Letter in today's Times
Discussion
I have a letter in today's Times, followed by a rather interesting one. I wonder if the gentleman has ever exceeded a limit, and if he has, what he did about it...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1698131,00.html
Block on introducing new speed cameras
From Mr M. McArthur-Christie
Sir, It is encouraging to see the Government blocking the installation of more speed cameras (report, July 15). Since their inception in 1992, the Association of British Drivers has argued that they are not just ineffective as a road safety tool, but focus drivers’ minds dangerously on the wrong thing.
There is a world of difference between driving too fast for the conditions and exceeding the speed limit. Cameras simply punish the latter whilst ignoring the former. They serve to prosecute compliance offences whilst being incapable of detecting and preventing the real causes of crashes.
Using the fear of prosecution to force compliance with limits diverts drivers’ attention from the road ahead and its hazards. But the safe speed for any given situation changes constantly. Sometimes it is well below the posted speed limit, sometimes it is above. Road safety policy needs to recognise this.
We need to draw a clear distinction in road safety between that which is illegal and that which is dangerous. Cameras have failed to do this.
MARK McARTHUR-CHRISTIE
(Road Safety Spokesman)
The Association of British Drivers
Bampton, Oxfordshire
From Mr Graham Burns
Sir, The laws create a set of speed limits to be imposed on our roads; their purpose is to encourage safe driving. The limits and the law are necessary because we cannot rely on individuals’ judgment as to what is a safe speed in relation to road conditions at the time and their own driving skills. The law, not speed cameras, is the safety measure.
It is an offence to break the law by exceeding the speed limit. Cameras are a means of detecting offenders. They are effective and economical, releasing police officers for other tasks.
The review being undertaken by a minister of the Crown who is a serial offender is in the main initiated, I suspect, by disgruntled people who have been caught by a speed camera and are affronted by the notion that the law of this land should apply to them.
Speed cameras should be installed as widely as possible so that we can be sure that if we break the law we will be caught and punished. Of course, such wide deployment and the certainty of detection would so reduce the number of offenders that in time someone would claim that they were redundant and not cost-effective, and the whole argument would start again.
GRAHAM BURNS
Fleet, Hampshire
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1698131,00.html
Block on introducing new speed cameras
From Mr M. McArthur-Christie
Sir, It is encouraging to see the Government blocking the installation of more speed cameras (report, July 15). Since their inception in 1992, the Association of British Drivers has argued that they are not just ineffective as a road safety tool, but focus drivers’ minds dangerously on the wrong thing.
There is a world of difference between driving too fast for the conditions and exceeding the speed limit. Cameras simply punish the latter whilst ignoring the former. They serve to prosecute compliance offences whilst being incapable of detecting and preventing the real causes of crashes.
Using the fear of prosecution to force compliance with limits diverts drivers’ attention from the road ahead and its hazards. But the safe speed for any given situation changes constantly. Sometimes it is well below the posted speed limit, sometimes it is above. Road safety policy needs to recognise this.
We need to draw a clear distinction in road safety between that which is illegal and that which is dangerous. Cameras have failed to do this.
MARK McARTHUR-CHRISTIE
(Road Safety Spokesman)
The Association of British Drivers
Bampton, Oxfordshire
From Mr Graham Burns
Sir, The laws create a set of speed limits to be imposed on our roads; their purpose is to encourage safe driving. The limits and the law are necessary because we cannot rely on individuals’ judgment as to what is a safe speed in relation to road conditions at the time and their own driving skills. The law, not speed cameras, is the safety measure.
It is an offence to break the law by exceeding the speed limit. Cameras are a means of detecting offenders. They are effective and economical, releasing police officers for other tasks.
The review being undertaken by a minister of the Crown who is a serial offender is in the main initiated, I suspect, by disgruntled people who have been caught by a speed camera and are affronted by the notion that the law of this land should apply to them.
Speed cameras should be installed as widely as possible so that we can be sure that if we break the law we will be caught and punished. Of course, such wide deployment and the certainty of detection would so reduce the number of offenders that in time someone would claim that they were redundant and not cost-effective, and the whole argument would start again.
GRAHAM BURNS
Fleet, Hampshire
To be honest I despair when I read this sort of arrogant preaching. It is apparent that the government's stated intention of making speeding as socially irresponsible as drink driving has hit a nerve with a small minotiry of blinkered fools with some axe to grind.
The whole point of road policing is to reduce death and injury on the roads, and to prevent criminal activities such as car theft, dangerous driving, no insurance, defective vehicles etc.
Speeding which becomes dangerous to other road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) is abhorrent, but using fairly arbitrary speed limits to criminalise people, which is what is suggested in reply to your letter, is a one-dimensonal approach to a multi-faceted problem - but it is simply impossible to get that message across to people like this chap.
It is interesting that he makes no mention of the suggestion that statistics have been manipulated to generate a climate in which scamera partnerships continue to prosper and provide employment!
Blinkered, and one-eyed - hardly a safe pair of hands!!
The whole point of road policing is to reduce death and injury on the roads, and to prevent criminal activities such as car theft, dangerous driving, no insurance, defective vehicles etc.
Speeding which becomes dangerous to other road users (including cyclists and pedestrians) is abhorrent, but using fairly arbitrary speed limits to criminalise people, which is what is suggested in reply to your letter, is a one-dimensonal approach to a multi-faceted problem - but it is simply impossible to get that message across to people like this chap.
It is interesting that he makes no mention of the suggestion that statistics have been manipulated to generate a climate in which scamera partnerships continue to prosper and provide employment!
Blinkered, and one-eyed - hardly a safe pair of hands!!
control freak said:
The limits and the law are necessary because we cannot rely on individuals’ judgment as to what is a safe speed in relation to road conditions at the time and their own driving skills.
Why not? I seem to have managed for the last 20+ years without accident and I exceed the limit on every journey!
>> Edited by maxrider on Monday 18th July 14:46
some retard said:
we cannot rely on individuals’ judgment as to what is a safe speed in relation to road conditions at the time and their own driving skills. The law, not speed cameras, is the safety measure.
So, what you're saying is that drivers aren't trained well enough? Surely the logical conclusion would therefore be to invest in advanced driver training and scrap speed limits rather than punitive punishment of otherise law-abiding citizens?
some retard said:
we cannot rely on individuals’ judgment as to what is a safe speed in relation to road conditions at the time and their own driving skills.
Surely if you are incapable of determining what is a safe speed to travel at you shouldn't be allowed on the road. Otherwise you will travel at the speed limit all of the time as that is the speed limit is the only advice you are given regarding what speed you should be driving at any given time.
Overall, I would suggest that the letter assumes that speed limits are set appropriately. We would argue that they are not. With realistic limits most of us would be happy to abide by them because they would not interfere with our swift yet safe progress and we would modulate our speed within the limits as necessary.
That's the way it used to work. What changed and when?
That's the way it used to work. What changed and when?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff