It seems to me that speed cameras are regarded by some as a total panacea towards speeding control.
Personally I felt there was nothing wrong with the friendly chat with the copper in the good old days that used to warn of an offence having been comitted but not necessarily follow up with a booking.
Now here we have someone who is now a terrified driver, which cannot make the roads any safer.
I say that whilst speed cameras are potentially a good enforcement tool, better use of the results they pick up are required.
IMO each case should be looked upon on its merits. A higher degree of flexability should be allowed. In the case of the lady in the letter this may have meant that the first incident at a few mph above would have resulted in a letter being sent to warn her of no intention to prosecute, but that future lapses mey result in prosecution. The second may have triggered a FPN and the third .... poss the same.
On the other hand, if she has collected that many FPNs in a short space of time, what is she thinking of when she is driving? Speed cameras are usually well sighted and visable, as are speed limits. The vast majority of people, whilst they may not be considered great drivers, are capable of adhering to speeds in built up areas, especially with bightly labelled cameras.
Or am I missing something?
Hugo
|
Whilst I have some sympathy for these people, I would ask what they would do if a parent came to the school & complained because their son repeatedly kept getting into trouble for the same transgression.
Would they think 'oh the poor dear obviously isn't capable of adhering to the rules' or would they keep punishing him and explain to the parents that the rules are there for a reason and BEING CAUGHT failing to obey them will invoke a punishment for each transgression.
|
If they were caught doing 35, then the indicated speed is likely to have been 38 or 40, because speedos usually overstate speed by at least 10%.
In other words, the driver was allowing the speedo to indicate a speed 30% above what it should have been reading. That seems to me to moving beyond the bounds of a marginal error into the territory where a degree of carelessness seems like a better description.
Surely after the first ticket, the writer and his wife should have twigged that the sensible precaution is to pay a bit more attention, and also to make it easier for themselves by setting a target speed sufficiently far below the limit to allow for whatever margin of error they find necessary?
Instead, they seem to think that it's all somebody else's fault. Hopefully the magistrates will be able to offer them some appropriate retraining courses to help them adjust their attitudes. They might then start to understand that drivers who are apparently in frequent breach of the most important speed-limits (those in built-up areas) are not making the roads safer.
|
|
|
When cameras were first introduced it was stated many times by various senior policemen and officials that they were not trying to catch every normally law abiding motorist who happened to stray a few mph over the limit, but they were after the real P-takers who ignored limits completely. That was true to begin with, and the threshold at which cameras were triggered was about plus 20. Over time that threshold gradually reduced till it is now within five mph of the posted limit, and there are more than just Chancellor Brunstron wo would like to see it reduced to zero with increased penalties for offenders.
You can never satisfy single issue fanatics, and when they finally get their way with zero tolerance the next step will be calls to reduce the actual limits themselves, using the usual information from The Department of Guesswork to show how many lives would be saved if we had a man with a red flag walking in front of the car.
We are falling for one of the classic cons these people use to get their own way, and you can never out argue them. If road casualties don't fall because of their efforts, or if they actually rise, it won't be because the new measures don't work. It will be because they arn't tough enough, and then the whole process starts al over again.
It would be funny if you were watching it all from another planet.
|
NoWheels,
I can quite honestly, hand on heart state that I know at least 10 people who trasngress the law by a hell of a lot more than 5mph and don't have a single point on their licence. I know twice that many people who are dangerous - I mean to the point of crashing into people.
How you can advocate the use of cameras and their associated vans as vigorously as you do is...well...confusing. Let's be honest. If Wifey had her two kids in the back doing 35, if she were to be pulled over for such a minor transgression, she most certainly woulnd't have 3 points. She would have got a good talking to and probably would have been more careful. A good example is my mate who got pulled at 42 at 1am. Got a lecture of course and surprisingly, no points. Common sense though.
5-7 years ago, I would have agreed with you re the having points already on the licence and being careful. Now I do not when it so easy to be penalised for not having your foot on the brake because that's essentially what it boils down to.
--
Adam
|
I can quite honestly, hand on heart state that I know at least 10 people who trasngress the law by a hell of a lot more than 5mph and don't have a single point on their licence. I know twice that many people who are dangerous - I mean to the point of crashing into people.
That's not an argument for fewer cameras, it's an argument for more of them, so that those serious speedsters get caught too. But maybe they have Road Angels to warn them to stand on the brakes where the cameras are :)
A good example is my mate who got pulled at 42 at 1am. Got a lecture of course and surprisingly, no points. Common sense though.
Cameras could be used that way, and I think it's a pity they aren't. It would be very useful for them to generate a warning notice at 31-34mph (with the NIP coming in at 35+). That way more drivers would realise how much they are relying on the cameras' generous margin-of-error, and how close they routinely come to getting a ticket.
|
|
|
|
A few years ago I happened to stop near where a mobile camera was being operated and got chatting to the coppers operating it.
The limit was 30 but they were ignoring anything under 40.
Now it appears to be 35.
Fatalities have flattened off and stick at 3,500.
Police presence on the roads has dropped to close to zero and the only ones I see are on blue light runs, therefore not concerned by the homicidal maniacs doing everything except speeding.
"Normal" police can't actually stop offenders on a motorway but have to call up and wait for a traffic car to come from miles away because it's considered too dangerous for anyone other than fully trained experts to flag down a vehicle.
Meanwhile driving standards deteriorate daily. Red light running is becoming the norm unless there is a camera on the junction. Ditto turning right on no right turns.
I am sure that there are dozens of cases of careless/dangerous driving daily that could be prosecuted e.g. the charming chappie who had me off my bike six weeks ago by cutting me up changing lanes, but each case means more police paperwork and time in court, so I am afraid that anarchy will continue to reign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Irrespective of whether or not the 30mph speed limit is appropriate or fair, it is there. And between them these "concientious", "practising christian" pillars of society have managed to get caught four times in the last 12 months.
Well, I dunno about anything else, but I do hope her pupils learn stuff faster than they do.
And as for such a slow learner to lie there being physically sick and unable to sleep; you would have thought that she would have tried to learn quicker, if only to protect the carpet.
An implied aside would be that they perceive that non-christians do not accept responsibility for their actions.
These two need to get over themselves and get a life.
If they're are so damned careful, then I would have thought a level of observancy would be essential. Apparantly not.
And "the points on our licences will make us the lowest risk drivers...." ? Why would this three points do that ? The last 12 haven't.
The speed limit may be wildly inappropriate. It may need changing. The camera may be there for revenue purposes only - all of these things are issues and should be addressed.
And while we're addressing things, how about two people so daft that after 4 occasions its only just starting to occur to them that they need to adhere to speed limits. I suggest a period without licences and then some advanced driving courses. (and before you say it, some advanced driving causes may advocate or at least accept breaking the speed limit - but all of them would be fairly upset if you were doing it unknowingly).
Plonkers, the pair of them.
|
Re ""conscientious", "practising Christian"", most people will try and find some way to explain their general good record, sympathise with what you say but this is just human nature, we all do it to some degree
On the "we are Christians we must be great people" line, I also sympathise, double yellows outside church regularly parked on by people attending the church, a church I know refused to stop the bell practise session when told there was a seriously ill person next door, so I agree these people need to take a good hard look at themselves
On the speeding thing, yes I would have slowed down from the first ticket, however I do sympathise with the underlying point that so much resource is being poured into speed rather than SAFE driving issues, and the thugs are out of control in most big cities
And most recently retired (able to speak out) coppers would agree with this point of view
Sadly the cameras etc are often in the hands of "speed camera partnerships" etc, and not proper coppers with discretion
|
I do sympathise with the underlying point that so much resource is being poured into speed rather than SAFE driving issues
Since cameras make profits, and those profits are retained by the camera partnerships, I don't think that this argument about resources really adds up.
On the contrary, revenue from cameras is probably subsidising other police activities.
|
|
its still a percentage of societys wealth that lots of people think could be better spent elsewhere
|
its still a percentage of societys wealth that lots of people think could be better spent elsewhere
If people want to spend their wealth elsewhere, they just need to do what most drivers do, and avoid speeding.
|
|
|
|
The point with scameras is that it makes it much much easier to do stupid speeds because as we all know the police used their introduction to disband the traffic divisions. As long as you know where the scameras are on your patch then your fine, you only need the road angel type devices when travelling in to unknown areas.
So who now gets caught? Otherwise honest law abiding people who are a little bit distracted for whatever reason.
Classic case of the law of unintended consequences.
And when those same police appeal for information concerning a 'major' crime the now newly criminalised 'ain't seen nothing guv' Ask any policeman, the general public just ain't co-operating any more. If you do not see this as a problem then you are not thinking the issue through...
|
This is the edited response from a serving police traffic officer of 20 years who obviously cannot be identified in any way:-
As a Police officer of nearly 20 years experience, over half of which have been on Traffic, I can only sympathise with N.B. (letters 27/11).
When I joined the Traffic Division (now called the 'Road Policing Unit'), we used to put out at least 6 double-crewed patrol cars per shift. There were always 2 cars covering our section of the M1 motorway, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Nowadays we put out one car on the motorway and one other for the rest of the county.
We used to patrol the roads of our county looking for 'dodgy' cars, offering advice where necessary or fixed penalty tickets where appropriate. Traffic officers were experts in heavy goods vehicle legislation and enforcement. Speeding tickets were issued by real human beings who explained to errant drivers why the law was being enforced at that particular location. We spoke to drivers. Checked their documents. Smelt their breath for alcohol or checked their demeanour for signs of drug use.
Speed cameras can't do any of that. They simply trap drivers who have exceeded the limit (sometimes by just a few mph, as in the case of NB's wife). Speed camera units, often called "Road Safety Partnerships" or some other grandiose name, have to issue a certain number of tickets simply in order to survive. The revenue generated in fines is used to pay the officers and civilian staff and to purchase, operate and maintain the equipment. So they are, in effect, self-financing. Any excess goes to the Exchequer.
Towards the end of the week, if the figures are down, staff are ordered to return to the most 'productive' sites, and, if necessary, lower the limits until the Home Office target for the number of tickets issued, is met. Safety, or accident rates, have absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's ironic that if a camera is installed at a location with a high accident rate (we used to call them 'black spots' but are no longer allowed to do so. I kid you not) or an area where speeding is common, and the number of speeding vehicles going past that camera reduces, instead of seeing that as a success, our masters see it as failure and instruct their staff to go out and get MORE tickets!
I cannot get my head round this inverted logic. You have a particular stretch of road where there have been lots of accidents or speeding vehicles. You put up a speed camera (or use a mobile van). The number of accidents and speeding vehicles reduces. So that's GOOD yes? Well, apparently no. If the number of tickets issued is down, send staff out to scour the county's roads until we hit the weekly target.
Is it me? Am I getting old and cynical or am I missing the point here?
And the easiest way to avoid collecting fines and points on your licence is to not register, tax or insure your car. Get an old banger. Drive it round as fast as you like for six months, then dump it and get another one. Doesn't matter how many times you're flashed by a speed camera, the chances of you actually being found are very slim indeed. And the odds of being pulled up by a Traffic Patrol car for a routine stopcheck are stacked very much in your favour.
However, if you're like the vast majority of drivers, you have a vehicle which is registered to you, taxed and insured. You creep a few mph over the limit and get flashed then the Notice of Intended Prosecution is likely to drop through your letterbox within 14 days.
I am not condoning speeding. Speed enforcement in towns and at appropriate sites e.g. outside a school or hospital or on a busy junction, is fine. I just think that the Govt. (via the police) have scored a massive 'own goal'. In PR terms, the 'Safety Camera Partnerships' have, in my humble opinion, been a disaster. We are alienating ever increasing numbers of the motoring public by the over-zealous use of these devices, especially when they are used to replace real (human being) Traffic Officers.
Nobody, but nobody who works in public service believes that this Government is open and honest. They say they want to encourage 'whistleblowing' and that people should feel free to speak out when they see injustice or corruption. I don't believe that for one second.
I just felt the need to 'have my say' and 'get it off my chest'.
Thanks for reading this far.
|
Mr Brickley did not state in his letter what the speedometer reading was on the four occasions when he and his wife were flashed.
If the readings were, say 33 mph, my personal opinion would be that he had a valid point.
If they were, say, 40 mph, I would be less sympathetic.
If they were unaware what the readings were at the time they were flashed, I'd say they were being rather unobservant.
|
|
|
If A.N. Officer is right about camera settings being tweaked for revenue-raising purposes, then I'd fully share her/his disgust on that point: it sounds pretty corrupt. I think it'd be a pity to let that one stand, and I will email you privately with a few suggestions.
However, the rest of it is interesting. A.N. Officer confirms that the cameras are basically self-financing ... which gives the lie to all the squawks about traffic policing resources being "diverted" into cameras.
What this officer describes is pretty much what I thought was happening: that cameras are being taken as the solution to all traffic policing needs, and the rest of the trafic police have been redeployed to other duties (presumably to focus on achieving the measurable "targets" which forces have to meet these days in other areas, such as burglary).
In other words, it's not a matter of resources being diverted into cameras, but rather of cameras being used as the excuse for downgrading traffic policing. The consequences which this officer spells out are much as many backroomers have rightly pointed out.
The stupidity of it all is that cameras could have freed up officers from the time-consuming task of monitoring speed, and freed them to be more pro-active than before in generally policing driving standards. There is a tragic missed opportunity here -- no wonder officers are fed up.
|
The scameras in Northamptonshire are not self financing they make a loss which has to be met by the taxpayer. This despite papering the county with tickets.
However this does not disprove the theory that these scameras were introduced to make money, when they were concieved all the Chief Constables were drooling at the prospect of all the new toys they could buy with all the wonga. The fact that Northamptonshire makes a loss is due soley to their complete and utter incompetence and the word has gone out that more tickets need to be issued to at least cover the running costs. Absolutely nothing to do with safety.
We are also seeing the return of the drink driver, not that is scary...
|
Don't blame the police.
Look at Sect 3 (c) at
tinyurl.com/6gec6
Discretion no longer allowed. Must do ordered Wetblanket.
DVD
|
'Must do ordered Wetblanket.'
(Hmm thinks Thommo must be some sort of secret police slang, must look like I know whats going on...)
Exactly DVD, Must do double garage as per Wetblanket, check?
|
Don't blame the police. Look at Sect 3 (c) at tinyurl.com/6gec6 Discretion no longer allowed. Must do ordered Wetblanket.
I'd hope that bad driving could be classed as "anti-social behaviour and disorder", which is one the items under priority A. Mind you there's probably a Home Ofice Circular saying it ain't.
The one which seems silly is the third one, about "bringing people to justice". It inevitably diverts resources away from preventive policing :(
|
|
I actually applied for the job of hypothecation officer for Northants Police about 5 years ago and got down to the last 3 form a list circa 1000 applicants.
The guy who got the job was the guy who set up the system in Beds. I wondered why he was no longer working for the Beds constabulary - now I know.
|
|
|
|
|
Police Officer
That's a real eye opener, and pretty much what many people thought to be the case.
Not really much sympathy with the couple with a shed load of points, but there's conflicting forces here :
I drive home through a 30/40/30/40/30/40 route which could in the 40 bits easily be 60.
Force 1
However, I will not speed, just not worth the tickets. I know how fast I'm going as the GPS corrects that shown on the speedo and I try to keep within 2mph of the limit.
Force 2
The endless supply of morons who tailgate me all the way down these roads trying to speed me up. The limit is clearly signed, I'm driving on the limit but every, I mean every night there's some scroat on my tail, and often a line of other morons behind them doing the conga. If one brakes hard it'll be a long line of insurance claims.
I get to the point where I dip the rear view mirror and forget about them, but I can imagine a lot of people would speed up and expose themselves to tickets.
So the roads are limited to a speed below their capability, people get frustrated and speed up. Cameras flash and the local scam syndicate profits.
Seems to me that this isn't helping anyone, especially public relations with the police.
PS-Why don't these idiots just overtake me when the many opportunities present?
--
Lee
Having a Fabialous time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No you're not the only one who thinks likewise.
What also gets me wound up is all those who complain about the dangers caused by speeding motorists slamming on the anchors when thet belatedly spot cameras. If they weren't speeding in the first place or were paying proper attention to the dials in front of them they wouldn't have cause to brake suddenly.
|
Am I the only motorist who wonders why there is a fuss about speed cameras, HJ published a letter from a man bemoaning the fact that his wife had received her third fixed penalty notice for 35mph.
We all know that car speedo's read high so she cannot argue that she was complying with the limit and to have three tickets means either she doesn't learn from her mistakes or is innatentive.
There was a similar article in the Telegraph a few months ago in which a driver was bemoaning the potential loss of his licence for a further offence. He admitted that he had an indicated speed of around 90 on his Ducatti for a couple of the tickets so why the complaint!
Why must everyone think they can chose the rules do / do not apply to them, the disregard of speed limits is now spreading to the widespread disregard of red lights. We should be going back to zero tolerance on traffic offences and if the journey times climb then we have a reason for pushing for reviews of some limits, we should not blatently ignore them (witness the 40mph limit in roadworks on the A38 Weeford Island where 70-80 is the norm because there are no cameras!).
Sticks and stones to come but if YOU can speed how can you argue that I should have insurance and MOT, cannot burgle your home etc. Think about it!
Ian
|
I am wholly with you. Anyone who gets nicked for speeding is at fault for not being observant. Including cameras, I can see them so how come no one else can?
The other side of the coin is that cameras have taken over the role of Traffic police, so there are far fewer of them ensuring that far more idiots are seen on the road.
|
|
|
Hi, I dont think that there is any argument that exceeding the published speed limted is an offence, the question is whether the limits themselves and the penalties handed out for minor transgressions are reasonable.
The fact is that it can be dangerous to travel at more than 10mph past a school at 08:45 on Monday though perfectly safe to pass it at 40mph a 11:00 on a Sunday however in the eyes of the law (assuming the limit is 30mph) a motorist travelling past at 35mph is commiting the same offence whether it is 08:45 on a Monday or 11:00 on a Sunday.
Likewise it can be lethal to travel on a motorway at more than 40mph when it is wet and heaviliy congested though perfectly safe to travel along the same stretch at 90mph when it is sunny and clear of traffic.
Furthermore it is clear that a significant percentage of a motorists capacity to concentrate is being used to look for speed limit signs, speed cameras etc which in itself compromises safety.
The authorities are putting ever more complex technology into play in catching speeding motorists, if only some effort was put into variable speed limits etc unsuring that the punishment really fits the true crime.
I can sympathise with the woman featured in the letter on Saturday, it was a well written letter, well done HJ for publishing it.
|
|
The camera only records the speed in its vicinity. So 35 is probably a charitable interpretation of actual speed in the built up area, unless she's of the rigid, 35 everywhere brigade. It didn't really improve the argument to call up motherhood, apple pie and religious belief to bolster a plea for exemption. Wish we all could - i suppose I could go to church to improve my mitigation plea. Any recommendations re denomination?
|
|
|
|
No you're not the only one who thinks likewise.
What also gets me is all those who whinge on about the dangers of speeding motorists slamming on the anchors when they belatedly spot cameras. Well, if they weren't deliberately speeding in the first place or were paying proper attention to the array of dials in front of them they wouldn't need to brake sharply would they.
|
It's looking at the dials all the time that is making people drive badly.
When out driving near cameras I have started worrying, sometimes in a 40 limit cars suddenly brake to 30, it certainly slows people down, but does it make them safer.
Also I find more cars are speeding on country roads where the main roads are speed camered.
I agree with the original letter and very much with the policeman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey lighten up.
sticking to 30mph registering on your speedo through town is fun.
Just look at the grimaces on the faces of the Burberry-hatted Corsa drivers in your rear-view mirror as they find themselves unable to speed through town, mowing down your kids and granny.
You know it's worth it.
|
Well, Mr & Mrs NB are evidently somewhat lacking in common sense. But:
- the cameras evidently have not worked in that they do not appear to have stopped her form speeding
- the punishment here is disproportionate. OK, Mrs NB was speeding, that is wrong, she should be punished. But her failure is of understanding, comprehension and ability. Nothing is being done to remedy that. She faces simply the loss of her licence; given the state of public transport today that could well be tantamount to loss of her livelihood. A little harsh for "only" 5mph over times 4, especially given the more serious behaviour that we all see go unpunished on a daily basis.
What we have all missed is the comment in NB's letter that the speeds they were clocked at were all suspiciously similar. I have to say that if/when I am caught, I will want to see the calibration data.
patently
(Sorry to have been away for so long - needed to do some work!)
|
Of more concern to the rest of us is that it is most likely that the offences all occurred on the school run when other children are likely to be trying to cross the roads along which she REGULARLY speeds!
On the issue of limits not being practical whilst there are drivers who take the limit as a minimum regardless of conditions we need speed limits which control these idiots and the rest of us just have to live with them.
We also need to look at the test system, I have two children who have passed the driving test in the last two years and they are taught that not maintaining the speed limit is regarded by examiners as not making sufficient progress (i.e. a FAIL).
Ian
|
"not maintaining the speed limit is regarded by examiners as not making sufficient progress"
Yep, that's also in the training I am currently undergoing - "brisk, businesslike but safe progress". What's the problem there, so long as it's safe?
Usually I'm in the car because I have somewhere to go, and I don't want to dawdle at 25mph in a 30, or 50 mph in a 60.
I think half of drivers are not even aware of what limit they are in...and automatically slow down for a camera even when well within that limit, cos they just aren't sure...
|
|
|
|
Yes it is, when I took my bike test about 7 years ago I failed the first one because I was going too slow. We were in a built up area, I had not seen any signs therefore assumed it was 30, turns out it was 40! When I saw a sign I speeded up but by that time it was too late, seems I missed the entry sign for 40 (went back and checked later!).
|
|
|
|
"The punishment here is disproportionate"
Too true: loss of licence for something that is illegal but does not endanger anyone else may easily lead to loss of job and the financial penalty of hundreds of pounds on insurance premiums for years to come.
Compare that to the punishment for offences causing financial loss or injury e.g. burglary, drug offences, alcohol related offences, even careless driving, which leads to a few hours community service painting the local church hall or weeding the verges.
|
|
|
|
|
So, to paraphrase.....
"My wife has been warned twice in the last year about driving too fast but couldn't be bothered to change her manner of driving. Now with the third warning, she's panicking about the possible consequences to herself if she gets caught again.
She has children / a responsible job / religious beliefs so the law shouldn't apply to her.
I have also been warned about my speeding in the last year but neither my wife nor I have taken any notice of the warnings.
We can't possibly have done something wrong - we must have been set up. The Police are picking on us.
We are safe drivers despite the fact that we regularly break the rules. We shouldn't be punished for this either financially or being forcibly removed from the roads."
Oh I have SO much sympathy for this couple........
|
Nicely put, but I feel that "Plonkers, the pair of them." offers a similar amount of information and so much more succinctly.
8-)
|
Average Scroat:
So its fair that if i hit a copper (for instance) i will likely be on the streets again within a few hours, eventually get a fine (its coming out of my bnenifits anyways, so it wont be much), and the chances of custodial sentence are negligible, various legal entitlements (right to silence etc)
Average Hard Working Contributor to Society:
May not be perfect, but works long hours, earning money to keep roof over familys head, gets done for driving exactly the same way as most others do (ie a few mph over the limit) a few times, and you i) loose licence ii) therfore loose job iii) if you manage to keep roof over head u will struggle to buy pressies for kids for chritmas, legal entitlments (er not much)
I dont think these punishments fit the crime, and the are whether you like it or not being imposed on the vast majority by a small minority of anti-car people who have manipulated themselves into positions of power
The law and the way it is implemented need fixing
|
>>The law and the way it is implemented need fixing
I wouldn't dispute that. However, if you pull back from the major issues to simply the letter concerned, then I think Duchess wrote a pretty good precis. Ironically, its idiots like the letter writers that give the speed enforcement people as much material as they need.
If the letter had said - limits are wrong because.... or even policing is wrong because..... Then there would be some room for discussion. But essentially the letter said we slow to learn but since we go to church it shouldn't apply to us.
I have said, time and time again, there is nothing wrong with cameras. There is nothing wrong with absolute speed limit enforcement. Nothing at all. To argue against enforcement is to play into the hands of thse who would stop you driving. Ditto whining when you are caught.
The issue is the speed limits themselves. That's where people should be campaigning. It is a nonsense to campaign against enforcement. To campaign against inappropriate laws (30mph on a dual carriageway for example) makes lots of sense. Goodness knows it is the limits that are ridiculous. For example, if the limit was 100mph nobody would have an issue with enforcement. Where it is 30mph it is an issue. The reality is very few people, I believe, would have an issue with cameras if they were set to realistic limits.
Mind you, it would be kind of nice if they'd admit that whilst they really do enforce limits, they are actually there to catch people and earn money rather than prevent the crime in the first place.
|
Duchess is right. To keep speeding on (probably) the same route after two NIPs is a bit silly.
John Deacon is right. There is no rhyme or reason in the comparisons between the punishments meted out for different offences. It is as if SR was right and speeding really was a premeditated evil act like burglary.
Mark is, of course, always right*.
-------------------------
*except when he disagrees with me
|
|
|
Ironically, its idiots like the letter writers that give the speed enforcement people as much material as they need.
The letter writer was being honest and I think raises a genuine concern that many people have, i.e. that it is safer to concentrate on driving, keeping eyes on the road looking out for hazards, side turnings, pedestrians etc etc as opposed to looking from speedo to scanning ahead for a speed limit sign or camera to speedo to scanning ahead for a spped limit sign or camera etc etc.
|
Another aspsct of the speed debate that is not often aired is that in slowing traffic down congestion is increased, congestion is itself is a safety matter and a cause of accidents.
In principal if average speeds on the roads were doubled then accordingly journey times would be halved so there would be half the number of vehicles on the road at any one time, whilst the increased speed would be an issue in respect of road safety the reduced congetion would be a positive factor. Clearly I am not proposing 60mph limits past schools however the issue of congestion and it's effect on safety need to be considered alongside the ways that speed is inhibited, cameras, chicanes, humps etc.
|
The faster you travel the more space you need between you and the vehicles around you so some of the benefit of fewer cars being on the road at any one moment is reduced. I am sure someone can work out the maths assuming an ideal separation of 2.5 seconds or so between cars at various speeds and therefore work out the optimum throughput.
teabelly
|
remember we have councils actively introducing road thinning measures, cutting off perfectly safe alternate routes, humps, ever lower limits etc
of course congenstion is getting worse
its refreshing to visit somewhere like brussels where even though its a busy capital you can still visit places in the car, something i just wouldnt bother with in london
|
its refreshing to visit somewhere like brussels where even though its a busy capital you can still visit places in the car
Rather difft sort of capital, though.
The Brussels-Capital region has a population of under 1 million, whereas Geater London (i.e. London boroughs) has over 7 million. The London metropolitan area (including the commuter belt) has nearly 14 million.
Most of greater London was built-up during the 19th century, so it has narrower streets than Brussels, which nearly doubled in population duruing the 20th century.
|
yea but they have no humps, no cameras, no road thinning
dont u think this helps?
|
Ah, I think I see. London's roads are thinner as they date from the 19th century, so to resolve this we need to make them even thinner.
::[thinks]::
::[frowns]::
Oh hang on, lost you again.
|
I've seen two types of thinning in London.
One is on back-streets, to reduce speeds in residential areas. It may increase journey times, but I can't think of a street where I've seen it cause congestion.
The other is in central areas, where pavements have been widened. That's usually in areas where tons of pedestrians have been squeezed into a tiny proportion of the roadspace, and the effect has been to reduce the congestion affecting the huge number of pedestrians, at the expense of the small number of car-drivers. That's making more efficient use of the space.
|
The other is in central areas, where pavements have been widened. That's usually in areas where tons of pedestrians have been squeezed into a tiny proportion of the roadspace, and the effect has been to reduce the congestion affecting the huge number of pedestrians, at the expense of the small number of car-drivers. That's making more efficient use of the space.
Er.....
Pedestrians squeezed into roadspace? That's roadspace? Am I missing something here?
And where are these London streets with a small number of car drivers? I want to go and drive on one of them.
|
Well known fact.
80% of statistics are made up on the spot. But in no wheels case????
--
Alyn Beattie
I\'m sane, it\'s the rest of the world that\'s mad.
|
|
|
|
|
