Speed limits make sense...
Discussion
Speed limits can be useful as a guide, but the correct speed at any instant varies depending on the vehicle, the driver, the road/weather conditions and many other variables. Speed cameras measure the speed of a vehicle at a particular point - they don't measure how safely it is being driven, so no they are just a pointless distraction for the most part.
Better signage (that isn't covered with foliage
) warning of unseen hazzards would be a better (and cheaper) aid to road safety.
Better signage (that isn't covered with foliage
) warning of unseen hazzards would be a better (and cheaper) aid to road safety.Simple - road safety is not a single issue topic and it is positively dangerous to make it so. The fact that we have speed limits and cameras that force you to stare at your speedometer in fear of losing money, insurance credibility and your licence rather than paying attention to the road is ludicrous. There are many speed limits I think are sensible (most 40 zones, for example) but many that are not - any fool knows to drive carefully round housing areas, but putting 20 zones and cameras makes people more bothered about their speedometer than kids in the road.
Also, our motorway and NSL-zone limits are too low - if there is a clear road, nothing in your way, no chance of pedestrians getting near the road you're on and no bends sharp enough to send you through a wall, I don't see why it shouldn't be 100 for motorways and 70 NSL.
Speed Cameras would only 'save lives' if they stepped out into the road and physically restrained both the pedestrian and the car. At the moment, they are capitalising on death and statistics, and due to the motorists predicament of being unable to wheel out crash victims to add unnecessary extremes of emotion into the debate, we're being used as scapegoats.
Also, our motorway and NSL-zone limits are too low - if there is a clear road, nothing in your way, no chance of pedestrians getting near the road you're on and no bends sharp enough to send you through a wall, I don't see why it shouldn't be 100 for motorways and 70 NSL.
Speed Cameras would only 'save lives' if they stepped out into the road and physically restrained both the pedestrian and the car. At the moment, they are capitalising on death and statistics, and due to the motorists predicament of being unable to wheel out crash victims to add unnecessary extremes of emotion into the debate, we're being used as scapegoats.
AJLintern said:
Speed limits can be useful as a guide, but the correct speed at any instant varies depending on the vehicle, the driver, the road/weather conditions and many other variables. Speed cameras measure the speed of a vehicle at a particular point - they don't measure how safely it is being driven, so no they are just a pointless distraction for the most part.
Better signage (that isn't covered with foliage
But a 30mph blanket limit wouldn't make any different to you would it? Andy 'I drive everywhere at 20mph' Lintern
What AJL said : the more nannying we have on the road the less people take responsibility for their actions.
Most of us find ourselves doing at at one time or another. Late at night, strange road, dark, approaching a corner in a 40 limit on a country road - but we assume it is safe to go round it at 40 otherwise there would be a sign telling us to slow down - see what I mean?
It creates a false sense of security, how many people think that they are driving safely if they obey speed limits? A lot, and that is a very scary dangerous thought
Most of us find ourselves doing at at one time or another. Late at night, strange road, dark, approaching a corner in a 40 limit on a country road - but we assume it is safe to go round it at 40 otherwise there would be a sign telling us to slow down - see what I mean?
It creates a false sense of security, how many people think that they are driving safely if they obey speed limits? A lot, and that is a very scary dangerous thought
[quote=v8thunder]Simple -
Speed Cameras would only 'save lives' if they stepped out into the road and physically restrained both the pedestrian and the car.
but speed cameras have saved lifes.....in many cities where they have been introduced (Sydney for example) the number of crashes and fatalities are lower than they were, so *maybe* more families still have their dads, or their kids, is that a bad thing??
Speed Cameras would only 'save lives' if they stepped out into the road and physically restrained both the pedestrian and the car.
but speed cameras have saved lifes.....in many cities where they have been introduced (Sydney for example) the number of crashes and fatalities are lower than they were, so *maybe* more families still have their dads, or their kids, is that a bad thing??
kevtherev said:
No.
do you have any reasons for saying no??
Yes, because they rob from tried and tested methods of transport safety enforcement, such as manned traffic divisions. A policeman can potentially investigate and do something about 100% of accident causes (be it speeding, drunk driving, untaxed/uninsured etc) whereas a speed camera can at best only deal with around 7%.
kevtherev said:
but speed cameras have saved lifes.....in many cities where they have been introduced (Sydney for example) the number of crashes and fatalities are lower than they were, so *maybe* more families still have their dads, or their kids, is that a bad thing??
And how, exactly, can you attribute that to cameras?
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Monday 22 November 00:07
kevtherev said:
[quote=v8thunder]Simple -
Speed Cameras would only 'save lives' if they stepped out into the road and physically restrained both the pedestrian and the car.
but speed cameras have saved lifes.....in many cities where they have been introduced (Sydney for example) the number of crashes and fatalities are lower than they were, so *maybe* more families still have their dads, or their kids, is that a bad thing??
Reputable statistics please?
I refuse to believe any argument that says a camera on a pole that takes photographs of cars exceeding by the slightest fraction the area's speed limits can be credited with actively 'saving lives'.
Over here, they've got two measures - the speed camera, and a huge flashing sign that detects your speed and flashes 'Your Speed xx, Limit xx, Slow Down!'
Guess which one's proven to work better?
Guess which one makes more money?
Guess which one costs more?
Guess which one we have more of?
AJLintern said:
But a 30mph blanket limit wouldn't make any different to you would it? Andy 'I drive everywhere at 20mph' Lintern
Just because I told you I thought driving a warmed over pensioner mobile with crap brakes at 140mph on the public road was 'maybe a little unsafe'
It is?
Good for society?
Hmmm. As in:
Grass thy neighbour, for he fiddleth thy taxes and spendeth on bling?
Welcome the burglar, else he may sue you?
Speed ye not, for thine actions art socially unacceptable (but to whom? Since so many of us do it, who are the undefined masses who find it unacceptable? Surely they be in a majority, otherwise the Govt. need not pay heed?)
Smoke not in public places, for thou spouteth worse than ICI on full reheat at night, and hoi polloi will end up passively-smoked to an untimely chipboard overcoat. (Ignoring the fact that they eat preprocessed sh!t from the likes of Tesco and do less exercise than Huntley in solitary...)
Worship the NHS, for it is managed by angels who can do no wrong, and not a penny is wasted on unessentials (like redecorating Consultants' offices at their merest whim, whilst an entire office of secretaries plays pass-the-dictaphone as they aren't allowed to buy new ones to replace those that are broken and obsolete).
Lick the arses of politicians, for they have spent years in politicians' apprenticeships and are fully-qualified to run a country, and decide what is best for you and I, those who can see all the problems and most of the answers, but are mere pawns in their self-serving pocket-lining history-repeating game.
Feck me, almost sounds like a rant...
Ian
Hmmm. As in:
Grass thy neighbour, for he fiddleth thy taxes and spendeth on bling?
Welcome the burglar, else he may sue you?
Speed ye not, for thine actions art socially unacceptable (but to whom? Since so many of us do it, who are the undefined masses who find it unacceptable? Surely they be in a majority, otherwise the Govt. need not pay heed?)
Smoke not in public places, for thou spouteth worse than ICI on full reheat at night, and hoi polloi will end up passively-smoked to an untimely chipboard overcoat. (Ignoring the fact that they eat preprocessed sh!t from the likes of Tesco and do less exercise than Huntley in solitary...)
Worship the NHS, for it is managed by angels who can do no wrong, and not a penny is wasted on unessentials (like redecorating Consultants' offices at their merest whim, whilst an entire office of secretaries plays pass-the-dictaphone as they aren't allowed to buy new ones to replace those that are broken and obsolete).
Lick the arses of politicians, for they have spent years in politicians' apprenticeships and are fully-qualified to run a country, and decide what is best for you and I, those who can see all the problems and most of the answers, but are mere pawns in their self-serving pocket-lining history-repeating game.
Feck me, almost sounds like a rant...
Ian
kevtherev said:
[quote=v8thunder]Simple -
Speed Cameras would only 'save lives' if they stepped out into the road and physically restrained both the pedestrian and the car.
but speed cameras have saved lifes.....in many cities where they have been introduced (Sydney for example) the number of crashes and fatalities are lower than they were, so *maybe* more families still have their dads, or their kids, is that a bad thing??
This is called "spin". It is not fact, it is not science and it is not clever. Speed cameras are death cameras. Those who seek to have them intalled are accessories to murder. Without them we were reducing accidents and deaths. This was being achieved with science and technology. The introduction of cost effective automation has resulted in increased deaths and this in the face of reduced road usage. We now have at least 1 case where the camera actually caused the death.
What you are saying is based on belief, not fact. For that reason you are talking drivel. Please refrain from talking drivel and go and research the facts please, because I certainly have no wish to listen to your drivel any longer. Thank you.
kevtherev said:
Does anyone agree that speed limits keep us safe and that speed cameras are good for society ???
No, I disagree.
Also, have you joined a car site specifically to troll? Given your profile says "I really don't like cars"
If so then I say
DON'T FEED THE TROLL
>> Edited by john_p on Monday 22 November 00:15
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff