Opportunity to change the law around speed cameras ?
Discussion
The new government coalition agreement document includes the pledge "We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliment. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament."
Could this give us the opportunity to change the law around speed cameras ? Obviously any proposed bill would need to be "sensible" to have any chance of being passed by the MP's - so something like "all cameras to be removed and destoryed" would never be approved. However something like the following may have a chance:
There should be two classifications of speed cameras - those located at accident blackspots and those located elsewhere. Those at accident blackspots would have to be highly visible and would also need to be "marked" via signs before the actual camera. The other type of camera would not need to be so marked. Blackspot cameras would result in points and fines being applied, the other type would usually result in just a fine - however anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 mph would also be given points.
OK I know it would be a unlikely to be supported by the MPs etc - however given that the camera quangos are really interested in the funds that are collected and those would not be lost (and could increase as those that lose their licences today would not if they were not being caught by the blackspot cameras). Personally I dont have the time to organise such a petition - however I would be more than willing to sign one !
Comments anyone ?
Ian
Could this give us the opportunity to change the law around speed cameras ? Obviously any proposed bill would need to be "sensible" to have any chance of being passed by the MP's - so something like "all cameras to be removed and destoryed" would never be approved. However something like the following may have a chance:
There should be two classifications of speed cameras - those located at accident blackspots and those located elsewhere. Those at accident blackspots would have to be highly visible and would also need to be "marked" via signs before the actual camera. The other type of camera would not need to be so marked. Blackspot cameras would result in points and fines being applied, the other type would usually result in just a fine - however anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 mph would also be given points.
OK I know it would be a unlikely to be supported by the MPs etc - however given that the camera quangos are really interested in the funds that are collected and those would not be lost (and could increase as those that lose their licences today would not if they were not being caught by the blackspot cameras). Personally I dont have the time to organise such a petition - however I would be more than willing to sign one !
Comments anyone ?
Ian
iscb2010 said:
Blackspot cameras would result in points and fines being applied, the other type would usually result in just a fine - however anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 mph would also be given points.
Comments anyone ?
Ian
50 mph !!!! 80 in a 30 lolComments anyone ?
Ian
I agree in principle though, no points just a fine regardless of location, until speed exceeds limit 25% then points are added at a rate of 1 point for every 2mph over. All camera areas to be signposted WITH the limit highly visible (this would be a good start on its own!)
With regard to VED and fuel I would love to see the government to do the math, take the figure raised by VED divide by the number of litres sold in one year and add the cost onto a litre of petrol. If this was going to prove a problem for HGV costs then I would be happy to see them pay an increased VED and be allowed to run on red deisal.Foreign registered vehicles would be forced to run on premium clear deisal and would have their tanks dipped on arrival, a surcharge levied on anything greater than 1/2 tank.
Whilst I was at it I would also like to see the government do the same calculation with 3rd party insurance claims and add that onto the cost of fuel. The state then covers every car on the road 3rd party. No more uninsured drivers, no more inflated insurance from uninsured drivers etc. People are then free to top up this compulsary insurance with an independent to cover fully Comp.
Sorry to hijack
skodamanpat said:
iscb2010 said:
Blackspot cameras would result in points and fines being applied, the other type would usually result in just a fine - however anyone exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 mph would also be given points.
Comments anyone ?
Ian
50 mph !!!! 80 in a 30 lolComments anyone ?
Ian
I agree in principle though, no points just a fine regardless of location, until speed exceeds limit 25% then points are added at a rate of 1 point for every 2mph over. All camera areas to be signposted WITH the limit highly visible (this would be a good start on its own!)
With regard to VED and fuel I would love to see the government to do the math, take the figure raised by VED divide by the number of litres sold in one year and add the cost onto a litre of petrol. If this was going to prove a problem for HGV costs then I would be happy to see them pay an increased VED and be allowed to run on red deisal.Foreign registered vehicles would be forced to run on premium clear deisal and would have their tanks dipped on arrival, a surcharge levied on anything greater than 1/2 tank.
Whilst I was at it I would also like to see the government do the same calculation with 3rd party insurance claims and add that onto the cost of fuel. The state then covers every car on the road 3rd party. No more uninsured drivers, no more inflated insurance from uninsured drivers etc. People are then free to top up this compulsary insurance with an independent to cover fully Comp.
Sorry to hijack
rypt said:
Republik said:
How about variable speed limits on all motorways. 50 mph at peak congestion times or through accident black spots then a limit of 120mph between the hours of 1am and 5am.
How about no limit, autobahn style, at all times (weather permitting)
I don't believe our motorways and the majority of drivers would be able to cope with autobahn speeds, junctions are too closely spaced, entry ramps with inadequate line of sight for 150 mph vehicles etc. The simple principle I believe in is less cameras and more police on the lookout for genuinely dangerous and/or inappropriate driving.
csampo said:
I don't believe our motorways and the majority of drivers would be able to cope with autobahn speeds, junctions are too closely spaced, entry ramps with inadequate line of sight for 150 mph vehicles etc. The simple principle I believe in is less cameras and more police on the lookout for genuinely dangerous and/or inappropriate driving.
+1It's been said before, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the speed cameras themselves. The issue is with the arcanely low limits.
The speeds limits set in 1964 were based on the acceleration times, braking distances and cruising abilities of the 'average' car in Britain. If we take 'average' to mean most popular, then that makes the car in question an Austin 1100.
Nowadays, the Austin's place is taken by the Ford Focus 1.6.
Acceleration:
1100 does 0-60 in 18.4sec
Focus 1.6 does 0-60 in 10.3sec
Therefore we can assume the average motorist is capable of accelerating briskly up to motorway and NSL speeds in nearly half the time the original speed limits were planned around, meaning the limits can be higher as the cars moving don't need so much of a run-up to attain them.
Cruising speed:
1100's top speed: 85mph
Focus 1.6's top speed: 115mph
The 70mph limit was chosen as a speed that the 1100 could sustain for long periods of time without overheating or suffering aerodynamically. Also taking into account the improved drag coefficient of the Focus, we could raise the limit to 90-100mph depending on conditions and weather.
Braking:
1100: unassisted drum brakes all-round.
Focus: servo-assisted, ABS-equipped discs all-round.
I think we can be fairly confident in the assertion that, deft cadence-braking from the 1100-driver aside, the Focus can stop in a lot less space than the 1100.
So, generally speaking, I think we could have higher motorway and NSL speed limits without endangering anyone.
Unfortunately, 70mph has become so deeply institutionalised that environmentalists have started saying that speeds of over 70mph are bad for fuel economy. For all cars, in all gears, with the same loads, apparently.
Some change will prevent this kind of addled, unscientific thinking infesting every part of our motoring lives.
The speeds limits set in 1964 were based on the acceleration times, braking distances and cruising abilities of the 'average' car in Britain. If we take 'average' to mean most popular, then that makes the car in question an Austin 1100.
Nowadays, the Austin's place is taken by the Ford Focus 1.6.
Acceleration:
1100 does 0-60 in 18.4sec
Focus 1.6 does 0-60 in 10.3sec
Therefore we can assume the average motorist is capable of accelerating briskly up to motorway and NSL speeds in nearly half the time the original speed limits were planned around, meaning the limits can be higher as the cars moving don't need so much of a run-up to attain them.
Cruising speed:
1100's top speed: 85mph
Focus 1.6's top speed: 115mph
The 70mph limit was chosen as a speed that the 1100 could sustain for long periods of time without overheating or suffering aerodynamically. Also taking into account the improved drag coefficient of the Focus, we could raise the limit to 90-100mph depending on conditions and weather.
Braking:
1100: unassisted drum brakes all-round.
Focus: servo-assisted, ABS-equipped discs all-round.
I think we can be fairly confident in the assertion that, deft cadence-braking from the 1100-driver aside, the Focus can stop in a lot less space than the 1100.
So, generally speaking, I think we could have higher motorway and NSL speed limits without endangering anyone.
Unfortunately, 70mph has become so deeply institutionalised that environmentalists have started saying that speeds of over 70mph are bad for fuel economy. For all cars, in all gears, with the same loads, apparently.
Some change will prevent this kind of addled, unscientific thinking infesting every part of our motoring lives.
bdr529 said:
csampo said:
I don't believe our motorways and the majority of drivers would be able to cope with autobahn speeds, junctions are too closely spaced, entry ramps with inadequate line of sight for 150 mph vehicles etc. The simple principle I believe in is less cameras and more police on the lookout for genuinely dangerous and/or inappropriate driving.
+1At certain points there could be area's with no barriers where people could jump on and off the autobahn bit.
easy, no?
iscb2010 said:
The new government coalition agreement document includes the pledge "We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliment.
What a useless pledge. On the official petition site, number10.gov.uk, out of 4,690 current open petitions and 28,378 petitions (totalling 33,068) only 8 have had over 100,000 signatures, which would suggest that they should be debated in parliment anyay surely...and probably already have been?Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff