Speed Traps

This is the place for posts that don't fit into any other category.

Moderator: RichardW

User avatar
rabenson
Posts: 328
Joined: 15 Jul 2002, 15:14

Speed Traps

Post by rabenson » 24 Jun 2004, 22:22

I think I may live to regret starting this thread, but I'm getting really p-----d off by the reaction of motoring groups and the tabloid press to speed cameras. People getting all upset at being caught breaking the law!!
I have this theory - that all speed cameras should be covert. The technology exists to fit them in catseyes! Unmarked cars should also be used to rigidly enforce speed limits. If we thought we would probably be caught, we'd all (me included) start sticking to the speed limits.
Now this brings me to the second part of my theory. which is that speed limits should made realistic. Why are we expected to drive on motorways at speeds that were deemed appropriate when the average family car was a ford anglia with el-crappo non-servoed drum brakes?
I accept the fact that modern motorways are often more congested than when the speed limits were first dreamed up but again the technology exists to change the limits to reflect the road conditions. It always strikes me as bizarre that when I drive down the M1 at my usual 85 mph, I'm doing what appears to be the average speed of car traffic.
This can't be right. Why not set motorway limits to 85 or 90mph under ideal conditions and reduce them if congestion is high or (as they do in France) if its raining?
I really feel all limits should be revisited - is 30mph really appropriate in built up areas?
What's the view of the forum??
Ron (who obviously would never dream of driving down the M1 at 85 mph...)[;)]

User avatar
np
Posts: 1296
Joined: 13 May 2004, 03:13

Post by np » 25 Jun 2004, 00:38

I disagree with part 1.To many views on them to put here!
Totally agree with part 2.My trip to work involves motorway,fast A roads.50mph on A roads,nice & open,good visability,no concealed turnings.50mph,WHY???The roads in the middle of nowhere,plenty of room for overtaking,no accidents to my knowleadge,but still a 50 limit.
I think any one who says they never speed is a fibber.BUT,there is a time & a place for it.5.30am fine,but on my way home more traffic.Same as towns etc.
Having driven through france on motorways,their system works.The limit for towing a caravan in france on motorways is 80 aswell!

Stuart McB
Posts: 1635
Joined: 03 Oct 2003, 00:50

Post by Stuart McB » 25 Jun 2004, 01:34

I got nailed last August for speeding by my local old bill [:(!]. 47mph in a 40mph zone 20 yards off the end of a dual carrage way with national speed limit. Now while it's fair I was speeding, having a speed trap only 20 yards form the end of a dual carrige way is taking the p**s. Even the copper who dealt with me explained that he questioned his gaffer as to the location so close to the end of this run. Wouldn't be so bad if you then didn't have further quarter of a mile before the first house or any type of building. My problem is the name given by many to this speed camera stuff <u>'safety camera' </u>hang on, there hasn't been an accident on this road for over 30 years so where's the saftey bit here then. The other day on the way home the 'saftey camera' was in action 20 yards from the begining of the very same strech of dual carrage way. Please some one tell me how is this improving safety? Fact= no accidents in 30 years, fact= dual carrage way, fact= lay by at either end for them to park that white nasty van of theirs in. Oh and before I forget next time your on the M42 in the road works around Birmingham those 45 speed signs and camera's over a 5 mile strech do go off right on the speed limit set. So be warned.

tomsheppard
Posts: 1801
Joined: 19 Dec 2002, 15:46

Post by tomsheppard » 25 Jun 2004, 14:01

I'll bet more people have been killed due to cars with duff lights than have been saved by speed cameras.

Homer
Posts: 1458
Joined: 26 Feb 2003, 11:52
x 5

Post by Homer » 26 Jun 2004, 15:48

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rabenson</i>

I'm getting really p-----d off by the reaction of motoring groups and the tabloid press to speed cameras. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And I am getting really p----d off with people who think speed limits are the answer to road safety.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have this theory - that all speed cameras should be covert. The technology exists to fit them in catseyes! Unmarked cars should also be used to rigidly enforce speed limits. If we thought we would probably be caught, we'd all (me included) start sticking to the speed limits.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You might.
I would be very tempted to get some false plates made up (maybe yours[:0]) and joining the ever growing number of untaxed uninsured unregistered untraceables.[}:)]
The problem with speed cameras is they focus attention on the least important aspect of driving safely. It's an easy cop-out for the authorities who can pretend they are doing something about road safety, better still it is self financing so it doesn't come out of the council tax.
It's interesting that despite 5000 cameras in the UK road deaths are up in most counties for the first time since the 1960's
Yes the speed limit is the law but in this case enfocing the letter of the law is not in keeping with the spirit of the law which is road safety. By concentrating on the speed limit the way we have you make that limit become a target. The only sane solution is to give drivers the skills to set their own limit and use speed limits the way they were intended, as an easy way to prosecute the real lunatics.
And I thought I would quote this bit again since it illustrates my point.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">start sticking to the speed limits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Don't you think there are much more important things to be paying attention to while driving?

User avatar
np
Posts: 1296
Joined: 13 May 2004, 03:13

Post by np » 26 Jun 2004, 17:10

I left work at 5 yesterday,onto the A361 near Frome,a nice open road,no houses/schools etc.Very wide road,could get 3 lanes on it.Anyway,from the roundabout,theres a 1mile section,down hill,dead straight.Excellent visability,good over taking,no dangers.Just about to pull out to overtake 2 lorrys,& there they were,2 of the f^*$ERs(police)sitting in a little dissused gateway 30ft from the road.Compleatly hidden,looking at all the cars going past.WHY???When they could be patroling school areas,catching 'proper' law breakers.Or they could have sat at the side of the road for everybody to see,hence slowing us all down.But no,they had to be hidden.
What makes me feel more angry about this'tactic'is i have a friend whos a copper.His exact words are"Why should i be risking my neck on the streets when i can be in a nice warm car sitting somewhere doing nothing,waiting for speeders"This from a man who`s had 140mph in his Honda civic type R!
Just seeing a police car on the roads is enough to slow us all down,so why hide?? b ecause they want money in fines.I stick to the limits most of the time in built up areas,but not on motorways or in the mornings at 5.30am when there is hardly anything about.

lhm_leak
Posts: 135
Joined: 21 Sep 2003, 02:33

Post by lhm_leak » 26 Jun 2004, 20:14

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">why hide?? because they want money in fines<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ties in nicely with that other thread, where some poor blighter got himself prosecuted and banned for blowing their cover.
It's all about money - a random tax on driving, and nothing whatsoever to do with road safety. You only have to look at how secretive the so-called "safety camera partnerships" are about their accounting, and even the placement of these grey/yellow cash machines. Accident blackspots my a**e.
While on the subject of these oppressive partnerships, I've often wondered why the Magistrates Courts are directly involved with them. Surely the whole foundation of British "justice" rests on the principle of an independent judiciary - a principle to which lay justices (i.e. magistrates ) must also adhere. This present situation is, to my mind, a clear conflict of interest.
Has anyone tried any sort of legal challenge on this basis? Or are there any solicitors etc. reading this who can tell us why it wouldn't work? (Or would work - be nice to dismantle the whole nasty scheme...)
Stu.

Stuart McB
Posts: 1635
Joined: 03 Oct 2003, 00:50

Post by Stuart McB » 27 Jun 2004, 00:06

Here, here. We all agree then speeding is bad but the way in which this, other goverments and Police autorities deal with it is just wrong. My favourite current phrase is "saftey camera my a&&e",.
Surley instead of 3 ponts and a fine we should have a system of driver re-education? but wait that'll mean they pay us to drive better, so that means no more speeding fines, no more increase insurance tax payments and so on. sounds like a conspiracy to me!

User avatar
np
Posts: 1296
Joined: 13 May 2004, 03:13

Post by np » 27 Jun 2004, 01:50

First offence(speeding)3 points & fine.Go out & beat the living daylights out of some one, ,you get a caution.Beat some one up for stealing your car,or breaking in your home,YOU get done.

JohnD
Donor 2016
Posts: 2512
Joined: 15 Mar 2001, 00:41
x 29

Post by JohnD » 27 Jun 2004, 17:11

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by np</i>
.Beat some one up for stealing your car,or breaking in your home,YOU get done.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And following on from this - reported in one of my magazines! A guy had his caravan stored in a 'secure' compound. He also had fitted a hitch lock and a wheel lock, and still he had the b***** thing taken. Because he had a tracker device, the caravan was traced as it was being towed on the road - by a 4x4, also stolen. The driver was arrested and charged, and appeared in court. His punishment - 40 hours community service.

User avatar
uhn113x
Posts: 1161
Joined: 06 Jan 2004, 23:06
x 1

Post by uhn113x » 28 Jun 2004, 12:42

A lot of questions here, Ron!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now this brings me to the second part of my theory. which is that speed limits should made realistic. Why are we expected to drive on motorways at speeds that were deemed appropriate when the average family car was a ford anglia with el-crappo non-servoed drum brakes?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
But still driven by homo sapiens Mk1 with 400ms average reaction time, who now is suffering from HS (hurry sickness) and is seething with suppressed aggression against anything that he (or rarely she) can think of, and is distracted by fiddling with stereo, eating sandwiches, making/taking phone calls [;)] in the sure and certain hope that his ABS, ATC and divers other TLAs will save his life while he kills someone with his car.
So, crappy brakes have been replaced by crappy drivers, many of which should not be allowed to go over 30, or even drive at all [}:)]
BTW, greater braking effort with drums meant they didn't normally need servos like discs do, and, really, how often do you need to brake on a motorway, unless you are stuck in a 20mph crawl?
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
This can't be right. Why not set motorway limits to 85 or 90mph under ideal conditions and reduce them if congestion is high or (as they do in France) if its raining?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, that would be better
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I really feel all limits should be revisited - is 30mph really appropriate in built up areas? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Agreed - 30 is often too high. Again, look at how France does it. Problem is, people do not understand the term speed <b>limit</b> - they see it as 'recommended speed'
Cameras are fine if they were all set at precisely the limit speed, and were all operational, so we had a level playing field. However, only some are working, and the actual triggering speed can be anything!

Homer
Posts: 1458
Joined: 26 Feb 2003, 11:52
x 5

Post by Homer » 28 Jun 2004, 13:03

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by uhn113x</i>

So, crappy brakes have been replaced by crappy drivers, many of which should not be allowed to go over 30, or even drive at all [}:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That statement is complete and utter rubbish.
When the national speed limit was introduced drivers had little experience of driving even at that sort of speed (most had none at all). If you could bring a 1970's average family car driver into the present and stick him in a modern car he would have a hard time coping with the light, direct steering, the keen brakes, the acceleration and the level of traffic.
To say drivers have the same skills as they did 40 years ago is nonesense. We now cope with much higher speeds and much greater traffic density.
Yes there are a very small minority who shouldn't be allowed out on the road. But speed cameras completely fail to catch them.

Forth
Posts: 179
Joined: 24 Apr 2004, 23:09

Post by Forth » 28 Jun 2004, 19:31

The steadily proliferating "speed" cameras are another extension of the surveillance we are all increasingly under... wherever you go, whatever you do. In the UK more so than even North korea.
Trust the State and the megalomanic weasels that run it?
Oh, sure.... after all, "it's all for our own good", innit?
How soon now before each person gets smart-trackerchipped chipped at birth.

Forth
Posts: 179
Joined: 24 Apr 2004, 23:09

Post by Forth » 28 Jun 2004, 19:32

"The innocent have nothing to fear."
Not once they're dead, anyway.

User avatar
uhn113x
Posts: 1161
Joined: 06 Jan 2004, 23:06
x 1

Post by uhn113x » 28 Jun 2004, 19:49

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by uhn113x
So, crappy brakes have been replaced by crappy drivers, many of which should not be allowed to go over 30, or even drive at all
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That statement is complete and utter rubbish.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Think we'll agree to differ on that one, Homer [:)]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
When the national speed limit was introduced drivers had little experience of driving even at that sort of speed (most had none at all).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sorry - before the 70 limit was introduced due to the fuel crisis, there were many folks driving at 100 mph plus on motorways.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
If you could bring a 1970's average family car driver into the present and stick him in a modern car he would have a hard time coping with the light, direct steering, the keen brakes, the acceleration and the level of traffic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Why? Many cars in the 70s had equally as good brakes and steering as they do now; older cars than this in the pre-rack and pinion days had poorer brakes and steering that, IMHO, required more, not less, skill.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
To say drivers have the same skills as they did 40 years ago is nonesense. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I didn't [;)]
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We now cope with much higher speeds and much greater traffic density.
Yes there are a very small minority who shouldn't be allowed out on the road. But speed cameras completely fail to catch them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Traffic density, certainly; higher speeds than before the open limit?
We can only hope that the cameras will catch some of them, there is a fair chance that those who shouldn't be allowed out because they do 50 in a 30 limit <b>might </b>get caught.
However, a more important point that I made was the one about attitude - actual driving skill is only part of the equation. Bottled up anger is more dangerous than speed, and no-one can tell me that there is not a lot more of that around than there was 40 years ago, and those who practice it are ready to lay the responsibility on some scapegoat such as 'more traffic' instead of their inability to control their emotions.
Yes, emotive stuff indeed [}:)] Introducing a psychological test in the driving test would reduce the number of cars on the road, and in a greater proportion, the number of 'accidents'
OK, folks, that's my head over the parapet - all the slings and arrows heading my way will reinforce my theory [;)]
Take care and stay relaxed