GPS, Speed Cameras and Cars

[jfm]

in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

I exceed the speed limit clive, quite a lot, in appropriate circumstances ("appropriate" of course is imho because I can't really ask anyone else when on my own in car). In my view there is nothing wrong with it, and on a technicality I have never hit any pedestrians or injured anyone

I think it's a bit odd to define what is right and wrong speedwise just by reference to the statutory speed limit, when what you are (rightly) concerned about is behaving reasonably towards fellow citizens. I mean, we should all keep the risk that we could hurt another person down to a reasonable minimum, no argument there.

There are loads of places where 30mph is too fast (busy school road at 3pm with young kids about and a high risk of one of them running into the road), and likewise there are many times (the M6 toll road at 3am) where the risks to other citizens of doing 140mph in a supercar are well within a sensible level.

In fact, if the appropriate speed (in terms of behaviour towards fellow citizens) were always, or even mostly, the statutory speed limit, it would be an amazing coincidence.

All imho

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CliveG]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

The other issue is that the message is being given that if you stay within the statutory speed limit you are driving safely and do no need to worry about any thing else.

That is until something unexpected happens and the chap driving along in a smug comfort zone is caught out.

p.s. I am not related to CliveA and was here 1st!

<hr width=100% size=1>Dyslexia ruels k.o!

 

[bob_tyler]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

The real problem here is inappropriate speed limits on all types of roads.

With all modern technology we are stuck with a national speed limit on motorways of 70mph whether or not there is any traffic about.

An attempt has been made on the western section of the M25 to apply variable speed limits depending on the conditions but the application of this leaves a lot to be desired.

At 3 in the morning on these sections, on a dry clear traffic free section, the limit could be increased to 90 or 110 and the law needs amending to this effect.

Likewise perhaps an illuminated 10 or 15mph limit outside schools at going in and leaving time which reverts to the normal limit at other times.

Correctly applied limits would bring greater respect from motorists and so better observance.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Ships_Cat]

So are you saying that if everyone obeyed the speed limit no one would be killed.

Or if you are not actually saying that one must assume that you think there is a speed limit at which only an "acceptable" number of road deaths would occur.

If you think that the speed limits are important to road safety would you like to tell us exactly what level of road deaths is acceptable to you as a basis for setting those speed limits.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.

 

[Observer]

Get yourself over to <A target="_blank" HREF=http://aflcharters.co.uk>Dream Dancer

 

[Superstrath]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

Well put, jfm. It wasn't you that buzzed me in a Lambo, on the M6 toll, late at night, a couple of moths ago was it?
Our arbitrary speed limits in this country do need revamped. 70mph is far too fast in certain conditions; in others it is just silly. 30mph is too fast outside our rural school.
Actually, to move this on a bit, I think that the biggest problem is the pathetic standard of driver training that is required in the UK. There is no instruction on vehicle dynamics, or handling a car on or near it's limits, i.e. in a heavy braking, avoidance or skid situation. Learners are told to steer into a skid, and that's it. The first time they have to do it, it's too late to learn. I'm still learning - and I've been racing cars competitively for twenty years. My quips about young girls in 106s are true - when the weather is bad, when you've moved over and slowed down due to poor visibility and/or increased braking distances, these are the drivers that rocket past you, hands gripping the top of the wheel, leaning forward to peer through the winscreen. That scares the crap out of me, anfd I see it all too often. The last time I wsa flashed from behind was by a small car with a wee lassie at the wheel, about 10 feet off my bumper. Nuts.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Birdseye]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

It used to be that speed limits were related to the speed that most drivers used ie if 85% kept below 40 in a prticular location then a 40 limit was applied. This recognises that whilst an individuals judgement might be flawed, the average view is a reliable indicator of what is sensible and more over will be supported by the public.

Nowadays, we often see NSL open roads reduced to 50 or 40 (occasionally 30) with no reason other than the views of some lentil eating sandal wearing bike riding self appointed expert, and not surprisingly they are ignored except where enforced. And where they are enforced, its by machines which apply the same limit at rush hour as they do on a toally empty child free road at 3am., generating revenue for the police and the Treasury

And after being ticketed at 32 mph on a ring road at 3am. Joe Public feels that he has been treated unfairly. And he has. Whats more, he can get away with apalling driving below the speed limits since the halving of the numbers of traffic cops means there is no one but the radar trap to see him.



<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.

 

[jfm]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

Agree superstrath. I use the M6 toll about once a month but no wasn't me in a lambo - I tootle about in an M5. I only do 6-8k miles a year, can never understand you guys who do 40-50k per year!

Agree about the "106 syndrome". I think there must be a category of driver that cannot feel the tyre grip on the road (or the absence of it....) through the palms of their hands and fingers on the steering wheel, and their bum on the seat, sadly. Not sure any amount of driver training will fix that?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Kisimul]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

I take the side of those who are against the speed (limitation) enforcement industry.

I think that there are many well intentioned citizens who disagree, and are entitled to disagree, with my view. They will point to the many injuries and fatalities that happen on the roads and argue that anything that makes for safety must be a good thing.

I say that some number of injuries and fatalities is inevitable on any large road system. It is a price we have to pay and we hope it is not us, our loved ones or our friends who form a part of that price.

I think that there are other, less well intentioned, citizens who seek to earn their living by making regulations that they know in advance the general public will tend to contravene. They attach financial penalties and live off the proceeds. They justify their actions by holding out that lives will be saved and/or injuries prevented. I believe this is a fraud. The fraud is compounded when its authors adopt a pious posture and say that their opponents are irresponsible or criminals.

On the subject of criminals, the Audit Commission for Scotland yesterday published figures which show that the Strathclyde Police "clears up" 45% of the serious crime that comes to its attention. "Clearing up" is apparently a technical term that means making a report to the Procurator Fiscal, not necessarily gaining a conviction. This figure is admitted to be "poor" by a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. "Stretched resources" is advanced in mitigation. One wonders if the traffic police could be induced to assist their valiant but hard pressed colleagues.






<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[A1Sailor]

"Ha! I was so pleased that I phoned the missus to brag. And completely missed the camera van on the bridge."

Were you phoning "Hands Free"?!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BustinAround]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

Isn't that actually the whole point of fines? I think it was cromwell who came up with it, and its a good idea.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Superstrath]

Of course it was hands free. I need my hands free to write emails on the laptop!
There is no excuse for fiddling about with a phone when you have voice-recognition for making the most common calls (wife, office etc.) and you have voice-mail to catch most of the incoming, until you can stop and catch up. Despite the new law, the phone-to-the-ear would still seem to be the most common pose for drivers. Very worrying.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Kisimul]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

It wouldnt surprise me if it was Cromwell who invented fines. He was a psychopath with all sorts of anti social tendencies. He started a civil war in England, murdered most of the Irish and on a visit to Scotland set fire to our Universities. He probably came up with fines on his day off.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[CliveA]

Ships_cat - That's not what I was saying at all, I'm afraid. I think you might have misunderstood.

I guess it comes down to this:

There are many ways to kill people in cars.

For example:

Driving too close is dangerous. It doesn't always kill people, but it can, and so should be discouraged. Agreed?

Sames goes for fiddling with your phone. Not always lethal, but not clever. Stop it.

Ditto bald tyres.

Ditto drunk

Ditto stoned.

Ditto speeding - Just because it doesn't always end in an accident doesn't mean we can ignore the fact that it is a factor in accidents. Not the only factor, agreed, but how many other laws do we feel we deserve the freedom to break just because we think we know better?

I'd like to know what the big deal is. People say stuff life "That road, at that time of night, could do with a 80/90/100mph limit" or "I was doing 35 in a 30, but there was no danger".

But why do you NEED to go 80/90/100? Why do you NEED to go 35? It seems an odd thing to fight for...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Its_Only_Money]

Re: in defence of speeding (and slowing down)

"I say that some number of injuries and fatalities is inevitable on any large road system. It is a price we have to pay and we hope it is not us, our loved ones or our friends who form a part of that price. "

Hear hear!

In my experience the additional danger created by the general reduction in driving standards caused by the diversion of resources away from the Traffic divisions more than outweighs the "benefits" brought by the single-factor effects of speed cameras. Even the Govts own figures claimed for Leicestershire in the 2004 review found the before and after KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) rates were, um, unchanged on the longest operating camera sites.....clearly the cost (monetary and non-monetary) and effort to further reduce casualties will increase exponetially as the absolute rate decreases, zero casualties is clearly unachievable in such an uncontrolled transport system so I wonder where it will end???

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based

 

[doris]

Sanctimonious humbug.

I am amazed at the number of posters who really are 'on message' with Alasdair Darling and will be happy to have us all walking soon or at least getting a red flag out in front of our cars. The paranoia about speed today is pure political correctness for the chattering classes. Inappropriate speed and incompetance behind the wheel are the real problems but the one does not generate revenue and the other would take political and administrative competance to correct. I hope all the 'humbuggers' are as correct when afloat.....unlikely I suspect.

<hr width=100% size=1>Real men do it 2handed.

 

[CliveA]

Re: Unimaginative cop-out

What's the solution, Doris - How do you enforce a rule which essentially suggests each driver deciding on what 'the right speed' actually is? Nice in theory, but not sure how it works in practice.

I repeat my question: What's the fuss? Why do you NEED to go that extra 10mph faster? Whay not find something else to get cross about?

Oh, and 'Politically correct'? Don't think so. I just have a different opinion to yours. Fair enough?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[fireball]

<blockquote><font size=1>Quote from previous post:</font><hr>

But why do you NEED to go 80/90/100? Why do you NEED to go 35? It seems an odd thing to fight for...

<hr></blockquote>


its called freedom - freedom to make your own mind up.

I don't drive far these days, but I used to clock up a number of miles on dual carridgeways and motorway - there are times when it is dangerous to go below 70!!

Disparity of speeds is a problem as is driving too fast for the conditions - ice/fog/rain/spray/dingies tacking up the narrow channel - a lot of drivers are aware of the capabilities of their vehicles and will drive accordingly, some drivers do not know and are not aware of the dangers and drive inappropriatly ... what is the right speed for your repmobile is probably too fast for my 29 year old MGB ... so we need a compromise. Fixed speed limits are a pain as they don't take into account the conditions, variable speed limits are a pain as drivers instinctivly won't know what the limit is ... and who judges the conditions? I've seen motorway boards proudly display "50" on their boards for an issue that was cleared several hours previously....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Freedom

Wonderful concept

I want to be free to drive at 120 mph after drinking around 10 or 12 pints

Why shouldn't I?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

Why is 70 a speed limit??

The speed limit was set when 99% of the cars had drum brakes, some had only hydraulically operated mechanical brakes on the rear. Today the car have disc brakes alround, ABS and servo. When they set the 70 limit cars did not have seat belts, no laminated winscreens, no airbags, no crumple zones, no door bars, most had leaf springs on the rear and lever dampers, tyres were narrow cross ply, not the modern hi-tech radial, there was one motorway, roads were far worse, and so on.

So how do we relate the speed limit set then, to the conditions we have today, it's like applying 1960 medical limitations to to-days hi-tech sanners and diagnostic equipment.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://link>www.kddpowercentre.com</A>