Safe Speed Forums

You quoted these two bits of mine in your last post. Let's ignore for the moment whether they are opinions, thoughts, facts, or whatever and look at them:

"But in reality a 20 limit wouldn't be enforced at 24."

Other than for rare occasions, do you actually think that this is wrong?

"In reality, to get people to drive at no more than 30 we are going to have to have 20 limits."

Other than introducing a 25-limit (which isn't on the table at the moment), do you actually think that the above is wrong?

I thought that was your trick. Pot? Kettle?



I thought you weren't suggesting that their transgression above any given limit would be a constant or calculated function of the limit?

Without emulating your annoying habit of slicing up loads of quotes, let me run through some of the rest of your "points" in order:

The police have very little opportunity to take anything into account these days, since most enforcement is performed by automatons or civilians.

I don't need to tell the police this, ACPO has.

I'm surprised you need examples pointed out to you when its in the previous paragraph.

Imagine the "quotes" to be me waving my fingers in the air in a mildly sarcastic fashion.

Anyway, you've taken to clogging up the thread with ever-lengthening cut-and-shut posts without really introducing anything new or relevant, so I would suggest that we limit ourselves to discussing the topic at hand, and that you pm me with any further issues involving my spelling, debating style or understanding, so that I can give them the damned good ignoring they warrant.

I have seen absolutely no evidence, from the past years of automated enforcement and over-emphasis on "speed kills", to suggest that the authorities would do anything other than enforce at the lowest possible speed at which they could regularly secure a conviction.

Do you disagree?



Yes.

I believe that those who are currently doing, say, 37mph in 30 zones will continue to do 37mph if the zone is changed to a 20. I believe that the majority of drivers who are doing 37mph in a 30 are doing so because 37mph is the speed they want to drive at, for whichever of a variety of potential motivations, rather than because it is only 7mph over the limit.

I wasn’t, Robin, but you were saying:
“Essentially, the crux of your argument seems to be that people who drive a little faster than 30mph in 30 limits are doing so because they are intentionally breaking the law "but only by a little bit". You suppose that in a 20 limit, that "little bit" would be small enough to keep them under 30mph.”

The point here is that I didn’t write those bits that you are apparently quoting. (For the record, and this is a minor thing, I see “these” as quotes and ‘these’ as inverted commas, the two having different meanings. I accept that very few people might do things that way though.) All along I have been talking about the example of 37 in a 30. So as in that example the speed is enough to keep them under 40mph, then why wouldn’t an equivalent amount above the law in a 20 zone be under 30mph?



If you mean by "quotes" your posts, then look who's talking you hypocrite! You sliced up my posts! And as for annoying habits how about your one of constantly trying to put down your opponent? Not your opponent’s points but your opponent.



Oooh, how clever, putting the word points in quotes.



“Most” enforcement? On what do you base that? Baring in mind that almost all speed cameras are of the ‘spot’ type, how much of the road network is covered by them? When average-speed cameras come down in price enough so that they can be used a lot then things will be different; I would then suggest that we will stick with 30-limits. But until then, what I have been talking about all along is police enforcement, which as I think you agree is very limited. So we come back to what you said before: “It doesn't matter how you think the zones will be enforced, there are already laws and guidelines about enforcement, and in the absence of replacements, that is how they must be enforced.”

Which is why I then spoke about limited police resources. Which means that they can’t pull over everyone who is just doing a few miles an hour over the limit, and besides, if they did start doing that then (I believe) the public would moan like hell. Which is why I believe that we’re going to end up with 20-limits all over the place. Are you beginning to understand where I’m coming from yet?



So you won’t know then that the reply would be: “We ain’t got the resources, guv”. So you can talk all you want about how the zones “must be enforced”, but in reality that isn’t going to happen (in my opinion and observation again), so is why we are going to end up with 20-limits all over the place. Are you beginning to understand yet?



What is in the previous paragraph? If you mean your misreading of my position over what speed in relation to the speed limit that I think a lot of people do, then it’s no good trying to turn things around and blame me – it’s quite clearly you who is at fault.

Here’s a good example for you: I said in my first post “I haven't read this whole thread but I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that the vast majority of people on here think that …”

And you replied “it does not shock me in the least that you have merely read the one other post on this page of the thread and decided to make sweeping inferrences from it. Quelle surprise!”

Do you see, Robin? It’s your lack of understanding, or thought, or engaging the brain or something that’s the problem here.



That’s pretty stupid when your ‘quotes’ are just made up, don’t you think?



How can I be clogging up the thread when nothing has been posted on it for over three days? As for introducing anything new or relevant, I did that in my first post, just giving my thoughts on the situation, and ever since then you’ve been arguing about them basically for no reason. As for ever-lengthening “cut-and-shut” (whatever that means) posts, I’ve just been replying to your posts, and it’s been you who has kept misreading or not understand what I’ve been saying (which is why it’s kept going for so long).



Robin, that’s what I wanted to do to start with, but then you said:
“Welcome back hjeg, remind me why you're now on #2? Is this a trolling game you're playing with your buddies to see how high you can iterate?

Also, it does not shock me in the least that you have merely read the one other post on this page of the thread and decided to make sweeping inferrences from it. Quelle surprise!”



You see, you’re being obsessive again. I mention the way you spell the word “behaviour” once and then you go on and on about it. It’s just like last time when you got really annoyed at me pulling you up on misreading your own link about the word “no-one”, and then you started lying about how important I saw it. Why can’t you be humble for once and accept that you’re in no way perfect?



I’m not sure specifically what you are referring to here.



But your understanding, or lack of it, coupled with your over-confidence (you could say arrogance) that you’re always right, is a big problem in trying to have a mature debate.

It seems to me to be very common on this site for people to be rather sure of themselves and to come out with insults at the first sign of disagreement.

I don't.

Another case in point is the 40mph A4 out of london.

Its three lanes, wide, has good visibility in parts, and you could easily drive down it at 70.

But no, people do between 40 to 50 (I know, I go at 40mph and people pass me).

People general slow down to 40 int he area of the speed camera section (and then 35 when they go over the speed camera hatches which is ridiculous), but normally travel at 45 - 50 mph.

Sure you get the occasional nut that DOES do 70, but most people are patently thinking about the 40 limit when they decide at what speed to travel.

And finally, where it turns into a 50 limit on the boundry of the airport people travel at 55 - 60.

How does this show that people are doing between 40 - 50?

If as you describe people are always passing you when you have an indicated speed of 40, perhaps your speedometer is overreading by 5mph?

How do you know what speed is indicated on the other cars speedometer?


Or perhaps very prudent, would you rather have a 5mph under the limit photo when passing one of these devices which have been shown to be inaccurate, or go through at smack on the speed limit and spend 6 months proving your innocence?

When I'm travelling at 40mph (according to my sat nav) my speedo reads just under 40 mph, although I'm quite tall so I imagine this is just parallax between the needle and the marked backing.

Most people don't zoom by me, they go by me at 5 - 10 mph.




I've travelled through hundreds of speed camaras at bang on 40mph and I've never recieved a penalty notice in my life.

I think that is your answer, your speedo is reading under 40, and you are using your sat nav (although care should be excercised, this is not a 100% accurate speed check). Sounds to me like the other motorists are simply running to theior speedos, thus the perceived speed differential.


Obviously only the ones in a 40 limit? Joking aside you are extremely lucky, I have recieved 2 when it has been shown after much wrangling that in fact I was not speeding. Thus I drive at 5mph below the limit past cameras.

What rubbish.

My speedo reads 35 - 38 when some people slow down in front of me for the speed camera, which as you are indicating is the sort of tolerance you apply, so no reason to believe its not the tolerance others apply.

My speedo is not under reading by more than 0.5mph.



Hmm, let me state that again, I've NEVER received a penalty notice, I've driven through MANY MANY speed cameras (and the same speed camera many many times) at the marked speed, I've never received a notice.

(my wife has, she got a notice for doing 52 in the 40, and knew she was, she just didn't realise the speed camera was there, I've driven through that camera many times at 40 mph and its never flashed me)

So hjeg2 and weepej, if I have this correct, you believe that people driving above the prosecution threshold in a given speed limit zone are still taking the speed limit as an input to their speed selection process.

This doesn't really make much sense when you consider that they'll be just as guilty, and punished, for 37 as 39 or 41. If they've chosen to discard the limit for whatever reason, then I'd be surprised if they were still adhering to a modified function of it.

I would expect that the anecdotal examples you cite are more likely to be drivers selecting a safe speed for the conditions. A road may well be suitable for 70mph but, if a significant proportion of it's users are doing 40mph or less, then 70 is unlikely to be prudent.

On the other hand, they could also be examples of speed limits that have seen set by rounding down the 85th %ile speed, where you would expect to see the statistically safest drivers being a little over the limit.

There are loads of reasons why 20mph zones are a bad idea, being used as a tool to second-guess drivers' speeding behavior in order to enforce a higher "limit" would be another!

Incidentally hjeg, in pretty much every English-speaking country, 'Bearing in mind' has an "e" in it, just a minor point I'm sure you'll agree.

You don't need to state it again. The fact that the cameras have not made an error in your case is nothing more than luck. As I pointed out in my personal experience this has not been the case.

As for the rest of the post, you seem to agree with me that speedos read differently and thus you will see people driving at different speeds.

I know that my speedo is a little optimistic for example, thus I am frequently overtaken by someone going marginally faster than me. Also by a similar token, every so often I will also catch other drivers who are going marginally slower than me. I suspect that they are either driving with a tolerance, or their speedo is reading different to mine. It is not possible to draw any further conclusion from this statement.

Just a quickie...

Most accidents happen at junctions don't they? So why have I never seen a speed camera at an actual junction?

Doesn't this add more weight to what the cameras are really about?

Hmmm...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Not by the margin you're indicating.

Are you saying everybody going past me when I go up or down the A4 at 40mph (real speed) is travelling at 40mph according to their speedo?

Patent nonsense.

Further to this, I just got back from cycling around Richmond park, which has a 20 "limit".

Strangly none of the cars there are doing 35 to 40 mph, and in sections there's no reason why one couldn't.

They certainly used to when it was a 30 mph zone.

They are patently travelling at the speed limit, and then a bit more. Its obvious, when a police car approached in the opposite direction they would apply their brakes, I also observed that they didn't do that for normal cars.

Because in order to reduce accidents at junctions you need to have the traffic reduce its speed BEFORE the junction.

There are LOTS of speed cameras sited before junctions.

I thought someone would say that but I don't think you're right. I see them quite a way before the junction and people speed up after the camera past the junction - honestly. So at that point they have got their foot on the pedal to get back up to speed, not on the brake.

If the lines were across the junction however...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Surely all you need is to have drivers pay attention at junctions to reduce accidents at junctions? IMHO...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

No no, as long as they are going slowly enough when they hit, it'll be fine.

exactly my point, I fear

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Well being the wise old guru that I am I always ease off at junctions anyway, where I see the cheetahs' ready to leap in front or across my path. I scrub some speed off and have my foot hovering over the brake; especially when I'm on the motorbike.

The lines you see, which work in tandem with the cameras of course, is the exact spot where you will see drivers stick rigidly to the speed but like I said, the last line is a good distance from the actual junction.

So if, as I believe, it is the case that people are most mindful of their speed at this point and have their foot hovering over the brake wouldn't it have been better to have put the lines by the junction and not a stone's throw away?

(I'm not saying I'm for cameras BTW, just that they obviously don't understand the mind set of motorists)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.