Old people with speed guns
Discussion
Paul Dishman said:
Bobtherallyfan said:
Multiple offenders will be visited at home by the police
That's what it says on the letters, but does it really happen? I'd love a full and frank discussion, and if they sent a Special it would really make my day.It would be even better than the time a Greenpeace chugger stopped me, he was making excuses to escape after ten minutes
and hid in a doorway when he spotted me the following week
MrTrilby said:
The Surveyor said:
That's a different argument, in those situations you should be campaigning for a footpath to be installed and the road narrowed further. Passively slow the traffic down and encourage people to walk.
In an ideal world the local authority would have the funds to do that, and no one would mind the roads being reduced to single track lanes. We very much don’t live in an ideal world.
2gins said:
Maybe it isn't like this everywhere but in the London boroughs speed limits are not set based on risk assessments and national criteria, they are set based on political and social ideologies and are strongly influenced by a noisy minority.
I'd have no problem with enforcement provided the limits are set properly in the first place.
The private car is not welcome in London. 20mph limits have little to do with safety - they are imposed for other reasons.I'd have no problem with enforcement provided the limits are set properly in the first place.
Paul Dishman said:
That's what it says on the letters, but does it really happen? I'd love a full and frank discussion, and if they sent a Special it would really make my day.
It would be even better than the time a Greenpeace chugger stopped me, he was making excuses to escape after ten minutes
and hid in a doorway when he spotted me the following week
Persistent offenders are added to a tasking list and circulated for targeted policeIt would be even better than the time a Greenpeace chugger stopped me, he was making excuses to escape after ten minutes
and hid in a doorway when he spotted me the following week
intervention in our area. So by all means have a ‘full and frank discussion’ but I wouldn’t rate your chances of avoiding a real speeding ticket in the near future.
MrTrilby said:
It's not like saying that unless you take a few sentences on an Internet forum and use them out of context. I'm quite capable of telling the difference between a driver/car that anticipated a danger and came to a stop in a controlled manner, and one that s
t its pants and performed a last minute stop. You can nitpick that if you want, but it's a bit pointless.
You're right - reduced speeds increases journey times. It's a cost. It would potentially add another 30s to the time it takes to drive through our village. You seem to be focussing solely on the benefits of reducing injuries and deaths. There are other benefits too. The roads aren't solely for motorised traffic. If people feel safe enough (real or perceived danger) to walk and cycle then there are benefits in terms of both reduced congestion from fewer journeys and improved health of those who now feel safe enough to participate in active travel rather than sitting in a car.
I still wasn't there but your description is becoming ever more alarmist. t its pants and performed a last minute stop. You can nitpick that if you want, but it's a bit pointless.You're right - reduced speeds increases journey times. It's a cost. It would potentially add another 30s to the time it takes to drive through our village. You seem to be focussing solely on the benefits of reducing injuries and deaths. There are other benefits too. The roads aren't solely for motorised traffic. If people feel safe enough (real or perceived danger) to walk and cycle then there are benefits in terms of both reduced congestion from fewer journeys and improved health of those who now feel safe enough to participate in active travel rather than sitting in a car.
As I said it's the cumulative effects of reduced speeds hence the local vs national. Many 30 seconds is part of the problem. Someone said 1100 cars a day exceeding the speed limit, so many more cars than that impacted, but even 1100 cars at 30 seconds a pop is over 9 hours a day lost. Multiply that by all the villages who think they are an exception and it is part of the problem.
As it stands longer journey times already cost more than any reduction could save; so increasing them makes no sense at all, unless it is really necessary.
If it's so bad for you (and everyone else who thinks that locally it's an issue), it's out of sync to the data, speeding has stayed constant for many years, accidents are at their lowest levels ever and cars are becoming ever safer - so why has it suddenly become an issue?
Paul Dishman said:
That's what it says on the letters, but does it really happen? I'd love a full and frank discussion, and if they sent a Special it would really make my day.
It would be even better than the time a Greenpeace chugger stopped me, he was making excuses to escape after ten minutes
and hid in a doorway when he spotted me the following week
It would be even better than the time a Greenpeace chugger stopped me, he was making excuses to escape after ten minutes
and hid in a doorway when he spotted me the following week
Graveworm said:
I still wasn't there but your description is becoming ever more alarmist.
As I said it's the cumulative effects of reduced speeds hence the local vs national. Many 30 seconds is part of the problem. Someone said 1100 cars a day exceeding the speed limit, so many more cars than that impacted, but even 1100 cars at 30 seconds a pop is over 9 hours a day lost. Multiply that by all the villages who think they are an exception and it is part of the problem.
As it stands longer journey times already cost more than any reduction could save; so increasing them makes no sense at all, unless it is really necessary.
If it's so bad for you (and everyone else who thinks that locally it's an issue), it's out of sync to the data, speeding has stayed constant for many years, accidents are at their lowest levels ever and cars are becoming ever safer - so why has it suddenly become an issue?
You’re still only looking at journey times, and ignoring all other benefits. Who, other than you, said it’s suddenly become an issue? As I said it's the cumulative effects of reduced speeds hence the local vs national. Many 30 seconds is part of the problem. Someone said 1100 cars a day exceeding the speed limit, so many more cars than that impacted, but even 1100 cars at 30 seconds a pop is over 9 hours a day lost. Multiply that by all the villages who think they are an exception and it is part of the problem.
As it stands longer journey times already cost more than any reduction could save; so increasing them makes no sense at all, unless it is really necessary.
If it's so bad for you (and everyone else who thinks that locally it's an issue), it's out of sync to the data, speeding has stayed constant for many years, accidents are at their lowest levels ever and cars are becoming ever safer - so why has it suddenly become an issue?
The Surveyor said:
Maybe I don't understand... but my (albeit limited) understanding is that the need for a CSW is based upon concerns which are raised by locals who think (without any real evidence) that traffic is too fast and that it is therefore automatically unsafe, they are seeking to influence the degree of enforcement or physical speed limit in their location.
Personally, I think the Police are doing a pretty decent job, even with the increase in road traffic our roads remain pretty safe. I'm unconvinced there is a genuine need, and I'm certainly unconvinced we need any further dilution of the ways our roads or policed.
I'm wondering though how you can be right and all of them are wrong when you are not there, you don't hear the concerns or see the driving in question. I suggest that you are using at best an uninformed position, at worst a biased position to argue against.Personally, I think the Police are doing a pretty decent job, even with the increase in road traffic our roads remain pretty safe. I'm unconvinced there is a genuine need, and I'm certainly unconvinced we need any further dilution of the ways our roads or policed.
As I said before, I have seen for my own eyes one specific example at a CSW which had me reaching for a speed gun.
I presume you'll be happy when the speed limit is enforced by the car itself as the 'proper authority'?
Bert
MrTrilby said:
Graveworm said:
I still wasn't there but your description is becoming ever more alarmist.
As I said it's the cumulative effects of reduced speeds hence the local vs national. Many 30 seconds is part of the problem. Someone said 1100 cars a day exceeding the speed limit, so many more cars than that impacted, but even 1100 cars at 30 seconds a pop is over 9 hours a day lost. Multiply that by all the villages who think they are an exception and it is part of the problem.
As it stands longer journey times already cost more than any reduction could save; so increasing them makes no sense at all, unless it is really necessary.
If it's so bad for you (and everyone else who thinks that locally it's an issue), it's out of sync to the data, speeding has stayed constant for many years, accidents are at their lowest levels ever and cars are becoming ever safer - so why has it suddenly become an issue?
You’re still only looking at journey times, and ignoring all other benefits. Who, other than you, said it’s suddenly become an issue? As I said it's the cumulative effects of reduced speeds hence the local vs national. Many 30 seconds is part of the problem. Someone said 1100 cars a day exceeding the speed limit, so many more cars than that impacted, but even 1100 cars at 30 seconds a pop is over 9 hours a day lost. Multiply that by all the villages who think they are an exception and it is part of the problem.
As it stands longer journey times already cost more than any reduction could save; so increasing them makes no sense at all, unless it is really necessary.
If it's so bad for you (and everyone else who thinks that locally it's an issue), it's out of sync to the data, speeding has stayed constant for many years, accidents are at their lowest levels ever and cars are becoming ever safer - so why has it suddenly become an issue?
What benefits, other than local ones, and how do they outweigh the massive national downsides of increased journey times? If pavements are an answer then you could raise the funds; I am sure the council will take your money and build them. But what you want is the many to be inconvenienced for the few. That of course should happen in some circumstances, but not routinely and not without an independent cost benefit analysis looking at everything.
My apologies it was an assumption, if it's been an "issue" for a some time, but there haven't been any adverse consequences, then is it possible that it is not a problem that warrants inconveniencing so many?
Bobtherallyfan said:
Just to be clear, our group was only set up after speeding (real or perceived) was identified as a concern of local residents. All volunteers are trained by the police, we use equipment authorised by the police, at sites that have been approved by the police and we even have ex police in our group. We are often accompanied by Police while on ‘watch’. The letters are issued by the police, not us. Multiple offenders will be visited at home by the police and can be targeted for further operations should that be considered appropriate. It’s all about education, raising public awareness of inappropriate speeds in our community. If you aren’t speeding, then a few ‘busybodies’ on the side of the road shouldn’t be of any concern.
Our new Speedwatch group was set up after local people expressed concern and the police carried out official tests as to the average speed along that stretch of road. (entering the town then past a school) Only then was permission granted to proceed.Graveworm said:
I'm not ignoring them I am not convinced of their overall benefit and you haven't been able to quantify them. For example one of the unforeseen downsides of 20 limits is increased casualties possibly because vulnerable road users feel safer.
What benefits, other than local ones, and how do they outweigh the massive national downsides of increased journey times? If pavements are an answer then you could raise the funds; I am sure the council will take your money and build them. But what you want is the many to be inconvenienced for the few. That of course should happen in some circumstances, but not routinely and not without an independent cost benefit analysis looking at everything.
My apologies it was an assumption, if it's been an "issue" for a some time, but there haven't been any adverse consequences, then is it possible that it is not a problem that warrants inconveniencing so many?
And yet you’re still making assumptions. You’re assuming we’re talking about 20mph limits. You’re assuming that it’s a busy road with many people who will be inconvenienced by an additional 30s journey time. You’re assuming very few will benefit from feeling safe enough to walk from their own house. You’re assuming there is enough space to build a pavement. You’re assuming that unlike for cars infrastructure should be paid for out of private funds and not public money. What benefits, other than local ones, and how do they outweigh the massive national downsides of increased journey times? If pavements are an answer then you could raise the funds; I am sure the council will take your money and build them. But what you want is the many to be inconvenienced for the few. That of course should happen in some circumstances, but not routinely and not without an independent cost benefit analysis looking at everything.
My apologies it was an assumption, if it's been an "issue" for a some time, but there haven't been any adverse consequences, then is it possible that it is not a problem that warrants inconveniencing so many?
And yet you’re happy to make a judgement on what should and shouldn’t happen? The age of ignorance is alive and well.
poo at Paul's said:
I have no problem with them at all, in fact, I think it is quite a good thing to do "for the community". I've seen the loads out and about, but never had a letter from them as I generally don't drive like a tool in towns and villages.
If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
.........and of course Phers who have an inbuilt resentment of older people, many or whom are just jealous that said 'old people' have the time to do such things & the money to enjoy a relaxed retirement free of money worries & responsibilities. If I did get one, I would be grateful it was from Speedwatch not plod!
The only people I can ever envisage complaining or moaning about such initiatives would be people who speed through villages and towns! I cant imaging any other reason to be concerned about them in the slightest.
MrTrilby said:
And yet you’re still making assumptions. You’re assuming we’re talking about 20mph limits. You’re assuming that it’s a busy road with many people who will be inconvenienced by an additional 30s journey time. You’re assuming very few will benefit from feeling safe enough to walk from their own house. You’re assuming there is enough space to build a pavement. You’re assuming that unlike for cars infrastructure should be paid for out of private funds and not public money.
And yet you’re happy to make a judgement on what should and shouldn’t happen? The age of ignorance is alive and well.
I am not making a judgement on what should or shouldn't happen, other professionals should do that, who don't have a dog in the fight but who do have an eye on the big picture. They should definitely ask why now. At the moment, as I wrote, local make all the decisions without any real cognisance of the cumulative national issues. I wasn't assuming it was 20 limits, it was an example of why speed reduction is not all upside alongside the increased journey times. And yet you’re happy to make a judgement on what should and shouldn’t happen? The age of ignorance is alive and well.
If it's not a new issue, then it's been like that for some time. If all that time I was unable to feel safe enough to walk from my own house, I would move, assuming I was silly enough to move there in the first place.
I referenced 1100 people a day from another post, as an example why 30 seconds per vehicle per day per village, can be an issue. If it's lots of people who will benefit and few who will suffer then it will stand up to scrutiny. Usually it doesn't though.
There are always ways to make more space for pavements, if they are really needed. I wasn't implying that necessary infrastructure should be paid for by private money but, someone has to pay for it, why not those who will benefit?
Unless there is a measurable cost effective benefit of a pavement outside your house, why should national or local government fund it? It will be factored into house prices. If however, it clearly isn't deemed necessary, then the ability to end the constant danger is in your hands (As is reads like living where you are, is more important than this, ever present, danger to your family). It would involve sacrifice, rather than inconveniencing others who wouldn't benefit at all; even though it would help protect against far more road dangers, than the few, that would be mitigated by a reduction in the speed limit.
MrTrilby said:
So if there were a scheme available that made people feel safer to use the road (a benefit), and yet cost almost nothing to operate and did not inconvenience law abiding motorists, you’d be happy?
You wrote about reducing the speed limit which seldom costs next to nothing. Johnnytheboy said:
It's a matter of public record that Speedwatch volunteers come in threes:
1. A gaunt skinny man that looks like a corpse
2. A red faced, jolly looking fat man
3. A slightly confused looking woman who is never holding the actual speed gun.
1 is there to film while 2 finger blasts 3. 1. A gaunt skinny man that looks like a corpse
2. A red faced, jolly looking fat man
3. A slightly confused looking woman who is never holding the actual speed gun.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff