Preventative Speed Enforcement
Discussion
As we know, some contributors here tell us speed limits are preventative legislation, and likewise their enforcement is preventative, being proactive in reducing risk and collisions before they actually occur. All driving above the limit is targeted, there is no exemption granted for driving safely. Above the limit is simply not allowed. This is government policy.
Taking that as given, why then do they allow manufacturers to supply cars that are capable of over twice the maximum speed limit? Even low powered cars will do 100mph. Some cars are limited to 155, some will do 200. I cant think of any that are limited to the lawfull maximum speed in this country.
If politicians truly believe that "speed kills" and that enforcing limits reduces KSI's, why then haven't they forced all manufacturers to limit their cars to 70? what am I missing here?
Taking that as given, why then do they allow manufacturers to supply cars that are capable of over twice the maximum speed limit? Even low powered cars will do 100mph. Some cars are limited to 155, some will do 200. I cant think of any that are limited to the lawfull maximum speed in this country.
If politicians truly believe that "speed kills" and that enforcing limits reduces KSI's, why then haven't they forced all manufacturers to limit their cars to 70? what am I missing here?
NO NO NO dont give them ideas, i hired a car in lanzarote, a brand new clio, as well as having a cruise control button it had a limiting button. i said to the bird it wont be long before we have them in new cars that you cant turn off, as well as the little black boxes recording everything, paying per mile and speed cameras.
i hate this police state, read in the paper they want to up the limit to 80mph, the cars now days go alot faster and when the limit came out in 1964 you was a hero if you done it. the majority of drivers show no respect to it.
Cars stop alot quicker too especially sports cars, ive had my brakes upgraded to the prodrive wrc brakes, 365mm of gorilla hands on dinner plates, nuff said.
i hate this police state, read in the paper they want to up the limit to 80mph, the cars now days go alot faster and when the limit came out in 1964 you was a hero if you done it. the majority of drivers show no respect to it.
Cars stop alot quicker too especially sports cars, ive had my brakes upgraded to the prodrive wrc brakes, 365mm of gorilla hands on dinner plates, nuff said.
deeps said:
If politicians truly believe that "speed kills" and that enforcing limits reduces KSI's, why then haven't they forced all manufacturers to limit their cars to 70? what am I missing here?
This may be around the corner thanks to 'Intelligent' Speed Adaptation.
When I see how SPECs cameras cause bunching of traffic across the lanes, people driving too close to one another, hogging of overtaking lanes whilst driving at less than the speed limit causing vehicles on the inside lanes to creep past, etc, I fear that there will be a wholly negative effect on the safety of motorways.
It may decrease the severity of a accident, but it will vastly increase the likelihood of crashing in the first place, putting me at risk for longer, making my journey more dangerous.
At least now I can use my speed under and over the limit to maximise and maintain space from other traffic - not just to the front, but all around. Any sort of speed limiting or enforcement erodes my ability to do this
. Yes it will come one day, they have brainwashed enough people now who belive slow = safe for them to do it. I was at a dinner on Saturday where the discussions were banning smoking totally = good common senses, rasiing the driver age up to 20 = good common sense stopping really old driving = good common sense lower speed limits everywhere except motorways = safety. Now I had to put my views forward and if I had said I was a kiddy fiddler the response would have been less hostile. I explain cameras = cash. regression to mean = improvments naturally,cars do not = global warming, speed does not = death. They would have none of it becasue a, they were dim, b, they were not affected by the changes they advocated at the moment,c, they were convinced I was wrong because they had never seen anyone with these views on the BBC. d, they belived sometimes we needed to be made to do somethings for our own good.
We are doomed and the only reason that cars are allowed to be built in this way is Germany has autobahns and the italians make lots of the cars that are fast. If these two things were in the UK they would have banned them already. By the way, these were a cross section of good people not cranks but ones who had swallowed the lines being fed to them
We are doomed and the only reason that cars are allowed to be built in this way is Germany has autobahns and the italians make lots of the cars that are fast. If these two things were in the UK they would have banned them already. By the way, these were a cross section of good people not cranks but ones who had swallowed the lines being fed to them
alphadog said:
deeps said:
If politicians truly believe that "speed kills" and that enforcing limits reduces KSI's, why then haven't they forced all manufacturers to limit their cars to 70? what am I missing here?
This may be around the corner thanks to 'Intelligent' Speed Adaptation.
When I see how SPECs cameras cause bunching of traffic across the lanes, people driving too close to one another, hogging of overtaking lanes whilst driving at less than the speed limit causing vehicles on the inside lanes to creep past, etc, I fear that there will be a wholly negative effect on the safety of motorways.
It may decrease the severity of a accident, but it will vastly increase the likelihood of crashing in the first place, putting me at risk for longer, making my journey more dangerous.
At least now I can use my speed under and over the limit to maximise and maintain space from other traffic - not just to the front, but all around. Any sort of speed limiting or enforcement erodes my ability to do this
.Government targets are around accident severity (KSI reductions), not the number of crashes. They don't care how many crashes there are as long as nobody is KSI-ed.
The one reason why cars are not limited yet is German autobahns. If/when the EU gets its hands on them, who knows what's next for speed limiters, black boxes, and every other type of surveillance/restriction you can imagine. Cars are personal space under personal control -- "this cannot be allowed to continue!" (in appropriate accent
).spaximus said:
...if I had said I was a kiddy fiddler the response would have been less hostile.
You have a point. Driving back from a country walk with the wife yesterday, was going through a 50 doing closer to 60 (wide open country road, great vis, no idea why a 50...this was in the Honda with stunning brakes), and the wife was telling me off because 'my speeding will only make them put up more speed cameras'. Now normally she's very intelligent, and she DOES agree that they're a blight on the country.
But even she's falling into their trap of 'speed=bad'! Cue mini-argument in-car.
Just goes to show...you tell a lie often enough people will believe you.
nobleguy said:
spaximus said:
banning smoking totally = good common sense
Why? Surely this is free choice just as speeding is, provided they don't hurt others by doing it.
You're going down the same route as those you were with on Saturday.
(And no, I'm not a smoker)
I never said I agreed with them at all, quite the opposite in fact. my point was that these people were rationalising the bans that were in place etc without thinking through the facts for themsleves. The example they had with smoking was it is great people should be forced to stop smoking as it is for their own good. Yet when I pointed out that the NHS spends a small amount on health issues from smoking compared with the tax take thye get, and the hypocrasy of spending on adverts to stop at the same time pocketing the cash. Far easier to ban it completly. The group hadn't thought of the downsides. They got their views from sound bites, stilted articles and based their opinions on them, and speeding etc was seen as a huge problem to them and that the imposition of rules would not affect them.
I can't see them ever getting away with intelligent speed adaption, personally. Look at the amazing petition response to their road pricing ideas!
My original point was though, we have had Gatsos for ten years or so and sneaky camera partnerships for five years. The governments target is to reduce KSI's by 40% by 2010, I think. They say they believe speed kills.
Then why are we all driving cars capable of twice the maximun allowed limit? Why let the people you proactively prosecute for speed infringements get away with driving unnecessary fast cars? Why allow us to have GPS devices knowing that only drivers who exceed limits will have a use for them?
What I'm saying is, if they believe the enforcement of limits is essential, and as von will tell us drivers aren't tested to be competent above the limit, then why do they condone the use of vehicles that can double the speed limit? It seems rather hypocritical and half hearted to me. Should they not either enforce speed limits and speed limit vehicles whole heartedly, or perhaps scrap NSL speed limits if they're only ever enforced at random and half heartedly? It doesn't appear they are that important judging by policy.
My original point was though, we have had Gatsos for ten years or so and sneaky camera partnerships for five years. The governments target is to reduce KSI's by 40% by 2010, I think. They say they believe speed kills.
Then why are we all driving cars capable of twice the maximun allowed limit? Why let the people you proactively prosecute for speed infringements get away with driving unnecessary fast cars? Why allow us to have GPS devices knowing that only drivers who exceed limits will have a use for them?
What I'm saying is, if they believe the enforcement of limits is essential, and as von will tell us drivers aren't tested to be competent above the limit, then why do they condone the use of vehicles that can double the speed limit? It seems rather hypocritical and half hearted to me. Should they not either enforce speed limits and speed limit vehicles whole heartedly, or perhaps scrap NSL speed limits if they're only ever enforced at random and half heartedly? It doesn't appear they are that important judging by policy.
deva link said:
havoc said:
Driving back from a country walk
Reminds me of someone is the US complaining to me about the drive to the gym to use the walking machine!
P'ss off! I live in a city...and you REALLY don't want to go for a walk around Coventry!!!
Far more pleasant to walk around Draycote Water with the wife and the camera...and I got to exercise my driving muscles in the Honda too!!!
deeps said:
If politicians truly believe that "speed kills" and that enforcing limits reduces KSI's, why then haven't they forced all manufacturers to limit their cars to 70? what am I missing here?
UK Gov has talked about it a few times over the
years, but they would never get away with it.
What about UK based travellers to the Continent ?
I certainly wouldn't buy another UK car if it
were limited to anything less than 120 mph.
Also, let's not forget that for the UK to be the
only country in Europe to fit limiters would
make us a laughing stock.
Even the Scandinavians don't want to do that.
dcb said:
UK Gov has talked about it a few times over the
years, but they would never get away with it.
What about UK based travellers to the Continent ?
I certainly wouldn't buy another UK car if it
were limited to anything less than 120 mph.
Also, let's not forget that for the UK to be the
only country in Europe to fit limiters would
make us a laughing stock.
Even the Scandinavians don't want to do that.
So it seems we have a policy of speed limits and enforcement that even the government doesn't believe do any real good, or presumably they would have the courage of their convictions and whole heartedly enforce them by whatever means at their disposal. If not by limiters in vehicles, they could still very easily quadruple the size of camera partnerships, or even ten fold.
When the very top rung shows such little conviction, that says to me perhaps limits or enforcement of them should be scrapped, as they can't be that important?
deeps said:
dcb said:
UK Gov has talked about it a few times over the
years, but they would never get away with it.
What about UK based travellers to the Continent ?
I certainly wouldn't buy another UK car if it
were limited to anything less than 120 mph.
Also, let's not forget that for the UK to be the
only country in Europe to fit limiters would
make us a laughing stock.
Even the Scandinavians don't want to do that.
So it seems we have a policy of speed limits and enforcement that even the government doesn't believe do any real good, or presumably they would have the courage of their convictions and whole heartedly enforce them by whatever means at their disposal. If not by limiters in vehicles, they could still very easily quadruple the size of camera partnerships, or even ten fold.
When the very top rung shows such little conviction, that says to me perhaps limits or enforcement of them should be scrapped, as they can't be that important?
But what they can do is not determined simply by what they want, it's determined by what the electorate want or will accept is in their best interests. We the apathetic public don't like sharp shock changes, we are more accepting where change is drip fed.
vonhosen said:
deeps said:
dcb said:
UK Gov has talked about it a few times over the
years, but they would never get away with it.
What about UK based travellers to the Continent ?
I certainly wouldn't buy another UK car if it
were limited to anything less than 120 mph.
Also, let's not forget that for the UK to be the
only country in Europe to fit limiters would
make us a laughing stock.
Even the Scandinavians don't want to do that.
So it seems we have a policy of speed limits and enforcement that even the government doesn't believe do any real good, or presumably they would have the courage of their convictions and whole heartedly enforce them by whatever means at their disposal. If not by limiters in vehicles, they could still very easily quadruple the size of camera partnerships, or even ten fold.
When the very top rung shows such little conviction, that says to me perhaps limits or enforcement of them should be scrapped, as they can't be that important?
But what they can do is not determined simply by what they want, it's determined by what the electorate want or will accept is in their best interests. We the apathetic public don't like sharp shock changes, we are more accepting where change is drip fed.
Ist called "walking into totalitarian state by series of smoke sreens, mirrors und illusion..." und a pair of blinkers und tightening rein on the bridle ..
We sleep walking our way more und more into a highly controlled, surveillance society.
Besides even Denmark ist raising motorway limit to 80 mph
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff