Wow They published it!
Discussion
www.newsshopper.co.uk/views/talktime/talktopics/display.var.552467.0.do_speed_cameras_work.php
Im "James B" the third one down.
result!
Im "James B" the third one down.
result!
I like what was said in the next post down:
"...Well done to Bromley Tories - at least they've had the guts to call a halt to the "speed" camera scam..."
It really is all about having the guts to stand up to the PC idiots who will use words like "irresponsible", "crazy", "mad", "lunatic" etc to anyone who doesn't follow their obsesssion with control in our lives.
"...Well done to Bromley Tories - at least they've had the guts to call a halt to the "speed" camera scam..."
It really is all about having the guts to stand up to the PC idiots who will use words like "irresponsible", "crazy", "mad", "lunatic" etc to anyone who doesn't follow their obsesssion with control in our lives.
Roadcop said:
Well done for getting it published....
You should have conceded though, that crashes occuring at excess the speed limit often end up serious or fatal and that if the driver has been under the limit, especially a NSL they would have lived.
This is oversimplifying the subject.
As interfering busybodies progressively dumb-down driver skills, individual responsibility and driver attention levels, we are destroying the very foundations of road safety that, before revenue cameras were introduced, was leading to a steady reduction in fatal accidents.
The very things that enable most of us to avoid crashes most of the time are being eroded.
Saying "the faster you go the harder you crash" is an absurd and dangerous oversimplification, indeed, it is false.
Using the speed limit to define "careful driving" is plain dangerous.
Roadcop said:
Well done for getting it published....
You should have conceded though, that crashes occuring at excess the speed limit often end up serious or fatal and that if the driver has been under the limit, especially a NSL they would have lived.
Gary,
You are forgetting it is speed 'at the moment of impact' that affects injuries, NOT free-travelling speed. An alert competent driver travelling at 60mph may well have reduced his/her speed below that of a numpty travelling at 40 mph at the moment of impact.
An example I use is from myself 3 winters ago. I observed a car approaching on a side road, downhill on the icy road. From viewing the car between the houses I assessed he would not be able to stop before the junction so I slowed my car to a stop before the junction. I then saw him slide straight out with all wheels locked at the time I would have been passing. A numpty would have hit him, I averted the accident totally.
Roadcop said:
Well done for getting it published....
You should have conceded though, that crashes occuring at excess the speed limit often end up serious or fatal and that if the driver has been under the limit, especially a NSL they would have lived.
We cant be sure that a crash at under the limit would result in a happy outcome tho RC.
Take for example a head on between 2 cars doing 25mph each. Its still effectively a 50 mph crash.
Within the speed "limits" but still, no thanks very much!
A lot also depends (as im sure you know) on the actual mass of the vehicles involved. Large mass vehicle= lots of energy to impart into nissan micraman...
In the little example i gave above(the 25mph one) surely we should be more interested in the actual cause of the coming together, rather than whether or not the vehicles complied with a polically inspired and falsely low speed limit before the incident?
Im sure youll respond "we already do that", ok, no problem.
I tend to get a problem with so called "witnesses" that say " ooh he was going too fast!" as if thats the actual collision cause.
Theres more to it than out and out speed, as im sure you know.
DeltaFox said:
Take for example a head on between 2 cars doing 25mph each. Its still effectively a 50 mph crash.
Not true.
Kinetic energy is a function of the square of the speed. A car at 50mph has twice the combined kinetic energy of two cars at 25mph.
So a 50mph crash into a brick wall is twice as bad as a head-on between two cars at 25mph each.
'King Deadly said:
Take for example a head on between 2 cars doing 25mph each. Its still effectively a 50 mph crash.
Not true.
Kinetic energy is a function of the square of the speed. A car at 50mph has twice the combined kinetic energy of two cars at 25mph.
So a 50mph crash into a brick wall is twice as bad as a head-on between two cars at 25mph each.
That may well be so, but try telling it to the lentilist scam-partners who are fixated with SPEED and that alone to the detriment of all else.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff