Safe Speed Forums

Travelling towards the new 7 bridge crossing on the M4 (towards Wales from England) there is a new 'forecourt' speed limit of 50, I assume this is in order to reduce the queues or prevent sudden breaking despite the forewarning of a toll station.

On the approach, whilst trying to concentrate on when the speed limit actually applied (since there was virtually no traffic queuing anyway) I became confused when signs at the side of the road said 50 (and I have no idea in what capacity) where as the electric gantry signs said '50 mile per hour speed limit ahead'.

In the seconds that I pondered where the limit actually began I saw the mobile unit on the bridge. I don't think that I got a ticket that time as my detector said nothing to me but I am getting seriously exasperated with the ridiculous deployment of miss-informed road safety regulation.

The following website embellishes my views entirely (and I am sure, many of your views):

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

My concern is that the current management of road safety laws are turning law abiding citizens like myself, into so-called criminals because they find it necessary to take action to protect themselves from a system which was initially installed exactly to protect them!

I have had two speeding fines so far, both of which for driving in conditions where, as a responsible and sensible adult (like the majority of drivers on British roads), I felt I was posing no risk to road safety.
I thoroughly agree with the conclusions and proposition of the authors of the above website and strongly recommend a read.

The majority of us are not fools, we care very much about road safety, we can differentiate between sensible and inappropriate speeds (and driving in general) relative to the conditions, we also probably know someone who has been affected by poor driving standards, but surely enough is enough?

I think that one of the best quotes I can offer from the above web site is that when confronted with the point that ‘the speed limit is the law and therefore should be adhered to’, the retort comes... "Actually, the law should be enforced in the public interest. The Police cannot (and should not) pursue all violations equally. They must set proper priorities. Murders and missing kids take higher priority than stolen paper clips. So why not set motoring offence priorities based on danger caused? It isn't supposed to be a numbers game"

Give the power back to the people and back to the road traffic police - let them decide whether or not a driver has acted irresponsibly and whether or not to prosecute. Instead of speed cameras replace them with actual cameras in order to assist exactly that and erect signs that warn motorists of accident black spots. And in order to reduce abuse of the above, quash the necessity for traffic police and authorities to provide numbers for convictions as at the end of the day this really is not helping the situation anyway.

I am sick of always looking over my shoulder, always paranoid about my speed, and so much so that my overall driving is compromised. I used to enjoy driving safely (as a member if the Institute of Advanced Motorists) but now it is a chore and I resent the apparent ignorance of the authorities who purport to be making the roads safer with what might look like money-making and rating generating schemes – all for what might seem like an easy fix.

Don’t get me wrong, speed IS a problem, but only in the wrong hands.

i agree whole-heartedly, my sentiments entirely.

more and more people are thinking along the same lines, we are being treat like imboseals and they know it.

i wonder how far they will be able to push the motoring public before something big gets done about it.

i tried argueing with a scamera partnership about a similar situaiton where they lull you into thinking you can go one speed, then drop the limit sneakily (in a position where people unfamiliar with the area will be looking out for directions and signposts etc) and put a camera there (even though the whole length of road has exaclty the same circumstances) to catch people out. they were 100% determined to prosecute EVERY person zapped on that camera no matter how honestly/accidentally they had marginally exceeded the limit without malice or intent.