Speed cameras N.B.

[masterofnone]

You would be extremely unlucky to have a lgv run into you at 70. limiter cuts in at 85km (52mph). Also restricted to 40mph on single carraigeways, enforced by cameras fitted with height detectors.
Traffic officers when they still existed used a little common sense, a 20mph camera outside the school gates at 0300 will still nick you.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

That does not get away from the fact that it is a legal requirement to obey speed limits, just like other laws.

Sorry but that is not true, motoring offences do not get treated the same as other laws..

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana

 

[Bergman]

LGV limits at 90 kph (limiter starts to cut in - little red light flashes - at 85 ) with trailer or with capability of drawing trailer.

Goods vehicles of 7.5 tonnes quite capable of 70 mph, (done it several times)

Even 7.5 tonnes at 70 mph can make an awful mess of a car (and its inhabitants)

Indeed they are restricted to 40 mph on single carriageways - and some of them take as much notice of that restriction as car drivers who are restricted to 60 mph on the same road.

Anyway, I said a large heavy vehicle did'nt specify LGV.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

yes, it's amazing how they can warrant putting 3 camera's in each tunnel, a distance of less than a mile. And it's a joke, if you are in a car you'll be lucky to reach 10mph in the rush hour. It's just taking the pi$$. It's the same old story though, everyone slows down for the camera's then accelerate off to the next one. Great for the environment!!


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[[2068]]

Trouble is, speed used to be something to think about, in relation to signs, the conditions, looking out for schools, pedestrians, built up areas, etc.

That part of the brain that was previously used to actually think about appropriate speed has now been diverted to looking for speed cameras. What speed cameras suggest, is that choosing your speed has been decided for you at certain points in the road network, rather like a system of checkpoints on a rally. Exactly what you do in between those checkpoints is entirely up to you, because someone has identified all the blackspots and put cameras there for you...

This leads to the assumption that if there isn't a speed camera, it must be okay to speed, and change lane without signalling, and tailgate, and take every corner at the speed limit posted in any weather.

My prediction is that accidents will rise in the medium term, mainly due to the gradual drop in the standard of driving that has accompanied the rising traffic levels, and because of the "spillover" onto the minor roads because of the gridlock on the more major ones. (as an example, my fastest route into work involves blatting along the B3349. The A3/M25 is much slower overall, although it should be the route of choice looking at the map).

A suggestion would be more traffic police, less cameras, and compulsory retesting every 5 years. 10% of drivers would be straight off the road 'cos they'd fail the eye test, which would help congestion too...

dv.

 

[masterofnone]

I'm not going to be a pedant, vis a vis speed limiters. Now if were talking large vehicles are we going to include 4x4's as the chances of surviving an accident with one of those should you be unlucky to be in a smaller vehicle is greatly reduced.
Plus, are bull bars on said vehs now illegal?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

I agree with you re spread of road speeds. I doubt there are many who would disagree with having 20mph limits near schools which are located in residential area's. As in France we could have different speed limits for different weather conditions. Maybe different limits depending on the time of day/night.

As someone has already said, 40mph limit on the new A13 from Limehouse link down to Dagenham. This road is at least three lanes either way and a 4 lanes in places. It's unwarranted limits like this that make drivers sceptical about others.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[KevB]

A suggestion would be more traffic police, less cameras, and compulsory retesting every 5 years. 10% of drivers would be straight off the road 'cos they'd fail the eye test, which would help congestion too..."

Absolutely spot on.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[masterofnone]

My point entirely, More traffic officers, less cameras. How many people have been nicked in the roadworks on the m25 (40mph) at night, when its empty and nobodies working?
If the vehicle is registered you're a sitting target, another crime solved when you cough up or lose the veh.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

First an apology for answering this by pasting in your points but my memory starts to fail around this time on a Friday:

"Why is there no defence against 'speeding'? The issue should be whether there was any danger to anyone, not whether you were exceeding some nominal speed. Why should you not be able to argue that the speed limit in force on the road was not appropriate at the time of the 'offence'?"

There is a defence, just like any other crime.

The proof required is "beyond reasonable doubt" hence photographs.
If you can establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was'nt you, or was'nt outside speed limits or any other reasonable doubt you are innocent. There is an example in another post on this thread.

I know of no other crime where an argument of "appropriateness" is a defence. There may be an argument of urgency classic pregnant wife to hospital thing which would normally result in a discharge which parallels other crimes but can't think of anything else where a law can be considered inappropriate.


"Why do so many offences carry a minimum or fixed number of points? This prevents magistrates from using their discretion to award points that are in proportion to the seriousness of the incident. "Motor racing on the highway" carries anything between 3 and 11 points. Why do all other offences not carry such a wide range of points?"

Almost all offenses carry a "guidline" penalty and a maximum penalty, not just speeding. final sentence then depends upon magistrates judgement of seriousness, mitigation etc. There is nothing in the guidelines that prevents a magistrate from using discretion if there is a valid argument for him doing so.

"The percentage of speeding cases reported that go to prosecution and conviction is close to 100%, while reported violent crimes leading to prosecution and conviction total only 25%."

Simply a question of evidence. With speeding there is always evidence of guilt if there isn't evidence there is no prosecution. Just consider how many times you have exceeded the speed limit and not been prosecuted. With thuggery buggery etc there is usually (but not always) a report but all too often too little evidence to convict - remember reasonable doubt.

In fact very few speeding offenses are actually tried in court, the vast majority are fixed penalty. Dunno the proportion of those tried that are found not guilty - I would guess very few. With radar or Gatso evidence it is very difficult to establish reasonable doubt - but if you can, fine, you get off.

Some would say that since speeding is such a widely broken law it must be a bad law. Trouble is if you apply that logic to all laws a whole raft of unpleasant things would become legal and this woud not be a very nice place to live.

"Is it right that drivers should be prosecuted for not reporting an accident? You may well think it is, but let's compare how drivers are treated, with how others are treated:
Someone who accidentally knocks over and smashes something in a shop is not prosecuted if they fail to report it. If identified they may be charged for the damage, but they are not prosecuted for not reporting it. Even rapists, murderers, and terrorists are not prosecuted for 'not reporting' their crime, they are only prosecuted for the crime itself. The idea of prosecuting them for not telling the police about it is laughable. Yet such double punishment is exactly what happens to drivers."

Well yes I do think it right that a driver should stop and report an accident. The law says they must!

As for someone knocking over something in a shop thats a civil matter between the 2 parties involved - not a criminal act.

Think your stretching logic a bit with last bit - failing to stop and report is to address those who injure someone and then try to evade their responsibilities - leaving someone dying in the gutter at its extreme. Rather a different thing from rape and murder. Also someone who offers help to evade capture to murderers etc is commiting an offence so perhaps there is a parallel.

I suppose taking your argument to its limit anyone who pleads not guilty and is subsequently found guilty should also be prosecuted for purgory.

"Drivers banned from driving inevitably have to serve the full term of their ban. This rigid enforcement of the original sentence does not of course apply to burglars, child molesters, murderers, rapists, and terrorists."

Yes at least partially true, drunken drivers can usually apply to take a course which reduces their disqualification period.

I share your frustration at some of the sentences that are passed but I can only comment that a disqualification while unpleasant, is not as bad as a few years in chokey.

A caution is a police decision based in part on the likely affect on the perpitrator. A motoring offense does not carry the stigma of a "crime" nor does it count as a "criminal" record. Unless applying for a specifically driving job it will not adversely affect employment prospects so perhaps not a true parallel.

"Consider if you will how easy it now is for the police to tow away your car because it is illegally parked, has no MOT, or no Tax disk, or because they don't like the music you are playing. They can then demand huge sums for you to get back your property. It is nothing more than legalised theft and extortion.
Compare this with how long it takes the police to deal with travellers who have dumped themselves and their vehicles on public or private land. The police have to apply for a court order. The process can take weeks. There are no laws that allow them to act immediately"

Again you are dealing with different bits of law, and the law is supposed to protect everyone - even travellers!

I dont think you can be towed away for playing offensive music (though it could be a good idea!) I think its a good idea to be towed away for no tax, MOT and now can be confiscated for no insurance and scrapped if not insured promptly thats a really really good idea.

Not theft since they are prepared to give you it back. Maybe extortion but legal.

I have much sympathy for this last part and agree with much of what you say on towing away etc. The trouble is that by trying to parallel this with exceeding speed limits you weaken the argument.

You might not agree with the limit. you might not like it. You might think it should be different. But it is a fact that to exceed a limit is illegal and if you get caught (and realistically only a tiny proportion of those who exceed speed limits do get caught)
you are guilty and should not complain about being found guilty.





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gunfleet]

detention? evening classes? NM

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

I was'nt really arguing the advantages of different vehicles or legality of bullbars.

My point very simply is that impact = M x V x V (velocity squared can't do little numbers)

If you increase Mass you do more damage

If you increase speed (velocity) you do lots and lots more damage

If you increase both you are really in trouble.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sans Bateau]

Variable speed limits depending on weather, good idea, trouble is most drivers can't get their head around a single speed limit let alone diferent ones for the same bit of road.

If you are driving along a road and you see a sign displaying a speed limit, if you agree with it or not, slow down! The excuse "I did'nt see the speed limit sign" says 'I wasnt paying attention'!

A stretch of road I use regularly, the A24 dual carriage way north of Worthing; over a three year period the higways Ath put up a sign with the number of casualties in the last X years, they improved the crash barriers, they put in 60mph signs, then the cameras arrived. It was MONTHS before they were switched on, they are very visable, but you still get dick heads getting 'flashed'! You can just hear the culprits winging and whining when they get their ticket.

Many of the posts, and people at large, talk about the cameras being 'revenue earners', its easy to convert them from profit centres into cost centres, think about it!

Anyway I'm off home now so I'll come back to the flack of the 'I'm going to drive as fast as I like, cos I know best, brigade' on monday,

Drive safely



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: When I\'ve got the time

I must find out how the cash flow into law enforcement has changed over the years.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Chris_Robb]

Re: Repeater signs

or 66,000mm in new money

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[abraxus]

I think the thing that hacks people off is the disproportionate attention the authorities give to speeding, largely because it is easy to catch by remote means and administer penalties by post.

This bears no relation to the threat that it represents compared to other driving issues. Speeds in excess of the speed limit are responsible for only a small percentage of deaths, and when recorded, they are only recorded as speed being a factor. This does not neccessarily mean that speed was the cause. Speed is only the cause of a very small percentage of deaths, in fact in some studies, significantly less than 1%.

There is also little or no evidence to suggest that cameras have improved matters and in fact in many ares where cameras have been used, deaths have increased or at best stayed at the same level.

The factt is that bad driving kills, regardless of what speed, and also, believe it or not, accidents, which are no-one's fault.

Speed limits are an arbitrary thing that have little or no bearing on road safety except when used in highly populated areas.

By all means, the govt should research the cause of road accidents and legislate to reduce them, when and if evidence shows this to be neccessary, but by scattering revenue generating cameras all over the country without any effect on the accident rate or death toll, then it's no wonder people feel hard done by and ripped off.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ubuysa]

Thanks all for the helpful (and the not so helpful /forums/images/icons/wink.gif) replies. The mobile camera was in the same place again tonight - must be a a good revenue earner - didn't catch me this time though. The daft thing is, the mobile camera is only around 200yds before a fixed camera. IMO it has nothing to do with road safety - it's just an easy way of making money.

Now that I've slept on it I'll take the advice of those who advocate just paying the fine and taking the points.

And as far as not breaking the law goes, I seem to remember a large bunch of people who deliberately failed to pay the Poll Tax. That was the law at the time - wasn't it?

Tony C.

<hr width=100% size=1>Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.......

 

[brianrunyard]

"Car drivers do not have exclusive right to the roads, People are allowed to cross them, ride bicycles along them even ride horses along them."

All users should do so with care and abide by the rules. Yet it's only the motorist who is targeted, because he's the easy target, and catching someone speeding doesn't take any effort or brain power. The drunk weaving around at 20 mph in a 30 zone, is far more dangerous than someone exeeding the limit on a motorway, but the cameras can't catch him.
Why do cyclists think that none of the rules apply to them, like riding without lights, not stopping at traffic lights etc?
Now I've got that off my chest, I 'll climb down off my soapbox.

<hr width=100% size=1>Brian
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brunyard

 

[brianrunyard]

They've got a new way of raising money, take a look at
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brunyard/Funpage.html

<hr width=100% size=1>Brian
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/brunyard

 

[Becky]

I have been amazed at the amount and virulence of the responses to this thread. I have three angles on this idea of speeding. Coloured by the fact that my youngest son has just joined the police force, and is based in Gosport. His comments have given depth and perspective to my opinions on speeding. He has spent, during his probationary period, time with a traffic cop. Now, to keep things in perspective, this man sees more nasty acidents in a week that most of us see in a lifetime. So he develops an opinion. That opinion is that people die more messily and more often in high speed crashes. So if we all drove more slowly we wouldn't kill so many of each other. There are thousands of our fellow human beings killed on the roads each year. And many more seriously injured and maimed. I have rebuilt some of them, and the starting point isn't very nice. So, as a bottom line, if we ALL obeyed the speed limits, fewer of us would be killed or injured.
My second angle is that by and large, excluding the Inland Revenue, we are all very law-abiding. We don't work down the list of ten commandments ticking off each sin as a trophy. Yet, we all, universally, exceed the speed limoit. Me included, in fact me worse than many. Why? Because we believe that we can get away with it. Nothing more or less than that. So consequentially we are aggrieved when we are caught, and so many of our fellow drivers are not. But to be realisatic, if you get caught, you were not paying enough attention, because you didn't see the camera/speed cop etc. Tough.
But my third angle is the number of people who do get killed, fathers, sons mothers, children, all leaving grieving relatives, some who find their lives ruined.
And yet when we have a train crash and three people are killed, we are up in arms about the quality of the railway. If there is a plane crash, we as a society spend whatevre it takes to find the cause and rectify it. But the motorist just goes about his business, driving as fast as he feels he can 'safely'. You have to be honest about driving; Society allows the car driver to kill people as an acceptable risk of living in a modern world. There seems to me to be double standards here.
Now I, like evryone else try to make up time on the road when I am late for an appointment.And I feel myself getting angry when I am held up by other slower road users. But I have to tell myself that the other driver probably isn't late so he doesn't have to hurry. So it is only my fault that Iam late for an appointment, so I shouldn't blame everyone else for my mistake.
But I still would like to, I am only human.
Here endeth the lesson according to Becky /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


<hr width=100% size=1>