Speed Kills . . ?
Discussion
Driving near Nottingham yesterday I passed a number of signs reminding me that "speed kills". This was on a long stretch of road where it was easy to do well over a ton (60 limit).
As I was sitting behind an Omega doing a steady 40 mph, I realised that "speed doesn't kill", its people who are too scared to go fast that kill. This car was forcing me and the tail of pissed off drivers to try and overtake in small gaps.
Why drive so slow? Surely they should leave later if they are going anywhere.
Anybody agree?
As I was sitting behind an Omega doing a steady 40 mph, I realised that "speed doesn't kill", its people who are too scared to go fast that kill. This car was forcing me and the tail of pissed off drivers to try and overtake in small gaps.
Why drive so slow? Surely they should leave later if they are going anywhere.
Anybody agree?
ben said:
Why drive so slow? ...
Also, some people are just too daft/oblivious/ignorant to make decent progress. This isn't good with an ageing population who are going to insist on the "right to drive". Hence as many others have said on PH - we are all getting dragged down to the lowest level...
A couple of days ago it seemed as though I encountered queueing traffic as my speed ended up as about 28mph in a 70 zone! It ended up as someone who had slowed down for the forthcoming 40 zone a tad too early. Grrrrrrr...
Too much aggression with you guys.
Settle down and read:
http://tinyurl.com/2jedz
... now that's a balanced view is it not?
DVD
(departs whistling the tune to The Blue Lamp....)
Settle down and read:
http://tinyurl.com/2jedz
... now that's a balanced view is it not?
DVD
(departs whistling the tune to The Blue Lamp....)
ben said:
Driving near Nottingham yesterday I passed a number of signs reminding me that "speed kills". This was on a long stretch of road where it was easy to do well over a ton (60 limit).
As I was sitting behind an Omega doing a steady 40 mph, I realised that "speed doesn't kill", its people who are too scared to go fast that kill. This car was forcing me and the tail of pissed off drivers to try and overtake in small gaps.
Why drive so slow? Surely they should leave later if they are going anywhere.
Anybody agree?
A453, perchance?
Only 25 years late with the dual carriageway. At least three fatals a year, nearly all due to cross-turners or impatience. Only two since I left school due to excessive speed, one of those was in '77, killed a schoolmate of mine, four in a car, left road on the sweeping left-hander just before the hill starts going into Nottingham. But then again, it could just have been driver inexperience and knackered suspension.
DVD's quote from the Times's editorial concludes:
"...but, in the end, the individual behind the wheel has the lives of others in his or her hands."
I think this is what we've been saying for years. The right attitude is needed. Those who are too aggressive -- or too timid -- need weeding out before they take their driving test.
Overall, I thought the editorial was rather too much on the side of the government for once, but perhaps they assume that the stats for every camera will demonstrate their necessity and efficacy. It will be very interesting to see how many cameras are removed just before the stats are published....
"...but, in the end, the individual behind the wheel has the lives of others in his or her hands."
I think this is what we've been saying for years. The right attitude is needed. Those who are too aggressive -- or too timid -- need weeding out before they take their driving test.
Overall, I thought the editorial was rather too much on the side of the government for once, but perhaps they assume that the stats for every camera will demonstrate their necessity and efficacy. It will be very interesting to see how many cameras are removed just before the stats are published....
That Times editorial is tosh - hardly a balanced view.
They blithely accept that cameras are only placed in proper locations - suggesting that accountability will weed out the few that are not.
Well I can't
ing wait because I'll bet it's not "just a few" that need moving.
Then there's the definition of the location, itself. Its so broad that a camera literally miles from an incident zone can be claimed to be at the location.
Then there are mobile units - these, as far as I can tell, as simply placed where they catch people. There may be guidelines - but that's what they are. You can't have a conviction quashed after an appeal based on the fact the mobile van should not have been where it was. If you could we would start to have accountability.
I also get the feeling that it is with some consternation and dissappointment that the writer grudgingly aknowledges that the public no longer believe the lies and twaddle put out by the SCPs and that something must be done to win back public opinion and respect for the law.
How about some reasonable speed limits? How about an independent body to set them. How about enforcement by officers of traffic law - concentrating on dangerous driving not simply speed.
This supposed "balanced view" suggests too little, too late. I have no problem with taking responsibility for safety on the road - I expect it of myself and other drivers - but I have had enough of technical offences being used to raise cash.
The SCPs are businesses and we are the mugs who pay. I will not be satisfied until every last SCP has been disbanded, every GATSO reduced to molten slag and we have enough traffic officers with a more sensible mandate to deal with the problems of joyriding, dangerous driving and careless and incompetent driving.
They blithely accept that cameras are only placed in proper locations - suggesting that accountability will weed out the few that are not.
Well I can't
ing wait because I'll bet it's not "just a few" that need moving. Then there's the definition of the location, itself. Its so broad that a camera literally miles from an incident zone can be claimed to be at the location.
Then there are mobile units - these, as far as I can tell, as simply placed where they catch people. There may be guidelines - but that's what they are. You can't have a conviction quashed after an appeal based on the fact the mobile van should not have been where it was. If you could we would start to have accountability.
I also get the feeling that it is with some consternation and dissappointment that the writer grudgingly aknowledges that the public no longer believe the lies and twaddle put out by the SCPs and that something must be done to win back public opinion and respect for the law.
How about some reasonable speed limits? How about an independent body to set them. How about enforcement by officers of traffic law - concentrating on dangerous driving not simply speed.
This supposed "balanced view" suggests too little, too late. I have no problem with taking responsibility for safety on the road - I expect it of myself and other drivers - but I have had enough of technical offences being used to raise cash.
The SCPs are businesses and we are the mugs who pay. I will not be satisfied until every last SCP has been disbanded, every GATSO reduced to molten slag and we have enough traffic officers with a more sensible mandate to deal with the problems of joyriding, dangerous driving and careless and incompetent driving.
Don said:
The SCPs are businesses and we are the mugs who pay.
I think this is going to be a serious problem over the next few years. The SCPs are funded entirely by fines, and their empires are growing exponentially. What happens if the government/police modify the country's approach to speeding? The SCPs will scream very loudly, not because of safety but because of their empires. This is built into the way the government has allowed them to keep the fines.
We've already heard the first murmurings of threatened SCPs: "It would be a brave chief constable who authorised the removal of the camera located there". What will we see before this is done? All because the system requires a level of "criminality" to function.
)What got me the other day was one sign saying "speed kills" shortly followed by another saying "kill your speed". Was I supposed to slam the brakes on and come to an immediate standstill - that seems to be what the second sign was saying. And that was on the A1.
I decided there was enough "killing" going on with the signs and that "killing my speed" would be dangerous so i carried on.
The other thought was that accelerating would kill the speed I was doing so would that be ther ight thing to do?
Lets have some signs that make sense and tell the truth please.
Andy
I decided there was enough "killing" going on with the signs and that "killing my speed" would be dangerous so i carried on.
The other thought was that accelerating would kill the speed I was doing so would that be ther ight thing to do?
Lets have some signs that make sense and tell the truth please.
Andy
Peter Ward said:
We've already heard the first murmurings of threatened SCPs: "It would be a brave chief constable who authorised the removal of the camera located there".
just shows again how wrong the scp are.....it would only take a pished-off member of the public with access to either lots of old tyres and a load of old petrol or a scania artic and a thick metal chain to remove them from any place they wanna put them.......hmmmmmm.....seems to me that the most obvious people to put into the office of 'official revinue scamera removal operations' should be given to the auto salvage industry......and then individual breakers could sell tickets to anyone who wants to rip the bugger out the ground with 50% of the removal fee being given to a worthwhile charity.....like the nspcc as they fight people who REALY cause serious injuries and deaths to innocent kids and there isnt a fecking speeder in sight!
>> Edited by cortinaman on Saturday 28th February 23:44
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff