Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
There seems to be a huge amount of b
hing on PH about speed limits and cameras. But does anyone have any sensible suggestions for a different system?
Is there anyone that believes we should have no speed limits - and if yes why?
Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions. So even though under the right circumstances it could be perfectlly safe to drive 70 in what is now a 30 I accept that 30 limits are necessary. I think we could raise the speed limit on motorways but overall I think the limits are not too bad.
If you accept that speed limits are a necessary evil then you also have to accept that they should be enforced (otherwise they would be ignored). And penalties have to be linked to how much or how often you exceed the limits. One could argue about the detail but that seems to be covered by the current UK system. In Switzerland they had a different system. Low grade speeding (generally up to about 20 mph over) are treated with fixed fines (that increase as you get closer to the 20 mph) and thereafter mandatory bans and income related fines. More than 45 mph over and you risk prison. When you consider that their A and B roads have 80 kmh limits so you only need to be 140 kmh (about 85 mph) then you can see that prison is a real risk if you have a fast car or bike.
The current system in the UK - where cameras are painted yellow and even mobile police units are in marked vans or with police in HiVis seems to give UK speeders a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. I'm not sure how people can argue this is unfair. A more logical approach would be like in Switzerland where the cameras and police are usually hidden so you have no way of spotting them. That leads to paranoia because you know that you could be caught almost anywhere at any time. Great for stopping speeding but horrid for driving.
People argue that cameras should only be at accident black spots but effectively what they are saying is that speeding should not be policed where they speed - a speeding nimbyism. But isn't that like not having limits at all? A lot of people on here complain about driving standards of the average person - so would you be happy for them to feel free to drive as fast as they want, as well as as badly as they want?
hing on PH about speed limits and cameras. But does anyone have any sensible suggestions for a different system? Is there anyone that believes we should have no speed limits - and if yes why?
Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions. So even though under the right circumstances it could be perfectlly safe to drive 70 in what is now a 30 I accept that 30 limits are necessary. I think we could raise the speed limit on motorways but overall I think the limits are not too bad.
If you accept that speed limits are a necessary evil then you also have to accept that they should be enforced (otherwise they would be ignored). And penalties have to be linked to how much or how often you exceed the limits. One could argue about the detail but that seems to be covered by the current UK system. In Switzerland they had a different system. Low grade speeding (generally up to about 20 mph over) are treated with fixed fines (that increase as you get closer to the 20 mph) and thereafter mandatory bans and income related fines. More than 45 mph over and you risk prison. When you consider that their A and B roads have 80 kmh limits so you only need to be 140 kmh (about 85 mph) then you can see that prison is a real risk if you have a fast car or bike.
The current system in the UK - where cameras are painted yellow and even mobile police units are in marked vans or with police in HiVis seems to give UK speeders a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. I'm not sure how people can argue this is unfair. A more logical approach would be like in Switzerland where the cameras and police are usually hidden so you have no way of spotting them. That leads to paranoia because you know that you could be caught almost anywhere at any time. Great for stopping speeding but horrid for driving.
People argue that cameras should only be at accident black spots but effectively what they are saying is that speeding should not be policed where they speed - a speeding nimbyism. But isn't that like not having limits at all? A lot of people on here complain about driving standards of the average person - so would you be happy for them to feel free to drive as fast as they want, as well as as badly as they want?
xjay1337 said:
I can't see why we can't have some sections of derestricted motorways. M4 for example from Slough from 10 to 11 for example is almost straight and completely lit.
If we had some areas of complete derestriction I don't think people would kick up such a fuss when you are asked to stick to 70 in some other areas.
Lowering nationals to 50 seem stupid IMO but generally most 30s are pretty well placed.
My personal experience in Germany is that they don't obey the limit in the derestricted sections. What I've found is that you get to a derestricted stretch and zoom off, leaving people behind you but at the next restricted section if you slow down to the limit they catch up and pass you...until the next derestricted where you get pass them again (maybe a lot later if there is traffic or slow vehicles overtaking each other). Much as I've enjoyed driving on the Autobahn I've found that my average speed is pretty slow given that you can drive as fast as you want at times. Much quicker on French toll roads - can't do more than 80-85 without risk of being nicked but you can pretty much keep at that speed most of the journey (again on my experience of driving between the UK and Switzerland).If we had some areas of complete derestriction I don't think people would kick up such a fuss when you are asked to stick to 70 in some other areas.
Lowering nationals to 50 seem stupid IMO but generally most 30s are pretty well placed.
KevinCorvetteC6 said:
There is no case for cameras as they can only 'police' one issue - speed in excess of the arbitrary limit. Since speeding is only the cause of a very small percentage of accidents (note, cause not contributory to effect) they are focussed on the wrong cause of accidents. Far bigger causes are incompetence, lack of concentration, excess speed for the conditions, tailgating, incorrect lane use, dangerous driving. All of those can only be policed by real live policemen.
Why is it an either or? You could do both. If you don't police limits then they will be ignored - is that what you are arguing for? No limits? otolith said:
Speed limits are a very blunt instrument - especially when subject to mindless enforcement.
They work well in areas where there is relatively little variation in what is a reasonable speed for the conditions, both in terms of time and space. Largely, built up areas where people live. They work less well in places where the maximum appropriate speed varies from day to day and mile to mile.
They are not always set for reasons of safety - there may also be considerations of emissions and noise. It does not seem fair to penalise antisocial behaviour and dangerous behaviour equally severely.
I don't disagree with a lot of what you write but what is the alternative? Unless you have some way of constantly varying the limit based on traffic levels and weather/road conditions then any limit is going to have to be lower than it would be for above average conditions. They work well in areas where there is relatively little variation in what is a reasonable speed for the conditions, both in terms of time and space. Largely, built up areas where people live. They work less well in places where the maximum appropriate speed varies from day to day and mile to mile.
They are not always set for reasons of safety - there may also be considerations of emissions and noise. It does not seem fair to penalise antisocial behaviour and dangerous behaviour equally severely.
The current system is not perfect but a lot better than other very easy to implement alternatives such as:
- hidden speed traps like in other countries
- GPS controlled speed limiters in all cars so you can't exceed the posted limits (although the car industry and PHers are against this I expect that it would get support amongst a large number of the general public who see cars as a way of getting from A to B).
- black boxes in all cars that record speed - which could be checked either after an accident or at random by a policeman
- I suspect that information on our mobile phones could be used to check whether we had broken the speed limit
A few yellow cameras, the odd van (usually in the same places) and coppers in HiVis (again in the same spots) seems like a minor inconvenience compared to what they could do.
Ken Figenus said:
Speed limits are essential and completely appropriate, even if excessive speed is a factor only in a tiny proportion of accidents. However you do the UK motorist a huge disservice when you say you wouldn't trust them to go at an appropriate speed. This has been one of the key ways of actually setting limits in the past and was based on the 85th percentile - the 'natural speed' that 85% of motorists travel at on a section of road. That is being dumbed down in a typical meddling and politico local authority way now and limits change almost constantly - with added 20mph and 50mph limits that can be quite disagreeable and unnecessary.
Every copper knows how to handle and apply limits in a common sense way, but the last camera van I saw was on the end of a mile long straight hoping to catch us enthusiasts doing 70mph on this 60mph uninhabited, junctionless straight. Being 10mph over there was an utter irrelevance but being 10mph over in other places could have been genuinely antisocial and far more worth policing. Then there is the knock on disservice that these such civilian camera vans cause to real road policing - never has proper policing for stuff that is ALWAYS genuinely dangerous been worse. Its just all about IT, surveillance and software and I far prefer a copper's beady eye, nasal senses(!) and instinct to genuinely generate real road safety rather than just generate revenue and manipulated statistics that few by now buy or trust.
So your question 'an alternative' - more proper road policing using brains and discretion and less lucrative automated fines for open road irrelevances. Happier all round I reckon and safer.
As far as I know the 85th percentile means that if you ranked 100 people's speed from slowest to fastest then the 85th percentile is the 85th fastest. So a long way from being the average (the median would be the 50th percentile). Every copper knows how to handle and apply limits in a common sense way, but the last camera van I saw was on the end of a mile long straight hoping to catch us enthusiasts doing 70mph on this 60mph uninhabited, junctionless straight. Being 10mph over there was an utter irrelevance but being 10mph over in other places could have been genuinely antisocial and far more worth policing. Then there is the knock on disservice that these such civilian camera vans cause to real road policing - never has proper policing for stuff that is ALWAYS genuinely dangerous been worse. Its just all about IT, surveillance and software and I far prefer a copper's beady eye, nasal senses(!) and instinct to genuinely generate real road safety rather than just generate revenue and manipulated statistics that few by now buy or trust.
So your question 'an alternative' - more proper road policing using brains and discretion and less lucrative automated fines for open road irrelevances. Happier all round I reckon and safer.
Edited by Ken Figenus on Friday 29th April 16:05
30 mph may have been the 85th percentile when cars struggled to reach 30 or you were including horse and carts but that seems a nonsense today. I do try to stick to 30 mph limits - even then I am generally doing an indicated 33 (so a real 30) yet I am constantly tailgated every day by people trying to make me go faster.
I think you also confuse people being slow in the wrong places to exercising good judgement - or is it just me that constantly comes across people doing 45 in a 60 even though you could comfortably do 90 yet when they come to the 30 limit that only drop down to 40 irrespective of whether there are hazards.
Your post seems to suggest that people that do 70 in a 60 are a completely different population to the ones that do 40 in a 30 ie that they speed appropriately. There are some people for which that doesn't count but in general people I see that speed in NSL also speed in town (although as noted above it doesn't always work the other way). Catching people speeding in NSLs is perhaps easier for the police but those same people would probably be caught if they set up a trap in town. That isn't surprising because most people who speed have a "speeding" mentality ie they justify what they are doing and don't see it is wrong (limits are too low, they know what they are doing, cameras only raise revenue, this road could have a higher limit).
Ken Figenus said:
Yes I think you are right - its a personal opinion that may not apply to those that hoon about everywhere selfishly. I think the many I know who like a spirited safe drive now and again, away from everyone, do 100% stick to the limits in urban areas. There are just lots more hazards and children (sic) to knock over and its no great hardship after all is it? 85 mph on a dry motorway however is a real world irrelevance to most of us but that 45mph by the shops/houses absolutely isnt. They are enforced in the same manner of course but I think the policing might be better biased towards the real actual increase in risk one. Where I live they will be mostly enforcing on the open roads where the risk increase or potential harm caused by speeding is less. Balance 
I try to follow the advice of my advanced motorcycling instructor (ex motorbike traffic cop): stick to 30 in town as that is where accidents happen, stick to 80 or below on motorways and DCs as that is where you get nicked and in NSL use your discretion but make progress (his other description of the NSL sign was GLF - go like fk - and when I tried following him he meant itDigby said:
Haha, that's great......oh, wait, you were serious?
People who want to take the piss in a 30 mph zone will do so whether you have a camera in place or not. The majority of roads do not have a camera and rarely see a copper or talivan and the majority of roads are used by those who know not to take the piss. The problems start when limits are too low and those who drive above those limits get targeted. The odd school Mum hitting 50 mph? Why bother when your new reduced 70 to 50 limit can be like "Shooting fish in a barrel"
Let's talk again maybe about those involved in the industry who admit it is often about money and those with links to those who are due to appear in court on corruption charges etc. Maybe we can get an idea of why road safety is often no longer about safety and is more to do with the "blank chequebooks" they were sold as from the start. Perhaps this will help explain many of the limits, almost all of the hidden cameras, the grey and black painted versions, the straight road targeting, the altered stats, the cover-ups, the FOI denials.....
Perhaps then we can decide on what to do for the best?
It's also a great way to end conversations like this and save some time, because all the people who try their hardest to defend what is often nothing more than a scam, simply shrivel up and vanish for a while.
Remember the "HGV limits are too low" conversations where the same old faces ignored suggestions that dangerous overtakes occur etc and that speeds should not be increased? The Government and numerous experts agreed with 'us' and those posters shriveled up and vanished.
To answer your question, stop making it a money-making corrupt system first and then let's work out what to do.
Foil hats at the ready!People who want to take the piss in a 30 mph zone will do so whether you have a camera in place or not. The majority of roads do not have a camera and rarely see a copper or talivan and the majority of roads are used by those who know not to take the piss. The problems start when limits are too low and those who drive above those limits get targeted. The odd school Mum hitting 50 mph? Why bother when your new reduced 70 to 50 limit can be like "Shooting fish in a barrel"
Let's talk again maybe about those involved in the industry who admit it is often about money and those with links to those who are due to appear in court on corruption charges etc. Maybe we can get an idea of why road safety is often no longer about safety and is more to do with the "blank chequebooks" they were sold as from the start. Perhaps this will help explain many of the limits, almost all of the hidden cameras, the grey and black painted versions, the straight road targeting, the altered stats, the cover-ups, the FOI denials.....
Perhaps then we can decide on what to do for the best?
It's also a great way to end conversations like this and save some time, because all the people who try their hardest to defend what is often nothing more than a scam, simply shrivel up and vanish for a while.
Remember the "HGV limits are too low" conversations where the same old faces ignored suggestions that dangerous overtakes occur etc and that speeds should not be increased? The Government and numerous experts agreed with 'us' and those posters shriveled up and vanished.
To answer your question, stop making it a money-making corrupt system first and then let's work out what to do.
Just checked the Internet to see that total number of speeding fines in 2014 was 115,000. Say on average the fine was £100. That is a total of £11.5 million. For the whole country. To put that into context the investment bank that worked on the last deal I was involved with got a bigger fee and I think they only had about 20 people on the team. In comparison that £11 million of revenue would have involved thousands of people - police officers, court officials, admin staff to process it. Almost certainly the cost of enforcing speeding limits far exceeds the revenue gained from fines. To call it revenue raising is surely a joke. But then that applies to so much of the criminal justice system.
Some more fun figures. There are roughly 30 million drivers in the UK and on average we make 1000 car trips per year. So there are 30,000,000,000 trips. Let's be generous and say speeding occurs on only half of those trips so only 15,000,000,000 trips with speeding, So 100'000 speeding tickets. So only one ticket for each 150'000 trips with speeding. That has to be the worst crime detection and punishment rate imaginable. Think if you only got a parking ticket once every 150'000 times you illegal parked! It only 1 in 150'000 shop lifters were prosecuted? Enforcement of speeding is almost non existent in this country.
Mea culpa. It was late last night and I was tired when I did a quick search for speeding ticket figures. Having rechecked this morning the 115,000 is actually the number of people prosecuted by magistrates and doesn't include fixed penalty notices nor speed awareness courses (the article where I found the 115,000 didn't make that clear but further research did). The 115,000 felt too low.
Another search this morning turned up another statistic, this time directly from the government in response to a request for information. Apparently there are 42 million people with driving licences in the UK of which 2.4 million currently have points on their licence - so around 6% of drivers. Interestingly of the 2.4 million people with points, 1.7 million were men. Those figures seem surprisingly high. Certainly where I live there are some average speed cameras and some fixed cameras too but everyone living here knows of their existence and I've never seen them flash. I've only seen police with speed guns once in the two years we have been here.
Another search this morning turned up another statistic, this time directly from the government in response to a request for information. Apparently there are 42 million people with driving licences in the UK of which 2.4 million currently have points on their licence - so around 6% of drivers. Interestingly of the 2.4 million people with points, 1.7 million were men. Those figures seem surprisingly high. Certainly where I live there are some average speed cameras and some fixed cameras too but everyone living here knows of their existence and I've never seen them flash. I've only seen police with speed guns once in the two years we have been here.
0000 said:
I make it 2.8 million, (so again, a higher percentage). Of which 2.2 million (80%) have 3 points. And that's not including those on speed awareness courses.
i.e. catch a lot of people, take money off them and do bugger all else. Like any other racket.
If people are careless enough to get caught be fixed cameras why do you have sympathy with them? For the vast majority of people almost all their car journies are on roads that they use frequently. Yes there are professional drivers (HGV etc) and some people that travel as part of their work (eg salesmen) but most people use their cars to get to and from work, drop children off at school, go shopping. On top of the usual trips there will be longer journies for visiting friends and relations and holidays but most of the time, most people are driving on roads they know. So why are they being caught? And if you are driving on roads you don't know (so don't know where the fixed sites are nor where there are sometimes mobile units) then why aren't you either not speeding or if speeding then being extra vigilant? i.e. catch a lot of people, take money off them and do bugger all else. Like any other racket.
Digby said:
As a regular user of the M25, as I reported some time ago, one morning, all of the variable limits were off for the first time I can remember since they were introduced. I assume there was a problem as nothing was lit.
It was the best journey during rush hour I have had on that section in years. The following day, they were all back on and it was back to the usual stop start affair we all know and love..
As for the street furniture comment, I am convinced this is one of the issues at the Dartford tunnel when going South to North. They aimed to make things free-flowing and installed traffic lights, cameras at those lights and so much colourful crap everywhere that drivers slow down just to be sure either the lights are not about to go red, or that they are not breaking the rules.
The result? Job losses, millions spent and often as much congestion as there was before during peak times. Brilliant.
AFAIK the variable speed limits only apply when traffic is heavy and becomes stop/start. Isn't it more likely that traffic was unusually light that day? Traffic flow management is complex but is backed by maths and computer modelling (like much else of modern life). Apologies if I put more faith in specialists that spend their life working on it than some random anecdotes on the Internet.It was the best journey during rush hour I have had on that section in years. The following day, they were all back on and it was back to the usual stop start affair we all know and love..
As for the street furniture comment, I am convinced this is one of the issues at the Dartford tunnel when going South to North. They aimed to make things free-flowing and installed traffic lights, cameras at those lights and so much colourful crap everywhere that drivers slow down just to be sure either the lights are not about to go red, or that they are not breaking the rules.
The result? Job losses, millions spent and often as much congestion as there was before during peak times. Brilliant.
4rephill said:
So if a speeding car overtakes a line of cars coming up to one of these lights, and gets to the front of the queue, then the traffic lights spot him and go to red, causing him to have to wait?
What about all the people who were overtaken the speeding car? - Do they get to go around the speeder to carry on their journey at the speed limit?
No, when the speeder gets stopped, so does everyone behind who obeyed the limit, so they all get punished for one drivers speeding (okay, it's only costing a bit of time rather than any money, but they still pay a price for someone else breaking the Law).
At least with speed cameras it's only the person breaking the Law who has to pay a price!
And to Make the traffic light system work properly, you'd need to install them every 100 yards in order to make the journey a real pain in the arse if you speed, with all the stop starting.
And in the same way as with fixed speed cameras, if you know where the traffic lights are, you just speed along until you're close to the lights, slow down to the limit as you approach the lights, and then speed up again once past the lights!
Clutching at straws a bit there. How often do you overtake people as you approach traffic lights? Saying that a system doesn't work based on a hypothetical situation or bad driving hardly undermines the general idea.What about all the people who were overtaken the speeding car? - Do they get to go around the speeder to carry on their journey at the speed limit?
No, when the speeder gets stopped, so does everyone behind who obeyed the limit, so they all get punished for one drivers speeding (okay, it's only costing a bit of time rather than any money, but they still pay a price for someone else breaking the Law).
At least with speed cameras it's only the person breaking the Law who has to pay a price!
And to Make the traffic light system work properly, you'd need to install them every 100 yards in order to make the journey a real pain in the arse if you speed, with all the stop starting.
And in the same way as with fixed speed cameras, if you know where the traffic lights are, you just speed along until you're close to the lights, slow down to the limit as you approach the lights, and then speed up again once past the lights!
I've come across a similar system but not sure where (perhaps the US?) lights turn green. If you go at the speed limit then the next set of lights will be green. If you speed then you have to stop as they are still red.
4rephill said:
So My hypothetical situation couldn't ever occur then? - Especially as the traffic lights are (apparently) not located at junctions, but at a random part of the road?
How many people overtake and speed past speed cameras because they didn't realise the cameras were there? (And then come on PH btching about getting caught speeding!)
Let's look at another possible situation then with no overtaking involved: If two cars approach the traffic lights, the front one travelling just fast enough to trigger the lights, and the one behind travelling at a speed just below the speed required to trigger the lights, the car travelling within the limit, having done nothing wrong, will still have to stop at the red light that they did not trigger, so again, a driver who has not broken the Law pays the price along with someone who did!
(OF course, I'm sure you'll argue that that would never happen either!
)
As I understand the US system in some cities, the traffic lights in are timed so that when they turn green, if you travel at the speed limit then you can hit all of the lights on green.
However, they are purely based on a timer, not on the approaching cars speed, and they are junction traffic lights, not traffic lights placed purely to stop speeding cars.
Those lights are set that way to improve both safety and traffic flow through the city, more than to stop people speeding.
Almost anything that can happen will likely happen. But your scenarios are not going to happen often enough to not make them worthwhile. Why would someone speed up to the lights if they know by doing so they will make them change to red? A bit like arguing that someone would see a speed camera and accelerate rather than brake. Perhaps the person who posted this should tell us how it works in practice in Portugal.How many people overtake and speed past speed cameras because they didn't realise the cameras were there? (And then come on PH b
tching about getting caught speeding!)Let's look at another possible situation then with no overtaking involved: If two cars approach the traffic lights, the front one travelling just fast enough to trigger the lights, and the one behind travelling at a speed just below the speed required to trigger the lights, the car travelling within the limit, having done nothing wrong, will still have to stop at the red light that they did not trigger, so again, a driver who has not broken the Law pays the price along with someone who did!
(OF course, I'm sure you'll argue that that would never happen either!
)As I understand the US system in some cities, the traffic lights in are timed so that when they turn green, if you travel at the speed limit then you can hit all of the lights on green.
However, they are purely based on a timer, not on the approaching cars speed, and they are junction traffic lights, not traffic lights placed purely to stop speeding cars.
Those lights are set that way to improve both safety and traffic flow through the city, more than to stop people speeding.
As an aside, nice to see that someone reads my posts and remembers them - even if they aren't appreciated!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you missed the whole thrust of my argument, which is that as an enthusiast I am not sure I want limits to be enforced more intelligently. Being more intelligent the authorities could just force upon us a GPS enabled speed limiter or black boxes or use hidden cameras so that you never feel safe speeding. As an enthusiast I am happy to trade yellow fixed cameras and even mobile vans on motorway, dual carriageways and long straight roads if that means that limits are not enforced on all roads -particularly the ones that are fun to drive fast.
As to being sanctimonious a lot on here should look in the mirror first. They seem to have a huge sense of entitlement about speeding. It is illegal. There are no real arguments for doing it.
It is irrelevant whether it is dangerous. If you think the limits are wrong then in a democracy you have the right to fight to have the laws changed. You don't have a right to pick and choose which laws you want to obey just because you personally disagree with them. That way lies anarchy. If you do choose to break the law then you have to accept the risk of being caught and the consequences.
I personally would not gloat about others being caught. I tend to sympathise and empathise with those caught. However that is not automatic and if someone has done something both crass and potentially dangerous then I'm not going to support their actions just because they are on PH.
0000 said:
Esceptico said:
It is irrelevant whether it is dangerous. If you think the limits are wrong then in a democracy you have the right to fight to have the laws changed. You don't have a right to pick and choose which laws you want to obey just because you personally disagree with them. That way lies anarchy.
That's just a matter of philosophy. Some would argue one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.Are you equating speeding with those cases of injustice?
I did ask in my first post whether anyone had an argument for having no speed limits but didn't get a response.
Digby said:
You asked if we should have a different system.
One which in many areas is not based on money and bullst is the correct answer.
You then asked if anyone believes we should have no limits.
I don't think I have read a single post on PH where someone has suggested they don't want limits. Why would anyone? It's a pointless question although it is often used to lay foundations for the response of "Well, if you want limits, then they must be enforced" for petty point-scoring.
It isn't petty point scoring. It is stating the obvious that if you accept the need for limits then you accept the need for them to be enforced. I've noted that there are some easy ways of doing so - speed limiters, etc but strangely no one seems to comment on them. Plenty keep banging on about scameras and making money but what is your alternative? Please spell it out and explain why it will be not only fairer but also effective (enforcement has to try to keep people within the limits) and also affordable. All I get off these forums is that police should focus on dangerous habits like using mobile phones or hogging the middle lane. All valid points but seem a smokescreen to avoid issue of enforcing speed limits. Or people say that cameras should only be at accident black spots or near schools - but does that mean that speed limits elsewhere should not be enforced (like not having any?) One which in many areas is not based on money and bulls
t is the correct answer. You then asked if anyone believes we should have no limits.
I don't think I have read a single post on PH where someone has suggested they don't want limits. Why would anyone? It's a pointless question although it is often used to lay foundations for the response of "Well, if you want limits, then they must be enforced" for petty point-scoring.
Digby said:
You make the mistake of thinking that I don't want limits, or cameras, or enforcement. If I take the time to spell out what is wrong with a large portion of the current system and list names, facts, figures etc etc etc, you will probably just ignore them or try to baffle us with incorrect mathmatical stats again.
