81mph in 50mph - speed camera van - advice please?

[emmaT2014]

Phatboy317 said:

emmaT2014 said:

aww999 said:

In a lot of cases, yes. Back in the "good old days" (before my time, sadly), a speed limit was imposed in the most hazardous areas, and the rest of the time drivers were trusted to set their speed correctly.

Nowadays, not only do we have a blanket speed limit that applies even to the safest of spots in the best of conditions, the speed limit on a whole road is often lowered because of a single hazardous blackspot. Because drivers are no longer trusted to slow down for a sharp bend, the whole road is 50mph, and now the vans can rake in fines by targeting people who (quite rightly) ignore this new limit on a straight section a mile away from the hazard.

OP: Best of luck, don't let the buggers get you down.

Yes the good old days when 8,000 per year were killed rather than less than 1,800. Perhaps that trust wasn't wisely invested.



With attitudes like yours I think the limits are to fall even further.

So we needn't have bothered with seat belts, airbags, stability control, ABS, advances in first-line medical care, etc, etc.
All we really needed was enforcement of speed limits - think of all the money we could have saved.

I have never suggested that speed enforcement was the sole cause of reduction in fatal casualties. You can however be assured that it has made a very significant contribution especially since 2003. Just look at the graph.

[The Surveyor]

aww999 said:

The Surveyor said:

- Are you against speed limits in principle and think everybody should be able to drive at whatever speed they wish, or

In a lot of cases, yes. Back in the "good old days" (before my time, sadly), a speed limit was imposed in the most hazardous areas, and the rest of the time drivers were trusted to set their speed correctly.

Nowadays, not only do we have a blanket speed limit that applies even to the safest of spots in the best of conditions, the speed limit on a whole road is often lowered because of a single hazardous blackspot. Because drivers are no longer trusted to slow down for a sharp bend, the whole road is 50mph, and now the vans can rake in fines by targeting people who (quite rightly) ignore this new limit on a straight section a mile away from the hazard.

OP: Best of luck, don't let the buggers get you down.

A fair point and would work if everybody applied the same level of skill and judgement as you imply, sadly most can't which is why there has to be a degree of enforcement. You only have to see he other 'show us your crash photos' thread to see examples where the PH driving gods have failed to follow that principle and have met the countryside due to bad judgements. There is simply no way the average driver in their ever faster 'normal' car could be trusted to set their own limits.

Your actual objection seems to be more that you don't mind some speed limits, you just don't want them to be applied to you when your out for a Hoon, the sort of utopia we would all love but one that will never ever happen.

[cptsideways]

emmaT2014 said:

I have never suggested that speed enforcement was the sole cause of reduction in fatal casualties. You can however be assured that it has made a very significant contribution especially since 2003. Just look at the graph.

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

[Phatboy317]

The Surveyor said:

aww999 said:

The Surveyor said:

- Are you against speed limits in principle and think everybody should be able to drive at whatever speed they wish, or

In a lot of cases, yes. Back in the "good old days" (before my time, sadly), a speed limit was imposed in the most hazardous areas, and the rest of the time drivers were trusted to set their speed correctly.

Nowadays, not only do we have a blanket speed limit that applies even to the safest of spots in the best of conditions, the speed limit on a whole road is often lowered because of a single hazardous blackspot. Because drivers are no longer trusted to slow down for a sharp bend, the whole road is 50mph, and now the vans can rake in fines by targeting people who (quite rightly) ignore this new limit on a straight section a mile away from the hazard.

OP: Best of luck, don't let the buggers get you down.

A fair point and would work if everybody applied the same level of skill and judgement as you imply, sadly most can't which is why there has to be a degree of enforcement. You only have to see he other 'show us your crash photos' thread to see examples where the PH driving gods have failed to follow that principle and have met the countryside due to bad judgements. There is simply no way the average driver in their ever faster 'normal' car could be trusted to set their own limits.

I would suggest that with all the cumulative years of driving down all sorts of roads in all sorts of conditions and with all manner of hazards, there would be few of us left if we weren't generally able to set our own limits.

The Surveyor said:

Your actual objection seems to be more that you don't mind some speed limits, you just don't want them to be applied to you when your out for a Hoon, the sort of utopia we would all love but one that will never ever happen.

What justification do you have for that conclusion?

Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 17th February 23:09

[LoonR1]

cptsideways said:

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

And that argument is equally specious. The point is that a number of factors will all have contributed to a lesser or greater degree, but the overall results are valid. How much has traffic increased in thenpast 12 years for example, so the drop if normalised could be even greater.

I'm not a stickler for speed limits (see my earlier posts on thei thread), nor am I a fan of speed cameras either ficpxed or mobile, but sadly I see why they're needed.

[Phatboy317]

LoonR1 said:

cptsideways said:

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

And that argument is equally specious. The point is that a number of factors will all have contributed to a lesser or greater degree, but the overall results are valid. How much has traffic increased in thenpast 12 years for example, so the drop if normalised could be even greater.

OTOH, one could argue that a) an increase in traffic might lead to am increase in congestion, therefore a decrease in average speeds, and b) the recession might have led to a very significant drop in traffic levels

[LoonR1]

Phatboy317 said:

LoonR1 said:

cptsideways said:

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

And that argument is equally specious. The point is that a number of factors will all have contributed to a lesser or greater degree, but the overall results are valid. How much has traffic increased in thenpast 12 years for example, so the drop if normalised could be even greater.

OTOH, one could argue that a) an increase in traffic might lead to am increase in congestion, therefore a decrease in average speeds, and b) the recession might have led to a very significant drop in traffic levels

Now what was that I was saying about a number of factors contributing to a lesser or greater extent? Oh yes, that'll be it, thanks for making the same point.

The point is that you can't dismiss one of those factors, just because you don't like it. I don't like them, but I have to accoe that they were one of the many variables amd so may have impacted on the results.

[emmaT2014]

Phatboy317 said:

LoonR1 said:

cptsideways said:

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

And that argument is equally specious. The point is that a number of factors will all have contributed to a lesser or greater degree, but the overall results are valid. How much has traffic increased in thenpast 12 years for example, so the drop if normalised could be even greater.

OTOH, one could argue that a) an increase in traffic might lead to am increase in congestion, therefore a decrease in average speeds, and b) the recession might have led to a very significant drop in traffic levels

oh-ho so you agree that a decrease in average speed of traffic will result in a lower number of fatal and serious casualties. Well done.

[Phatboy317]

emmaT2014 said:

Phatboy317 said:

LoonR1 said:

cptsideways said:

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

And that argument is equally specious. The point is that a number of factors will all have contributed to a lesser or greater degree, but the overall results are valid. How much has traffic increased in thenpast 12 years for example, so the drop if normalised could be even greater.

OTOH, one could argue that a) an increase in traffic might lead to am increase in congestion, therefore a decrease in average speeds, and b) the recession might have led to a very significant drop in traffic levels

oh-ho so you agree that a decrease in average speed of traffic will result in a lower number of fatal and serious casualties. Well done.

No, didn't agree, just noted that it could be argued (by some), in order to point out to LoonR1 the possible counters to his point. Why would I assert that traffic both increased and decreased in the same breath?
But, as you asked, the reduction in traffic, due to the recession, likely led to the reduced casualties (halve the amount of traffic, halve the accidents)

Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 18th February 07:23

[Phatboy317]

LoonR1 said:

Phatboy317 said:

LoonR1 said:

cptsideways said:

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

And that argument is equally specious. The point is that a number of factors will all have contributed to a lesser or greater degree, but the overall results are valid. How much has traffic increased in thenpast 12 years for example, so the drop if normalised could be even greater.

OTOH, one could argue that a) an increase in traffic might lead to am increase in congestion, therefore a decrease in average speeds, and b) the recession might have led to a very significant drop in traffic levels

Now what was that I was saying about a number of factors contributing to a lesser or greater extent? Oh yes, that'll be it, thanks for making the same point.

The point is that you can't dismiss one of those factors, just because you don't like it. I don't like them, but I have to accoe that they were one of the many variables amd so may have impacted on the results.

I'm not in the habit of dismissing things simply because I don't like them - I wouldn't be able to do my job if I did.

You can only accept or dismiss factors if you have justification for doing so.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 18th February 07:25

[The Surveyor]

Phatboy317 said:

I would suggest that with all the cumulative years of driving down all sorts of roads in all sorts of conditions and with all manner of hazards, there would be few of us left if we weren't generally able to set our own limits.

The Surveyor said:

Your actual objection seems to be more that you don't mind some speed limits, you just don't want them to be applied to you when your out for a Hoon, the sort of utopia we would all love but one that will never ever happen.

What justification do you have for that conclusion?

What justification..! I read his posts and that is the conclusion I came to, no more justification needed.

As for your ridiculous claim that people can be trusted to set their own limits on the grounds that we are not all nearly dead is as simplistic as the argument that 'speed kills'.

Despite your protests and flimsy counter arguments on this thread, the fact is that despite a general persistent increase in the number of cars on the road and miles covered, accidents levels have fallen to a level which most people regard as being acceptable. Yes, we would all like the roads to be our playground when we would like, but I also like the idea that I'll get home for my tea after work without being involved in carnage. Unfortunately for you the current balance of road safety (including speed enforcement), vehicle design, and driver training is actually relatively successful, like it or not. You can rage against the machine until you are blue in the face with counter arguments and claims but the reality is that the majority of voters are actually comfortable with the current approach. Therefore it'll never change and those like the OP who get caught need to take their punishment, and those of us who haven't been caught need to keep their eye's open.

[Devil2575]

The Surveyor said:

What justification..! I read his posts and that is the conclusion I came to, no more justification needed.

As for your ridiculous claim that people can be trusted to set their own limits on the grounds that we are not all nearly dead is as simplistic as the argument that 'speed kills'.

Despite your protests and flimsy counter arguments on this thread, the fact is that despite a general persistent increase in the number of cars on the road and miles covered, accidents levels have fallen to a level which most people regard as being acceptable. Yes, we would all like the roads to be our playground when we would like, but I also like the idea that I'll get home for my tea after work without being involved in carnage. Unfortunately for you the current balance of road safety (including speed enforcement), vehicle design, and driver training is actually relatively successful, like it or not. You can rage against the machine until you are blue in the face with counter arguments and claims but the reality is that the majority of voters are actually comfortable with the current approach. Therefore it'll never change and those like the OP who get caught need to take their punishment, and those of us who haven't been caught need to keep their eye's open.

A good post.

[aww999]

The Surveyor said:

What justification..! I read his posts and that is the conclusion I came to, no more justification needed.

As for your ridiculous claim that people can be trusted to set their own limits on the grounds that we are not all nearly dead is as simplistic as the argument that 'speed kills'.

Despite your protests and flimsy counter arguments on this thread, the fact is that despite a general persistent increase in the number of cars on the road and miles covered, accidents levels have fallen to a level which most people regard as being acceptable. Yes, we would all like the roads to be our playground when we would like, but I also like the idea that I'll get home for my tea after work without being involved in carnage. Unfortunately for you the current balance of road safety (including speed enforcement), vehicle design, and driver training is actually relatively successful, like it or not. You can rage against the machine until you are blue in the face with counter arguments and claims but the reality is that the majority of voters are actually comfortable with the current approach. Therefore it'll never change and those like the OP who get caught need to take their punishment, and those of us who haven't been caught need to keep their eye's open.

That all sounds very convincing. However, I don't see anything in there that justifies people being criminalised for safely doing 81mph on a straight bit of empty A-road because someone else once slid off the road at a tight corner a mile away. It's clearly a case of siting enforcement on a safe stretch where people are likely to break the ridiculous limit (because the safe speed for the conditions is far above the signed limit), rather than siting it at a dangerous spot where most people (because they are not idiots) have slowed down a bit anyway.

I accept that there are occasional road layouts where a big yellow Gatso might be required to enforce a degree of caution upon drivers who may not appreciate the risks. Sniping people on quiet a-roads achieves nothing more than pissing them off.

[emmaT2014]

aww999 said:

The Surveyor said:

What justification..! I read his posts and that is the conclusion I came to, no more justification needed.

As for your ridiculous claim that people can be trusted to set their own limits on the grounds that we are not all nearly dead is as simplistic as the argument that 'speed kills'.

Despite your protests and flimsy counter arguments on this thread, the fact is that despite a general persistent increase in the number of cars on the road and miles covered, accidents levels have fallen to a level which most people regard as being acceptable. Yes, we would all like the roads to be our playground when we would like, but I also like the idea that I'll get home for my tea after work without being involved in carnage. Unfortunately for you the current balance of road safety (including speed enforcement), vehicle design, and driver training is actually relatively successful, like it or not. You can rage against the machine until you are blue in the face with counter arguments and claims but the reality is that the majority of voters are actually comfortable with the current approach. Therefore it'll never change and those like the OP who get caught need to take their punishment, and those of us who haven't been caught need to keep their eye's open.

That all sounds very convincing. However, I don't see anything in there that justifies people being criminalised for safely doing 81mph on a straight bit of empty A-road because someone else once slid off the road at a tight corner a mile away. It's clearly a case of siting enforcement on a safe stretch where people are likely to break the ridiculous limit (because the safe speed for the conditions is far above the signed limit), rather than siting it at a dangerous spot where most people (because they are not idiots) have slowed down a bit anyway.

I accept that there are occasional road layouts where a big yellow Gatso might be required to enforce a degree of caution upon drivers who may not appreciate the risks. Sniping people on quiet a-roads achieves nothing more than pissing them off.

People are criminalised for doing 81 in a 50 and 60 and 70 because it is a criminal offence. They know it before they do it and therefore they have criminalised themselves.

As for your last comment, more people are pissed-off by your behaviour rather than the reasonable enforcement. It's safer that way.

[emmaT2014]

cptsideways said:

emmaT2014 said:

I have never suggested that speed enforcement was the sole cause of reduction in fatal casualties. You can however be assured that it has made a very significant contribution especially since 2003. Just look at the graph.

Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.

Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...


So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter bks

Your justification for ESP being responsible makes it as likely to be a factor as the increased use of pearlescent paint. bks indeed!

[jesta1865]

22Rgt said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

Go to Court Suited and Booted,

Admit the offence and be remorseful,

Explain you need your licence for your living.

Going suited and booted will make fk all difference and is way OTT for a simple speeding offence. Just admit guilt, no need to hang your head in shame or turn on the water works or other theatricals, this sort of bullst will not act to go in your favour as its so see through and would imagine magistrates get very tired of seeing it..

sorry not been on for a few days so missed this, the above advice about suited and booted not mattering is cobblers.

one of my uncles is a magistrate, he is also a huge motorsport fan, but if you turn up 31mph over the posted limit to his court, not in a suit and with an attitude, him and his colleagues will look on it very unfavourably. he says it shows contrition and respect for the rule of law.

they have looked more favourably on 22 years olds in saxos than middle aged people, because the saxo brigade have sucked it up and grovel and the 50 year old thinks BiB should be out catching real criminals.

apologies if this has been discussed, i haven't read the whole thread, just thought it relevant as i was speaking to him last weekend.

as an aside i think he talks like Judge Dredd sometimes rather than a magistrate in Norfolk

[The Surveyor]

aww999 said:

That all sounds very convincing. However, I don't see anything in there that justifies people being criminalised for safely doing 81mph on a straight bit of empty A-road because someone else once slid off the road at a tight corner a mile away. It's clearly a case of siting enforcement on a safe stretch where people are likely to break the ridiculous limit (because the safe speed for the conditions is far above the signed limit), rather than siting it at a dangerous spot where most people (because they are not idiots) have slowed down a bit anyway.

I accept that there are occasional road layouts where a big yellow Gatso might be required to enforce a degree of caution upon drivers who may not appreciate the risks. Sniping people on quiet a-roads achieves nothing more than pissing them off.

I would agree with you that most people will slow down to suit the conditions, but the limits are needed to protect those who fall outside 'most' from their own stupidity. Road safety isn't about 'Darwinism' and allowing those idiots to die for the sake of those who want to travel at over 80 mph for the fun of it. The Snake Pass where the OP was pinged is known as a great driving road, and it is also known as an accident black-spot, whether you choose to consider those factors as being linked is down to you. Other have linked the two and applied a blanket speed reduction from NSL to 50mph in an attempt to reduce accidents.

What I think you're suggesting is that we only apply speed limits on dangerous corners, and in areas where there has never been an accident where speed was a factor, everybody should be allowed to crack on until one happens. Surly you can see the problem with that?

[aww999]

The Surveyor said:

I would agree with you that most people will slow down to suit the conditions, but the limits are needed to protect those who fall outside 'most' from their own stupidity.

It doesn't work though. A local village to me campaigned for years to have speed humps and a camera installed, despite widespread compliance with the 30mph speed limit and no injury accidents for the last 15+ years. A year after installation, two idiots driving through the village late one night managed to leave the road at a slight bend and plough into a tree, killing themselves. They chose to drive stupidly despite every effort to enforce the limit that was meant to protect them (and others).

Setting ever-lower limits and enforcing them more stringently may catch slightly more of the tiny minority of drivers who are dangerous. It will definitely criminalise the legitimate driving behaviour of thousands more drivers who are safely, competently going about their business without causing distress or inconvenience to anyone. This ratio will only be magnified when limited enforcement resources are deployed on safe roads where the limit is far lower than most would choose to travel, instead of busy or high-risk areas where most drivers naturally pick a lower speed but occasional nutters may endanger others. It rakes in loads of tickets, which gives the appearance of doing something useful to appease the electorate, but that doesn't make it right or just.

Stringent enforcement of the speed limit in remote areas is like forcing people to wear a swimsuit in the bath in case they offend public decency. In fact, these days, we'll make them wear a long-sleeved Victorian bathing suit, just in case.

[Liquid Tuna]

longblackcoat said:

1 The law IS the law. You may not like it, but it exists, and you ignore it at your peril. When you're at the side of the road having been pulled at 80 in a 50, telling the officer that the law's an ass/I'm a great driver/why don't you catch some real criminals is a quick way to guarantee a booking rather than a lecture.

I don't think that happens any more. Not since the mid-90s really. Gone are the days of a telling-off and be on your way, don't do it again etc.

[Rangeroverover]

I used to have a company selling "safe" lamp posts that would collapse when you crashed int them allowing you to walk away from the accident. I had a go myself for a TV show and hit a 12m one at 53mph.no problems.

I discovered that part of the reason for seemingly stupidly slow speed limits is a EU directive that says on roads over 90kph speed limit, all impactable objects must be either 3m+ from the roadside or be protected by crash fencing (armco) or be "passivly safe". the cheap option is just to lower the limit, so thats why they do it.