ndp wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
ndp wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
ndp wrote:
Drivers won't take responsibility. They tend to bleat and whinge when an apparant hazard hasn't been marked to the point of being completely obvious, and they crash because they messed up. They don't like to admit they might be wrong.
That's a 'system' problem, not a 'drivers' problem. It needs a system solution.
Absolutely. Drivers have to take responsibility for themselves. Amongst other things this means that if the do the crime, they should do the time.
Now that's pure make believe. Drivers are what drivers are, and to a lesser extent what the system makes them. It's up to the system to give guidance and responsibility.
But the system needs to deal with those who fail to do so, and provide a deterrant to those considering chancing it. Hence cameras and limits.
Cameras only measure speed and the ones who get pinged? Usually the ones who think they only cop bad drivers....
A speed limit is not always the safest speed - sometimes you have to use judgement and drive below the limit and just sometimes - not overly often - but sometimes you need to blip over to complete an overtake - and you could be overtaking an nippy cyclist and just as you are at pont of no return - you note a hazard developing ahead in the shape of a bus at a bus stop or some person doing something which means the cyclist needs his "primary" - and the only way out is to speed up the pass to get to lane and back to compliant speed without compromising the cyclist - and allowing him time and space.
Or on a motorway - some speed to make the gap and retrun to limit safely and smoothly. There are then some areas whereby bliipping over is more in line with safety than rigidity.
Oh - we use cams - only we have them were they should be - in trafpol cars - operated by trapol and other qualified officers - and we uise common sense and professional judgement - which is how it should be.
Occasionally -= we may get it wrong - we do have people having accidents. We had one we fiend for not wearing a seatbelt. Officer gave him the standard lecture and two weeks later he was involved in a crash. All signs inidcate it was not his fault
-
but he is alive 
and not seriously injured because we spelled out the dangers when we fined him. He is quoted in a local paper as being grateful to us. Quote:
There's NOTHING that you can do to FORCE drivers to take responsibility.
No-one said anything contrary to that. But as you say, drivers are what drivers are - and if they're irresponsible, clearly you can't hope they'll be responsible - you've got to punish them for behaving irresponsibly and disqualify them from driving if they don't change their ways.[/quote]
We seem to find a lesson and advice on the spot helps a lot more. Lancs have problems because they targetted the wrong "customers" to the Speed Course. However, of those who have attended to date - they kept data bank and found NONE have been involved in any incident or received any further fines since they began the COAST led course. Their accident rate is still higher than it should be though - and we can only conclude that the cams have shifted the traffic density around. Where there is density - greater risk of sill error which because of volume leads to tragedy. They, like Durham, have a spot which seems to entice the born again biker from hell like a candle to a moth.
Quote:
Quote:
ndp wrote:
Quote:
There are very very few such places. If any. Can you offer any evidence at all that such a place exists?
Just about every urban road with a well set 30mph, for starters.
The accident records prove you wrong. Those millions of speeding drivers simply aren't crashing.
But that is missing the point.
As I'm sure you're aware, "an accident is a rare, random, multi-factor event always preceded by a situation in which one or more road users have failed to cope with their environment". If the other factors to conspire to create the accident aren't there, then the driver gets away with driving too fast for their environment.
Its a question of risk. The fact that most of the time people get away with it is neither here nor there - even playing Russian Roulette has a 83% "escape rate".
You seem to forget the "selling point" of cams is "accidents.
We have a blip here in 2002. Our rate doubled. It was still lower thna UK average as 2002 seemed a bad yeqr all round - but we got hammered and answers were demanded.
Why?
because we did not subscribe to the cam on every corner philosophy and considered our area was best served by ubiquitous patrols and one van Quote:
ndp wrote:
And if such a place doesn't exist, why do we need the limits?
1) To guide less skilled and/or experienced drivers away from wild excesses
Do you think a limit alone, with no threat of prosecution for transgressions, would achieve this?
Quote:
2) To provide an easy to use tool to prosecute those using speed carelessly
Isn't that whats being done with speed cameras? [/quote]
Nope. Lancs was inviting people to its speed course at 34 mph at one point.
There is a difference between a blip - easilly corrected and someone who deliberately blats. We tend to go for idiots.
Quote:
3) To warn the rest of us about expected hazard density.
I thought you didn't need this warning, and that having a limit in this instance would be inferred as stating the safe speed - so wouldn't the limit be counter-productive?[/quote]
A 30 mph sign to me means "built up" and prone to lots of hazards - like side streets, crossings and so on. It gives a stranger to an area a clue.
I also look at road marklings - these tell me a story - like reading a book.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
to fix quotes]