For a change, why don't you spell out why you are happy that we have a system in place where it has been admitted by many of those involved that cash is often the objective. As I said in a previous thread, there is a huge court case looming in the USA where corruption charges etc have been brought against the operators and the company that took up those reins also owns the contract for almost all TFL cameras (and others) Tip of the iceberg type stuff if you go digging..
Why would you want a system in place that is often happy to admit they need to make up for budget cuts, a system in place that denies FOI requests and doctors stats, a system where numerous important people involved suggest it's no longer about safety and a system sold almost from the start as earning so much money, with so many tickets, "you won't know what to do with them all".
I want a fair system not focused on money generation as I don't think that makes for safer roads. It leads to frustration and unfair tickets. What possible reason can you spell out to me that you want something different to that?
I have spelled it out above a number of times. Here it is again:For a change, why don't you spell out why you are happy that we have a system in place where it has been admitted by many of those involved that cash is often the objective. As I said in a previous thread, there is a huge court case looming in the USA where corruption charges etc have been brought against the operators and the company that took up those reins also owns the contract for almost all TFL cameras (and others) Tip of the iceberg type stuff if you go digging..
Why would you want a system in place that is often happy to admit they need to make up for budget cuts, a system in place that denies FOI requests and doctors stats, a system where numerous important people involved suggest it's no longer about safety and a system sold almost from the start as earning so much money, with so many tickets, "you won't know what to do with them all".
I want a fair system not focused on money generation as I don't think that makes for safer roads. It leads to frustration and unfair tickets. What possible reason can you spell out to me that you want something different to that?
People agree that speed limits are necessary
If you have limits they have to be enforced
It is unrealistic to expect no enforcement
There are lots of ways they could be enforced
What way is best for a driving enthusiast?
Do you want to have a speed limit fitted? That would be technically feasible and there are no real arguments against it as you can hardly argue that you need a right to break the law. I certainly do not favour this option.
Do you want a black box fitted so police could stop you and check whether you have been speeding? I certainly don't want that option either.
Do you want hidden cameras with really heavy fines and long bans? That is effective as people are too scared to speed much in Switzerland. I don't want that as it kills the joy of driving.
The current system of a concentration on fixed cameras and average speed traps on motorways and DCs has the weaknesses that you highlight - doesn't kerb dangerous driving and not sure about making it safer. But is focuses attention on stopping speeding where there is no enjoyment from speeding and it is a far lesser evil than the other options I've listed above.
My main point is that people on here b
h about the current system without really taking time to think about how fortunate we are to be able to enjoy our vehicles. Please go and live in Switzerland for a year and you will be gagging to come back to the UK (at least with respect to driving) I'm writing this having just stopped for a break in the middle of a blat on my BMW S 1000 R. Did I stick to the speed limits in town? Yes. On straight A roads where there could be traps? Yep. On those lovely, twisty B roads? ..........
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is no cognitive dissonance in recognising that speeding can't be defended and yet also speeding yourself. Do you never do something you know you shouldn't, like have too much to drink or mainline st from Greggs, even though you know it is unhealthy? With respect to the other thread, I said it was possible that doing 140 was still safe. However, someone that is doing an average of 133 on a DC (which locals said had lots of junctions and slow traffic too) without noticing you were being tailed is an immediate red flag that the driver seems not to have the observation skills necessary to drive safely at twice the limit. At such speeds the burden of proof rests with the driver to show he was safe rather than the other way around (in my view).
dci said:
I'm a better driver than the average person blah blah bks...
The speed limits we have now are too low in most areas but we'll never be able to do anything about it because negativity on the subject always prevails and opinions like this don't help!
Who are you to decide that the bloke in the people carrier next to you at the lights is incapable of driving to a satisfactory standard?
What on odd post. I don't judge someone's driving ability just because they are in a people carrier. I only judge drivers based on their observed behaviour. If you don't see poor driving everywhere eg talking on a mobile, texting, tailgating, hogging the middle lane, aggressive overtakes, etc then you either are lucky to live in an area of good drivers or you are not looking close enough.ks...The speed limits we have now are too low in most areas but we'll never be able to do anything about it because negativity on the subject always prevails and opinions like this don't help!
Who are you to decide that the bloke in the people carrier next to you at the lights is incapable of driving to a satisfactory standard?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff