RE: Stop the Madness
Discussion
Am I missing something or isn't this supposed to be a democracy, laws for the benefit of the population etc etc? Just about everyone everywhere seems to be sick of being targeted & punished for what often seems to be ridiculous 'offences'. And I agree that because there often seems to be little logic in speed limits/placing of cameras etc the whole system loses credibility. I have no desire to speed in built up areas etc but wouldn't it be nice to be able to go out on to a motorway when quiet & floor it without having to worry about being nicked? Speed rarely kills, it's stupidity & cameras won't cure that! I have no idea how to make a 'voice' heard - any suggestions from someone more politically minded? I do remember the poll tax 'riots' a loud enough voice worked then - I actually went to court over it - maybe something similar is needed.
Has anyone else ever wondered whilst driving how much of a distraction speed cameras actually cause to a driver's attention? I bet that if cerebral processing could be analysed it would show that a significant percentage of our attention whilst driving is used up worrying where the next gatso or mobile trap is. That's attention that we could all be using on concentrating on on our driving itself. Who can say they never give speed traps a thought when they're out? A journey earlier this year took me through a set of motorway roadworks with a 50 limit and I passed 4 cameras, 3 of which were hidden behind bridges. This just makes the whole problem worse. Which is safer in such a 'narrow-lanes' situation - continually looking down at your speedo to make sure you (and everyone else around you) haven't drifted to 55-60, and trying to guess what's behind the next bridge, or looking where you're going? If they just put up some signs at the start of the cones saying, "come on guys, have some consideration, men are working here" I'd slow down. Wouldn't we all? I can't help thinking that there would be less accidents and everyone would be safer.
And as soon as you slow down on the A14 (having joined from the M11) the concentration level drops so you just bimble along at 70mph listening to the radio rather than concentrating on driving.
It's much harder to stay interested in driving at slower speeds so people don't bother - they just turn the radio up a bit louder !
Francesca
I really do hope you voted Conservative recently, otherwise your question rates 11 on the Doh! scale.
The tories were to increase limits to 80 on motorways, which would have been a start anyway.
If you paid any heed at all to the various election ramblings, you would have heard various factions saying that a Labour landslide was not a good thing for democracy. What they meant was that once they're in they don't need to listen to anyone. They didn't before and they won't now.
Bleat all you like now, we (the nation) had our chance.
I've noticed that in fact I only ever get knicked for speeding when I am just carelessly exceeding the limit a little. With one exception, I have never been booked when "going for it" - 150mph has a way of focusing the mind somewhat on the job at hand.
I'd advocate exceeding the posted limit by at least 100%, just to get the necessary adrenaline levels for optimum life (and licence) protection. 
PS That one exception was a very crafty laser gun at very long range, and I had slowed to 110 by the time I was zapped.
PS That one exception was a very crafty laser gun at very long range, and I had slowed to 110 by the time I was zapped. 
Edited by muley on Monday 13th August 08:13 
Maybe if we had a second, far more difficult test for safe driving. Coupled with a yearly subscription it could exempt you from speeding (though not due care and attention). The government would still get their money, we'd be safer drivers, kids may die less and world+dog would be happy.
We could call it a licence to speed. 
I've always wanted one of them.
I've always wanted one of them. Sections 5-7 and 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (The Act) require local authorities and the police with other key agencies and the community to work together in partnership at district level to develop and implement strategies for reducing crime and disorder in the area. This work is to include conducting an audit of local crime and disorder problems, involving full consultation; developing a strategy with targets based on the findings of the audit; and publishing details locally of the entire process, including ownership of the targets and performance against them.
Home Office guidance on how local agencies should bring the requirements of the Act into operation states quite clearly that the strategies developed to counter crime and disorder must be driven by what matters to local people, and not constrained by prerequisites or artificial definitions imposed by central government. It goes on to say:
“so if your audit finds that, say, speeding in residential areas is a serious matter of local concern, then it would be just as much in order for the strategy to focus on this issue as it would be for it to look at, for example, kerb crawling or bogus officials in the same area.”
Interesting, huh? This SHOULD mean that we could engage with local Police forces to establish a policy for dealing with car crime, speeding enforcement etc... It is a "REQUIREMENT" to involve the local community - NOT an optional extra. And, it should be "driven by what matters to local people, not constrained by prerequisites or artificial definitions set by central government".....
ALSO...A DOT Circular recommends that cameras should be located at the sites which have the worst record for accidents caused by speeding and that, before deploying them, safety checks should be made to identify any other measures which should be carried out first (e.g. improving road layout, anti-skid surfacing, improved visibility, etc.).
There are, therefore, opportunities to get involved with the justification process for new cameras, and be instrumental in policing the implementation of the new rules....
I agree Nubbin, I pass numerous cameras whilst driving and often wonder why have they been placed there? On my travels I’ve seen the signs “5 serious accidents in the past 6 months” erected. I’m not bothered dropping my speed to a near crawl, taking extra care observing my surroundings when I see these signs. I’m just wondering why we can’t see more of these signs, just to prove that the authorities aren’t getting reckless when siting the cameras. I’m just wondering if it should be mandatory, as well as easily visible cameras.
Anybody else feel the same? Rant over…
It seems some authorities are thinking beyond the 'speed kills' mentality. I saw a local news article last night where Oxfordshire CC (?) is installing solar powered cats eyes on a series of bad bends on a country road near Thame, in an attempt to reduce the number of single vehicle accidents, i.e. those where the driver doesn't see which way the road turns at night. Apparently the cats eyes have solar panels fitted that collect and store the sunlight, releasing the energy to LEDs once the light level falls far enough. These aren't cheap, as you can imagine, but this seems to be a positive step. Well done OCC.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff