Hi all... I'm John, and I'm an IT consultant from South Bucks. (What is this, Motorists Anonymous?
)
My credentials... been driving for 17 years, between 12K and 30K briskly driven miles a year. Never been stopped by the Police for anything. Never had a parking ticket. Just one (untypical) accident that was to any degree my fault, at about 5mph, and despite what Roadcraft says, I learned a lot from it.
Speeding tickets: none for 13 years, then one in 2001 and one in 2002, as I shall describe for you.
10am on a bright sunny Sunday morning, on the A45 heading towards Daventry out of Weedon in Northants. I'm behind a truck and two cars clambering uphill out of the village at about 20 in a 30 limit. There are two lanes on the uphill side of the road. Five seconds later I've dispatched the cars and truck. A week later I get the ticket from the scamera van. At the time I was furious because as far as I could see, I was using the road for the purpose it was designed for, and my terminal velocity was simply the consequence of a safe overtake. They have since modified the road so there is now only ONE lane uphill out of Weedon village.
A year later, 9am on a weekday morning, on the M4 in south Wales, heading for Swansea on business. Somewhere in the vicinity of Bridgend there's a scamera van on a bridge. It must have been like spearing fish in a barrel, all they had to do was sit there and zap away. It had nothing to do with road safety and it hasn't changed my attitude or speed while on the motorway one little bit.
It's often claimed that the cameras are there to make money, which may be partly true, in as much as they pay for themselves. (They may make a few tens of millions surplus, but it isn't much, in the grand scheme of things.) I suspect that their primary, unwritten purpose is to make driving unpleasant; if the Government can't tax you off the road, then they'll police you off the road, or at least make the whole business so regulated and restricted that you consider an alternative. Any safety benefits are secondary. (Nearly twice as many people every year are killed in hospital by MRSA as are killed by road accidents.) The safety angle is just the one that will wash with Joe Public and the Police, in the short term anyway.
They haven't a snowflake's chance in hell but it seems they are trying it regardless.
To those who say it's the law and if you don't want to get caught you shouldn't break it... I say
I AM NOT A SHEEP and I will question bad laws. What is "safe"? On the motorway a "safe" speed could be anything from under 20mph to over 140mph depending on the road, weather, car, driver, other traffic... the 70mph limit is a line in the sand drawn by a politician in 1965 when the average car had drum brakes and cross-ply tyres.
You don't hear anyone complaining about traffic-light cameras. The problem arises when you apply remote-control, black-and-white law enforcement to what is a profoundly grey area.
And another thing... a system which compels you to provide admissible evidence that you were the driver, if you were driving, is contrary to natural justice. Whatever your thoughts on the American legal system, at least they have the Fifth Amendment. We have what amounts to a forced confession: stay silent, and you get fined. Tell the truth, and you get fined. Tell lies, and you go to jail.
And another thing... as any good child psychologist or dog trainer will tell you, punishment for misbehaviour should be administered on the spot. A ticking-off from Teacher is far more effective than sixty lines and three years' detention via a bit of paper a week after the event. Why do you think Speed Indicating Devices (SIDs) are so effective? Because the message is immediate and personal:
"Yes, you!"
Readers may care to check out the Bucks County Council website where there is a section about proposed "improvements" to the A355 between Slough and Beaconsfield, primarily to dissuade trucks from using it as a route to the M40. Interestingly the proposals haven't been implemented (yet?). Two parts caught my attention: one suggesting the introduction of traffic signals and lower speed limits to deliberately cause congestion and discourage people from using the road, and one remarking that in one 40mph section (quite reasonable, and already covered by a Gatso which probably doesn't get much business), although there had been no accidents, the speed limit should be lowered to 30 because pedestrians felt intimidated. Presumably when they no longer feel intimidated they'll start jaywalking and the accident rate will go up! Oh, and although you can download most of the report online, if you want the appendices containing the interesting bits, such as accident statistics, you'll have to email the council and explain why.
To finish - I'm a libertarian by inclination and my opinion of politicians ranges from distrustful to unprintable. I would wish to be judged on how I drive fast, rather than how fast I drive.
I could go on and on for hours but I'll shut up. I haven't even mentioned the environment yet!