AA and safety camera warnings.

[ufkacbln]

Now you are being silly.

Not at all........

Please explain why he is not allowed to choose the speed that he feels is safe and appropriate, but you are?

... or is it the simple fact that you should both be observing speed limits?


I always love the aspirational ego-trip that the person driving fast is an experienced famous racing driver....... Max Power magazine, the Boy Racer's bible worked with the IAM and intheir research showed that over 85% of their readers classified themselves as "above average" in their skill

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 2132333, member: 45"]Anyone with nine points is a proven dangerous driver.[/quote]

.. and the evidence supports this.

Repeated speeding has been unequivocally linked with other risk taking behaviour such as inappropriate overtaking, failing to give way at junctions and tailgating.

 

[growingvegetables]

When someone can explain to my satisfaction why it is unsafe to travel above 70mph on a three carriageway motorway in Britain, ..... blah, blah, blah.

Two suggestions

a) Get out of your driving seat, and spend 10 minutes on one of those motorway service station bridges. Watch the traffic. And think.

- How many of those drivers are driving? (Very few)
- How many are just holding a position in a strange filing system, just behind the file in front, just in front of the file behind? Nearly all.

You can keep a safe distance between you and the file in front of you, but how many dingbats are behind you? You may be able to stop if necessary, but they can't.

b) A different angle. Recognise these symptoms? Rigid arms, tight shoulders, sore neck, sore head from focusing your eyes far too much on a very limited view, sore legs from making very controlled but small movements hour after hour after hour, and being absolutely cream-crackered after a long motorway drive? And you want to drive at 200mph? In that state? Come on - self preservation here .......... it wouldn't just be you driving at 200mph, it'd be all the other brain-numbed idiots.

Aye, I know, the ones who don't have your level of awareness.

The other leg's got bells on.

 

[Drago]

Safety Cameras? My bottom. They don't photograph people during safely. Whatever next? Safety Tasers? Safety Batons?

Why be ashamed? Just call them Speed Cameras and get on with it.

 

[Drago]

Well, they actually operate at barely a profit. Was it Clarkson who discovered that Simon Cowel pays more in income tax than these things raise?

I do like the idiot motorist bit though. There's only one persons foot on throttle, and if that person can't spot a 10 feet high pillar with a 2 foot square box on the top then I wonder how successful they'd be at spotting me, whos rather smaller, on my bike.

I don't listen to shoplifters bitching about CCTV and certainly won't take any notice of motorists with the same complaint.

 

[GrasB]

See my post at the bottom of page 2

So the driver gets 9 points for not paying proper attention to the road. Hey that's showing that the driver is driving in a manner which falls bellow the required standards. Your arguments gets a big 'FAIL!' stamp!

obviously you are perfect and a driving god, never break the speed limit, never pick your nose, change the radio station, sneeze, smoke or knock one out whilst driving, but I can assure you lots and lots of people do and have 9 points on their license to prove it, and I would guess a goodly proportion of those would be classed as professional drivers at that.

No I'm not & I'm sure I've broken the speed limit on many occasions however I seem to have avoided getting any points on my licence. I can't think why this is it seems to be escaping me... oh... erm... yeah it's because I'm doing my upmost to make sure I'm driving in a safe manner & adhering to the rules of the road. When one is doing this the effect of a minor & short duration interruption to your concentration such as a sneeze has minimal impact.

Things like changing the radio station, smoking, etc. do it when it's safe to do so. For changing a radio station wait until you're stationary at some lights, at a junction etc. Personally I can categorically say as a driver I've never changed a radio station while driving. Why? Because I know that any conversation that is on the radio will distract me so I don't listen to it, in I've always listened to instrumental only music in the car.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'knock one out' because that indicates consuming alcohol or texting in the vehicle, both of which are extremely selfish, irresponsible & moronic actions one chooses to do in a vehicle.

 

[simon.r]

Yep.

And me not having reflectors wouldn't put anyone else at risk...

Fair enough, just making the point that the vast majority of us break some laws at times and your statement that "...the law doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's the law - full stop." is, IMO, too simplistic. I'd have thought that part of the government's job was to make 'good' laws and that means explaining them to us.

I almost always abide by the laws (pedal reflectors excepted) but that doesn't mean I agree with them all and I can think of several that, IMO again, are not justifiable for all sorts of reasons.

 

[simon.r]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'knock one out'...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knock one out

HTH

 

[simon.r]

Why? Do you expect the Government to explain why we have theft laws? Or why we have laws relating to violence?

I don't think those particlar laws need explaining, the vast majority of us accept that theft and violence are wrong and should be legislated against, but other laws do need explaining.

Examples include planning law, licensing hours, drugs, helmet laws (thinking motorbikes here), dangerous dogs, minimum alcohol pricing...etc etc.

I have opinions on most of these, as you probably do. Sometimes our opinions will differ, but I do think the government should explain why laws exist or are proposed. For example, why cannabis is illegal and alcohol isn't. Or why it's compulsory to wear a helmet on a moped (which can't exceed 30 mph) and not on a bicycle (which can easily exceed 30 mph).

Speaking of which, I am now going to get dressed and get out on my bicycle for a couple of hours

Whilst wearing a helmet

 

[simon.r]

They do that. It called the legislative process, which is public. If you really want to know about why particular laws are being proposed, then all the information is there - you just need to get off your arse and stop expecting to be spoonfed.

I haven't suggested that the information isn't out there or that I'm expecting to be spoonfed. (Whether it's sensible information is another issue).

The legislative process exists, to some extent at least, to explain proposed laws to my / our satisfaction. Which seems to contradict your point that "...the law doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's the law - full stop."

If everyone had that attitude we would be giving parliament the implied right to pass whatever laws they saw fit, with no attempt to explain them to us. Which is not a position I'd like to be in.


P.S. Rain has postponed bike ride, but it's getting brighter.

 

[ufkacbln]

There was some research done with the Institute of advanced motorists that has an interesting correlation between prosecutions and popularity in August this year.

In Scotland 15% of drivers think they are unacceptable, with 14% of drivers being caught
In England 20% think they are unacceptable, with 19% being affected by prosecutions for speeding
Wales has he highest number of drivers who believe that cameras are unacceptable at 32%, but also had the highest rate of prosecutions at 27%

Does this tell us something?

Could it suggest that those who don't speed think they are acceptable and those who get caught think they are not?

It also shows that the vast majority find their use acceptable.

 

[ufkacbln]

There was a piece of work called "Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil" by Thomas Hobbes in 1651

A complex work, but in a very basic form he argues that there are common desires and needs, and that these will be ignored by some. Therefore at some point you appoint law makers who will make laws for the benefit of the society as a whole, in order to bring these people into line

The unequivocal fact is that the majority of the public don't want nutters driving around at any speed that they "think" they are safe at. As a result they have no problem with laws being introduced on their behalf and these idiots being caught and fined.

 

[Peteaud]

I have no problem with speed cameras but they do nothing to stop the poor standards of driving.

More marked police cars on the roads and hefty fines for tailgating and poor driving is what I would like to see.

 

[ufkacbln]

I have no problem with speed cameras but they do nothing to stop the poor standards of driving.

More marked police cars on the roads and hefty fines for tailgating and poor driving is what I would like to see.

Unfortunately not!
In Manchester they used "Smart Cars" with video and a Police officer reviewing the video, then issuing tickets for inappropriate driving.


Nirvana - Police on the streets in cars and issuing tickets for bad driving

Within days the bleating commenced about how it was a money raising exercise, nothing to do with road safety and my favourite, from the Association of Bad Drivers claiming.......

It is a total infringement.

That while the camera is looking into cars, other motorists could be driving erratically and causing a danger on the roads

That using these marked vehicles was dangerous as otherwise law abiding motorists were being forced to watch out for Police vehicles instead of watching the road, thus causing accidents, and that they would encourage panic braking as motorists saw them, again causing accidents


So apparently using marked Police vehicles is an unacceptable infringement of the right to drive like a loon and a ludicrously dangerous idea!

 

[GrasB]

More marked unmarked police cars on the roads and hefty fines for tailgating and poor driving is what I would like to see.

Fixed that for you. It's amazing how much better the standard of driving is when there's a marked police car about, the police car turns off the road & the standard of driving instantly gets much worse. I've witnessed this many times. So no, unmarked police cars & lots of them. That way people end up having drive to their 'best behaviour' standard because virtually every newish car they see might be a police car