Safe Speed Forums

In a proper society, people would respect the laws that they themselves democratically sanction. It is sad that so many people are routinely breaking the law that we need cameras. That is what you should publish. Let people know what selfish, impatient chumps they really are.

_________________
I stole this .sig

That's one of the problems, if I may be allowed to go a bit off-topic.
Those who service the camera industry are living off the fines and taxes which the rest of us pay. And most of us who work in the private sector actually create new wealth by what we do. They don't create wealth, they simply spend other people's money.

If such a large proportion of the population routinely break a law, what they are saying, in no uncertain terms, is that they do not sanction that law.

If I believed that, I might. But instead I find it completely absurd to term a majority behaviour as "selfish", "chumpish" or "impatient".

Clearly it's the law and its enforcement that is out of step - miles out of step actually - with the normal responsible behaviour of a majority of citizens.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Basingwerk, you know perfectly well that sticking to/under the speed limit only means you've almost entirely removed the risk of receiving points for speeding offences, it most certainly does not mean you're free from risk of picking up points/instant disqualification in general.

On my way home at the weekend, I had the misfortune of sharing the road (though fortunately only for a few hundred yards) with a driver who's style of driving suggested they were either out on their very first driving lesson (and had forgotten to stick L plates anywhere on the back of their car), had somehow managed to get a licence but were utterly useless at driving, had never bothered to get a licence in the first place, or were under the influence of something. But hey, at least they weren't speeding... Meanwhile, a significant number of drivers I'd earlier shared the M4 with would have probably picked up an instant ban for the speeds they were doing, and the rest of us would have ended up at least 3 points worse off. I know which sort of driver I'd rather share the road with.

Why bother arguing anymore. Basingwerk has perfected his own particular brand of doublespeak on this issue. 'Thumb in bum, mind in neutral' he believes applies to the "speeder" rather than the dumb speed-limit complier.

Can't argue with that sort of reverse logic I'm afraid.

It is you who has reverse logic if you equate complying with the speed limit to being "dumb", and speeding lawlessness with "clever".

_________________
I stole this .sig

What should the law say?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I partly view speeding as an optional tax. You are paying back society for the risk you impose on it. I don't donate any of my money to that, simply by driving responsibly within the law and the highway code.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Basingwerk,

Please spare us this self-righteous nonsense. If you have never broken a speed limit, then you are one of two things.

1. A liar.
2. A menace on the roads.

Now please, can you refrain from this hypcritical exercise in proving how saintly you are? It's becoming very tiresome. I think I preferred it better when you were giving us your sales pitch for the regulated society.

You know full well, that the issue here is one of acceptability. You may feel that your such a wonderful person for driving within the speed limit. However, I can easily counter that position by simply saying "What's wrong with you you speed freak? If you reduced your speed by 10mph then if there was an accident then people would have more chance to survive."

And if you did reduce your speed by that, I could say it again, and again, and again. See, I don't think you are a bad person for doing this. You have made the decision the risk is low compared to the benefits of driving at 70 in a 70. Others, though, want the speed limit lowered as they say it's dangerous. Are you dangerous, Basingwerk, when your driving at around 70 in a 70?

Do you actually believe that driving in exess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous, or are you against it simply because it's against the law, or both?

You forgot to call me a scoundrel!



I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous. A lot of people have been killed at much less than that, so I guess it _must_ be dangerous to some extent. The problem is political as well. Mixing traffic at 65 or 70 with traffic at 120 is not a good idea.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Dangerous? An element of danger maybe, but then there is an element of danger in living in a house full of flammible objects, using a kitchen knife, climbing stairs......

The Italians seem to think that 140km/h is a reasonable limit on 3-lane motorways, and they have fewer accidents and fatalities on motorways than we do.......

Apparently he doesn't know anymore. Brilliant counter-argument, Gas.

Seems Basingwerk has his thumb in his bum again.

Yes, my friend in A&E is always telling me how the number of people who have fallen over their flamethrowers as they come down stairs in the morning holding a bag of kitchen knives is on the increase!



It would be miraculous if all countries, with many diverse political systems, cultures and road types and conditions, all set their speed limits the same, wouldn't it? Yet that is what you expect? Where did you find the 140 limit, which is not right? It is 130.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Apparently he doesn't know anymore. Brilliant counter-argument, Gas. Seems Basingwerk has his thumb in his bum again. [/quote]

I reserve the expression 'thumb in his bum, mind in neutral' for chumps who have failed to see a huge yellow box perched on a great pole at the side of the road surrounded by signs and warnings! Why do you stick up for these buffoons, r11co – surely people like that should be on the bus? Unless, perchance, you are one yourself?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Ask this "friend" to tell you all about the levels of RTA injuries/deaths since the introduction of speed cameras... People DO get injured/killed in accidents at home, flippantly dismissing these risks in an attempt to divert attention away from the point being made just isn't going to work. As r11co said, there's an element of danger in everything we do, driving is just one such activity where risk is present. And using these risks to support a pro-camera argument, whilst appearing to be completely blase about similar risks elsewhere in life, gives the impression that you're obsessed with speed enforcement to the point where you aren't seeing the bigger picture. What good does it do saving 1 life on the roads through oppressive levels of enforcement, if the energies and resources needed to save that one life could have been used elsewhere to save 2, or 10, or 100? How much to install and maintain a single speed camera? How much to provide another nurse for the local A&E department?

And don't give me that tired old "but the speeders pay for the cameras" argument - where did the money come from to install the first cameras, before they started generating any fines? And where would the money come from to relocate the existing cameras or install new ones if, suddenly, everyone stuck to the limits in the vicinity of the cameras and the SCP revenue stream dried up? Despite what the government and SCPs say, I find it difficult to believe that, if everyone stopped speeding, the cameras would no longer be required.


Here's a suggestion to the government - promise to scrap the SCPs and automated enforcement systems, in return for which we'll pay an extra 1p in income tax, the revenue this generates to be used solely to fund extra front-line medical and police personnel. Think how many lives THAT would save each year...





Why not? After all, even in this small island of ours there are plenty of examples of the same limit being applied to roads of considerably varying condition and type, and in areas where the local cultures and attitudes are different - driving around the London/SE England area is a noticeably different experience to driving around Northumberland, say.




True, but even using this lower figure, you're still looking at a legal limit higher than that on UK motorways...




Shame, because it seems SO much more appropriate for people who drive along completely oblivious to every other road user, concentrating on nothing more than sticking to the speed limit, not realising the problems they're causing everyone else as they drift from lane to lane without looking or indicating, pulling out from side roads straight into the path of oncoming traffic, cutting people up on roundabouts because they had no idea what exit they needed until they were almost past it... In comparison, someone failing to spot a medium sized dayglo yellow box which is still tucked away behind a road sign, large tree, bus stop, or which is virtually unnoticeable inamongst the plethora of similarly dayglo yellow road signs and business advertising signs (ever tried spotting a gatso next to a Jet service station???), but who is nevertheless paying very close attention to the behaviour of other road users, really doesn't seem like the kind of driver who deserves to be labelled this way.

Sure, there are some drivers who wouldn't spot a camera even if it slapped them across the face whilst yelling "I'm a speed camera, look at me!", but there are plenty of cameras located in such a way that the only way to spot them is to deliberately go looking for them, and that means spending less time looking for things that, if missed, will cause an accident. Knowing that a camera is there does NOT stop an accident from occurring, knowing that the vehicle in front of you has suddenly slowed/stopped, or that a pedestrian has just walked in front of your vehicle, CAN stop an accident.

So really Basingwerk old bean, are you suggesting that every driver who doesn't notice a camera is driving around thumb in bum, mind in neutral, or could you concede that there are valid reasons why a driver who's mind is clearly engaged in gear and whos thumbs are nowhere near their (or anyone elses) backsides, might still miss seeing a camera? Especially if we're talking about cameras in general, which includes sneakily placed talivans which (at least in my neck of the woods) are ANYTHING but clearly visible...

I'd keep quiet about that idea if I were you. We don't like tax at all, unless someone else is paying it.



So really Basingwerk old bean, are you suggesting that every driver who doesn't notice a camera is driving around thumb in bum, mind in neutral, … [/quote]

Are they on mogadon! First, they can't see a big yellow box mounted right in front of the road on a fat pole with signs all around, with the position noted in advance and plastered all over the place, including the Internet, and special road markings around the site! Second they are breaking the speed limit for the area anyway, by some margin for instrument error and a little thrown in for good luck. The only thing I can suggest is that, through long force of habit, they are so used to driving around with the pedal nailed down that all this ‘new’ camera stuff is just too much for them. Well, the era of monitoring is not going to end just because of this grumbling. Why is everyone on this site anti-camera? Can’t you see the benefits of patient, slow, chilled out driving? You are all living on your nerves. You should save that extra 1p in income tax that you were offering to Gordon, and spend it on a few hours on a private race track, where you can have your fun without interfering with traffic.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Surely you're aware of my answer to this? I think the law is fine. I think people should broadly stick to speed limits. But I think enforcing speed limits to an obsessive degree is dangerous. See:

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

It's not the law that's wrong - it's enforcement practice and the resultant priorities.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

All travel is dangerous. At least it is compared with staying in bed.

The point here, of course, is to try to determine if 71mph is more dangerous than 69mph. If one takes a purely mechanistic view of the world, it is obvious that 71mph is more dangerous than 69mph simply because there is more kinetic energy in the system.

But road safety is not even remotely a mechanical system. We don't get crashes when the system breaks mechanically. We do get crashes when people make mistakes. If we give people good information and good training, if we give them responsibility for their own safety then they will perform better and make fewer mistakes.

If we take away responsibility and give them false and distorted messages we should expect them to make more mistakes.

The difference between 69mph and 71mph becomes completely irrelevant - instead we should be concerned with attitudes and responsibilities.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think basingwerk is Icelandic for 'Brunstrom'!