Speed camera stuff....
Discussion
Why do you get fines and points on your license for speeding when I would say 99% of the time it isn't dangerous etc, and most accidents are caused by bad driving rather than speed?
I'll answer that one. It's easy money of course!
Why don't people get points on their license for actually doing dangerous stuff? I mean for example if you crash into another car or a tree for example, yes you probably have to pay for the repair, BUT you don't get any points or a fine when the evidence is there
that you were DEFINATELY NOT driving carefully?
Having read some other threads on here which show that all this speeding stuff is for revenue etc etc, if I was a solicitor I would take the government to court over their criminalising of loads of people over this issue. I'm pretty sure there are solicitors on this forum, so I'm asking you why don't you take the whole issue to court? IMHO it's the only way of the whole thing ever getting anywhere.
Why do you get fines and points on your license for speeding when I would say 99% of the time it isn't dangerous etc, and most accidents are caused by bad driving rather than speed?
I'll answer that one. It's easy money of course!
It is to do with safety. It is also to do with newtons laws of motion. The harder you hit something, the more damage you do to it. If that happens to be a vulnerable human body either inside another vehicle or unprotected by any means, then the mass and speed of that vehicle causing the collision or the combined speeds of both can have serious consequences for all those involved.
That is why there are points attached, the fine is insignificant really. If the Govt wanted to stop people speeding, they would put the fine up to £300 per offence and make the points system more draconian.
Why don't people get points on their license for actually doing dangerous stuff?
They do and regularly.
I mean for example if you crash into another car or a tree for example, yes you probably have to pay for the repair, BUT you don't get any points or a fine when the evidence is there
that you were DEFINATELY NOT driving carefully?
It depends on the circumstances and whether the inception of a prosecution is in the public interest.
If the only object hit was a large tree, with no injury to anyone other than minor injury to the driver of that single vehilce, they may be guilty of driving offences, but the resulting loss from thier insurance and inconvenience is usually regarded as punishment enough.
If other property is damaged/people injured and the circumstances show elements of offences, there is every chance that there will be a prosecution. Police officers attending minor accidents usually ask the aggrieved person involved if they would like to support procedings against the other driver. Many do not (thoughts of court as a witness and long periods before an outcome and repair costs re-imbursed) and are happy to have a Police report stating the facts found at the scene and recorded in an official report book.
Having read some other threads on here which show that all this speeding stuff is for revenue etc etc, if I was a solicitor I would take the government to court over their criminalising of loads of people over this issue. I'm pretty sure there are solicitors on this forum, so I'm asking you why don't you take the whole issue to court? IMHO it's the only way of the whole thing ever getting anywhere.
In my opinion, not a hope in hell. The choice is down to the individual. Concentrate and adhere to the law and you will remain unscathed.
You may not be averse to accident but if you are involved, the consequences may well be less serious if you are travelling at a speed that is less than the limit and less than a speed likely to cause severe damage/injury.
Which it may help if people take a blind bit of notice. You can see from the comments on PH that people think this it is just about cash. Could this be because they arent learning anything. Sending a NIP does nothing for anyones education or knowledge, it just makes people angry and annoyed, and think the government/police are on a fundraiser. Shouldnt there be an attempt to make people more educated, theres no learning going on, no adjustment of behaviour. The "deterrant" of points and fines isnt working too well, considering the amount of people caught, probably because they truely believe its just about cash and nothing to do with safety, which cant be true can it? If people knew how much danger they were causing, how unsafe they were, they'd take more notice right? And just because someones below the limit, doesnt necessarily make them safe. Granted, it does make them safer If they hit something due to the potential for less damage.
It is to do with safety
It is also to do with newtons laws of motion. The harder you hit something, the more damage you do to it.
If that happens to be a vulnerable human body either inside another vehicle or unprotected by any means, then the mass and speed of that vehicle causing the collision or the combined speeds of both can have serious consequences for all those involved.
And I imagine that police officers spend some of their time having to clear up after this mess. Is there any evidence to say that risk of accident goes up with increase of speed? Granted there is less time to react...
Then why fine at all?
That is why there are points attached, the fine is insignificant really.
Hmm.. Im a bit confused what you mean. So what do they want to do? Increase safety? Why the massive focus on speed, it is only a constituent of the "safety" that the government is so trying to achieve..
If the Govt wanted to stop people speeding, they would put the fine up to £300 per offence and make the points system more draconian.
Why don't people get points on their license for actually doing dangerous stuff?
They do and regularly
Agree. Speeding is more in the spotlight than these other offences, but people are regularly caught for them. So discretion is given in this case but not for speeding? A gatso cant decide, which is kind of a problem with any artificial enforcement. Granted speeding is speeding, as it is a total offence in strict legal terms, but 34 in a 30 at 3am, surely should not be viewed to 34 in a 30 at 3:30 pm outside a school?
It depends on the circumstances and whether the inception of a prosecution is in the public interest.
If the only object hit was a large tree, with no injury to anyone other than minor injury to the driver of that single vehilce, they may be guilty of driving offences, but the resulting loss from thier insurance and inconvenience is usually regarded as punishment enough.
If other property is damaged/people injured and the circumstances show elements of offences, there is every chance that there will be a prosecution. Police officers attending minor accidents usually ask the aggrieved person involved if they would like to support procedings against the other driver. Many do not (thoughts of court as a witness and long periods before an outcome and repair costs re-imbursed) and are happy to have a Police report stating the facts found at the scene and recorded in an official report book.
Again agree.
In my opinion, not a hope in hell. The choice is down to the individual. Concentrate and adhere to the law and you will remain unscathed.
You may not be averse to accident but if you are involved, the consequences may well be less serious if you are travelling at a speed that is less than the limit and less than a speed likely to cause severe damage/injury.
Again agree fully. IF you are involved in an incident.
You cant really argue with what the guy says! You are less likely to do damage, if you hit something slower than if you hit it faster, if you hit something... and If speeding increases your chance of being involved in an accident....
(And yes, I have used up my entire months supply of emboldened "ifs" in case anyone was wondering
)
>> Edited by llamekcuf on Friday 6th June 00:05
Thanks for replying Mr MadCop and everyone else....
They do and regularly.
Not regularly enough.
I'm sure a very few are caught. But that would really require police patrol vehicles witnessing it and then prosecuting the person concerned.
There aren't that many police cars around, and I get the impression that cameras are just an easy way to gain revenue.
I see, as I'm sure many people on here do, people driving (very) dangerously almost every day.
Near misses etc. Very few instances of bad driving I see are speed related.
Agreed, the faster you go the more the damage in the event of an accident, but to just set up a camera to catch people going faster than the law says, which takes no account of conditions etc, just seems to miss the main causes of accidents in my experience.
In my opinion, not a hope in hell. The choice is down to the individual. Concentrate and adhere to the law and you will remain unscathed.
You may not be averse to accident but if you are involved, the consequences may well be less serious if you are travelling at a speed that is less than the limit and less than a speed likely to cause severe damage/injury.
What I was really getting at here was looking at a recent thread there were instances where councils had positioned speed cameras for revenue, against police wishes of covering accident blackspots. Surely that sort of behaviour should not go unpunished, it's a bl**dy outrage if true. Surely that sort of thing could be enough to take court action.
Why don't people get points on their license for actually doing dangerous stuff?
They do and regularly.
Not regularly enough.
I'm sure a very few are caught. But that would really require police patrol vehicles witnessing it and then prosecuting the person concerned.
There aren't that many police cars around, and I get the impression that cameras are just an easy way to gain revenue.
I see, as I'm sure many people on here do, people driving (very) dangerously almost every day.
Near misses etc. Very few instances of bad driving I see are speed related.
Agreed, the faster you go the more the damage in the event of an accident, but to just set up a camera to catch people going faster than the law says, which takes no account of conditions etc, just seems to miss the main causes of accidents in my experience.
Having read some other threads on here which show that all this speeding stuff is for revenue etc etc, if I was a solicitor I would take the government to court over their criminalising of loads of people over this issue. I'm pretty sure there are solicitors on this forum, so I'm asking you why don't you take the whole issue to court? IMHO it's the only way of the whole thing ever getting anywhere.
In my opinion, not a hope in hell. The choice is down to the individual. Concentrate and adhere to the law and you will remain unscathed.
You may not be averse to accident but if you are involved, the consequences may well be less serious if you are travelling at a speed that is less than the limit and less than a speed likely to cause severe damage/injury.
What I was really getting at here was looking at a recent thread there were instances where councils had positioned speed cameras for revenue, against police wishes of covering accident blackspots. Surely that sort of behaviour should not go unpunished, it's a bl**dy outrage if true. Surely that sort of thing could be enough to take court action.
LLamekcuf, i feel i must agree to disagree(only slightly) on one point that you made, ie; at 30 youll do less damage, is what i think you were hinting at.
Id prefer to say that it depends on the mass of the object your'e driving and also the one that you hit, and the relative differences in speed between them that will determine the outcome. The speed being not as important as the masses involved, IMO.
Feather as opposed to a stone being dropped from a height as an example, the one with most mass carries more energy(kinetic) than a similar object with less mass.
The object with less mass has to travel faster to potentially have the same kinetic energy as the larger massed object.
This is partially why i think the speed limits just dont make any sense.
30 mph for a 38 tonner as opposed to a sportsbike, which one poses the greater danger?
Id prefer to say that it depends on the mass of the object your'e driving and also the one that you hit, and the relative differences in speed between them that will determine the outcome. The speed being not as important as the masses involved, IMO.
Feather as opposed to a stone being dropped from a height as an example, the one with most mass carries more energy(kinetic) than a similar object with less mass.
The object with less mass has to travel faster to potentially have the same kinetic energy as the larger massed object.
This is partially why i think the speed limits just dont make any sense.
30 mph for a 38 tonner as opposed to a sportsbike, which one poses the greater danger?
deltaf said: 30 mph for a 38 tonner as opposed to a sportsbike, which one poses the greater danger?
If you happen to be bowled over whilst on foot, they both have similar dangers. The outcome is purely down to luck.
Heather Mills (Mrs McCartney) was hit by a Police bike causing her to lose her leg. There is no garauntee that being hit by a 38 tonner would have had any more serious consequences for her in a similar situation. This would of course depend on where abouts in relation to the vehicle itself the collision occurred and what happened to her body after the impact.
deltaf said: The speed being not as important as the masses involved, IMO.
Sorry. Almost exactly the other way around.
Ke = mV^2
A feather and a rock massing the same and doing the same speed will do the same damage on impact.
The energy you need to dissapate to stop rises with the square of velocity. Mass is an important factor, but your car at 100mph has four times the kinetic energy than it has at 50mph.
Physics gimp mode off....
TVR5 - so how do you propose the police monitor the UK road network for 'bad driving' and prosecute drivers for that rather than their speed alone?
Would you be prepared to double your rate of income tax to pay for the resources required?
Speed cameras don't stop dangerous driving but they DO stop pratts driving at stupid speeds through danger areas (or risk getting fined) and they pay for themselves so they are a quick easy way of automating at least one small part of the UK's traffic laws.
Whats your problem with them?
If you drive with due care and attention at all times you will never be caught by one - they're bright yellow, sign posted and there are white marks on the road too. And all that only matters if you're speeding in the first place which you shouldn't be.
If a local council changes a speed limit on a road and you don't agree with it, contest the changed speed limit, not the fact that a camera is there.
This subject has been discussed again and again on Pistonheads - most people here will agree with your sentiments. A few like me won't.
Would you be prepared to double your rate of income tax to pay for the resources required?
Speed cameras don't stop dangerous driving but they DO stop pratts driving at stupid speeds through danger areas (or risk getting fined) and they pay for themselves so they are a quick easy way of automating at least one small part of the UK's traffic laws.
Whats your problem with them?
If you drive with due care and attention at all times you will never be caught by one - they're bright yellow, sign posted and there are white marks on the road too. And all that only matters if you're speeding in the first place which you shouldn't be.
If a local council changes a speed limit on a road and you don't agree with it, contest the changed speed limit, not the fact that a camera is there.
This subject has been discussed again and again on Pistonheads - most people here will agree with your sentiments. A few like me won't.
SPN, I know you like playing devils advocate BUT the rules you described do not cover SPECS or Scamera Vans which are often placed on motorways/dual carriageways with no real accident history. They only (and not always then) cover fixed Gatso and Truvelo systems in areas that HAVE signed upto the safety camera intiative.
There are still areas that don't follow those rules and hide their cameras.
NB: I have also noticed day-glo yellow paint "glinting" at me through bushes or other road furniture in what is obvisouly only a token attempt to make them visible.
There are still areas that don't follow those rules and hide their cameras.
NB: I have also noticed day-glo yellow paint "glinting" at me through bushes or other road furniture in what is obvisouly only a token attempt to make them visible.
Hmm SPN your enthusiasm for speed cameras as a panacea for all the ills of the world has not, i am glad to report, spread to myself amongst others.
M6 Northbound yesterday morning, two gatsos within a few hundred yards of each other.
Two truckers, the one tailgating the other with about 6 feet between themselves... funny the "safety" camera didnt detect such mindless "pratts" to coin a phrase.
Trouble with you mate, is your fixated on speed as an accident causer, when nothing could be further from the truth. See example above.
>> Edited by deltaf on Friday 6th June 15:06
M6 Northbound yesterday morning, two gatsos within a few hundred yards of each other.
Two truckers, the one tailgating the other with about 6 feet between themselves... funny the "safety" camera didnt detect such mindless "pratts" to coin a phrase.
Trouble with you mate, is your fixated on speed as an accident causer, when nothing could be further from the truth. See example above.
>> Edited by deltaf on Friday 6th June 15:06
If you drive with due care and attention at all times you will never be caught by one - they're bright yellow, sign posted and there are white marks on the road too. And all that only matters if you're speeding in the first place which you shouldn't be.
You really are a first class example of the numpty species. I'm trying to be polite here, by the way. Your post shows the stupid brain washed outpourings of the T2K advocate. Don't you get it yet? a lot of cameras are hidden, and a lot of speed limits inappropriate and/or badly signed. Who TF are you to preach to others? I hope you get a big ticket soon and reconsider your opinions sharpish. The things written by the resident BiB I can accept as honest, decent feedback. Your user name purports to have sporting connections, but you are so far removed from anything that I would consider sporting or racing that it doesn't make sense to call yourself SPNracing. SPNt2K maybe. And no, I don't feel like I'm being out of order writing this. You're just so up your own waste-gate it ain't true. But drive carefully now won't you, just 'cos I hate yoiur view point doesn't mean I want to see you harmed. Ok?
C
New member, but thought I'd get my two pence worth...
Re "speed cameras deter bad driving"...of course they don't. Getting fined retrospectively does nothing to stop the offence happening. You've already committed it. You could have just mown down a kid for all the camera knows, so in what way was it a deterrent? If the cameras are visible (Gatso, SPECS, vans, the lot) and well signed, surely you're going to think "oops, didn't realise I was doing that speed - better slow down". If the camera is hidden behind a sign (A414 in Hemel Hempstead being one such Gatso locally) you will have no such warning, and just carry on regardless. That is why it feels like such a rip off.
Surely the most effective "safety" camera is one that never takes a photo of someone speeding? A camera nailing 1000s of drivers is singularly FAILING to achieve it's objective.
I could live with cameras if the money went into improving road design, better signage, maintenance and so on, but, rather naively, I thought that's what vehicle excise duty was for? The roads in and around Watford are a DISGRACE, yet all we seem to be getting are more speed bumps (the latest set illegally high and badly built, but still there six months later surprisingly enough), mini roundabouts and utterly pointless bus lanes and bus priority traffic lights, which has done nothing except create traffic jams where once there were none. Indeed, in most cases, the now single lane of traffic tails back so far that it blocks the start of the bus lane itself, rendering it utterly pointless. I could've told them that would happen, but no, it took £1 million quid, 6 months of roadworks and several thousand litres of green paint to discover what a
ed up plan it was. And the council tax has gone up 30%...
There's a revolution coming people.
Re "speed cameras deter bad driving"...of course they don't. Getting fined retrospectively does nothing to stop the offence happening. You've already committed it. You could have just mown down a kid for all the camera knows, so in what way was it a deterrent? If the cameras are visible (Gatso, SPECS, vans, the lot) and well signed, surely you're going to think "oops, didn't realise I was doing that speed - better slow down". If the camera is hidden behind a sign (A414 in Hemel Hempstead being one such Gatso locally) you will have no such warning, and just carry on regardless. That is why it feels like such a rip off.
Surely the most effective "safety" camera is one that never takes a photo of someone speeding? A camera nailing 1000s of drivers is singularly FAILING to achieve it's objective.
I could live with cameras if the money went into improving road design, better signage, maintenance and so on, but, rather naively, I thought that's what vehicle excise duty was for? The roads in and around Watford are a DISGRACE, yet all we seem to be getting are more speed bumps (the latest set illegally high and badly built, but still there six months later surprisingly enough), mini roundabouts and utterly pointless bus lanes and bus priority traffic lights, which has done nothing except create traffic jams where once there were none. Indeed, in most cases, the now single lane of traffic tails back so far that it blocks the start of the bus lane itself, rendering it utterly pointless. I could've told them that would happen, but no, it took £1 million quid, 6 months of roadworks and several thousand litres of green paint to discover what a
ed up plan it was. And the council tax has gone up 30%... There's a revolution coming people.
You really are a first class example of the numpty species. I'm trying to be polite here, by the way. Your post shows the stupid brain washed outpourings of the T2K advocate. Don't you get it yet? a lot of cameras are hidden, and a lot of speed limits inappropriate and/or badly signed.
Well I'd be most disappointed if my posts stopped winding you up.
If by your other comments you mean I don't race on the road then you're quite right.
As far as being up your own waste gate, your views are typical of the totally one-sided anti T2K/NL right wing Pistonhead that means that this country is doomed to things like speed cameras forever more - because of a total lack of constructive, intelligent debate and protest from the other side.
Why not go and start another thread on how to set fire to them - thats bound to solve all the problems.
spnracing said:
If you drive with due care and attention at all times you will never be caught by one - they're bright yellow, sign posted and there are white marks on the road too. And all that only matters if you're speeding in the first place which you shouldn't be.
Yea right!
I don't know where you've been driving, but I could show you a good number of Scameras that aren’t bright yellow and/or can only be seen more that 15 -20 feet away if you happened to be flying over them.
Anto
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff