Oooo...organised anarchy...
I go slow enough on the M4 on many days, so I'm not going out to do it deliberately in my own time!
|
|
|
Surely for maximum impact (if that's the right word to use) they should do the protest on a weekday when the M4 would be busier, not a Saturday?
Unless of course they want to win the support of workers who would otherwise get annoyed at being caught up in this mobile convoy if it was a weekday?
|
|
It is of course the Saturday of the bank holiday weekend.
|
It is of course the Saturday of the bank holiday weekend.
Ah. It will be busy then ;o)
|
|
Anyone planning to .......?
|
Anyone planning to .......?
Perhaps we could incorporate it with a backroom meet at one or the other service stations?
|
|
|
|
|
Since the main problem many of these people seem to have is driving within the limits I wonder how easy it'll be for them to drive slowly! If they do succeed, they'll only be proving that it is possible for them to stay within the limits which begs the question why do so many then choose to break the law?
|
Presumably there will be lots of accidents ?
Certainly I am sure that many of these are the people who have already stated that they are unsafe when holding a car at a specific speed since the level of concentration they have to give their speedo prevents them from driving safely.
|
I think they'll also come across a slight problem in that the traffic flow at 56MPH will likely be better than that at 80-90MPH.
Shot themselves in the foot here.
|
I'm a little more sympathatic to the protesters. The figures for revenue from speed camera activity is 10% clear 'profit' and 90% spent on to nicking the drivers and collecting the money. So some nice little livings are being earned out of it at the expense of the rest of us who have to actually earn our livings.
HJ
|
Sorry HJ but this just doesn't wash. It's a penalty for speeding, y'know, breaking a law.
It's not a penalty on earning a living. No-one has to speed for a living (on a public road).
And if more people speed and offset rises in my income tax then I don't mind that.
I still speed, in the "right" conditions, and by rather more than I should sometimes, but I am aware of my speed and of the risks I am taking. If I get caught, that's my own stupid fault. (And I bet I wish I hadn't said that in a month's time...!)
(btw if anyone is driving around in Dover docks, it's a 20mph limit, and I saw a plod with speed device measuring ppl on Saturday).
|
And if more people speed and offset rises in my income tax then I don't mind that.
Ha! Do you ever see that happening?
|
|
|
|
I don't entirely buy the revenue generating argument IF the only reason for camersa is to generate revenue then it's all being handled pretty poorly. It seems to me there are far easier ways involving a lot less hassle for HMG to generate a few million £'s.
So, if these things are merely revenue earners why aren't:
a) there many many more of them?
b) they sited much more inconspicuously?
c) the trigger limits set much lower,
d) more people who get flashed actually prosecuted? The latest Met. figures I saw showed a massive proportion of speeders who never pay up for one reason or another.
In most other circumstances the argument for having discreet or unannounced checks to catch wrongdoers seems well accepted. Indeed if the police, HM Customs, Trading Standards etc. preceeded every raid with a polite bright yellow warning notice I don't suppose they'd catch many people and those they did catch would be quite rightly labelled idiots. Quite why enforcing the law on speeding should be treated any differently escapes me.
|
Volvoman,
For once I am in complete agreement. Most cameras are bright yellow with warning signs - but why that should be I have no idea.
|
|
|
|
Apart from the financial side: just how many people are "employed" in non-productive jobs to collect film from cameras and issue parking tickets, issue summonses, collect the money from these and the Congestion Charge, chase unpaid tickets, and so on.
We apparently have full employment and the Government wants to allow limitless immigration to make up the shortfall of workers, yet there must be tens of thousands of workers who could be redeployed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately I wont be able to take part - a shame as this is right on my doorstep. I'm intrigued to see how they actually go about this without breaking any laws and whether the athourities have time to infiltrate the organisation, as with previous slow drive protests.
|
People in this country, although this government dosn't like it, have the right to peacefull protest. The anti-war protest in London caused more traffic chaos than this is likely to.
We, as a nation seem to be very good at taking what is thrown at us by both government and law enforcement. We have a right to tell the people WE elect what WE expect from them, and what decisions they have made WE don't like. This protest is about a method of law enforcement which is seen as unfair. The law which it is enforcing is seen as unfair. Indeed, there is more and more evidence being collected by interested bodies(safespeed etc) that the method of enforcement is not working and is actually increasing road casualties. It is refreshing to see that someone is prepared to start raising their voice. It took an OAP to make a stand against council tax increases, and that got results. If more people were prepared to voice their opinions, take action etc, then politicians would take more notice.
Good luck to them! Even my son said he may be joining them!
|
This is hilarious:
www.m4protest.org/about.html
It just says "M4 Protest demands:
Will appear here shortly.."
Brilliant! We're outraged, and we are protesting because we want IMMEDIATE action to do ... ehhh ... ummm .. not sure really ...
(NOT SURPRISING, NO WHEELS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WRONG LINK. IF BACKROOMERS CLICK ON www.m4protest.org WHICH IS THE LINK I ORIGINALLY POSTED THEN THEY GET TO THE SITE. HJ.)
|
(NOT SURPRISING, NO WHEELS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WRONG LINK. IF BACKROOMERS CLICK ON www.m4protest.org WHICH IS THE LINK I ORIGINALLY POSTED THEN THEY GET TO THE SITE. HJ.)
The link I posted, to www.m4protest.org/about.html , also gets you to the site -- just to a different pages on it. If you visit the link which HJ posted, that takes you to the front page.
The second entry, on the left, is to the M4protest's "About" page, whose comically empty content I posted above.
|
|
|
|
This is not quite the same as protesting against tax rises etc etc.
At the end of the day most of these cameras are painted bright yellow and usually have warning signs as you approach. If you get nicked by one then IMHO not only are you breaking the law, but you're also not a terribly observant driver.
Interesting which side of the fence people come down on according to personal circumstances. I used to share an office with a guy who lived in a rather 'smart' area - the snag was that his house was right by a busy road and he was always moaning about cars speeding past. He, and a group of neighbours, were lobbying hard to get speed cameras and 'traffic calming' installed along this road. I was rather amused to find that, when absent one day, he was attending a police 'traffic safety' course (in leiu of a fine) after being caught on camera!
|
Whether I agree with the protest or not, I'm pretty sure that the cameras aren't yellow. They're hidden in nondescript vans.
But that's neither here nor there.
--
Adam
|
Hmmmm-- Rather surprised at the general response here - would have thought there might be more agreement with the protesters. Perhaps rather than seeing them as a bunch who can't stick to the speed limit perhaps we should see it as the thin edge of the wedge. What is happening on a small section of the M4 could in the near future apply to every inch of motorway, then every inch of road in the UK. How many of us would really like to have our speed restricted to the speed limit at all times? And every inch of our motoring monitored by various tracking devices?
Interesting article along the same lines by Neil Lyndon in the Telegraph today:-
tinyurl.com/b36ue
For those who can't be bothered to read it all, it begins
"Motoring in Britain: now a misery from start to finish
By Neil Lyndon
(Filed: 21/04/2005)
The late Ross Finlay - one of Britain's more thoughtful motoring journalists - wrote a satirical column some years ago, foreseeing a future when drivers would be constantly under the surveillance of the state. Cars fitted with a satellite-tracker device would relay a stream of data to the authorities who could instantly detect a violation of the speed restrictions. Under their control, the gadget would immobilise the engine as soon as the car came to a halt. The state's representatives would then arrive to confiscate the offending vehicle and would transport it directly, without any possibility of appeal, to the crusher's yard."
Do you fancy this situation?
|
Why would all these law-abiding people be giving up their time to protest about something that should only be of concern to those who intend to break the law?
If people don't like the 70 mph speed limit, they should organise a campaign to get it raised, not a protest against its enforcement.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Perhaps because, as HJ quotes above they wish to "show that safe driving is too complex to be measured in miles per hour."
I am not advocating breaking speed limits by the way, just that there seems to be far too much emphasis on speed as a cause of accidents. Should the authorities concentrate a bit more on other unsafe practices? Ah, but then that would not raise so much money?
|
|
|
Why would all these law-abiding people be giving up their time to protest about something that should only be of concern to those who intend to break the law? If people don't like the 70 mph speed limit, they should organise a campaign to get it raised, not a protest against its enforcement. Cheers, Sofa Spud
I very much agree with this. If they don't like the law (i.e. the 70mph motorway limit) then campaign to get it altered. Campaigning against enforcement of the law is a bit dodgy IMHO.
Incidentally, I'm not being 'holier than thou' about this - I have to drive through one fixed and one mobile speed camera 'zone' every day - so I understand the problem. However I do have to admit that the stretch the mobile cameras are sometimes used on is now much safer. It is a straight and open, but dangerous stretch of road. Has a 30mph limit, but drivers would often be pushing 50mph and there is a school nearby (lots of kids trying to cross around 3-4pm). It is a much slower, but safer, road since they started to use the mobile cameras (there are signs and the mobile vans have big red diagonal stripes on the back, so you have to be a bit dopey to miss them).
|
|
|
|
>>Perhaps rather than seeing them as a bunch who can't stick to the speed limit perhaps we should see it as the thin edge of the wedge.
I think you're right. It is a sign that people are beginning to beieve in;
- selective enforcement - i.e. not against them;
- selective application - i.e.despite the fact that they regularily complain that they are unablr to drive at a set speed due to the complication of watching their speedo and the road also maintain that normal limits shouldn't apply to them because they're safe at any speed.
- limited intelligence - i.e. without the ability to understand thatsubjective enforcement is the direct route to the world of big brother which they so fear. That can only be avoided if all rules are enforced across all people equally - the very thing they are whining about.
If they were campaigning agsint the speed limit, then I would agree with them and support them - but they're just not that smart.
|
I say good luck to SafeSpeed, I for one am absolutely sick of living in a country where, as Safespeed point out, the authorities can't be bothered to catch burglars and muggers, but dont mind taking £60 out of some old ladies purse that was doing 35 in a 30 limit.
I reitterate again "speed cameras CANNOT catch bad drivers".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how this protest is going to achieve anything although it may fuel the negative sentiment towards cameras, you may see a few more gatsos 'torched' as a result. Whilst in priciple cameras are a good idea, the way they are implemented is being abused, they only solve part of the problem however they conveniently generate millions for the government (about 30% of revenue from fines) and camera partnerships. To say that they are not revenue earners is a complete fallacy and the campaign should also focus on these issues.
It will be interesting to see how much media coverage they will get in light of the forthcoming election.
|
The published figures for clear income generated from speed camera convictions is only 10%. The rest goes on administration. It is a very inefficient method of generating tax revenue, and, of course. also affects the ability of its victims to continue earning taxable income. Say a person was on £40,000 a year in a job that depended on being able to drive and say they had a tax code of 400. They would be paying £9,106 in income tax a year. But if they lost that job as a result of totting up for minor 'speeding' offences, they would have generated £240 gross income from fines, of which the government winds up with only £24. Then, having lost their job and possibly been forced into one paying £20,000 a year, their tax bill drops to £3,285. So to net £24 in fine income from that particular driver, the government has lost £5,821 in tax income. And if that driver could not get another job at all and was forced to live on state benefit the figures look massively worse.
HJ
|
|
I'd have thought it would be the other way around - you puts your cameras up and you takes your money.
|
|
Although there are good arguments on both sides about speed cameras, the level of speed limite etc, I object to the things on a more instinctive level. There are one more way in which the state now has us all under electronic surveilance.
|
|
|
|
Even accepting your logic, that is only the case for those people who lose their job and their licence. There are a lot of people who don't lose their licence, and even those that do do not neccessarily lose their job.
But the flaw in the argument is still campaigning for no or inefficient enforcement.
That is ridiculous and insane. What happens if the local councillors decide that parking restrictions shouldn't be enforced if you are on council business ? What happens if the local justices decide that they shouldn't enforce disordely offences if you're a pupil at the local private school ? Selective enforcement is dangerous, illogical and downright stupid.
You need to change the law you don't like.
Look at this another way - the main way to get a law changed is to campaign against it. One of the methods in that can be civil disobediance. Well, if you have already set the precedent that you can ignore lawas you don't like, why would any other protest come across as any more serious or mature ? How do you change laws in the future in conditions of prevailing anarchy ? And given the cyclical nature of social environments, what do you think follows anarchy ?
And even with the speed limits - 70 on a motorway. That's ok. I agree 80mph might be better, but it isn't that big a deal. A dual carriageway sign posted at 30mph is usually ridiculous, I agree, but 70mph on a motorway ? is it really that big a deal ?
If you drive within the speed limit then the cameras are irrelevant to your life. If you don't like the speed limit, campaign to get it changed and then you will find that the cameras remain irrelevant.
As far as I am concerned they should set the speed at an appropriate, and variable, limit, and then have cameras every 100ft and nail you to the wall for breaking the limit.
And as for saying "we shouldn't enforce speed limits because we don't enforce the burglary laws" - the sweary thing prevents me given that the answer it deserves, but the reality is that both should be enforced and the answer is more enforcement of all laws, not less enforcement of some.
|
"the main way to get a law changed is to campaign against it"
Except that in this case the terms of the debate have been so completely hijacked by the "road safety = lower speed limits" orthodoxy, that the idea of a campaign to raise the ludicrous, archaic 70mph motorway limit in the forseeable future is about as feasible as a beaming Michael Howard waving to the crowds on the steps of Number 10, on the morning of May 6th.
Why won't it ever change? Because it would "send the wrong message", and because the authorities are already fully aware that a large majority - millions of drivers on a daily basis - flout the limit by modest margins (in the order of 75-85mph) in perfect safety. The limit is set low, but minor transgressions are ignored by patrol cars - a common-sense arrangement on fast open roads.
The zero tolerance approach on the M4 in Wiltshire does the authorities no favours at all. The explosion of mobile cameras over the last year or two is simply covert surveillance - there is rarely advance warning, the driver is given no opportunity to adjust their speed, and the observant driver is punished along with the careless and thoughtless because by the time you've spotted them, they've long since zapped you.
|
The zero tolerance approach on the M4 in Wiltshire
Err its not Zero tolerance. They are set at 78mph dead.
Which is fine by me. I know where they I know where my speedo is, whats the problem?
|
Er, that's effectively that's exactly what it is; you obviously have a touching faith in the high-speed reading accuracy of your speedometer that I don't have in mine.
When I have the misfortune to have to drive this section on Cup Final day, I certainly won't dare to creep over 70mph. Since the 8mph "grace", barely more than 10% is presumably there to account purely for speedo inaccuracy, it *is* zero tolerance policing of the 70mph limit.
|
>>When I have the misfortune to have to drive this section on Cup Final day, I certainly won't dare to creep over 70mph. Since the 8mph "grace", barely more than 10% is presumably there to account purely for speedo inaccuracy, it *is* zero tolerance policing of the 70mph limit.
Goodness me, is all your understanding this accurate. A speedo may not read under although it may read over by upto 10%.
In case you can't work that out, that means that you're speedo must be showing 78mph if you are doing that speed and could be showing up to 86mph.
|
|
|
|
I thought speedos were set to read higher than the actual speed by about 10%. If so, your actual speed at a displayed 70mph will only be 63mph and you've nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
"you obviously have a touching faith in the high-speed reading accuracy of your speedometer that I don't have"
Nothing touching about it, I have verified it with GPS. Thats why I will happily toddle through there up to an indicated 80mph if I so wish.
|
|
|
|
I think you are all missing the point of the protest. It's this Governments obsession with speed being the cause of all evil. It's not, and the current statistics show fatalities and serious injuries on the increase despite the burgeoning number of 'Safety' cameras. Speed does not kill. Hitting something hard kills. The speed of the vehicle will obviously have a bearing on the severity of the impact. Inappropriate speed is the problem. Simply reducing traffic to a "safe speed" is naive and short sighted. It removes the responsibilty of the driver to assess the appropriate speed for the conditions and reduces most to speedo transfixed zombies.
The real problem is the reduction in real police on patrol catching the reckless drivers which no camera ever will.
Finally, I get a bit tired of reading pious postings telling me that I don't need to worry if I drive within the law. Get real please!! We all make minor transgressions through a lapse in concentration. Why should we be prosecuted for this. As mentioned earlier, patrols would recognise this and can exercise discretion. A much better system and does not allenate the police so much.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
v8man -
I think you're missing my point.
Arguing against enforcement is;
- illogical and inconsistent with how we wish to follow other laws
- unlikely to receive support since even those who don't care about the speed limits will not like the idea of evading enforcement
- I cannot believe people really know what they are doing asking for selective/subjective enforcement - that is a route to disaster.
Arguing that other laws are not sufficiently enforced is a point for stating that other laws should be enforced more, not that this one should be enforced less.
Consistently stating that you are not sufficiently competent to drive at a speed limit without endangering yourself and others doesn't sit well with the argument that you are capable of driving faster than the limit safely.
Saying that you should be allowed to break the lawe because you are incapable of concentrating sufficiently and your lapses should be forgiven is a nonsense. If you can't drive at 70mph, drive at 65mph - or whatever.
Try and understand that laws get changed when it appeals to the sensibilities of the masses. In this case the masses believe that slower is better and that laws should be enforced. They believe that more laws need enforcing, not less - can you see the stupidity and futility of tackling that head on ?
If you played the game the right way and forgot cameras, forgot your inability to drive at a single speed, forgot your inability to maintain concentration and focussed on the potential benefits of allowing some roads to be faster under some conditions and how that would reflect on the economy, people's time, and surprisingly people's overall saftey, then you just might get somewhere.
But I just don't see anybody involved in these campaigns who is clever enough to understand.
>>I get a bit tired of reading pious postings telling me that I don't need to worry if I drive within the law.
And I get tired of ridiculous postings from people who base their arguments against speed cameras on their own inability to drive at a speed limit.
|
"I cannot believe people really know what they are doing asking for selective/subjective enforcement - that is a route to disaster."
Whether you like it or not, selective enforcement is with us now and always has been. If I'm driving at a safe manner, and leaving appropriate braking distances, no patrol car I've ever come across is going to pull me for doing 80mph on a clear motorway. The "masses", the great majority, declare by their behaviour on a daily basis that the legal maximum limit is in fact a minimum in normal conditions for modern passenger road cars. Sorry about that.
If an officer deems my driving to be dangerous or reckless, he is interpreting my actions. That is subjective. Speeding is just about the only motoring offence which can precisely measured, and fines extracted with little recourse to the court system. Moreover, technology allows the policy to be conducted on a massive scale. That is why it is pursued with such missionary zeal by the authorities. Anyone who believes otherwise probably takes Highway Code braking distances at face value.
Cameras in urban areas where road use is shared with non-motor traffic are an excellent and welcome development. Quadruple their number as far as I'm concerned. Draconian enforcement of stupid, outdated limits on the open highway is something else entirely. Legally and technically, there is no difference whatsoever. In the real world, yes there damn well is.
|
>>Whether you like it or not, selective enforcement is with us
I did not mention what we have, I commented on the dumb people asking for it.
|
|
>>Arguing against enforcement is;
- illogical and inconsistent with how we wish to follow other laws
- unlikely to receive support since even those who don't care about the speed limits will not like the idea of evading enforcement
- I cannot believe people really know what they are doing asking for selective/subjective enforcement - that is a route to disaster.
Arguing that other laws are not sufficiently enforced is a point for stating that other laws should be enforced more, not that this one should be enforced less.
Consistently stating that you are not sufficiently competent to drive at a speed limit without endangering yourself and others doesn't sit well with the argument that you are capable of driving faster than the limit safely.
Saying that you should be allowed to break the lawe because you are incapable of concentrating sufficiently and your lapses should be forgiven is a nonsense. If you can't drive at 70mph, drive at 65mph - or whatever.<<
Eh? I don't remember saying any of this. If you're goint to quote me at least be accurate please.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
>>If you're goint to quote me at least be accurate please.
I wasn't quoting you, I was explaining me. Do try and keep up.
|
.>> >>If you're going to quote me at least be accurate please.
I wasn't quoting you, I was explaining me. Do try and keep up.
Accept my appologies Mark. My mistake.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
I think you are all missing the point of the protest..... As mentioned earlier, patrols would recognise this and can exercise discretion. A much better system and does not allenate the police so much.
Well said v8 man!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with everything you say, v8man. The problem is this government is dumbing down on everything, speed kills is a simple slogan. Inappropriate speed means you have to think about what inappropriate means. They have all read, and believe Animal Farm --- 4 legs good, 2 legs bad.
|
|
|
|
The zero tolerance approach on the M4 in Wiltshire Err its not Zero tolerance. They are set at 78mph dead. Which is fine by me. I know where they I know where my speedo is, whats the problem?
Although I may not agree with the RF method of fag-butt disposal straight into the window of my high mileage Lexus, I do agree with him on this.
I do about 50,000 miles a year have been driving motorcycles, cars, vans, and small lorries for over 20 years (and Aircraft for 15) ...and despite speeding regularly I have never had a speeding or other any other type of ticket...yet.
It's not what you do it's the way (and place) that you do it!
Having said that, the day I get a camera fine I will take revenge: If we all wrote a few letters about street lighting not working, pot-holes in roads, etc. The council would have to respond to each letter, ie. one lamp not working = one letter. It takes time and costs them money. If people made it clear we are ok about the cameras as long as the rest of the road system is in A1 condition (dirty sign posts, ruts in motorways, etc.)... they would soon see sense. It would just take EVERY motorist doing this though.
Failing that just Block the M4.
"If a brick through the window doesn't work, try writing a letter of complaint"
|
|
|
|
"road safety = lower speed limits"
And the right way to campaign against that is to send the message;
"don't give a stuff, we want to break the law anyway".
Wow ! How can that fail ? Its brilliant ! I can't see any flaw in that strategy at all. And so perceptive and likely to be so effective.
And so much greater chance of success than perhaps returning with the message "road safety = appropriate speed limits and we completely support 100% enforcement of those".
>>The explosion of mobile cameras over the last year or two is simply covert surveillance
I know, you're so right. And I think they've bugged my house as well - one of the daffodils on the windowledge doesn't blow in the wind properly, I think its a hidden microphone and they're listening into everything I say. Also there's a new telegraph pole in the village which I think they're using to broadcast subliminal messages to us while we sleep so that we don't notice the alien invasion.
|
|
And you think they are old christmas trees propped up outside your house dont you!
|
|
Ever since you opened your big mouth they've mated and multiplied. There hundreds of the things......
|
|
|
|
Leaving aside the cheap and witless sarcasm, mobile speed-traps are clearly designed to catch drivers unaware using a laser and a zoom-scope which means they can see you before you can see them. I'm unsure how I'm misusing the words "covert" or "surveillance" in this instance.
If this is so politically acceptable, why were all the fixed site Gatso boxes painted yellow to improve visibility as a concession to the doubling their numbers?
|
|
|
Didn't the dept of transport commission a survey of all police constabularies in the country on the cause of accidents and found that excessive speed did not feature in the top five. It cited poor driver ability and lack of judgement as the key causes...i'm trying to find the link to back this up.
So i would have thought that road safety = better driver ability, so if the government were really that bothered about reducing road deaths shouldn't they actively encourage/enforce advanced driving tests/courses instead of placing speed cameras everywhere?
|
Exactly reevsie.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
|
If there was a requirement by the state for annual tests of aptitude and ability, how many protests would there be if failure occurred and licences were withdrawn? I'll bet a pound to a penny that, as the proportion of hopeless drivers is significant, such a scheme would be impossible to apply with any rigour. Thats why arguments that imply its all the fault of the state and that speed limits would disappear if only THEY took other actions, are a smokescreen. Could I suggest, as a contribution to a roll-back of the nanny state, that drivers voluntarily take advanced driving lessons? Out of interest how many on this board have taken, and passed, advanced driving tests?
|
I have passed the IAM test on my bike and in my car.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
I have done "drive and survive - defensive driving" refreshed every 4 years
|
I have done "drive and survive - defensive driving" refreshed every 4 years
>>
Is there one for 'aggressive driving'? Half the drivers round my way seem to have been on that one instead.
|
>>I have passed the IAM test on my bike and in my car.
--
>>"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do"
Has your bike got 8 cylinders?
Cheers, SS
|
Has your bike got 8 cylinders?
I make an exception for the bike!
--
"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do"
|
>> Has your bike got 8 cylinders? I make an exception for the bike!
You might get close to it if you inculde the brake cylinders ;o)
|
>> >> Has your bike got 8 cylinders? >> >> I make an exception for the bike! You might get close to it if you inculde the brake cylinders ;o)
Well if you count the six pot calipers then it has 20 all up. That is impressive!
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
Didn't the dept of transport commission a survey of all police constabularies in the country on the cause of accidents and found that excessive speed did not feature in the top five. It cited poor driver ability and lack of judgement as the key causes...
I think what you are trying to say is that speed in isolation did not figure in this 'top five' - if so then I'd agree with you that it makes sense, BUT (and this is the proviso) speed is a major contributing factor in most accidents.
Not neccessarily 'speeding' (as in the sense of exceeding the legal speed limit) but rather down to the driver's inability to assess the prevailing road conditions and inability to 'read the road' thereby resulting in an accident. A very simplistic example would be that there is a 70 MPH speed limit on the motorways, but in thick heavy fog would you drive ta that speed? No you wouldn't. Driving @ 70 MPH would be legal (in the absence of any other speed limit being enforced) because you are on the motorway - but NOT appropriate to the CONDITIONS.
Speed is a major factor and does figure in many accidents, sometimes with all too fatal consequences.
-----
Im not plain stupid, just a special kind of stoopid.
|
|
|
|
There is only one safe speed. Stationary.
And even then, only if everyone else is.
|
Whats new about these Vans with cameras mounted on its side or rear, clocking speeding drivers on the M4.
We've had them on the M4 in S.Wales for some time. If you keep your wits about you and look ahead on the regular bridges they use, you can beat them by slowing in advance. The only problem is, like they do sometimes on the Junc 25a on the M4. The people in blue, hide a van behind the bushes and mount cameras on tripods over looking the lanes, so you don't see them or its too late when you do.
So again, whats new.
|
Hmmm. When I first saw this news article (and I come late to this thread, I fear) I was going to post something on it. Along the lines of:
1. Do you think that you are a good driver?
Why 'yea', I am a member of the BR, of course I am.
2. Do you think it is important to be able - as a good driver - to be in full & competent control of your car at all times?
But of course, i am a member of the BR, of course i do.
3. Are you sufficiently in tune with your car that you can judge your speed by the engine noise?
Oh yes, I'm a brilliant driver. To within 1 mph, usually. Or less.
4. So then why do you find it so difficult to keep your speed down to 70mph?
errrmmm.. splutter...
So you're a bad driver then?
I drove all the way to Taunton last week - from London - and never broke the (indicated) speed limit. I had one of the most stress-free drives I've ever had. (left 5am; returned leaving T. about 5pm.) This zero tolerance thing is the best thing that has ever happened to a motorway. Roll on the same on all the other motorways.
Oh, and an added benefit is that we shall generate less greenhouse gas, as CO2 production at 63mph is considerably less than that at 80mph.
But then I'm only repeating what Mark wrote: 'And I get tired of ridiculous postings from people who base their arguments against speed cameras on their own inability to drive at a speed limit.'
|
But then I'm only repeating what Mark wrote: 'And I get tired of ridiculous postings from people who base their arguments against speed cameras on their own inability to drive at a speed limit.'
Nothing could be further from my view. My dislike of speed cameras is based solely on an opinion that reliance on them does not assist in improving road safety.
I wish I were wrong. Sadly, I am not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The protesters put their point over very well on their website, but if a slow drive along the M4 is what they're planning, they will be like a cow that gives a good pail of milk but then kicks it over.
Just like those idiots who blockaded oil refineries, they spoil a good case by taking action which inconveniences, and thus alienates, the public in general. Every time action like this is taken, they weaken their case, not strengthen it.
There will be a monumental traffic jam on the M4 on the day that many people will be setting off for a long weekend. They don't want to be held up, any more than they want to be forced to queue for fuel. There are many other ways of making the case, and I hope they will find them, and deserve our support.
|
|
|
On the M74 and northen end of theM6 there are regularly speed camera vans parked on bridges over the motorway. No one seeems to complain about these - if you want to speed on these stretches of motorway, which is not difficult as they are not the busiest in the country, just keep your eyes open.
I addition the local police are often parked on slip roads waiting for passing speedsters.
So why the problem with the M4? From what I understand the motorways in the south are so clogged with traffic that makes even 30mph seem fast. Why not just drive at 70mph max where you can. Get up a few minutes earlier and give yourself a bit more time for the journey and finish the journey a lot less stressed and penalty point free.
|
You mean work longer hours.
HJ
|
|
The impact of driving 90mph vs 70mph on most peoples' working week is going to be pretty marginal (unless I'm a sales rep who almost lives on the motorway).
|
Is it acceptable to pay 21% tax, rather than 22%?
Is it acceptable to pay 11 month's council tax instead of 12?
Why are people campaigning to be able to drive in excess of the legal limit?
The stretch of road in question had almost 250 incidents / accidents in 12 months, that's one every working day. Why are the authorities wrong to trying to address the problem by enforcing the speed limit? It's the law, if they don't like it, campaign to get the law changed. Apparently the Tories were talking about raising the limit, so there's a legitimate option for you. I'm not a Tory supporter or voter by the way.
|
The stretch of road in question had almost 250 incidents / accidents in 12 months, that's one every working day.
Too right mare!
Living as we do just a couple of miles from j15, the all too frequent lane and junction closures caused by accidents have a direct effect on us every time we leave the house. Sometimes it seems like every day for a week or more. Mrs madux has got into the habit of 'phoning me before she leaves work to see if I know why there is so much traffic on the A346, and should she avoid j15 and come home the long way around! (More fun anyway in the mx5)
|
100 miles at average 60mph takes 100 minutes.
100 miles at average 70mph takes 86 minutes.
100 miles at average 80mph takes 75 minutes.
100 miles at average 90mph takes 67 minutes.
Reasonably realistically we're comparing average 60 with average 80 and the difference for every 100 miles is 25 minutes.
When you already work a 12 - 16 hour day, 25 minute means a lot, and that's just for 100 miles.
HJ
|
100 miles at average 60mph takes 100 minutes. 100 miles at average 70mph takes 86 minutes. 100 miles at average 80mph takes 75 minutes. 100 miles at average 90mph takes 67 minutes. Reasonably realistically we're comparing average 60 with average 80 and the difference for every 100 miles is 25 minutes. When you already work a 12 - 16 hour day, 25 minute means a lot, and that's just for 100 miles
Utterly fatuous argument
to average 60 mph over 100 miles on a british motorway you have to hit a real 70 frequently
to average 70 mph you have to hit 85 mph regularly
to average 80 mph you have to hit 95 a lot
to average 90 mph you have to gun it to 110 mph a lot.
|
|
And if you are working a 16 hour day, I really dont want you anywhere near me at 110mph thank you very much
|
|
|
>> 100 miles at average 60mph takes 100 minutes. >> 100 miles at average 70mph takes 86 minutes. >> 100 miles at average 80mph takes 75 minutes. >> 100 miles at average 90mph takes 67 minutes. >> >> Reasonably realistically we're comparing average 60 with average 80 and the >> difference for every 100 miles is 25 minutes. >> >> When you already work a 12 - 16 hour day, 25 >> minute means a lot, and that's just for 100 miles Utterly fatuous argument to average 60 mph over 100 miles on a british motorway you have to hit a real 70 frequently
to average 70 mph you have to hit 85 mph regularly to average 80 mph you have to hit 95 a lot to average 90 mph you have to gun it to 110 mph a lot.
This part of the thread reminds me of the old adage "90% of statistics are made up on the spot".
|
This part of the thread reminds me of the old adage "90% of statistics are made up on the spot".
And the other 10%? to get 90% you have to make up 95% regularly
|
|
|
100 miles at average 60mph takes 100 minutes. 100 miles at average 70mph takes 86 minutes. 100 miles at average 80mph takes 75 minutes. 100 miles at average 90mph takes 67 minutes.
That may point towards a case for higher speed limits, but it has nothing to do with the enforcement speed limit happens to be in force.
Reading this thread, it'd be easy to think that the Highways Agency was planning to lower the speed limit on the M4. So far as I can see, it isn't.
|
in my honest(john) opinion this is a media stunt to make the would be speeder think twice. They authorities CAN NOT put speed camaras on moterways because as HJ shows above if people stayed to the limit there would be possibly on average 15% more time spent on the moterway on average which would basically cripple this country.
I wonder where most people die on the roads?
I would have thought that for the average time spent the moterway is fairly safe
This might be controversial but if you are stupid and kill yourself im not too bothered but why should I stick to 70 on a straight empty safe piece of moterway EXCEPT the law
|
It would make more sense to demonstrate in favour of enforcing laws, rather than ignoring them - if only I could get the speed limit in my village enforced...
There is an election pending though so it's quite possible that a bit of influence will be used to allow these morons to go on flouting the law I suppose.
|
>>if people stayed to the limit there would be possibly on average 15% more time spent on the moterway on average which would basically cripple this country.
Stuff and nonsense which I strongly suspect that you just made up.
|
common sense says that if you slow down you spend more time on the road (hope you understand that bit)
if people drive on average 80 on the moterway when possible then this would be reduced to 70
the 10 mph difference divided by the new speed = approx. 15%
its not rocket science.
nobody has come up with any ideas EXCEPT the law why I should not do 80 on a clear quiet straight piece of road
|
>>common sense says that if you slow down you spend more time on the road (hope you understand that bit)
Does it ? Does it really ? Surely that would depend on the overall flow of traffic and its average speed ? Surely that would equally depend on the most efficient use of that road space ? Unless you believe that you are the only vehicle on the road, and I suspect that you do, then you would need to understand the dynamics of traffic not the rather limited potential in your right foot. Do you know how to work that out or is your understanding as limited as your grammar ?
The 70mph limit or the 80mph limit does not alter directly your average speed, just your top speed. (hope you understand that bit). Anytime that you are being held up by other traffic, then the speed limit is not relevant. (did you understand that bit ?). SO unless you truly believe that you would 80mph without any deviation for the entire of your journey, then I would suggest that you have either no idea of what you are talking about or a very simplistic approach to the real world. (how about that bit, did you manage to udnerstand that ?)
|
|
you seem to be getting very angry but again if people stop speeding more time will be spent on the road. That must be a fact there is no way people will spend less time on the road unless you expect the q s to part once we all obey the law
|
Not angry; tired of people making up facts as part of an argument that they don't understand.
|
|
i have read what you have put in other places and dont see why you are the oracle. What dont I understand? My argument was simple but I could spout out as much physics as you want
|
I don't want physics.
You related speed limit (theoretically a top speed) to average speed and traffic throughput.
I udnerstand the mistake, but nonetheless it is a mistake. Then your comment "(I hope you understand that bit)" or somesuch comment seemed a little strong coming from someone who didn't.
However, I should have ignored it.
>>and dont see why you are the oracle.
Pure luck.
|
|
i do get your point about the diff between top speed and average speed but just trying to make the point that if nobody speeded there would be more traffic on the road and that is why the gouv dont make any real effort to stop people driving and less than 85 because it isnt massivly dangerous. They come down on the people drivin faster than this and the fools doin hair or anything that takes eyes off road or tailgateing at high speed because I think that is behind most of the accidents about. It is therefore people doing stupid things while going at high speeds that is the main problem not the speed itself
|
|
>>That may point towards a case for higher speed limits, but it has nothing to do with the enforcement speed limit happens to be in force.
Exactly. But seemingly this is rocket science and people can't understand the distinction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I recently drove from Slough to Torquay and back using the M4, and between Bath and Hungerford everyone was sticking to 70mph, including those in the big German cruisers. What struck me was how relaxing the driving was: no stress associated with intimidation from the fast mob, and cars dodging in and out of lanes.
But I'm with HJ on this one: 70 is way too slow. At least raise the limit to 80mph and then enforce that limit.
Speaking as someone who obeys speed limits (except on most motorways) I find the current policy of road safety management indefensible as it ignores the main causes of accidents: cyclists without light at night, sometimes on the wrong side of the road, intoxicated pedestrians wandering into the road, people pulling out of junctions without looking, going round a corner within the speed limit but still too fast and so on ...
Leif
|
Despite the fact that I do not support this protest, I am in total agreement that 70 is too slow. However I would sooner keep the limit at 70 with some tolerance than 80 with zero tolerance.
HJs argument is fatuous because while you might sustain an average 90 mph for two thirds of your journey (if you are really luck), just 5 minutes in slow traffic (which seems inevitable) after you leave the motorway brings your average right down, and allows all those motorists you have passed many miles back to be just a car length or ten behind you...
|
|
Seems to be an argument for tachographs for motoring journalists!
|
Seems to be an argument for tachographs for motoring journalists!
And sales reps, and all the others who claim that their days are too long to bother obeying speed limits.
Why should a safety measure like tachographs apply only to HGV drivers? They at least have to undergo specialised training before being sent out to drive long distances every day, but I wonder how many reps are ever sent on the available courses, let alone tested on them?
|
Why should a safety measure like tachographs apply only to HGV drivers?
What makes you think a tacho is a safety measure?
--
Alyn Beattie
I\'m sane, it\'s the rest of the world that\'s mad.
|
|
|
|
But I'm with HJ on this one: 70 is way too slow. At least raise the limit to 80mph and then enforce that limit.
Fine. Then do something about it!
www.writetothem.com/ (Albeit there are no MP's at present, but i'm sure that you can find out who's the incumbant).
|
mare "so do something about it!"
That's a pretty fatuous argument given the political situation in the UK.
So vocal and disproportionately publicised are the voices on the "speed kills" side that no party is going to campaign with any real vigour for the thorough overhaul of our motoring laws that we need.
The opprobrium heaped on the Tories for even daring to suggest a mild tinkering with the maximum speed limit and a slightly less mendacious speed camera policy is proof of that.
What needs to be changed isn't the sort of minor consequences of a change of ruling clique, but a complete change of climate (as opposed to climate change). The political classes won't stop nannying until we stop letting them - and it is abundantly clear that simply voting for one set of control-freaks as opposed to another doesn't achieve that.
This proposed protest probably won't have any effect, even if it happens. But, as the fuel protests showed, it is far more likely to have an influence than trying to take on your local MP
and the massed ranks of the three main parties.
|
This proposed protest probably won't have any effect, even if it happens. But, as the fuel protests showed, it is far more likely to have an influence than trying to take on your local MP and the massed ranks of the three main parties.
am I reading this right?
The perceived problem is speeding. The solution on offer, which the protesters oppose, is to enforce the legal speed limit.
The protesters plan to challenge this by going slowly instead, and you suggest (probably accurately) that this is unlikely to have much effect.
So if one protest doesn't work, what are you suggesting? Escalate it until all the motorways go slowly all the time?
Not sure how that helps make the case for higher speeds. In fact, I'm sure that plenty of anti-speed campaigners would be tempted to help.
According to a post earlier in this thread, the area concerned has a lot of accidents. If the stats support that, then this protest has picked a battleground where the stronger the protest, the more eloquently the case is made for controlling speed -- and that fundamental flaw will doom this campaign whatever methods are used.
|
NoWheels: "am I reading this right?"
I've no idea. But either way you are missing the point.
mare claimed the way to change wrong-headed law was to contact politicians.
I pointed out that in the current climate with regard to motoring law this doesn't work - witness the proliferation of speed cameras despite widespread opposition.
Therefore protests are relevant and potentially effective.
What form those protests take is not the point.
|
NoWheels: "am I reading this right?" I've no idea. But either way you are missing the point.
From what you write below, you only got one of my two points.
mare claimed the way to change wrong-headed law was to contact politicians. I pointed out that in the current climate with regard to motoring law this doesn't work - witness the proliferation of speed cameras despite widespread opposition.
So what you need to do is to find a way of winning the wider argument.
Therefore protests are relevant and potentially effective. What form those protests take is not the point.
I pointed out that in the current climate with regard to motoring law this doesn't work - witness the proliferation of speed cameras despite widespread opposition. Therefore protests are relevant and potentially effective. What form those protests take is not the point.
The form of the protests does have a bearing, so maybe you or someone else will think of a better sort than the go-slow proposal.
But you also have the problem of the chosen battleground.
Arguing against enforcing speed limits in an area with lots of accidents is not going to work. At least not unless folks think it's a good thing that might be more accidents, or more damage in the accidents that do happen.
And protesting against a measure which appears to be targeted against a real problem is a surefire way for any protest to backfire.
|
NoWheels: "Arguing against enforcing speed limits in an area with lots of accidents is not going to work. At least not unless folks think it's a good thing that might be more accidents, or more damage in the accidents that do happen."
The first point to make is that my initial comment was a response to mare's claim that contacting politicians is an effective strategy. It is not.
Your argument beyond that seems contentious at best. The nanny lobby may be quite convinced that speed is the cause of accidents, but most experienced drivers know it is not and that bad driving is. People are increasingly aware of the fatuous link between speed limits and accidents, so you might very well be wrong about the effectiveness of this protest.
What has caused the accidents on this stretch of motorway is unclear. Speed may, or may not, be a factor but the knee-jerk reaction of "safety" campaigners is to install speed cameras. No other thought, it appears, enters their heads.
Yet it is clear is that speed cameras are unlikely to solve the problem and may even compound it. Protesting against their mindless application can only be a good thing.
|
What has caused the accidents on this stretch of motorway is unclear
and then you write:Yet it is clear is that speed cameras are unlikely to solve the problem and may even compound it.
How can you be so sure that cameras won't help to solve the problem if you don't know what the problem is?
Speed may, or may not, be a factor but the knee-jerk reaction of "safety" campaigners is to install speed cameras. No other thought, it appears, enters their heads.
The cameras installed around my way were accompanied by other measures: the package has been very succesful both in reducing accidents and accommodating other road users. But it's much easier to assume that the bit you dislike is the only measure considered.
Protesting against their mindless application can only be a good thing.
So have you checked how the decision was made to introduce speed cameras on this stretch of the M4, before labelling the installation as "mindless"?
|
NoWheels: "So have you checked how the decision was made to introduce speed cameras on this stretch of the M4, before labelling the installation as "mindleess""
Of course I have. And I'm surprised you haven't.
As is so often the case with the "safety camera" shakedown organisations, the Wiltshire Camera Parthership has simply quoted the number of accidents on that stretch of the M4. There has been no attempt to prove, as far as I am aware, that speed was in any sense a contributing factor to that number.
As the RAC Foundation has pointed out, speed cameras are "irrelevant" to this sort of accident (their choice of word).
Most motorway accidents are caused by lack of attention, poor road conditions or sudden mechanical failure. Not speed.
|
|
The perceived problem is speeding.
No. The perceived problem is too many accidents. Speeding is assumed to be the cause, by some. Others disagree.
|
>> The perceived problem is speeding. No. The perceived problem is too many accidents. Speeding is assumed to be the cause, by some. Others disagree.
Not quite.
Speeding can be seen as a problem not just in causing accidents, but in increasing the sevcerity of those that occur. (Tho no doubt someone will argue that a smash at 80 is no worse than one at 70).
But the probs of speeding are not just about causing accidents, however much the speed lobby would like to cast them that way.
|
Well, using basic physics, and assuming a car weighs 2000kg.
At 70MPH: 0.5 x 2000 x 31.3^2 = 980,000J of kinetic energy
At 80MPH: 0.5 x 2000 x 35.8^2 = 1,300,000J of K.E.
Only a 14% increase in speed, but a 30% increase in kinetic energy, and if you crash that energy has to go somewhere.
And if you're travelling as some cars do at 100MPH, then you have a kinetic energy of over two million Joules. (For the record, you have 104% more energy at that speed than at 70MPH)
That is why we have speed limits.
|
All very smart Jesse, thank you.
Why do other countries have different speed limits then? 130kph (81.25 mph)is fairly common across Europe, unless derestriction applies (e.g. Germany).
There is nothing whatsoever magic about 70 mph except that it happens to be the maximum lawful speed in this country. And as such, I don't see why it should be considered bad to prosecute anyone breaking it.
|
|
|
Well, using basic physics, and assuming a car weighs 2000kg. At 70MPH: 0.5 x 2000 x 31.3^2 = 980,000J of kinetic energy At 80MPH: 0.5 x 2000 x 35.8^2 = 1,300,000J of K.E. Only a 14% increase in speed, but a 30% increase in kinetic energy, and if you crash that energy has to go somewhere. And if you're travelling as some cars do at 100MPH, then you have a kinetic energy of over two million Joules. (For the record, you have 104% more energy at that speed than at 70MPH) That is why we have speed limits.
I guess the point is that if the speed limit was raised, rather the average speed was raised, then there would be less vehicles on the road at any one time because journey times would be shortened so there would be fewer other vehicles to crash into therefore maintaining or even improving safety levels irrespective of the kinetic energy that would need to be absorbed if a crash were to happen.
|
|
Wasn't there some point that as speed increased there came a point where the increased gap required outweighed the increased throughput advantage ??
|
|
Yes, and doesn't maximum capacity occur at an average speed of 55mph? Hence, at certain times of travel journey time could be lower if maximum speed is managed. Currently, with ineffectively enforced maximum speed limits, its anarchy. BTW, would also like to see a minimum speed limit on M-ways!
|
To be honest, I always thought the best system was that used in France, where a high limit is set in the dry but which is drastically reduced in the wet.
After all, even 70MPH can be dangerously fast in wet conditions.
|
Wasn't there some point that as speed increased there came a point where the increased gap required outweighed the increased throughput advantage ??
Yes, though this varies very much from road to road however there are many sections of the motorway network that could benefit from reduced conjestion via an increased speed limit (or
perhaps variable limit re prevailing conditions) based on this logic, likewise many 30 limits coud be raised to reduce congestion on the basis that temporary 15 or 20 limits could be imposed at school times, i.e. between 08:00 and 09:00 and 15:00 and 16:00.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
