Thieving Government Bastards

[Guy Fawkes]

Certain drugs are legal in various countries. It is lawful to have sex with people under 16 in various countries. Why not abibe by the rules set by the state. Why do you need to speed?




Er, have you missed the drink drive campaigns? Heavy sentences? Besides, how are the police obsessed with speeders? They set up a camera and it catches them without having to leave their desk or miss a street on their beat.

How do you propose they catch those that drive irresponsibly or dangerously?

Speeding is one of many factors when it comes to dangerous driving. But it should not be ignored.

You sound like a speeder. Do let me know when you hit the roads.

So the most dangerous practice that causes far more deaths and injuries on British raods is those who drive too close and fail to react in time to what happens ahead of them, - not speed, So how do you propose to actually stop these dangerous drivers from doing continuing as they are?

At least police patrolling a stretch of road in an unmarked car could spot and punish those who tailgate deliberately, often they are trying to force the car in front to move out the way or to increase their speed - what happens when the traffic in front suddenly stops? - How does a speed camera catch and or discourage this?

The drink drive campaign only works if there are people out there to back this up by testing suspected drink drivers? - if drivers find that they wouldn't get stopped and tested, they are far more likely to risk it.


I don't speed,

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Certain drugs are legal in various countries. It is lawful to have sex with people under 16 in various countries. Why not abibe by the rules set by the state. Why do you need to speed?

There are plenty of other rules and laws that we have in this country that are regularly broken, but go without fear of punishment, why not also deal with these offences?

Speeding drivers are an easy target for lazy policing by using a camera, so late at nightm when there is no one else about to present a danger too, why can't a car that drives prefectly safely in other countries be driven at a faster speed than during a period of the day when there is far heavier traffic on the same road?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

So the most dangerous practice that causes far more deaths and injuries on British raods is those who drive too close and fail to react in time to what happens ahead of them, - not speed, So how do you propose to actually stop these dangerous drivers from doing continuing as they are?

I am not sure how you came up with the first point? Maybe that is the major cause, maybe that isn't. How did you work that out?

At least police patrolling a stretch of road in an unmarked car could spot and punish those who tailgate deliberately, often they are trying to force the car in front to move out the way or to increase their speed - what happens when the traffic in front suddenly stops? - How does a speed camera catch and or discourage this?

It doesn't. Hence the name, speed camera. It catches speeders.

Speeding DOES cause accidents and we have speed cameras as a deterrent to stop speeding motorists. When it comes to catching motoring offences, it is the easiest and most practical. Set up a camera. Job done. Again, I do not see the problem. What are you proposing?

Should I complain to the company that supplied my burglar alarm? It catches the burglars, but it let those buggers clone my credit card.

The drink drive campaign only works if there are people out there to back this up by testing suspected drink drivers? - if drivers find that they wouldn't get stopped and tested, they are far more likely to risk it.

There are 22+ millions cars in Britain. We are only scratching the surface when it comes to motoring offences. Due to finite resources, we have to accept that we won't catch everyone. Society relies on morals, sense and human decency. Sadly, there are far too many people who do not wish to abide by the standards set.

I don't speed,

Good. But I am confused as to why you are so apparently anti speed cameras.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Er, have you missed the drink drive campaigns? Heavy sentences? Besides, how are the police obsessed with speeders? They set up a camera and it catches them without having to leave their desk or miss a street on their beat. How do you propose they catch those that drive irresponsibly or dangerously?

So if it acceptable to leave those who drive in a far more dangerous fashion unpunished so that a copper can sit behind a desk, or walk a beat, then why single out and punish those drivers that travel a couple of miles over the speed limit?

What about drivers who drive slowly in the wrong (outside) lane on a motorway / dual carraigeway, they can cause other drivers to take greater risk to pass, such as undertaking or trying to dart around them by taking greater risks (such as going onto the other side of the road into a lane with oncoming traffic on a dual carriageway)

Other countries, such as Australia, have cameras that detect and photograph these drivers in the same way as speed cameras do for speeders, We too have the same rule / law yet don't every seem to inforce it despite the added danger it brings to our roads

btw - I don't speed, and have a full clean driving licence.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

There are plenty of other rules and laws that we have in this country that are regularly broken, but go without fear of punishment, why not also deal with these offences?

Such as?

Speeding drivers are an easy target for lazy policing by using a camera, so late at nightm when there is no one else about to present a danger too, why can't a car that drives prefectly safely in other countries be driven at a faster speed than during a period of the day when there is far heavier traffic on the same road?

I give up. You are obviously not going to see sense and you must realise that the police are unable to eradicate all forms of dangerous driving - see previous post: 22 million + cars and miles upon miles of road. Limits must be set and I don't see how our limits are unreasonable. Set them at 80 and people will travel at 90. Speeding kills.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

So if it acceptable to leave those who drive in a far more dangerous fashion unpunished so that a copper can sit behind a desk, or walk a beat, then why single out and punish those drivers that travel a couple of miles over the speed limit?

What about drivers who drive slowly in the wrong (outside) lane on a motorway / dual carraigeway, they can cause other drivers to take greater risk to pass, such as undertaking or trying to dart around them by taking greater risks (such as going onto the other side of the road into a lane with oncoming traffic on a dual carriageway)

Other countries, such as Australia, have cameras that detect and photograph these drivers in the same way as speed cameras do for speeders, We too have the same rule / law yet don't every seem to inforce it despite the added danger it brings to our roads

btw - I don't speed, and have a full clean driving licence.

The cameras are set at a certain level to catch speeding motorists. The norm for a 30mph area that triggers a camera is 36mph. That is a 20% increase on the limit. An extra 22 feet braking distance. 30mph being a built up area.

As for driving slowly or in the wrong lane, forcing someone to drive dangerously... :thud: Whilst I agree, it is annoying, that should not give someone the carte blanche to undertake or cross into another lane.

THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURES TO CATCH PEOPLE WHO DRIVE POORLY, BUT THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD IGNORE SPEEDERS, WHOM THEY ARE ABLE TO CATCH. (Bollocks to caps lock).

I can't be bothered to argue any further. My final say on the matter is that travelling at a slower speed will generally decrease the risk of an accident and allows you to come to a halt sooner than you would have done at an increased speed. In the grander scheme of things, I don't think it is unreasonable for me to expect a deterrent to speeding motorists.

Having been to Australia, I knwo they are very strict when it comes to parking in the correct direction etc. but I am sure you would complain about that if it were to happen here.

On that note, I shall go to bed. Take care of yourselves and each other.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The point is that everyone seems to think that stop speeding = safe roads, Speeding is the prinicple cause of approx 2% (Gov. figures) of road traffic accidents, but those factors that are greater causes of deaths and injuries on the road,

An equilivant example of this, but set into a different setting would be this:
On a busy high street, there are Muggings, stabbings / assults, drug dealing, stolen goods being traded, rape, etc, but then if the authorites only then decided to then tackle and hand out punishments to those who are caught short and piss in the street, "because they can't stop everything", so go for an easy option both in detection and in handing out the fine.

How did the police ever manage to catch criminals before, especially as there is now far more technology available to them to use, making their jobs even easier to help their cause? - Answer, there is more red tape and paperwork now, - a partical solution, cut this and free them up to police the streets / roads again

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I will say it again - Is it safer to travel at 45 in a 50mph zone just 2 feet behind the car in front, or for both cars to travel at 55 in a 50mph zone, but with a more than adequate braking and stopping distance between them?

It's driving wreaklessly, such as too close that is the real danger on our roads, not nessessarily speed. - so why just punish speeders, It is very easy nowadays to find people going a couple of miles over the speed limit unintentially, yet are being branded criminals, cameras fail to take character and circumstance into account, where police officers used to, and they can also deal with a wider range of offenses on the roads than a camera.


Some people are blissfully unaware of many rules in the highway code and that you are required to drive in the left hand lane is one, yet if you travell along any dual carriageway or motorway, you will find that lane almost desserted, and often even when empty, drivers still don't use it, - Why should someon who wishes to travel at a legal speed, but can't due to the outside lane being 'hogged' by someone who isn't overtaking? and yet some still refuse to pull over when they realise that someone is looking to overtake, forcing other drivers to take extra, unnessessary and sometimes dangerous risks to pass.

 

[Nibble]

GF, have you considered that it might be safer for the driver if they slow down? If you hit a foreign object at 80 or 90 mph you are very likely to be far more seriously hurt than if you were adhering to the speed limit.

Aquaplaning, blowouts, hitting animals or other objects in the road are much more controllable when travelling within the legal limit. This is a reason the limits are enforced.

 

[sten_super]

I do sometimes speed on motorways, and as far as I'm concerned, if I get caught, it's a fair cop. I understand BoF's point about speed cameras being good for catching one type of motoring offence. The concern I have is that they are put there in place of a traffic cop. I would much rather have a traffic cop sitting there with a camera, as then he can also pick up on all other kinds of motoring offence which have been bought up in this thread.

I also seem to remember one of the coppers on here (I think it may have been edna? apologies if it wasn't!) saying that people caught committing motoring offences are more likely to be guilty of some other offence than a random stop-and-search. If this is the case, why are we not ploughing more resources into motoring offences?

 

[Highfields Seagull]

So if people are sticking to the speed limit then there are no accidents? - I think not

He didn't say that though did he. He said that when there are accidents (and there will be) survival chances are better if the speed is lower.

 

[London Calling]

The stats I quoted, have been accepted by all road organisations and all political oparties. The issue is how to reduce vehicle speed. I am always shocked by the way "drivers" dismiss pedestrians as an alien speciies, that dares to walk into the road?

In fact that predestrian could be you after you parked your car, that kid could be yours onto the way to school.

Common sense tells everyone, if an object is travelling slowly it will cause less damage, than say travelling at twice the speed.

I believe Hull and Portsmouth have implemented 20 mph maximum in their areas, I know I have posted the stats b4 (Under Hackney proposals to follow suite) but don't have any figs at hand at the moment. But in Hull all road accidents declined.

That can only be a good thing. IN Holland, Germany there is a greater emphasise on streets for the community where vehicle travel through residential areas is curtailed, slowed, with even vehicles reduced to travelling at pedestrians pace. The result is friendlier areas, less aggressive areas, more community interaction in the street, kids playing outdoors, less accidents, greener streets (trees, bushes can be planted to a greater degree). Generally a better urban environment.

 

[Black Country Seagull]

The cost of servicing the current network of speed cameras must be enormous - sending vans and people round to every site to change film all the time and ending up with a system where, at any one time, most of the cameras aren't actually working.

The new kit will save a fortune in running costs - and the cameras will do their job.

It's not ALL about money, of course. It's about changing drivers' behaviour. An excellent objective.

And if it does raise cash for public services ... so what? It beats council tax, income tax or VAT as a way of raising revenue - it targets ARSEHOLES and gets them to pay. I'd be happy if more ways could be found to screw disproportionate levels of tax out of people with anti-social and criminal tendencies.

Oh come one chap, a touch of realism here, will the influx of speeding fines really bring down the cost revenue raising taxes? Even screwing over those with anti-social behavior would not help in the slightest as generally non of them will be working and therefore not qualify to pay the fines.

Do not get me wrong, speed cameras I am not against in the right areas, however the road near me is ridiculous, same area / surroundings for 2 miles, three different speed limits, 3 cameras at each zone. I would not object if I was going through a residential area.

 

[London Calling]

Oh come one chap, a touch of realism here, will the influx of speeding fines really bring down the cost revenue raising taxes? Even screwing over those with anti-social behavior would not help in the slightest as generally non of them will be working and therefore not qualify to pay the fines.

Do not get me wrong, speed cameras I am not against in the right areas, however the road near me is ridiculous, same area / surroundings for 2 miles, three different speed limits, 3 cameras at each zone. I would not object if I was going through a residential area.

Fair point, I know of a local eg where the speed limit within 100m goes 20 - 30 - 40 -20 and includes a junction of 5 roads?

Just keep it at 20 or compromise on 30?

 

[Franks Wild Years]

When i drive up to Scotland i wanna be doing 90-100 on the motorway. It's perfectly safe to do so and with 500 miles to cover it makes a lot of difference than doing 70

Excellent. Next time you ask me not to stand up at Withdean I shall refuse as its perfectly safe for me to do so and with 90 minutes of football it makes a lot of difference than sitting.

OK with you if I break that rule ?

 

[Brovion]

... That can only be a good thing. IN Holland, Germany there is a greater emphasise on streets for the community where vehicle travel through residential areas is curtailed, slowed, with even vehicles reduced to travelling at pedestrians pace. The result is friendlier areas, less aggressive areas, more community interaction in the street, kids playing outdoors, less accidents, greener streets (trees, bushes can be planted to a greater degree). Generally a better urban environment.

In Holland and Germany though they have a decent road network, even small towns are linked by dual carriageways and have bypasses. In Britain major trunk roads often run along residential streets! (Worthing being a prime example locally).

The entire transport infrastructure need overhauling; speed cameras and reduced urban speed limits are only part of it.

 

[Brovion]

Excellent. Next time you ask me not to stand up at Withdean I shall refuse as its perfectly safe for me to do so and with 90 minutes of football it makes a lot of difference than sitting.

OK with you if I break that rule ?

I pointed out exactly the same thing a few pages (and months!) back. Needless to say he disagreed! Which backs up my point on the previous page that everyone thinks that what THEY do is ok.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I will say it again - Is it safer to travel at 45 in a 50mph zone just 2 feet behind the car in front, or for both cars to travel at 55 in a 50mph zone, but with a more than adequate braking and stopping distance between them?

I think you're missing the point. Reducing your speed makes you safer regardless of how close you are to the car in front.