Times article 09 Feb

  • Thread starter Dirtylitterboxo
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm NOT against the use of speed cameras in those areas that clearly warrant them on the grounds of
road safety. If they were only sited in places that were genuinely dangerous then I don't believe
there'd be much debate about this issue. Drivers would know they were driving in an area that
required extra care and would react responsibly to the warning.

But the proliferation of cameras in recent years has had little impact on accident statistics and
the government's own research reckoned speeding was the primary cause of only a small minority of
accidents.

"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:01:17 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> snip.
>
> >As a cyclist I'd much rather share the roads with drivers who are
attentive
> >to what they're doing, not looking out for speed cameras.
>
> I'd rather share the roads with competent drivers. Competent drivers are quite capable of
> knowing what the limit is and sticking within it. Presence of cameras is irrelevant to a half-
> decent driver.
>
> And don't start the old ABD mantra "...but it's not safe to drive with your eyes glued to the
> speedo..." Drivers who that unaware of their vehicle's behaviour should be taken off the road asap
> and if a few flashes help achieve that, then great.
>
> >I expect I'll be slated for posting this but I know many people who share this view.
> >
>
> Yes and yes.
 
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:28:48 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I not ethat you are so arrogant that you consider yourself competent to complete a full traffic
>>safety assessment upon a fleeting glimpse at a
>road.
>>You care nothing for the professional expertise of the road engineers who have assessed not only
>>the safety of the car driver (which tends to be the only consideration in a self assessed 'safe
>>speed') but also the impact of that speed upon the local community/wildlife.
>
>The tone of your response perhaps indicates why it is frequently not possible to have any
>meaningful debate about this subject.

Don't run off yet.

You said you disregard speed limits. What sort of response did you expect, exactly?

Round my way, we're sick to death with boozed up boy-racers who think they are better judges of safe
speeds or blood alcohol levels than everyone else. Don't expect too much sympathy just because
you've claimed you don't do the drinking part of **** driving.
 
On 15/2/04 10:28 pm, in article [email protected], "Nick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I not ethat you are so arrogant that you consider yourself competent to complete a full traffic
>> safety assessment upon a fleeting glimpse at a
> road.
>> You care nothing for the professional expertise of the road engineers who have assessed not only
>> the safety of the car driver (which tends to be the only consideration in a self assessed 'safe
>> speed') but also the impact of that speed upon the local community/wildlife.
>
> The tone of your response perhaps indicates why it is frequently not possible to have any
> meaningful debate about this subject.

I am will ing to listen if you are prepared to try to justify your comments. I note that you don't
seem prepared to answer the criticisms I raised.

So, why do you think you are competent to assess what speed is safe to travel at? What qualification
do you have and what assessment have you done?

..d
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>typed

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:15:02 +0000, Peter Grange <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:

> >A fully taxed/insured driver passing a speed camera at 34mph in a 30mph limit may well be
> >penalised for it, mainly because he/she is easy and cheap to find.

> Er, no. You have to be doing 36 or more to trigger a Gatso in a 30 limit (ACPO guidelines). My
> friend who is a magistrate is outraged when presented with cases at "only" 36mph in a 30 limit
> (note: that's 20% over the limit)

An increase in speed from 30mph to 36mph represents a *44%* increase in kinetic energy. This is
NOT trivial.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:19:45 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >I don't recall much opposition to enforcing the drink driving laws.
>
> Opposition there was, and still is. For example, random breath testing is verboten - you must wait
> until the drunk has got int he car, driven sufficiently badly to give reasonable suspicion, and
> then stop them.
>

Is that true? IIRC the police had powers to stop anyone operating a motor vehicle to check
documentation - surely it would make sense to allow them to randomly drug test as well?

> >Most of the attacks on speed limit enforcement in the press are because there appears to be
> >little being done to enforce other laws, both driving and in general.
>
> Cobblers> Most of the attacks on speed enforcement in the rpess are
> because journos like driving fast and keep getting points. A Mori poll found three quarters of the
> population approve of speed cameras.
>

Press != Public. Besides pandering to public opinion is no way to run anything - it's basically the
reason why our transport system is as **** as it is (ditto other political problems)

<snip
 
On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:45:23 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm NOT against the use of speed cameras in those areas that clearly warrant them on the grounds of
>road safety. If they were only sited in places that were genuinely dangerous then I don't believe
>there'd be much debate about this issue. Drivers would know they were driving in an area that
>required extra care and would react responsibly to the warning.

Speed limits signs are 'only sited' in appropriate places and drivers *do* know they are driving in
an area that requires extra care; speed cameras or not. Cameras are only there to catch the
incompetents who can't stick to road regulations.

If your point is that you think a particular limit is wrong, then challenge the limit don't moan
about its enforcement. The vast majority of limits are well founded but, I agree, there are a small
number that can and should be questioned.

I've had a fair degree of success in getting limits changed in my neck of the woods.

>But the proliferation of cameras in recent years has had little impact on accident statistics and
>the government's own research reckoned speeding was the primary cause of only a small minority of
>accidents.

If you're basing this on the 7% figure I suggest you read what the TRL have written about this
misinterpretation of their research.

>"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:01:17 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> snip.
>>
>> >As a cyclist I'd much rather share the roads with drivers who are
>attentive
>> >to what they're doing, not looking out for speed cameras.
>>
>> I'd rather share the roads with competent drivers. Competent drivers are quite capable of knowing
>> what the limit is and sticking within it. Presence of cameras is irrelevant to a half-decent
>> driver.
>>
>> And don't start the old ABD mantra "...but it's not safe to drive with your eyes glued to the
>> speedo..." Drivers who that unaware of their vehicle's behaviour should be taken off the road
>> asap and if a few flashes help achieve that, then great.
>>
>> >I expect I'll be slated for posting this but I know many people who share this view.
>> >
>>
>> Yes and yes.
 
>So, why do you think you are competent to assess what speed is safe to travel at? What
>qualification do you have and what assessment have you
done?

I wouldn't claim this on any roads I don't know. In those circumstances I'd stick to the
speed limit.

However I drive on the same roads (dual carriageways and motorways) every day and have done for ten
years. In these circumstances I'd say I am competent to assess my speed as safe.

If I've given the impression that I drive everywhere like a lunatic then this is not what I intended
as I certainly do not. For much of the time other factors such as traffic levels determine the
maximum speed anyway. But I really don't believe that travelling at 80 mph on a quiet motorway in
good conditions represents a major threat to road safety. If you disagree that's fine.

"Martin Family" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BC55A901.D623%martin-
[email protected]...
> On 15/2/04 10:28 pm, in article [email protected], "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I not ethat you are so arrogant that you consider yourself competent to complete a full traffic
> >> safety assessment upon a fleeting glimpse at a
> > road.
> >> You care nothing for the professional expertise of the road engineers
who
> >> have assessed not only the safety of the car driver (which tends to be
the
> >> only consideration in a self assessed 'safe speed') but also the impact
of
> >> that speed upon the local community/wildlife.
> >
> > The tone of your response perhaps indicates why it is frequently not possible to have any
> > meaningful debate about this subject.
>
> I am will ing to listen if you are prepared to try to justify your
comments.
> I note that you don't seem prepared to answer the criticisms I raised.
>
> So, why do you think you are competent to assess what speed is safe to travel at? What
> qualification do you have and what assessment have you
done?
>
> ..d
 
> You said you disregard speed limits. What sort of response did you expect, exactly?

I don't disregard all speed limits. For the vast majority of the time I drive at or below the speed
limit, if for no other reason than the sheer volume of traffic on the road. I just believe the
zealousness with which driving faster than the speed limit is being prosecuted is totally out of
proportion to the risk most of these drivers represent and is motivated by financial considerations
rather than road safety.

> Round my way, we're sick to death with boozed up boy-racers who think they are better judges of
> safe speeds or blood alcohol levels than everyone else.

This constant linking of drink-drivers with those who sometimes drive faster than the speed limit is
very annoying. Driving at 75 mph on a motorway (conditions permitting) is nothing like driving with
excessive alcohol so stop trying to make a connection.

Of course with a lot fewer police patrols it is in fact now much easier than ever to get away with
drink driving.

> Don't expect too much sympathy just because you've claimed you don't do the drinking part of
> **** driving

I'm not claiming it - I don't do it - so don't try to cast doubt on this by using the term
."you've claimed."

"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 22:28:48 -0000, "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>I not ethat you are so arrogant that you consider yourself competent to complete a full traffic
> >>safety assessment upon a fleeting glimpse at a
> >road.
> >>You care nothing for the professional expertise of the road engineers
who
> >>have assessed not only the safety of the car driver (which tends to be
the
> >>only consideration in a self assessed 'safe speed') but also the impact
of
> >>that speed upon the local community/wildlife.
> >
> >The tone of your response perhaps indicates why it is frequently not possible to have any
> >meaningful debate about this subject.
>
>
> Don't run off yet.
>
> You said you disregard speed limits. What sort of response did you expect, exactly?
>
> Round my way, we're sick to death with boozed up boy-racers who think they are better judges of
> safe speeds or blood alcohol levels than everyone else. Don't expect too much sympathy just
> because you've claimed you don't do the drinking part of **** driving.
 
The ACPO guidelines are the speed limit plus 10% plus 2 mph.

They are however just guidelines and individual forces can choose to follow them or not.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:15:02 +0000, Peter Grange <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >A fully taxed/insured driver passing a speed camera at 34mph in a 30mph limit may well be
> >penalised for it, mainly because he/she is easy and cheap to find.
>
> Er, no. You have to be doing 36 or more to trigger a Gatso in a 30 limit (ACPO guidelines). My
> friend who is a magistrate is outraged when presented with cases at "only" 36mph in a 30 limit
> (note: that's 20% over the limit)
>
> >A motorist with no tax/insurance will most probably not receive such a penalty because some
> >effort and expenditure is involved in finding that individual.
>
> The uninsured untaxed car is still registered, so the driver will still get his NIP. If the
> computers at the insurance companies and the DVLA communicated he could also be issued with a
> summons for no VED and insurance, but I believe the Data Protection Act prevents this.
>
> >The emphasis seems to be on generating revenue from "criminals" who can be identified with little
> >expenditure from the various state departments, whilst clearup rates from assaults, burglaries,
> >and vandalism remain at a ridiculously low rate.
>
> How many poeple die as a result of burglary and vandalism, though? Not that I have a problem with
> targeting them. It seems to me that the right-wing press want zero-tolerance for street crime and
> 100% tolerance for motor crime.
>
> >That, I suspect, is why we see such articles in the press.
>
> I ssupect we see such articles in the press for the same reason that the journos bleated about the
> drink-drive laws and their enforcement.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at the University of
Washington.
 
> Yes, but, as I have said in this ng before, I firmly believe that once speed cameras have made the
> roads "safer", the politicians will take the attitude that the number of police can be reduced,
> because of the "safer" roads. What is "important" is the quantity of prosecutions, not the
> quality.

If you said this before I failed to notice the beauty of the argument.

If we want safer roads with plenty of police on them what we really need is more accidents and
casualties, not fewer. Therefor we must lose the cameras. But then cameras must work at reducing
casualties or they would be irrelevant.

I gather there is a sense of indignation that scaliwags will no longer be chased, but it's likely
they will be spotted first by the cameras and the long arm can be extended later when they get
home.The main problem is what the magistrates get up to when they are presented with these
dangerous idiots.

Put TV cameras in the court room.Paint them yellow.

TerryJ
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in

> Anyone can creep over the speed limit, even you I suspect.

So they can. But nobody has ever been booked for *creeping* over.
 
"Peter Grange" <[email protected]> wrote

> A fully taxed/insured driver passing a speed camera at 34mph in a 30mph limit may well be
> penalised for it,

No, they don't.
 
On 15/2/04 11:08 pm, in article [email protected], "Nick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> So, why do you think you are competent to assess what speed is safe to travel at? What
>> qualification do you have and what assessment have you
> done?
>
> I wouldn't claim this on any roads I don't know. In those circumstances I'd stick to the
> speed limit.

Ok, that is then fine. I presume by stick to the speed limit you mean at or below. rather than
religiously sticking at an arbitrary value.

>
> However I drive on the same roads (dual carriageways and motorways) every day and have done for
> ten years. In these circumstances I'd say I am competent to assess my speed as safe.

Well, that's what I thought on a nice clear night in Oxfordshire, travelling at 10 mph under the
speed limit when a deer jumped in front of me. I had new tyres on teh car (fitted that day) and
ended up with a bent bumper, a broken grille and radiator and deer hair all over the engine.

>
> If I've given the impression that I drive everywhere like a lunatic then this is not what I
> intended as I certainly do not. For much of the time other factors such as traffic levels
> determine the maximum speed anyway. But I really don't believe that travelling at 80 mph on a
> quiet motorway in good conditions represents a major threat to road safety. If you disagree
> that's fine.

Part of the problem is that the probability of an accident increases with speed (assuming the
distribution of errors remains the same). The energy in an accident goes up with the square of
speed. Going from 70 to 80 gives a rise in energy of >30% (49 vs 64 for the ratios). Go to 85 and
the energy has increased by 50%

So you have less time to react and more to deal with in the event of an accident.

I'd agree with you that 80 on an empty motorway is probably safer than 70 on a crowded one. Then
again 30mph outside my kids primary school would not be safe during school hours, even though it is
below the maximum speed limit.

..d
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> The ACPO guidelines are the speed limit plus 10% plus 2 mph. They are however just guidelines and
> individual forces can choose to
follow
> them or not.

Now provide a single documented instance of someone actually being prosecuted after being caught on
camera doing less than 36mph in a 30 limit.

And while you're about it, do /please/ learn to trim. And not to top-post.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> Well you obviously have a different opinion to me on this matter and
that's
> fine, but it is just that, your opinion.

Er, not entirely. It's also the law of the land.

> > >Going faster than an arbitrary speed limit may or may not be dangerous,
> > Try "is" dangerous.
> Who says so? You - are you an authority on this then? It's only safe to drive at a an arbitrary
> limit no matter all other factors?

Wilful misrepresentation. It is not that it is only safe to drive *at* the limit, but that safe and
levgal driving (which are not mutually exclusive, however often speedophiles try to pretend they
are) requires that you do not drive *above* the limit.

As to who says so, just about everybody. A short list of some of them here:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm but I also advise that you check out the PACTS statement
on speed cameras which I've mirrored: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Images/dft_rds-
afety_026034.pdf/$file/dft_rdsafety_026034.pdf

(urls will require reassembly as I'm using OE, spit, spit)

> > There is a correlation between speeding convictions and other convistions, and between speeding
> > convictions and crashing. The drivers snapped by cameras *are* the poor, inattentive aggressive
> > drivers.

> Do you have any evidence to support this?

See the PACTS document.

> > Who is more likely to speed - an aggressive driver or a calm one?
> Anyone can creep over the speed limit, even you I suspect.

But not by 20%. That's not creeping over the limit. The problem is people who drive to the ACPO
guidelines - creep over the ACPO guidelines and you can certainly get flashed. The solution is to
stop pretending that 30mph really means 35-ish, or "less than 40."

> >At least the cameras allow the Real Plod to get out and enforce other
> traffic
> > laws, leaving absolute offences like speeding, red light jumping and bus lane infringement to
> > mechanical systems.

> You're kidding, right? I work in Birmingham and virtually never see a police patrol car on my
> drive to work any more.

Which is why cameras are so important. The police performance measures have de-prioritised traffic
policing. Instead of celebrating this liberation from the tyrannical boot of compliance with the
law, speedophiles appear to want to have this lack of enforcement extended to all motoring offences.
Luckily cameras remove at least some of the drudgery, leaving the few remaining traffic plod to
concentrate on offences whose detection requires judgement. Cameras are also self-funding so do not
come out of force budgets.

> You'll no doubt be pleased to hear that it is my intention to leave the UK to live in Spain :)

That may possibly give an indication of your commitment to safe roads: Spain's are much more
dangerous than ours...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> However I drive on the same roads (dual carriageways and motorways) every day and have done for
> ten years. In these circumstances I'd say I am competent to assess my speed as safe.

Familiarity breeds contempt. A key fallacy which underpins risk-taking is "I got away with it last
time, I'll get away with it every time" - this causes the level of tolerated risk to ratchet up in
familiar surroundings.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
Peter Grange <[email protected]> writes:

> I have some sympathy with the tone of the article. A fully taxed/insured driver passing a speed
> camera at 34mph in a 30mph limit may well be penalised for it, mainly because he/she is easy and
> cheap to find. A motorist with no tax/insurance will most probably not receive such a penalty
> because some effort and expenditure is involved in finding that individual.

(i) Two wrongs don't make a right. Of course people driving without insurance should be stopped, but
that doesn't make it safe or right to drive at 34 mph in a thirty limit.

(ii) Driving without insurance or tax is not, by itself, going to kill people. Speeding is.
It's appropriate that it should be treated as a much more serious offence - it is a much more
serious offence.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html
 
"Nick" <[email protected]> writes:

> I don't recall much opposition to enforcing the drink driving laws.
>
> Most of the attacks on speed limit enforcement in the press are because there appears to be little
> being done to enforce other laws, both driving and in general.

Speeding drivers kill more people than all other kinds of criminals put together.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html
 
"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If your point is that you think a particular limit is wrong, then challenge the limit don't moan
> about its enforcement. The vast majority of limits are well founded but, I agree, there are a
> small number that can and should be questioned.

Precisely. And the best way to demonstrate the absurdity of an incorrect limit is to obey it.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
 
> > Don't expect too much sympathy just because you've claimed you don't do the drinking part of
> > **** driving
>
> I'm not claiming it - I don't do it - so don't try to cast doubt on this by using the term
> ."you've claimed."

I think he just meant 'Your driving is ****. Just because you're not drunk /and/ **** won't get you
any sympathy.' Might be wrong tho.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.587 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 12/02/2004
 
Status
Not open for further replies.