Watch out for Tractors
Discussion
Ken Figenus said:
Sadly not. I was also filming a lovely older lady the other week and they had taken her Motability car off her since the insurer wouldn't insure her as she'd had 4 SP30's in 5 years. She'd never had a totting up ban but they just wouldn't now insure her. She is now housebound. Bang to rights some 'black and whiters' may say but again these were trivial offences with a huge end consequence that was totally unforseen - this was not fast and furious nailing it at 45 past the school at 3pm; she couldnt get her knee down if she tried! But big brother says NO whereas a proper copper wouldn't have troubled her, or would just have had a word (or 4)!
It's difficult to be sympathetic with such a case. If she was unable to observe speed limits despite having been caught several times, what other rules of the road was she breaking?RobinOakapple said:
It's difficult to be sympathetic with such a case. If she was unable to observe speed limits despite having been caught several times, what other rules of the road was she breaking?
If only she had been caught 4 times before and slowed down...Its a black and white offence because if you start bringing disability etc into account where do you draw the line? Tough s
t in my opinion, shes clearly not adjusted her driving style so she only has herself to blame.RobinOakapple said:
It's difficult to be sympathetic with such a case.
Not for me. Its really easy. Its called empathy and compassion and all sort of gooey pointless stuff like that. Generally these things make the world a better place. But then maybe I have a different view on society and what is actually important and of real significance. I get that. As a perfect model citizen with a clean licence I take her out now and again.Ken Figenus said:
RobinOakapple said:
It's difficult to be sympathetic with such a case.
Not for me. Its really easy. Its called empathy and compassion and all sort of gooey pointless stuff like that. Generally these things make the world a better place. But then maybe I have a different view on society and what is actually important and of real significance. I get that. As a perfect model citizen with a clean licence I take her out now and again.
Greendubber said:
Pete317 said:
Do you have any evidence that it works the way you say it does?
I'd imagine years of being a police officer and also a driver is pretty obvious evidence that folk slow down for marked cars?Certainly the case for me anyway.
Pete317 said:
No, I would like to see evidence to support the contention that using unmarked cars slows more people down.
It certainly slows me down. If I only had to watch out for detection units (including cameras) that I could see, I would be able to drive a lot faster than I do. As it is, I get up early and leave in good time.RobinOakapple said:
Pete317 said:
No, I would like to see evidence to support the contention that using unmarked cars slows more people down.
It certainly slows me down. If I only had to watch out for detection units (including cameras) that I could see, I would be able to drive a lot faster than I do. As it is, I get up early and leave in good time.If I understand you correctly, the only thing that makes you abide by the limits is fear of detection. Nothing to do with safe driving then?
Pete317 said:
No, I would like to see evidence to support the contention that using unmarked cars slows more people down.
I hereby give evidence on pain of something slightly annoying being done that on the 30th of last month I did see:- a mile long jam of bunched up traffic north bound on the m23, all travelling at 68mph
- at the front of said queue was a poice liveried X5 travelling at 67mph
- once I had passed said police car and made sure it was out of site, traffic pace picked up, and the bunching miraculously cleared
Signed, Ian etc etc
Is this enough evidence? Anyone who hasn't worked out traffic slows down for marked cars ( esp. Highways England vehicles) has probably got their head up somewhere far.
I'm a bit. "meh" on hidden cameras. There's quite a bit of the driving test dedicated to laws and signage, so anyone caught speeding has themselves to blame.
Maybe I'll feel different if I get some points...
Ian
Pete317 said:
RobinOakapple said:
Pete317 said:
No, I would like to see evidence to support the contention that using unmarked cars slows more people down.
It certainly slows me down. If I only had to watch out for detection units (including cameras) that I could see, I would be able to drive a lot faster than I do. As it is, I get up early and leave in good time.If I understand you correctly, the only thing that makes you abide by the limits is fear of detection. Nothing to do with safe driving then?
As for the evidence you seek, there obviously isn't going to be any, just as there is no evidence about how concerned people are at being struck by lumps of ice falling from aeroplanes and whether or not it affects their behaviour.
Greendubber said:
Pete317 said:
No, I would like to see evidence to support the contention that using unmarked cars slows more people down.
Ahh the usual evidence reply. Can you supply any to suggest otherwise?Where's the justification? Where's the research? Where's the evidence?
Edited by Pete317 on Thursday 1st October 18:44
If I recall correctly, the reason the GOVERNMENT of the time gave for making cameras clearly visible, was that if they were not, drivers would divert so much attention to trying to spot them while they were speeding, that the lack of attention to the road would increase accidents.
What has changed?
Well there are so many things vying for drivers attention these days they probably thought "who will give a fk if they crash while looking?"
What has changed?
Well there are so many things vying for drivers attention these days they probably thought "who will give a f
k if they crash while looking?"BullyB said:
If it had anything to do with safety, they would have a marked car complete with flashing lights. By actually allowing the vehicles to continue driving fast and not stopping/slowing them down, they are proving there actually isn't any danger...
Rubbish. The whole point is to stop road users purposefully travelling at very high speeds for the road. They don't want something that people can see so simply slow down for, they want something that stops people driving/riding at that speed period. I've driven it before and 90 to 100 mph+ is just too fast. If they were using this tactic to catch people doing 65-70 mph who may have just strayed over the limit then I'd agree, but they aren't and no one does 90 + on that road unless they are properly on one.I live near a couple of roads that bikers use/have used in the past to do stupid speeds and not only do they take themselves out with regularity they also involve other innocent road users.
Pete317 said:
If I understand you correctly, the only thing that makes you abide by the limits is fear of detection. Nothing to do with safe driving then?
It used to be like that for me but then I had kids and grew up. Having seen the devastation caused to a family when a young lad is killed because he was going too fast makes you realise that sometimes you need to think about more than just yourself and the desire to get your rocks off by driving fast.Marked cars and yellow GATSOs slow people down for that stretch of road that is being visibly enforced.
The threat of unmarked cars and mobile safety cameras results in self-moderation where otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Anyone suggesting otherwise - e.g. that marked cars and in-your-face enforcement is a real deterrent and behaviour changer - is either lying, deluded or dumb.
I speed as much as the next man, but I have the guts to admit that GATSOs I'm aware of do nothing to change how fast I decide to go, except on the small stretch of road that they cover. It's the threat of omnipotent enforcement and its consequential effect on my licence, job and possibly liberty that has an enduring effect on how fast I decide to go.
The threat of unmarked cars and mobile safety cameras results in self-moderation where otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Anyone suggesting otherwise - e.g. that marked cars and in-your-face enforcement is a real deterrent and behaviour changer - is either lying, deluded or dumb.
I speed as much as the next man, but I have the guts to admit that GATSOs I'm aware of do nothing to change how fast I decide to go, except on the small stretch of road that they cover. It's the threat of omnipotent enforcement and its consequential effect on my licence, job and possibly liberty that has an enduring effect on how fast I decide to go.
Devil2575 said:
It used to be like that for me but then I had kids and grew up. Having seen the devastation caused to a family when a young lad is killed because he was going too fast makes you realise that sometimes you need to think about more than just yourself and the desire to get your rocks off by driving fast.
You don't have to be driving fast to break the speed limit, be involved in a collision, or to be killed or seriously injured.So who makes one road a 40 mph limit, and another a 50 limit, and another a 60 limit?
What should they take into consideration, the safe speed for the road, the volume of traffic or the accident history?
Relying on arbitrary numbers (speed limits) instead of common sense, is akin to the difference between an old master, and a copy of the same picture in a painting by numbers kit - you will never obtain the subtle differences in tone, or the detail left by a casual brush stroke in the numbered kit that was present in the original.
Relying on tractors or yellow boxes is just looking at the two pictures through a frosted glass, and saying they look the same. That is where we are at with road safety these days.
Mill Wheel said:
Devil2575 said:
It used to be like that for me but then I had kids and grew up. Having seen the devastation caused to a family when a young lad is killed because he was going too fast makes you realise that sometimes you need to think about more than just yourself and the desire to get your rocks off by driving fast.
You don't have to be driving fast to break the speed limit, be involved in a collision, or to be killed or seriously injured.So who makes one road a 40 mph limit, and another a 50 limit, and another a 60 limit?
What should they take into consideration, the safe speed for the road, the volume of traffic or the accident history?
Relying on arbitrary numbers (speed limits) instead of common sense, is akin to the difference between an old master, and a copy of the same picture in a painting by numbers kit - you will never obtain the subtle differences in tone, or the detail left by a casual brush stroke in the numbered kit that was present in the original.
Relying on tractors or yellow boxes is just looking at the two pictures through a frosted glass, and saying they look the same. That is where we are at with road safety these days.
I don't wish to get into a debate about speed limits but there is a vast difference between doing 60mph on a road that used to be NSL but has been lowered to 50 and doing 90+ on a road where those kinds of speeds are too fast when other road users are involved.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff