Woe,Woe. and thrice times woe.

Paulmi16 · Unread post by **Paulmi16** » 30 Jul 2005, 22:16

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by j_roc

I have the answer to the problem - Dont speed, simple.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Were you born perfect or have you had to work at the concept?
Paul.

j_roc · Unread post by **j_roc** » 31 Jul 2005, 00:50

I had to work at it. Hope that answers your question.

yangreen · Unread post by **yangreen** » 01 Aug 2005, 18:01

This debate always crops up here doesn't it? I say don't speed and you have no reason to complain. Truth is, I've set off two cameras myself but neither time lead to any action - flukey bugger then!
As Jeremy Clarkson said last night, speed never killed anyone. Stopping suddenly is what gets you. Failed to mention children, drunks, animals etc that might launch themselves in front of you at anytime. If speeding people were only putting themselves at risk, I wouldn't mind so much but the truth is that by driving too fast, you are putting other people's lives at risk. It may not be the main reason people crash - that's the fact that they are not paying attention most of the time - but by forcing everyone to drive slowly, you reduce the chance of bigger accidents. In an ideal world, there would be no limits because we'd all know what is safe and we'd all drive around actually paying attention rather than yacking in a phone or eating a sandwich but we are human!
I just don't understand the "revenue" stance with speed cameras. Stop speeding and put them out of business!

Stinkwheel · Unread post by **Stinkwheel** » 01 Aug 2005, 18:06

As the sticker on the back of my car reads.............
"Speed Kills, Buy a 2CV and live forever"

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 01 Aug 2005, 22:50

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by yangreen

I say don't speed and you have no reason to complain.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
See the links I posted above. Thousands of people prosecuted for not breaking the speed limit and one driver comitted suicide because he thought he was going to be prosecuted when he was in fact not speeding. So it that's that idea shot down in flames.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Truth is, I've set off two cameras myself but neither time lead to any action - flukey bugger then!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Those in glass houses.......
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I wouldn't mind so much but the truth is that by driving too fast, you are putting other people's lives at risk.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't disagree with that. 70mph on the motorway in fog is too fast but that can't be caught by speed camera. 30mph in a 30 zone past a school while it is chucking out is too fast but that can't be caught by speed camera.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> It may not be the main reason people crash - that's the fact that they are not paying attention most of the time[quote]
And how do cameras make people pay attention? Are they not more likely to take people's attention away from the important things?
[quote]but by forcing everyone to drive slowly, you reduce the chance of bigger accidents.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Do you? The evidence suggests otherwise.
The areas of the UK not covered in scameras (Durham and North Yorkshire) have the best reduction in casualties. Well above the national average. The camera strewn areas have done worse than the national average and in many cases are seeing an increase in casualties.
Why might this be? Might it be that drivers are staring at their speedometers instead of looking where they are b****y well going?
Cameras don't work. It's time to rip them all down and start looking at some sensible policies.

DervDonkey · Unread post by **DervDonkey** » 02 Aug 2005, 00:19

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Might it be that drivers are staring at their speedometers instead of looking where they are b****y well going?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Of course it is. Scamera strewn streets alter the balance of probability in a most unfavourable way.
Think about it - You have one pair of eyes, and one brain. What are you going to do when the choice is between making sure that you don't fall foul of the camera (leading to CERTAIN prosecution), or watching out for, say, some kids chasing a ball into the road (most of the time, it's not going to happen) ? Most people will stare at their speedo to avoid a ticket.
The cameras have criminalised over a million motorists so far, and the numbers are rising. Now forgive me if this sounds a bit naive - but if people are being prosecuted on an industrial scale like this, then surely that suggests strongly that there is something badly wrong with the LAW, not the people who break it?

bxbodger · Unread post by **bxbodger** » 02 Aug 2005, 03:20

I got my first and only speeding conviction in 1980 on a bike: I was caught by Vascar, lesson learned,fine paid,points collected,I never got another!!
Its now a lot easier to avoid getting caught-you really can't miss the big yellow box on a pole, so why do the same people keep getting caught again and again and again.......3 points,then 6,then 9....and then moan about it????
I would suggest that anyone stupid enough to get caught 3 or 4 times really needs to look at their observation skills and general driving ability!!!
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Most people will stare at their speedo to avoid a ticket<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Sorry, if someone is incapable of keeping to a speed limit without constantly boggling at their speedo, then, again, they really shouldn't be let loose in a motorised vehicle-you should really only need to look once!!!!
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Speed Kills, Buy a 2CV and live forever"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">-do these come with BX17RD on them...??

Stinkwheel · Unread post by **Stinkwheel** » 02 Aug 2005, 03:28

Im sure it could be arranged

I had a BX17RD, it wasnt that slow.

Kowalski · Unread post by **Kowalski** » 02 Aug 2005, 03:33

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Most people will stare at their speedo to avoid a ticket<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Sorry, if someone is incapable of keeping to a speed limit without constantly boggling at their speedo, then, again, they really shouldn't be let loose in a motorised vehicle-you should really only need to look once!!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If you make somebody do something (e.g. putting a speed camera up to enforce a speed limit), people will do it grudgingly, they'll follow the letter of what you're making them do rather than the intention. Most drivers seem to speed these days and the majority of those who don't speed will stick blindly to speed limits, as close to the limit as they can get, i.e. following the letter of the law rather than driving more slowly or more safely. People are trying to drive at exactly 30mph +/- 0% in a 30 zone, and doing that takes a lot of speedometer watching.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 02 Aug 2005, 12:41

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Most people will stare at their speedo to avoid a ticket<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Sorry, if someone is incapable of keeping to a speed limit without constantly boggling at their speedo, then, again, they really shouldn't be let loose in a motorised vehicle-you should really only need to look once!!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is no point in basing policy on what should happen. You have to base it on what does happen.
Fact: Counties with more speed cameras have a bigger increase in casualties.
After 10 years of "speed kills" being about the only road safety policy we have a country of moronic drivers who believe that as long as they stick to the speed limit they are driving safely. This could not be further from the truth.
The speed limit should be way down on your priorities as a driver. Driving to the conditions and good observation are much more important.

Paulmi16 · Unread post by **Paulmi16** » 02 Aug 2005, 13:11

Its mobile camera that are hidden that annoy me. Yes I was speeding, but to find the mobile camera the other side of a hump back bridge, when the first thing I saw was Pc Plods hat, then the camera it was too late. It just smacks of revenue earning to me when they have to resort to being 'sneaky' to get you.
Paid my £60, got my 3 points, but at no time did they enquire if that car was insured or mot'd, just give us the money sucker. Does anyone know how long these points last?
Paul.

bxbodger · Unread post by **bxbodger** » 02 Aug 2005, 14:39

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">but at no time did they enquire if that car was insured or mot'd,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
- with the wonderful world of information technology, I'm afraid they already know that before they pull you!!! The insurance info comes up with the Police national computer check, because the insurance companies supply their database to the Police, and if you have a new style computorised MOT certificate that will be on their database too!
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Its mobile camera that are hidden that annoy me. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Thats what got me, all those years ago, hidded vascar-hidden in the front of an unmarked car.......but the prolific offenders keep getting caught by the really obvious cameras!!!!
Every morning I drive into London down the M11. At the end of the motorway it drops from 3 lanes to 2, and the speed limit also drops from 70 to 50-the first camera is VERY obvious, and clearly signposted,as is the limit-the signs go:camera-50-lane drop-50-camera- yet for years it was, and probably still is for all I know, Britains top earning camera!!!It even once had its own page in the Sun!!
Yet it STILL catches people, every day.....now what does that say about these drivers observational and driving skills of the people it catches??
- They are still speeding when they go by it, going quite a bit faster than the others, and they haven't seen it or wondered why everyone else is going slower than them: I would suggest these are the same people who don't see the school signs and can't keep below 30 as they drive by them.....
Here's a picture- now only the truly blind or stupid could miss that......http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2550083.stm

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 02 Aug 2005, 17:44

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bxbodger

- They are still speeding when they go by it, going quite a bit faster than the others,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Perhaps they know they can't be caught? Pehaps they are some of the two million unregistered cars? Perhaps they are some of the unknown number of cars with cloned plates?
Another side effect of camera enforcement of everything from speeding to bus lanes to parking to congestion charging. It's all an added incentive to not register your vehicle correctly. If you don't register you can't take out insurance without insurance you can't tax the vehicle, without tax there is no point in MOTing. With all those savings you can afford a few sets of dodgy plates a year.
And ANPR is near to useless, 32% of the DVLA database is incorrect and unless someone is stupid enough to keep the same cloned plate for several months they don't even get flagged up. The police find it so effective they turn it off in their patrol cars.

ACTIVE8 · Unread post by **ACTIVE8** » 02 Aug 2005, 19:01

Apparently the London "con"(ken)gestion charge which has been running with ANPR, has not been reliable, and they are trying to sort out a different way of doing it, and have asked companies to tender for it using better technology.

Homer · Unread post by **Homer** » 03 Aug 2005, 12:40

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ACTIVE8

Apparently the London "con"(ken)gestion charge which has been running with ANPR, has not been reliable, and they are trying to sort out a different way of doing it, and have asked companies to tender for it using better technology.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There's an article here
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">more accurate than the cameras that we use, which have a detection rate of about 70 per cent<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
70% is pretty rubbish IMO.
hen 32% of the 70% have incorrect DVLA details. Does anyone pay the congestion charge?
And since it is very similar technology to other ANPR systems we can assume they have a similar hit rate.