Discussion
The T2 section of the Times is canvassing opinion on speed for a future article.
Might be interesting to get views on the issue over to them. I recommend a cool, calm, collected, constructive and above all eloquent approach
The Times said:
Speed Kills - Or Does It?
Do you believe the motorway speed limit should be raised to 80mph?
Do you think speed cameras are simply a form of taxation?
T2 is looking for readers with strong views on the subject to co-operate in an editorial project. If you feel strongly and would be willing to help, email your views briefly to speed@thetimes.co.uk
Might be interesting to get views on the issue over to them. I recommend a cool, calm, collected, constructive and above all eloquent approach
Done
my offering ..
(The Traffic light camera issue is seldom mentioned.
Does anyone object to these roadside cameras - no ?
why: because they are actually there as a safety inforcing measure. No one can argue that fact)
Why is it deemed safe by the German authorities me to drive on a 2 lane Autobahn
at 180mph but if I was to drive at 100mph in the identical car on a 3
lane motorway the British Authorities could arrest me for dangerous
driving and/or loss my driving licience.
This is an extreme but France and Spain both have slightly higher speed
limits than the UK - so why is it safe to drive at those speeds in those
countries and not for me to drive at 90mph in this country ? Of course
driving within the appropriate conditions.
2. Speed cameras far outnumber traffic red light jumper cameras. There's
no argument against Traffic Light cameras. If a driver ignores a traffic
it will most likely outcome is an accident. It is without any doubt
assists in road safety. A driver doing 44mph in a 40mph zone is very
unlikely have an accident - in fact the driver is no more likely to have
an accident that the driver who's doing 39mph in the same zone. No one
opposes traffic light cameras - they are justified and the use warranted.
(The Traffic light camera issue is seldom mentioned.
Does anyone object to these roadside cameras - no ?
why: because they are actually there as a safety inforcing measure. No one can argue that fact)
Why is it deemed safe by the German authorities me to drive on a 2 lane Autobahn
at 180mph but if I was to drive at 100mph in the identical car on a 3
lane motorway the British Authorities could arrest me for dangerous
driving and/or loss my driving licience.
This is an extreme but France and Spain both have slightly higher speed
limits than the UK - so why is it safe to drive at those speeds in those
countries and not for me to drive at 90mph in this country ? Of course
driving within the appropriate conditions.
2. Speed cameras far outnumber traffic red light jumper cameras. There's
no argument against Traffic Light cameras. If a driver ignores a traffic
it will most likely outcome is an accident. It is without any doubt
assists in road safety. A driver doing 44mph in a 40mph zone is very
unlikely have an accident - in fact the driver is no more likely to have
an accident that the driver who's doing 39mph in the same zone. No one
opposes traffic light cameras - they are justified and the use warranted.
Sent this:-
Sir,
In the past I have been a supporter of speed cameras when correctly placed, now I am furiously opposed to them in any form. Furthermore I feel that the ‘Safety Partnerships’ who so strongly advocate their use over all other intelligent methods of accident prevention are guilty of contributing towards the current KSIs.
Look around you, how many cars do you see with foglights left on, how many with defective lighting, how often do see red lights being jumped or witness inconsiderate and aggressive driving, how much road rage do you see? This is all a direct result of policing by speed cameras. Remove them and remove them now, they do bugger all towards reducing accidents and have in fact been the cause of a rise in some areas. Using logic (for a change) in the debate, how on earth can fining and penalising a motorist after the event contribute in any way to making him less of a risk? A case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted perhaps? We need more Trafpol, improved road design, why erect a camera at an accident blackspot rather than make the blackspot safer or erecting a flashing sign (proven to more effective towards reducing speed) educate via school schemes such as the Green Cross Code and Government Information Bulletins. Or perhaps the millions of pounds coming in is too much of a cash cow to be put out to pasture. I was amused to read of recent proposals to abolish fines in the future, could this be because so many people are losing their licenses now that this is effectively limiting their source of income?
As for speed limits, I agree with raising the limits, but only after we have introduced a tougher test that includes motorway usage, annual testing and the implementation of the points I made earlier. Speeds are already averaging 85mph so the difference will be that drivers can do this without looking for cameras and police cars. Accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding.
This is an excerpt from a speech by Mitchell Romney, Governor of Massachusetts,
"I believe that we are wasting our time and money enforcing several useless laws. In addition to slowing commerce and providing a smoke-screen that clouds our judgement regarding highway accidents, the highway speed limit as it stands now erodes respect for honest laws. The safety benefits of a low speed limit have been negated by the almost universal noncompliance of drivers. Therefore, I present to the public this idea: that we raise rural highway speed limits to 100 miles per hour and instead let the highway patrol do its job, which is to patrol the highways in search of dangerous conditions and drivers. It's only an idea at this point, but it's one worth trying."
He makes good sense.
Regards
>> Edited by apache on Tuesday 17th February 14:58
Sir,
In the past I have been a supporter of speed cameras when correctly placed, now I am furiously opposed to them in any form. Furthermore I feel that the ‘Safety Partnerships’ who so strongly advocate their use over all other intelligent methods of accident prevention are guilty of contributing towards the current KSIs.
Look around you, how many cars do you see with foglights left on, how many with defective lighting, how often do see red lights being jumped or witness inconsiderate and aggressive driving, how much road rage do you see? This is all a direct result of policing by speed cameras. Remove them and remove them now, they do bugger all towards reducing accidents and have in fact been the cause of a rise in some areas. Using logic (for a change) in the debate, how on earth can fining and penalising a motorist after the event contribute in any way to making him less of a risk? A case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted perhaps? We need more Trafpol, improved road design, why erect a camera at an accident blackspot rather than make the blackspot safer or erecting a flashing sign (proven to more effective towards reducing speed) educate via school schemes such as the Green Cross Code and Government Information Bulletins. Or perhaps the millions of pounds coming in is too much of a cash cow to be put out to pasture. I was amused to read of recent proposals to abolish fines in the future, could this be because so many people are losing their licenses now that this is effectively limiting their source of income?
As for speed limits, I agree with raising the limits, but only after we have introduced a tougher test that includes motorway usage, annual testing and the implementation of the points I made earlier. Speeds are already averaging 85mph so the difference will be that drivers can do this without looking for cameras and police cars. Accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding.
This is an excerpt from a speech by Mitchell Romney, Governor of Massachusetts,
"I believe that we are wasting our time and money enforcing several useless laws. In addition to slowing commerce and providing a smoke-screen that clouds our judgement regarding highway accidents, the highway speed limit as it stands now erodes respect for honest laws. The safety benefits of a low speed limit have been negated by the almost universal noncompliance of drivers. Therefore, I present to the public this idea: that we raise rural highway speed limits to 100 miles per hour and instead let the highway patrol do its job, which is to patrol the highways in search of dangerous conditions and drivers. It's only an idea at this point, but it's one worth trying."
He makes good sense.
Regards
>> Edited by apache on Tuesday 17th February 14:58
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff