brave enough to cover every road death, say for a month, to make a point.



Absolutely - it's very movingly covered. They list the people who died and have a photo of a wrecked car, which they always seem to pick in a place you're likely to have driven yourself.

They also choose pictures which are shocking without being unnecessarily graphic.

It's impossible to pick up the paper and not think - hey I recognise that roundabout - that could be me.


----------



## snorri (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Now, in my books. That is more serious than someone doing 30.03mph.
> 
> I know when I was learning to drive I checked the speedo every time I looked in my mirrors, (so every 6 seconds or so?), but I still may deviate up a mph by mistake.



No one has been prosecuted for driving 0.03mph above the posted limit, so nothing to worry about there.

If by increasing your speed by 1 mph you would exceed the limit, then you are driving too fast. Just try to fix on a speed 10 mph below the limit and if any minor variations occur you will still be within the limit.
I really should not have had to explain that.


----------



## thomas (1 Feb 2010)

snorri said:


> *No one has been prosecuted for driving 0.03mph above the posted limit, so nothing to worry about there.*
> 
> If by increasing your speed by 1 mph you would exceed the limit, then you are driving too fast. Just try to fix on a speed 10 mph below the limit and if any minor variations occur you will still be within the limit.
> I really should not have had to explain that.




It was a point for David's post earlier . As for always driving 10mph below the speed limit, I don't really think that's a sensible option. I know they're not targets, but if it is safe to do it then I think people should drive close to it.

As for national papers covering deaths, that can hardly be a bad thing! I thought last year there might be more of a thing of road deaths after some road death statistics did make the headlines for a day or two. I was hoping they were building up for a longer news cycle, but they didn't


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Thnks for the heads up on that Cunobelin - I was about to challenge Dilbert on his assertion but didn't have the figures.



Even more interesting is the fact that some Police Forces (such as Kent) employ additional staff to operate the Camera Partnerships and the use of Cameras actually INCREASES the number of Police out on Patrol for opportunistic enforcement of motoring offences.

Kent Camera partnership also recognises the link between motoring offences and other crimes. It employs additional officers to specifically follow up the more serious offences, agan increasing the number of Police out n the roads and carrying out enforcement


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2010)

Arch said:


> I think this would be excellent. One person can die in a train crash and it's over the news for days and something-must-be-done-about-it, and yet in that time, 30 people may have died on the roads, without a mention even on local tv news. Local papers may just about mention them, if nothing more exciting has happened.
> 
> I'd love a national paper to be brave enough to cover every road death, say for a month, to make a point.



Actually covered quite nicely in Heathcote Williams' excellent "Autogeddon" which although dated still has relevance.



> MORE than twice the number in the death-camps,
> 
> A hundred and thirty times the kill at Hiroshima,
> 
> ...


----------



## Norm (1 Feb 2010)

I don't like the whiners, if I travel above the posted limit and get caught, that's my luck playing out.

However, I'm nervously awaiting the postie at the moment, for a tale which will no doubt be seen as confirming that it is a tax on stupidity.

There's a bunch of motorways being ripped up round here at the moment, one set of roadworks on the M25 and two on the M4 which have been there with 50mph limits for over a year. I *always* set the speed limiter in my car in the roadworks, as I do in urban limits, to reduce the chance of being caught out keeping up with the flow of traffic and getting a £60 tax demand. 

Last Saturday, I dropped the Smalls at school and set off along a motorway I know well (I used to live about 100 yards from it) which has recently had a roadworks set up. The road was completely empty, as were the coned off sections, but I set my limiter to 48 and drove through. 

It was only on the return trip through the same roadworks that I noticed the speed limit was 40. 

Yes, there were plenty of signs but it appears that, because I travel through so many roadworks each day that I've become immune to them. I see roadworks, I see speed limit signs, I set my limiter to 48 and concentrate on what I see as the important bits of driving (such as, on the M25 near Maple Cross, watching for the HGVs doing 51mph).

If the ticket arrives, I will pay up with a hint of resignation and a slap of my own forehead, frustrated that the limit on a dead straight and completely empty motorway with full width lanes was set so low merely because the hard shoulder had been barricaded and there might be people working there for a couple of hours a week.


----------



## Davidc (1 Feb 2010)

You'd be unlucky Norm. The calibration point for 40mph detection always used to be 47, and your speed limiter will almost certainly be like a speedometer, calibrated to err on the safe side. (according to a satellite unit mine lets me go 48 when set to 50)

At least you are willing to accept that if you get a ticket you're the one to blame.


----------



## Norm (1 Feb 2010)

Davidc said:


> At least you are willing to accept that if you get a ticket you're the one to blame.


Completely my fault, call it a self-imposed "D'Oh" tax. 

Most annoying is that I had, just three days before, got back a clean licence after having purged the points which I picked up in late 2004. I was hoping for at least one round of insurance renewals which I didn't have to tell them about an SP30.


----------



## Davidc (1 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Completely my fault, call it a self-imposed "D'Oh" tax.
> 
> Most annoying is that I had, just three days before, got back a clean licence after having purged the points which I picked up in late 2004. I was hoping for at least one round of insurance renewals which I didn't have to tell them about an SP30.



A serial criminal then? Off with your head, as the red queen said.


----------



## thomas (1 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Completely my fault, call it a self-imposed "D'Oh" tax.
> 
> Most annoying is that I had, just three days before, got back a clean licence after having purged the points which I picked up in late 2004. I was hoping for at least one round of insurance renewals which I didn't have to tell them about an SP30.




A repeat offender 'ey? Some others in this thread might say you deserve a £1000 fine (or possibly up to 2 months salary), car crushed, lose your licence for a year (or up to forever). 

I guess you've just got to hope that the average speed cameras weren't working properly. A friend's Dad got caught by one a couple of weeks back going a bit faster through empty road works.

This is the problem with speeding offences. Why they can be seen as a tax. I can fully understand why a reduced speed limit is needed when people are carrying out road works....but when no one is working, put it back up.

On the up side norm, at least you accept your mistake and aren't trying to blame anyone for it


----------



## Norm (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> A repeat offender 'ey? Some others in this thread might say you deserve a £1000 fine (or possibly up to 2 months salary), car crushed, lose your licence for a year (or up to forever).


Yup, repeat offender, pick a window and I'll leave now. (that line sounded better when I worked on the 22nd floor)

I don't blame anyone and I didn't with the last one either, even though I was caught doing 58 in the 50 on the A1 through Sandy by a van which was, in contravention of their own guidelines, parked on private property hidden behind a street sign. It was my choice to exceed the posted limit on a clear stretch of road, pay up and move on.

At least they couldn't catch me when I went past the police car outside the school at 150 on the motorbike a few days ago! (That's just a joke, BTW, I haven't been out on the motorbike in months  )

If there was human involvement, I'd be happy with increasing the fines for dangerous driving (tailgating etc), inappropriate speed (without necessarily making reference to posted limits) or wilful negligence (driving on fogs because one of your bulbs has blown). 

I think that being fined a grand for making a mistake and doing 50 on a clear empty straight motorway at 8:30 on a Saturday morning might be considered a touch excessive, though. There'd be a hint of "let him who is without blame cast the first stone" about that one.


----------



## mangaman (1 Feb 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Even more interesting is the fact that some Police Forces (such as Kent) employ additional staff to operate the Camera Partnerships and the use of Cameras actually INCREASES the number of Police out on Patrol for opportunistic enforcement of motoring offences.
> 
> Kent Camera partnership also recognises the link between motoring offences and other crimes. It employs additional officers to specifically follow up the more serious offences, agan increasing the number of Police out n the roads and carrying out enforcement



Thanks again Cunobelin.

Anecdotally, despite all the speed camera haters, I have had a feeling that there were more visible traffic police around recently.

A win-win situation I'd say. I suppose ANPR has had an effect, especially where other crimes are involved?


----------



## thomas (1 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Anecdotally, despite all the speed camera haters, I have had a feeling that there were more visible traffic police around recently.



I've always found Police in cars to be a bit like buses....they all come at once. When ever I see one, I see a load more. So if you see a Police, drive like a saint for the rest of your journey.


----------



## mangaman (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> I've always found Police in cars to be a bit like buses....they all come at once. When ever I see one, I see a load more. So if you see a Police, drive like a saint for the rest of your journey.



Thomas laddie, always drive like a saint. 

It's much better than thinking you're Jenson Button in your crap company car. Drive slowly and enjoy the views and the experience.

Everything is then cool.


----------



## thomas (1 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Thomas laddie, always drive like a saint.
> 
> It's much better than thinking you're Jenson Button in your crap company car. Drive slowly and enjoy the views and the experience.
> 
> Everything is then cool.





haha, I wasn't suggesting other wise. Just something I noticed. They seem to go out once a month in full force to show their presence...then sit in office the next 4 weeks ...more so back home in Woking/Guildford area.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> I've always found Police in cars to be a bit like buses....they all come at once. When ever I see one, I see a load more. So if you see a Police, drive like a saint for the rest of your journey.



But this is NOT a good thing... as posted before this is extremely dangerous as drivers are distracted by having to ook for Police Cars rather than paying atention to their driving


----------



## Dan B (1 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> It was a point for David's post earlier . As for always driving 10mph below the speed limit,


... it will cause you to fail your driving test if there's no sensible reason for doing so.


----------



## neslon (1 Feb 2010)

at the risk of sounding dim, what is a speed limiter? Do they have them on new cars, coz I'm not sure what you mean (unless you're referring to your right foot). Certainly not got one in my car.


----------



## thomas (1 Feb 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> But this is NOT a good thing... as posted before this is extremely dangerous as drivers are distracted by having to ook for Police Cars rather than paying atention to their driving



I wasn't suggesting hidden police cars, just police cars driving around. No need to be distracted looking for them.



neslon said:


> at the risk of sounding dim, what is a speed limiter? Do they have them on new cars, coz I'm not sure what you mean (unless you're referring to your right foot). Certainly not got one in my car.




I think it's where cars are fitted with electronic devices, which use GPS technology to find what road you're on, the speed limit of that road and then don't let you go above the speed limit.


----------



## Norm (1 Feb 2010)

Not as good as that, Thomas. Many cars which have cruise control (Renaults and Mercs at least) have speed limiters, which are, effectively, cruise control in reverse.

With cruise control, you electronically set the slowest speed that you want the car to travel at. You can choose to go faster with the accelerator but, if you take your feet off the pedals (assuming it's an auto), the car will maintain the speed you have set unless you turn it off.

The speed limiter works the other way. I set it to, say, 50, and I can travel any speed that I want to up to 50 but, unless I turn it off, I can't go any faster.

It's funny how many people (usually in motor vehicle manufacturing departments) brag about their cars being fitted with cruise control but hardly any mention the limiters. I've used the cruise control on mine once in 14k miles, for about 5 seconds, yet the limiter is set about a quarter of the time I am driving. If it was imposed on me, though, I'd pay money to get it removed.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Not as good as that, Thomas. Many cars which have cruise control (Renaults and Mercs at least) have speed limiters, which are, effectively, cruise control in reverse.
> 
> With cruise control, you electronically set the slowest speed that you want the car to travel at. You can choose to go faster with the accelerator but, if you take your feet off the pedals (assuming it's an auto), the car will maintain the speed you have set unless you turn it off.
> 
> ...



Ohh. I think my Dad's Accord has something like that. Certainly using cruise control at least to limit your speed, or to follow a speed limit is a good idea. With most cruise control systems I've come across it isn't a minimum speed, it's a cruising speed....so you set it and leave the pedals alone. If you want to go faster or brake then the cruise control switches off. Or at least that's what I always thought. I've never had cruise control.

Certainly, some people in the thread have mentioned some type of GPS based electronic limiting system for cars....and to be honest, some type of system like that (though, technologically possible, I don't believe necisarily feasible on a larger scale) it probably is the only way to keep everyone within speed limits.


----------



## GrasB (2 Feb 2010)

The only thing is ime GPS isn't accurate enough for this. There are enough roads which have the old & new roads running parallel or a local road with a barrier between the two so you have one with a 30 limit & 70 on the other. Certainly every GPS system I've used at some point has got confused as to which road I'm on. So you could well have cars 'randomly' being limited down to 30mph on a NSL road... that's a nice way to cause accidents!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2010)

I've driven lorries with variable speed limiters. Sometimes I use it but mostly I don't bother, since I can judge how fast I'm going by the engine noise and the feel of the lorry, quite apart from looking at the speedo occasionally. Doing it manually keeps me more alert, I've found. But variable speed limiters can be useful - where I do use one is on single carriageway A roads which have an almost universally disregarded HGV speed limit of 40mph and it's very easy to find yourself being pushed above 40 by people behind you - and they're an instant answer to those people who say "I can't possibly obey the speed limit, it involves looking at my speedo occasionally". Oddly enough, that wasn't an argument anyone on Safespeed was ever willing to listen to, for some reason.

The limiting systems I've used involve pushing a button when you reach the speed you don't want to exceed. When you want to go faster again, you either floor the throttle or push the same button to turn it off. Very simple, not at all distracting and all the other controls work exactly as normal.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> The only thing is ime GPS isn't accurate enough for this. There are enough roads which have the old & new roads running parallel or a local road with a barrier between the two so you have one with a 30 limit & 70 on the other. Certainly every GPS system I've used at some point has got confused as to which road I'm on. So you could well have cars 'randomly' being limited down to 30mph on a NSL road... that's a nice way to cause accidents!




That's one downside, but I'd also suggest that potentially there could be a substatintial cost involved in running such system....which would be initially where it'd fall down (even if it could work perfectly).

In Japan, the Nissan GTR is GPS limited to the top speed limit....but GPS recognises when you're on the track and takes the limiter off. But it isn't limited to individual road speed limits.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/22/nissan-gt-r-recognizes-tracks-via-gps-removes-speed-limiter/


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> The only thing is ime GPS isn't accurate enough for this. There are enough roads which have the old & new roads running parallel or a local road with a barrier between the two so you have one with a 30 limit & 70 on the other. Certainly every GPS system I've used at some point has got confused as to which road I'm on. So you could well have cars 'randomly' being limited down to 30mph on a NSL road... that's a nice way to cause accidents!



Yes. I'm not in favour of externally controlled limiting, partly for this reason but mostly because it would do absolutely nothing to increase the sense of social responsibility a driver should feel. The reason I don't speed is not because I might get caught doing so, but because I know it's an antisocial thing to do. That's the attitude we need to try and engender in drivers, although how we do that is a mystery to me.


----------



## Davidc (2 Feb 2010)

The OP was suggesting that speeding fines were a stealth tax. The number of strategies for avoiding speeding outlined here suggest ever more forcefully that it's just a tax on stupidity!

I use both my speed limiter and cruise control, but would like them tied into a GPS with a speed limit database, which can reset them for me. If the GPS gets it wrong then I can override them in a fraction of a second.


----------



## steve52 (2 Feb 2010)

i would be with u david but for the fact that society is failing in so many other areas, and if we dont demand honour and honesty from those at the top and demande payment and reconpence when there not, whats th point of worrying about the little things?


----------



## snorri (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> I wasn't suggesting hidden police cars, just police cars driving around.


Just driving around is what they would be doing most of the time, adding to road traffic volume, noise and pollution. Along with the costs manning and purchasing vehicles, this sounds like an expensive and inefficient way of attempting to improve road safety. The more monitoring handed over to machinery the better.


----------



## GrasB (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> That's one downside, but I'd also suggest that potentially there could be a substatintial cost involved in running such system....which would be initially where it'd fall down (even if it could work perfectly).
> 
> In Japan, the Nissan GTR is GPS limited to the top speed limit....but GPS recognises when you're on the track and takes the limiter off. But it isn't limited to individual road speed limits.
> 
> http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/22/nissan-gt-r-recognizes-tracks-via-gps-removes-speed-limiter/



On or off track is fairly easy to do, you're talking about a large target zone, which may well be measured in miles even with a track complex with 'local' roads around it you're talking well over 30m separation which is more than enough space for a GPS to be accurate is positioning the car on-track/road. I regularly cycle & drive down a pair of roads with between 3 & 15m separating them, one is an NSL the other is somewhere between 20 & 40mph. Most times I go down those roads with my satnav on for a short period it thinks I'm on the wrong road.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> On or off track is fairly easy to do,* you're talking about a large target zone,* which may well be measured in miles even with a track complex with 'local' roads around it you're talking well over 30m separation which is more than enough space for a GPS to be accurate is positioning the car on-track/road. I regularly cycle & drive down a pair of roads with between 3 & 15m separating them, one is an NSL the other is somewhere between 20 & 40mph. Most times I go down those roads with my satnav on for a short period it thinks I'm on the wrong road.




Sorry bit of misunderstanding! I don't actually think it should be implemented! I was just saying that type of technology is the only way to guarantee no speeding (if it always worked) and mentioned that some others in the thread had mentioned that....as that's what I assumed people meant by speed limiters, rather than "not cruise control, the other one! 

I just showed the GTR because it's a pretty cool car and some form of GPS speed limiting is possible (eg. max of 70mph for us). Obviously, it's probably less likely that a nissan micra would need the GPS technology encase it went on a track .

My point for most of this thread has been there are times when I don't think speeding is that much of a problem (such as on quiet motorways, in moderation), but outside schools in a 30mph or 20mph zone it isn't acceptable, but if someone for a split second his 1mph over it isn't the end of the world if they're paying attention to everything.

I certainly wouldn't want to drive a car which was limited to 70mph, or limited by GPS to each individual speed limit. I think that it (in the long term) will be better to educate people why not to speed and drive at a sensible speed, so that people choose not to do it...rather than just forcing people not to.


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> The only thing is ime GPS isn't accurate enough for this. There are enough roads which have the old & new roads running parallel or a local road with a barrier between the two so you have one with a 30 limit & 70 on the other. Certainly every GPS system I've used at some point has got confused as to which road I'm on. So you could well have cars 'randomly' being limited down to 30mph on a NSL road... that's a nice way to cause accidents!



The solution to that is localised transmitters on speed signs and a black box style receiver in each car. You would actually need less speed signs than we have already. They'd only be required when there was a change in the speed limit. Basically you pass a 30 sign and that's now your top speed until you pass a sign saying otherwise. If you wanted it taken further and remote access to limiting allowed then the signs would need to be more numerous and networked in. But I'd suggest the basic limiting transmitters as stand alone, static. You can add in additional solutions for motorways and busy roads.


----------



## GrasB (2 Feb 2010)

MacB, so if you have a transmitter break & you're stuck at 20 or 30mph on a NSL road, or you can do 60 or 70 in a 30 limit great.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2010)

Look at lorries on the motorway, limited to 56 and tailgating each other because their limiters are set very slightly differently. Now multiply that problem - and tailgating is arguably as dangerous as speeding - and apply it to every vehicle on the road in every speed limit. There's one problem with compulsory limiters.


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> MacB, so if you have a transmitter break & you're stuck at 20 or 30mph on a NSL road, or you can do 60 or 70 in a 30 limit great.



Hey, I'm sure there would be the odd problem, but would it be a big enough problem to not do it?


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> MacB, so if you have a transmitter break & you're stuck at 20 or 30mph on a NSL road, or you can do 60 or 70 in a 30 limit great.



The latter would be less of a problem, as we can already do that . I do agree with you that it's a silly and unnecessary idea.



MacB said:


> Hey, I'm sure there would be the odd problem, but would it be a big enough problem to not do it?




Any idea how much it would cost? Millions upon millions of pounds. And the system would no doubt fail, as well as already being completely impractical.

If you want systems like this, then you'll need more systems to cover:



Drink driving (breathalyser every time you drive)
Some type of mobile phone blocking system
sensors which disallow tailgating
controls so the car automatically stops for red lights, zebra crossings, etc.
sensors so that cars give cyclists the same space as when overtaking a car
blah blah blah....


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Any idea how much it would cost? Millions upon millions of pounds. And the system would no doubt fail, as well as already being completely impractical.
> 
> If you want systems like this, then you'll need more systems to cover:
> 
> ...



Lot of assumptions and very short on facts there, explain why it would be so expensive, the technology already exists? Add to new cars and retrofit to old, at car owners expense. You could even insist that the whole thing is manufactured in the uk, there's an idea! So general expense would be fitting of transmitters to speed signs.

Why is it completely impractical and why would, tried and tested technology, be so prone to failure?


----------



## Norm (2 Feb 2010)

MacB, in the same way that terrorists are one step ahead of the body scanners, those who want to speed will quickly find ways (such as signal blockers or a reflective shield on their screens) to get round it, leaving the vast majority to have spent thousands upgrading their car to do what they do anyway.

GPS and speed-limiting transmitters are relatively new technology and I don't like the idea of hard-wiring cars (which can last for decades) to fit with the latest fashion. 

And yes, I do see this as a fashion thing, as the technology will be better and smaller and cheaper in 2 years.

Besides, it would do nothing to Johnny Foreigner, driving around impervious to the road laws because he's come over here in his own car, taking our jobs, sleeping with our women.... I should probably stop now.


----------



## Shorinjidude (2 Feb 2010)

Read through most of this thread; was tempted to link it to the Londonbikers forum for some less cycle oriented views (might still)

Rather than to inflame but to add an extra zing, presuming all this cool tech is available and affordable, how do you all feel when your fined for breaking the 20mph speed limit soon to be sensibly imposed across towns and cities? I already break this sometimes as 20 mph limits are around in some areas of London. TBH I'm too happy to be hitting twenty to take much notice but the level of exersion does lesson my concentration...

When I used to ride my Suzuki I spent some time working in Hertfordshire, on my route was a long 50 mph duel carriageway. As you tootled along you would encounter a hill, just as you topped the peak you would be hit by the 30mph sign which you could see forced drivers and bikers alike to slam on the breaks - bad design, stealth tax revenue gainer or just not 'playing cricket'? I'm not sure but it was certainly dangerous positioning. 

Like all these arguements a little research will find equally convincing, fully backed up statistics from the other side. The government a couple of years ago was testing satalite systems for limiters on motorbikes. Conclusion for two wheeled vehicles was it was bloody dangerous! NSS...


----------



## Cab (2 Feb 2010)

Shorinjidude said:


> Rather than to inflame but to add an extra zing, presuming all this cool tech is available and affordable, how do you all feel when your fined for breaking the 20mph speed limit soon to be sensibly imposed across towns and cities?



Speed limits aren't applicable to bicycles. So I'll be highly amused if someone tries to fine me for riding at 20mph.


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> MacB, in the same way that terrorists are one step ahead of the body scanners, those who want to speed will quickly find ways (such as signal blockers or a reflective shield on their screens) to get round it, leaving the vast majority to have spent thousands upgrading their car to do what they do anyway.
> 
> GPS and speed-limiting transmitters are relatively new technology and I don't like the idea of hard-wiring cars (which can last for decades) to fit with the latest fashion.
> 
> ...


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Lot of assumptions and very short on facts there, explain why it would be so expensive, the technology already exists? Add to new cars and retrofit to old, at car owners expense. You could even insist that the whole thing is manufactured in the uk, there's an idea! So general expense would be fitting of transmitters to speed signs.
> 
> Why is it completely impractical and why would, tried and tested technology, be so prone to failure?




The thing is though, I don't want it. It's your suggestion, so you price it 

As for manufacturing in the UK....outsource where appropriate. As for forcing car owners to subsidise this technology (which I would imagine would cost anywhere between £50-100, or around a daily wage) won't do you any favours. Politically, it wouldn't be touched with a barge pole.

Now, I'm sure these sensor chips would could be affordable, but how many signs are there in the UK? Even at £1 a chip that would be millions upon millions....possibly in just a couple of countys. Heck, even at something like 20p a chip the total cost would still hit millions.

Take into consideration the cost of fitting, or swapping signs, the man power, testing them, blah blah...all adds up. How often would they get vandalised, etc.

Now, you're expecting this. Let's say it only costs a few million pounds (which let's face it, it won't). Now, the Government can only just afford around £2 million for all those anti-drink driving adverts you see....so how are they going to find money to actually implement this technology?

As for this technology being tried and tested....please show some source on that. I don't know any country which has a system like this in place.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> I guess you've just got to hope that the cctv cameras weren't working properly. A friend's Dad got caught by one a couple of weeks back nicking some goods from a big store
> 
> This is the problem with shoplifting offences. Why they can be seen as a tax. I can fully understand why stop on shoplifting is needed when people are buyinthings....but when no one is buying - let us nick.



The same excuses and justification - different offence


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Feb 2010)

Cab said:


> Speed limits aren't applicable to bicycles. So I'll be highly amused if someone tries to fine me for riding at 20mph.



Can't you get done for riding recklessley though?


----------



## Davidc (2 Feb 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Can't you get done for riding recklessley though?



Don't know if anyone would bother. 20 mph signs are there as a challenge to cyclists. Its a goal to be achieved. It helps spur us on, gets us fitter, and gives us a warm glow inside when the computer says "23.6" in the maximum speed function.

And all without breaking the law.

Unless you're in Richmond Park or on Bournemouth sea front.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> The same excuses and justification - different offence



Not really. If reduced speed limits are in place, solely for the benefit of those carrying out the road works, it wouldn't take much to up the speed limit when they're not working. Lots of bad planning in this country in regard to road works.

Completely different to shop lifting. Though, I can appreciate the CCTV point. I wasn't justifying either Norm or my friend's Dad speeding....



hackbike 666 said:


> Can't you get done for riding recklessley though?



I believe that you'd only get done for it if you caused an accident (such as serious injury, or death to a pedestrian). Or at least that's for the 'furious driving' type cycle charge.



Davidc said:


> Unless you're in Richmond Park or on Bournemouth sea front.



I got told off by someone in my cycle club for going too fast around Richmond park....not because we were probably doing more than 15mph...just because he was struggling to keep up . I was at the front and worried that I wasn't going fast enough for the group .... whooops


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Now, I'm sure these sensor chips would could be affordable, but how many signs are there in the UK? Even at £1 a chip that would be millions upon millions....possibly in just a couple of countys. Heck, even at something like 20p a chip the total cost would still hit millions.
> 
> Take into consideration the cost of fitting, or swapping signs, the man power, testing them, blah blah...all adds up. How often would they get vandalised, etc.
> 
> ...



Do you not bother reading what you're responding to? I've already said that transmitters would only be needed for every speed limit change, not every existing speed sign. Think about that for a bit, let it sink in, then try the math again. In car limiters are tried and tested, transmission/receiving devices are tried and tested. The expense would be around marrying the two together and how/where to place the transmitters.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Do you not bother reading what you're responding to? I've already said that transmitters would only be needed for every speed limit change, not every existing speed sign. Think about that for a bit, let it sink in, then try the math again. In car limiters are tried and tested, transmission/receiving devices are tried and tested. The expense would be around marrying the two together and how/where to place the transmitters.




Price it up then if you think it's so possible. As for needing less speed signs, you wouldn't need any. Why do you need to know the speed limit if your car can't go above it? You could just drive for the conditions (more so on higher speed roads).

This use of technology is *not tested*. Your idea has a number of flaws, getting past the money, the implementation, the maintenance. It would be by passable by those who wanted to by pass it as well as having the problem of foreign cars which would not be 'chipped'.

Anyway, how many times in the UK does the speed limit change? Even if not every "sign", it's still a huge number.

Seriously, as a way to spend money your idea is a poor one.



> How do you suggest that this works then? Do the workmen change several miles of limit signs every time they knock on/off? Do we have limit signs with the times alongside, because that brings more problems than it solves? Do we move all heavy plant away from the roadworks and set up temporary escape zones/hard shoulders every time the workmen down tools? Do we re-route the contraflows that take traffic onto the other carriageway twice a day?
> 
> Or do we just tell drivers to get over themselves and slow down for a few minutes?



Just have variable speed limits. Simple.


----------



## MacB (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Price it up then if you think it's so possible. As for needing less speed signs, you wouldn't need any. Why do you need to know the speed limit if your car can't go above it? You could just drive for the conditions (more so on higher speed roads).
> 
> This use of technology is *not tested*. Your idea has a number of flaws, getting past the money, the implementation, the maintenance. It would be by passable by those who wanted to by pass it as well as having the problem of foreign cars which would not be 'chipped'.
> 
> ...



Pricing, with the No's of vehicles involved, I reckon unit cost, per vehicle, could be around the £150 mark. I would allocate £50 million for the transmitter rollout.

Tried and tested - the specific design isn't tested and I've not claimed it is. The seperate technologies are tested, a speed limiter can be set electronically, via button, in a car. Are you hanging your 'untested' bogeyman on the lack of ability to transmit that signal remotely? The in car setup could even have a dual mode so, in case of localised transmitter failure, it then sets speed based on GPS data it has stored. Or are you going to tell me this is a way out whacky untested idea as well?

Foreign vehicles - need the kit same as everyone else, we drive in France we need to buy a hi viz and red triangle and some spare bulbs(I haven't been for a while so it may be more/less now). Vehicles come here they need to buy an in car kit...simples.

Speed limit changes - have a think about how often this actually happens compared to how many speed signs you see.

People bypassing the technology - yep that'll happen, I don't think an unbreakable law is feasible.

It may be a poor idea but certainly not for the objections you put forward.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Pricing, with the No's of vehicles involved, I reckon unit cost, per vehicle, could be around the £150 mark. I would allocate £50 million for the transmitter rollout.
> 
> Tried and tested - the specific design isn't tested and I've not claimed it is. The seperate technologies are tested, a speed limiter can be set electronically, via button, in a car. Are you hanging your 'untested' bogeyman on the lack of ability to transmit that signal remotely? The in car setup could even have a dual mode so, in case of localised transmitter failure, it then sets speed based on GPS data it has stored. Or are you going to tell me this is a way out whacky untested idea as well?
> 
> ...



£150 is about half the value of my Mum's car (which is what I used to drive). £150 is over 2 days work for me. Now, with your normal motorist this alone is going to cause a lot of friction.

As for the £50m, that again is a very large sum of money which could be put to much better uses.

My problem with the technology is that, yes, individual elements do work and are around. But when you put them together in a project of this scale any failure is a major one.

As for having to get some hi viz and bulbs to go to France....total cost £3 at my local poundland. Completely different ball park to your scheme.

As for speed limit changes, I'm well aware that there are more signs to remind people than there are changes in speed, but there would still be a very large number of these transmitters. The amount of changes in speed limits doesn't overaly matter if you're saying it would cost £50m.

Like you say, it may be poor idea....so let's not waste £50m+ on it.




> I'm sorry, but that doesn't address any of the issues I've listed, and in fact raises more.
> 
> What's by far the most simple, the cheapest, the safest and the easiest is for drivers to grow up, realise that a couple of miles of roadworks will add only a few minutes to their journey, and slow down for a bit.



*Do the workmen change several miles of limit signs every time they knock on/off?*


No need. Variable speed limits.

*Do we have limit signs with the times alongside, because that brings more problems than it solves?*

How does it? I was thinking more along the lines of electronic signs, which motorways already have.

*Do we move all heavy plant away from the roadworks and set up temporary escape zones/hard shoulders every time the workmen down tools?*

Errm....how does this make any difference to increasing the speed limit? I wasn't suggesting people drove through the road works.

*Do we re-route the contraflows that take traffic onto the other carriageway twice a day?*

Actually time the work so it is done efficiently so minimal disruption is caused. Point isn't really relevant to an increased speed limit. Certainly, through parts of unmanned road works keeping the lower speed may be necessary for a period of time.



Ultimately, I don't really have a whole lot of issue with this as it's not really a problem I encounter (other than maybe a couple times a year going back and forth from UNI). I might have more objections if I was commuting every day and my journey was 10 minutes longer, unnecessarily. My point was much more that if someone was driving through empty road works (safe) at 70mph, rather than say 50mph and got finned for it....I can see why they'd think it was a tax (or at least it's being sly). Especially if it looks like the road works are being intentionally delayed.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

> *You haven't offered any response to the question I've asked twice -what's the problem with just slowing down?
> *
> If you think properly about what the 'problems' raised are, and the reason that they're looked for, you'll see that the only problem is driver attitude. And a driver with an issue with a couple of miles of 40mph limit on a motorway has an attitude that isn't healthy on the road.



Nothing*. My point waaaaaay back was that I can see why people would be frustrated and possibly call it a tax when road works with reduced speed limits which are in operation rain or shine. Say it added 10 minutes to a journey, which isn't an unreasonable suggestion, for a commuter that's an hour and a half extra a week. That would frustrate me. If with some better planning and some type of system where speed limits can increase through road works when safe, it would be liked by motorists.

I'm merely seeing it from someone else's eyes.

*And no offence, but the first time it seemed rhetorical, and the second time you just made a point without a question.

Like I said, it doesn't bother me as I'm not commuting through that type of thing every day.

Personally, I think this topic is getting a bit silly....and I'm far from helping


----------



## snorri (2 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> it would be liked by motorists.


 That is the most pathetic reason for doing anything that I have ever read on this forum.


----------



## Norm (2 Feb 2010)

> Look around you on the motorway. There's room to escape, and there are fixed barriers. Not so at roadworks. The speed reduction isn't just for worker safety.


Which is true, break downs have much more potential for serious problems without a hard shoulder. 

However, away from motorways and dual cabbage-ways, you have oncoming traffic, you don't have hard shoulders, nor crash barriers, and some are remarkably narrow but they can still carry 60mph limits without becoming candidates for Death Race 2010. 

The bit of motorway I was referring to a few pages back had no restrictions to the carriageway width, no contra-flow, chuffing thick barriers between oncoming lanes and runs dead straight but someone considered that the roadworks warranted a 40mph limit. 

Variable speed limits seem to work on the M25, although I have noticed that, when the limits are reduced, there is a huge amount of under-taking, something which is pretty rare on most motorways now.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Variable speed limits seem to work on the M25, although I have noticed that, when the limits are reduced, there is a huge amount of under-taking, something which is pretty rare on most motorways now.



Perhaps this is just me, but I can't see that undertaking is a big deal.


----------



## mangaman (2 Feb 2010)

Cab said:


> What a delight to come home after a weekend away and find such a courteous, well informed and interesting discussion going on here. I applaud you all



I agree Cab - one suspects the cause is not difficult to pinpoint ie the judicious banning and fortunate enflouncement of certain one-track posters.

In my 2 years here and 3 years before that on cycling plus I've almost never contributed to the road safety / speed camera threads as they've always turned nasty in my 5 years experience.

This thread is living proof that certain single issue posters on fora can poison the atmosphere (I'm mentioning no names here Linf) and put people off posting, as they know it will end on page 3 in a circular bun-fight with 2 or 3 people slagging each other off and Room 101 written all over it.


----------



## Norm (2 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Perhaps this is just me, but I can't see that undertaking is a big deal.


Indeed, it happens well enough in the US, but you need to expect it. If it puts a vehicle somewhere that there shouldn't be a vehicle, it causes problems.

Years on the motorbike have ingrained in me a mirror check and life saver whenever changing lanes, whether or not I "know" there shouldn't be anything there. 

Ironically, those very same drivers who will cut left to undertake seem to also think that they are the only people who have the right to undertake, and are often caught out when someone is pulling a move on them as they glide across to the left without indicating.



mangaman said:


> ...as they know it will end on page 3 in a circular bun-fight with 2 or 3 people slagging each other off and Room 101 written all over it.


**** off!


----------



## mangaman (2 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> **** off!




No you **** off


----------



## Norm (2 Feb 2010)

He told me to **** off.

Don't do that, you nasty man.

 

"How should we **** off, oh master?"


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2010)

You're both banned.


----------



## Norm (2 Feb 2010)

Well you can **** off as well, then.

I'm up for this...


----------



## Norm (2 Feb 2010)

Where were we? Oh, yes, speed cameras and undertakers.


----------



## mangaman (2 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> You're both banned.



Bugger - I'll rejoin in a cunning new way though, just you watch me.

Maybe as an 86 year old lady taking up cycling after a 74 year absence. I'll bombard Beginners with surreal questions about saddle heights and incontinence pads - that sort of thing.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (2 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Bugger - I'll rejoin in a cunning new way though, just you watch me.
> 
> Maybe as an 86 year old lady taking up cycling after a 74 year absence. I'll bombard Beginners with surreal questions about saddle heights and incontinence pads - that sort of thing.



 I'm almost tempted to ban you just to see the resulting posts.


----------



## thomas (2 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Variable speed limits seem to work on the M25, although I have noticed that, when the limits are reduced, there is a huge amount of under-taking, something which is pretty rare on most motorways now.



They had a bit about them on the local paper's website. Some whiny motorists fussing about them, but if putting variable speed limits, even low ones, means that there isn't stop start tail backs I think it's a really good idea.



Rhythm Thief said:


> Perhaps this is just me, but I can't see that undertaking is a big deal.



The problem is it puts people somewhere they're not expected. I'd check my blind spot before pulling back in a lane on a motorway, just to be safe, because of undertakers. However, I'm willing to bet some people don't (and probably haven't been using their mirrors before hand).

Like you, I don't think it's that big a deal and have done it, though it's something that in the UK should widely be avoided....middle lane hoggs should get back on the left 

However, if you want to slow motorway traffic down then allow undertaking. Get rid of the slow, middle and fast lane as they appear now. I'm not saying it'd work, but if everyone was everywhere, could undertake, etc, you'd then get "slower" drivers in each lane, which would slow the speed down...especially as you get people doing 100+ in the outside lane. Much harder to do that if people doing the speed limit are in every lane.



snorri said:


> That is the most pathetic reason for doing anything that I have ever read on this forum.



haha, yeah maybe. My point is that you need to be seen as being reasonable otherwise respect is lost and other problems are caused.


----------



## GrasB (3 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Pricing, with the No's of vehicles involved, I reckon unit cost, per vehicle, could be around the £150 mark. I would allocate £50 million for the transmitter rollout.
> 
> Tried and tested - the specific design isn't tested and I've not claimed it is. The seperate technologies are tested, a speed limiter can be set electronically, via button, in a car. Are you hanging your 'untested' bogeyman on the lack of ability to transmit that signal remotely? The in car setup could even have a dual mode so, in case of localised transmitter failure, it then sets speed based on GPS data it has stored. Or are you going to tell me this is a way out whacky untested idea as well?


Okay, firstly you need a transmitter signal can tell the direction of a car & send it the correct signal or a system of cancelling which sends the same signal twice, but then how do you work out which limit you're going to? You've also got to work out a system that doesn't effect traffic at junctions where there's a speed limit change on a side road, where two roads are running parallel in close proximity, where you have a speed limit change on an over/under pass. Then you've got to work out how the car knows to drop back to your GPS, you start to need a signal say every mile & this is starting to get very complicated to install & maintain.

Falling back to GPS raises another issue, it isn't accurate & robust enough to start with, iirc the best the military got down to was 3m 95% of the time! 3M 100% of the time imo is the minimum positioning accuracy you need to run a system like this wholesale. The UK road system is complexes & has a lot of roads which run close together, you need to be able to differentiate between these two roads *every single time*

This means that there's a whole set of technologies that need to be designed, integrated together & then tested to make sure that it's robust! So yes your required technologies most definitely NOT tested! I don't even think that the required transmitter system is actually available.



> Foreign vehicles - need the kit same as everyone else, we drive in France we need to buy a hi viz and red triangle and some spare bulbs(I haven't been for a while so it may be more/less now). Vehicles come here they need to buy an in car kit...simples.


With all due respect what a load of horse manure. A warning triangle &* a set of bulbs is something that really should be kept in the car in the UK (& you should also be doing a weekly at minimum bulb check!). The fact that in certain countries such a *basic* piece of equipment & *consumable spares* should be kept in the car makes a lot of sense. Asking people to fork out for a piece of equipment that costs £100s & is only useful in that country is something completely different.



> It may be a poor idea but certainly not for the objections you put forward.


No it is because of the objections that were put forwards. You've thought up a crack pot idea, assumed that current said that current technologies are available, which I think you'll find actually aren't.


----------



## GrasB (3 Feb 2010)

> You haven't offered any response to the question I've asked twice -*what's the problem with just slowing down?*


+1... what is the problem... you find it irritating but at the end of the day it's for safety reasons & in my mind that's a good enough reason.


----------



## MacB (3 Feb 2010)

Doesn't exist, crap idea, no testing done, might I refer the arguing pea brains to this:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7803997.stm

There's plenty more information around but don't let a bit of reading et in the way of your inate knowledge of the facts


----------



## GrasB (3 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Doesn't exist, crap idea, no testing done, might I refer the arguing pea brains to this:-
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7803997.stm
> 
> There's plenty more information around but don't let a bit of reading et in the way of your inate knowledge of the facts


Actually I have a fair amount of reading done on this subject & I'm still convinced that no one has come up with a truly reliable system because they use GPS! If you're relying on GPS, which most of these systems seem to, they have not solved the problem of roads close together & accuracy. 3M 100% of the time doesn't happen & thus you have a potential & serious problem.


----------



## MacB (3 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> Actually I have a fair amount of reading done on this subject & I'm still convinced that no one has come up with a truly reliable system because they use GPS! If you're relying on GPS, which most of these systems seem to, they have not solved the problem of roads close together & accuracy. 3M 100% of the time doesn't happen & thus you have a potential & serious problem.



You seem to have a fair idea of the problems that would occur. Can you post a link to your detailed reasearch so that we can review it? Or are you just saying, ugh, don't like that idea?


----------



## GrasB (3 Feb 2010)

No specific research but I'm totally unconvinced by any system based on GPS. The reason is simple. Not one person has ever shown me a GPS device which didn't wander +/- 3 m from my position when completely stationary. This is enough to change your location of roads in at least 5 places I have been. In short, it's a technology preview & not a totally robust system. If there's the possibility of a simple sampling error causing a car on an NSL road being limited to 30 or 20mph then the system is unreliable. From all the research I've read this *is* a real possibility thus unsuitable for general use.

As for limiting, in principle I actually like the idea but I would always give some headroom say +5% 40mph or lower limits & +10% on higher limits. The reason being you have to consider people miss-judging things & leading to a situation where the easiest get out is forwards a bit quicker.


----------



## MacB (3 Feb 2010)

here's some more detail:-

http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/speed.html

this gives a fairly rounded view, maybe you have some links as well?


----------



## thomas (3 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Doesn't exist, crap idea, no testing done, might I refer the arguing pea brains to this:-
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7803997.stm
> 
> There's plenty more information around but don't let a bit of reading et in the way of your inate knowledge of the facts



That video kind of shows why it'll never be introduced doesn't it. The ministers want it to be voluntary. Why? Because it's just a political no-no that no one else would touch it. The video also seems to be different in places to your idea.

I think another potential problem with things like this is it allows drivers to not pay as much attention. If they're not looking for speed signs, what other signs do people start to not look for? Then do people stop looking for as many hazards because of it? That seems to be the problem with a lot of modern, car safety equipment.

As GrasB has been saying, I think it is reasonable to say that any GPS system would at times get confused. On a 30mph limit, going under a motorway...signal gets confused and all of a sudden you're doing 70.....or worst, system gets confused at 70 and takes you down to 20. Other drivers cars don't get confused, but they do and end up rear ending them.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2010)

So who has the bigger willy?


----------



## thomas (3 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> So who has the bigger willy?




. Me. I've been using it to type from my bed


----------



## Norm (3 Feb 2010)

Clever Dick.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> . Me. I've been using it to type from my bed



You forgot to be honest - by the time you'd pulled it to that length, it was only as thin as a paperclip. Students, eh!


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> No specific research but I'm totally unconvinced by any system based on GPS. The reason is simple. Not one person has ever shown me a GPS device which didn't wander +/- 3 m from my position when completely stationary.


Well, that problem is easy enough to fix in a system that's actually integrated with the car: if the wheels are not going around, the position cannot have changed. (Driving on sheet ice notwithstanding, but I suggest that the speed limit is the least of your concerns when driving on sheet ice)

If the system has GPS plus inertial navigation plus a little routing information (i.e. a map which shows where the roads meet and where they merely run parallel) it can deduce from that that you *haven't* leapt the hedge between the dual carriageway and the country lane adjacent - in most cases not all that difficult. The hardest bits would be slip roads and suchlike, but I'm sure there are way s around that too

Which is not to say that I think it's a good idea anyway, just that there's no reason it shouldn't be a feasible one


----------



## thomas (3 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> You forgot to be honest - by the time you'd pulled it to that length, it was only as thin as a paperclip. Students, eh!





If it was a bit longer it could make it way down to the toilet while I'm still having a lie in


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2010)

I had thought that there were specialist GPS systems that can position to within fractions of a cm. Might be rather expensive I guess!


----------



## Davidc (3 Feb 2010)

> My Garmin Edge always places me on the correct side of the road.



So does my old Navman 510 (now relegated to bike use). A recent TomTom isn't as good though.

The best I have is a Garmin Foretrex. Its a bit old now but still works well. It is normally good to about 1.5m, and better if it's given time to settle. It generates 6 + 6 digit NGR references which are good to the point of telling you if you're on the pavement or road! Its vertical (height) measurement isn't as good though. Its page 1 display is also very conservative about accuracy.

The new European satellite positioning system is supposed to be better than GPS (if it gets built) and is partly designed with vehicle compliance and automation in mind.

A long way from the OP though.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Feb 2010)

Regardless of the technical feasibility of GPS speed control, I'm still not convinced it's actually desirable. I think you'd just end up with those whose limiters were set to 30.5mph (or 40.5, or 60.5) tailgating those whose limiters were set to 30mph, rather in the manner that lorries tailgate each other on the motorway. Whether tailgating is more or less dangerous than speeding I don't know, but I don't think compulsory limiting is quite the trouble free solution that a few on here seem to think it is.


----------



## thomas (3 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Regardless of the technical feasibility of GPS speed control, I'm still not convinced it's actually desirable. I think you'd just end up with those whose limiters were set to 30.5mph (or 40.5, or 60.5) tailgating those whose limiters were set to 30mph, rather in the manner that lorries tailgate each other on the motorway. *Whether tailgating is more or less dangerous than speeding* I don't know, but I don't think compulsory limiting is quite the trouble free solution that a few on here seem to think it is.




Depends on the situation really. You could do 70mph in a 30mph zone and you'll never hit the car in front (even if they do an emergency stop), if you're not tailgating and leaving a sensible stopping distance.

I'm not saying that doing 70mph in a 30 doesn't come with a billion other problems though


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2010)

If we're going down the route of technical solutions to social problems, a "braking distance enforcer" would be technically a whole lot simpler _and_ probably more useful than a speed limiter anyway. And it could easily be funded by insurance companies: "we will reduce your premiums if you fit this device: your cover will be invalid if we find you've tampered with it"


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2010)

I think RT has a good point. The disadvantage with many of these automated systems is that they tend to cause a lower reliance on and quite likely a real drop in police presence. I think both the automated systems and the police presence are needed.


----------



## Defy78 (3 Feb 2010)

coruskate said:


> If we're going down the route of technical solutions to social problems, a "braking distance enforcer" would be technically a whole lot simpler _and_ probably more useful than a speed limiter anyway. And it could easily be funded by insurance companies: "we will reduce your premiums if you fit this device: your cover will be invalid if we find you've tampered with it"



Sounds like a good idea but not sure how that would work!? Would it let you park for instance? Also would it be car specific (i.e. depend on actual breaking distance of the car and not a generic average breaking distance?). Are we talking about a rediculously long range parking sensor or something else? Would that work? What sort of power would you need to work it? How accurate would it be? Just wondering is all


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Feb 2010)

> I don't know. The steps people have to consider to control those who won't control themselves.



Amazing, isn't it? And it's part of my objection to technological solutions: it does nothing to make people realise that speeding is an antisocial thing to do. Until you can make people slow down because they recognise that it's simply a good thing to do - and you'll never make everyone think that way - you'll bever crack it. People will find ways around physical speed limiters, or at least feel resentful enough about them to drive badly in other ways, like a spoiled child destroying his toys in a fit of petulance when he's not allowed his own way. This doesn't strike me as a great way to ensure road safety.


----------



## Davidc (3 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Regardless of the technical feasibility of GPS speed control, I'm still not convinced it's actually desirable...... I don't think compulsory limiting is quite the trouble free solution that a few on here seem to think it is.



I don't want it compulsory, what I want is to have it optional like it is now, with the automatin able to adjust it.

Much better that people chose to use it because speeding has become as socially aceptable as extortion or robbery.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Feb 2010)

Davidc said:


> I don't want it compulsory, what I want is to have it optional like it is now, with the automatin able to adjust it.
> 
> Much better that people chose to use it because speeding has become as socially aceptable as extortion or robbery.



Now that I absolutely agree with. It would remove the (frankly ridiculous) argument which goes "Speed cameras cause accidents. Since they were introduced, I have to drive everywhere with my eyes glued to the speedo".


----------



## BentMikey (3 Feb 2010)

Oh I don't know - right now anyone almost everone speeds. Just because technological solutions have holes doesn't make them a bad choice. They are not the only limiting factor out on the roads.

What would you rather have instead - everything down to the man/woman in the driving seat? That's clearly not a good solution.


----------



## Dan B (3 Feb 2010)

Defy78 said:


> Sounds like a good idea but not sure how that would work!? Would it let you park for instance? Also would it be car specific (i.e. depend on actual breaking distance of the car and not a generic average breaking distance?). Are we talking about a rediculously long range parking sensor or something else? Would that work? What sort of power would you need to work it? How accurate would it be? Just wondering is all


Well, it's just handwaving so I can't answer detailed questions, but look at e.g. 
http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=SG7 for an idea of what could be achieved at relatively small cost. 

It would prevent you from parking so fast that you couldn't stop before hitting the bumper of the car in front, but I think that's probably a feature not a bug...


----------



## thomas (3 Feb 2010)

Defy78 said:


> Sounds like a good idea but not sure how that would work!? Would it let you park for instance? Also would it be car specific (i.e. depend on actual breaking distance of the car and not a generic average breaking distance?). Are we talking about a rediculously long range parking sensor or something else? Would that work? What sort of power would you need to work it? How accurate would it be? Just wondering is all




Look at one of the new Volvos (I forget which), but it has a sensor as part of a cruise control type system for motorway use, so that if a car pulls in your lane, it will slow the car down to keep a sensible gap. It was shown on Top Gear a few series ago. The main problem being, the system used the car's brakes, rather than just easing off for a bit which would be much better.


----------



## Norm (3 Feb 2010)

Can you imagine how poor lane discipline would become if you knew that you could change lanes on someone and their car would keep them off your tail?


----------



## thomas (3 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Can you imagine how poor lane discipline would become if you knew that you could change lanes on someone and their car would keep them off your tail?





I think that's the problem with all these types of technologies. Modern cars, with automatic wipers and automatic lights....give it a couple generations and people will be driving around at night, with their lights off...not because bulbs are gone, but because the automatic sensors broken, they don't know how to turn their lights on themselves 

Lane discipline already seems quite bad at the moment. People in the outside lanes unnecessarily.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (3 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Can you imagine how poor lane discipline would become if you knew that you could change lanes on someone and their car would keep them off your tail?



That's the problem with all technology based solutions. The answer has to lie in making drivers better, rather than making them redundant.


----------



## Defy78 (4 Feb 2010)

coruskate said:


> Well, it's just handwaving so I can't answer detailed questions, but look at e.g.
> http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=SG7 for an idea of what could be achieved at relatively small cost.
> 
> It would prevent you from parking so fast that you couldn't stop before hitting the bumper of the car in front, but I think that's probably a feature not a bug...



That does kinda look like a long range parking sensor (with built in speed radar). I guess if you hook it up to a control unit it would work not sure I would want one though, but maybe I'm just too confident in my driving ability . 

Thomas, now you mention it I do remember the top gear bit, also we have cars like the lexus that has face recognition and gives a loud beep if the drivers head drops (i.e. falling asleep). Like you say I wouldn't want to be reliant on these technologies to drive though. I also remember a top gear bit where they were testing car (a BMW I think) in Germany. The car had a similar system and would stop you hitting a car in front in the fog / poor vis. The car set off got to a reasonable speed went into the fog and promptly crashed into a car set up there for the test. Reason, they forgot to turn on the sensor system, doh! Now, I see cars pass me at break neck speeds into fog when they don't have this system, what if they did and trusted it and it failed...wouldn't want to be the car infront going at a sensable speed for the conditions would you


----------



## Dan B (4 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> That's the problem with all technology based solutions.


Risk compensation. It's a problem even with fairly low-tech technology 


> _But Buckley, an insurance executive, confesses his own weakness for Blackberry and Bluetooth. He feels compelled to conduct business by phone and e-mail on long, lonely drives between his offices in Rocky Mount and Nags Head._
> _“That’s more than two hours,” said Buckley, 49. “I’m not just going to sit there in the car. I get a lot of work done on that straight, dead stretch of U.S. 64._
> _“And if I run off the road, there are rumble strips that divert me back onto the road. That has happened occasionally. They seem to work, those rumble strips.”_


http://www.howwedrive.com/2010/01/29/rumble-strips-and-risk-compensation/


----------



## thomas (4 Feb 2010)

Defy78 said:


> Thomas, now you mention it I do remember the top gear bit, also we have cars like the lexus that has face recognition and gives a loud beep if the drivers head drops (i.e. falling asleep). Like you say I wouldn't want to be reliant on these technologies to drive though. I also remember a top gear bit where they were testing car (a BMW I think) in Germany. The car had a similar system and would stop you hitting a car in front in the fog / poor vis. The car set off got to a reasonable speed went into the fog and promptly crashed into a car set up there for the test. Reason, they forgot to turn on the sensor system, doh! Now, I see cars pass me at break neck speeds into fog when they don't have this system, what if they did and trusted it and it failed...wouldn't want to be the car infront going at a sensable speed for the conditions would you



Hadn't heard about that lexus but I certainly believe it. I remember that bmw too...blooming funny!!! Like you said, these technologies make drivers too reliant on them.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Feb 2010)

Can't find s reference, but I remember in the 70's Loughborough or one of the Universities /Polytechnics had developed ultrasound to prevent tailgating.

The idea was that speed would be regulated to the distance from the car in front. It worked brilliantly and ensured safe braking distances without fault.......... until it went on the road. Th efirest outing a numpty pulled into the gap, car thought that the speed for thenew distance (only a few feet) was low and slammed anchors on accordingly


The problem is that you can only plan for the good drivers there is always the idiot you cannot plan for


----------



## snorri (4 Feb 2010)

> I don't know. The steps people have to consider to control those who won't control themselves.


That is just how I feel, the law abiding majority have to pay for all this high tech equipment to restrain idiots who just need a good kicking should have had their car keys confiscated.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Feb 2010)

That's about as intelligent as saying you don't think we should have to pay for traffic police, only high tech is probably a cheaper way of controlling drivers' behaviour.


----------



## 2Loose (5 Feb 2010)

Having automatically enforced speedlimiting could be very dangerous, especially for two wheeled vehicles. It was looked at a few years ago and the motorcycling lobby went absolutely nuts. Some of the reasoning being that having a two wheeled vehicle suddenly lose power in a turn with the bike leant over would very likely result in the bike flopping onto its side mid-corner. Instant accident.

I can't find a proper article but read the comments here for other examples, not all of them are of the 'I want to go fast, it is my right' type;
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/15/big-brother-could-slow-british-motorcycles-down-track-routes/


----------



## thomas (5 Feb 2010)

2Loose said:


> Having automatically enforced speedlimiting could be very dangerous, especially for two wheeled vehicles. It was looked at a few years ago and the motorcycling lobby went absolutely nuts. Some of the reasoning being that having a two wheeled vehicle suddenly lose power in a turn with the bike leant over would very likely result in the bike flopping onto its side mid-corner. Instant accident.
> 
> I can't find a proper article but read the comments here for other examples, not all of them are of the 'I want to go fast, it is my right' type;
> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/15/big-brother-could-slow-british-motorcycles-down-track-routes/




I suppose in a car ice could be similar. You wouldn't want your car to be doing something unexpected if you hit some.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (5 Feb 2010)

No matter how clever the technology becomes, it'll be a long time before it's as clever as the person behind the wheel. Even if that person is an idiot sometimes.


----------



## Origamist (5 Feb 2010)

coruskate said:


> Risk compensation. It's a problem even with fairly low-tech technology
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Talk about the law of unintended consequences - I have read a lot on risk compensation and had never considered the possibility that people would come to rely on the warning vibrations of rumble strips in order to facilitate driving whilst distracted...


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2010)

Davidc said:


> You'd be unlucky Norm. The calibration point for 40mph detection always used to be 47, and your speed limiter will almost certainly be like a speedometer, calibrated to err on the safe side. (according to a satellite unit mine lets me go 48 when set to 50)


Nothing received in the post and yesterday was day 14 so it looks like I got lucky with this one. 

Lesson learned, though, just as much as if I had been ticketed.


----------



## thomas (7 Feb 2010)

Norm said:


> Lesson learned, though, just as much as if I had been ticketed.



For good measure could I have the £60 fine


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2010)

Nice try, but no.


----------



## al78 (7 Feb 2010)

mangaman said:


> Absolutely - it's very movingly covered. They list the people who died and have a photo of a wrecked car, which they always seem to pick in a place you're likely to have driven yourself.
> 
> They also choose pictures which are shocking without being unnecessarily graphic.
> 
> It's impossible to pick up the paper and not think - hey I recognise that roundabout - that could be me.



Could try showing this on TV as a goverment safety campaign:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lCM9ElUqQ


WARNING: some people may find this disturbing.


----------



## PBancroft (7 Feb 2010)

al78 said:


> Could try showing this on TV as a goverment safety campaign:
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lCM9ElUqQ
> ...




Wow. That video is just...

...wow.


----------



## MacB (7 Feb 2010)

al78 said:


> Could try showing this on TV as a goverment safety campaign:
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lCM9ElUqQ
> ...




that's enough to make you want to bring back the guy with the red flag


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Feb 2010)

thomas said:


> Look at one of the new Volvos (I forget which), but it has a sensor as part of a cruise control type system for motorway use, so that if a car pulls in your lane, it will slow the car down to keep a sensible gap. It was shown on Top Gear a few series ago. The main problem being, the system used the car's brakes, rather than just easing off for a bit which would be much better.



This is the same problem that (IIRC) Loughorough had in the 70's if the car is ony ten feet away then your car effectively emergency stops and causes an accident.... or in the best case scenario a "pressure wave"

The technology relies on common sense that is not evident in a significant minority of road users


----------



## Black Sheep (7 Feb 2010)

i got issued a speeding ticket from a camera on the way into birmingham not long back,

40mph limit, I got done for doing 35mph!

after pointing out the mistake it got cancelled.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Feb 2010)

Black Sheep said:


> i got issued a speeding ticket from a camera on the way into birmingham not long back,
> 
> 40mph limit, I got done for doing 35mph!
> 
> after pointing out the mistake it got cancelled.



How did you prove you were innocent?


----------



## Norm (7 Feb 2010)

Probably because his IQ was higher than the combined IQs of the "authority" which issued a ticket for doing 35 in a 40.


----------



## Norm (10 Feb 2010)

Although I am increasingly sceptical about such scare-mongering (millennium bug, anyone?) I wonder if anything will come of this and whether that would affect anyone's views on using GPS technology.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (10 Feb 2010)

Oh, that'll be funny. Is it likely to affect my box full of A-Zs?


----------



## thomas (10 Feb 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Oh, that'll be funny. Is it likely to affect my box full of A-Zs?




 haha...


----------



## Black Sheep (10 Feb 2010)

Davidc said:


> My complaint about speed limit enforcement - Inadequate with inadequate penalties.
> 
> Increase the number of cameras - at least 10 times as many.
> Increase the penalties - to at least the present drink drive standard.
> ...



Don't increase cameras, increase the number of police on the roads, that way both the speeding drivers and the drivers who are under the limit but driving like a div (should be an actual charge imo) get stopped, unsafe vehicles are stopped before they cause harm etc.



Downward said:


> Had an argument on someone cause I said that people who get done for speeding are stupid.
> 
> If they can't match the accelerator, speedometer and road speed limit should they be trusted to be driving ?



I've not been got for speeding, I have had a camera flash at me, I was doing 35 as i was paying more attention to the school kids at the crossing and the cyclist I was overtaking than my speedo.

Personally I think being 5mph over the speed limit is acceptable IF the driver has accidently crept up due to surroundings, for example just come down a slight hill (hence the increase in speed) and watching his surroundings - it happens on urban duel carageways etc. 





Crankarm said:


> Black boxes in cars controlling and monitoring the engine management system is the only way. The large minority of drivers have ruined unfettered motoring for the dwindling majority. Drivers who commit motoring offences just do not realise how lucky they are, refusing most of the time, to take any responsibilty for their dangerous actions. Even when they are faced with losing their licenses 99% of the them blame everyone and everything but themselves. CP excluded.
> 
> Btw where is V-N?



remove responsibility from the driver? that will lead to only one thing, people paying less attention to what they are doing.


----------



## Black Sheep (10 Feb 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> How did you prove you were innocent?



the stated speed on the information i got through the post was 35mph I asked what the limit was on the stretch of road and if the camera had been calibrated that day


----------

