speed camera rant!

[morteee]

If you feel it is appropriate to contribute to a thread that has a detailed discussion on a speeding driver killing a 4 year old girl in this manner then I'd say that says more about you then I ever could as a troll.

 

What a nice person you are.

 

 

at least I dont call complete strangers liars sir

 

and I dont assume that someone on a faceless forum is not a 'nice person'

 

ofc I apologise if there is a discussion on here about the death of a 4 year old child as a result of an individual, I have to confess I havent read the entire thread, just the first few postings where the sometimes illogical postitioning of speed camera's was being discussed and was using the village I live in as an example

 

Seeming as you are so concerned with the health and safety of small cildren around speeding cars (which of course we all shoud be) maybe you could comment on the main point of my OP as to the fact that the drastic traffic calming measures in the village I live in are in fact no where NEAR the school or indeed even on the same road (one of two through roads in the village) as the school and also maybe you would like to comment on why you think it is the council is refusing to place any crossings/traffic calming measures on the road my son's school is on, a road crossed by over 200 children twice a day?

 

 

/edit

 

actually MORE than twice a day seeming as the school sports fields are on the other side of the road aswell!

Edited May 18, 2008 by morteee
added quote

[Weird Al Yankovic]

There are two people in this thread who have been guilty of bizarre outbursts, and Pat Davies is not one of them. His posts have been up to his usual (informative and useful) standard,

 

Then you have not obviously read patdavies' oft ill informed posts on other threads then?

 

but yours have been ladled with emotion, not to mention your outbursts and insults against posters who don't conform to your viewpoint.

 

And why would a discussion about speed cameras and death not be ladled with emotion?

 

Again, why do you confuse a question with an insult? What a touchy individual. Do you feel insulted whenever someone asks you a question?

 

But if that's how you want to do it, you just carry on. I'll sit back and watch and enjoy the spectacle.

 

Not my choice, it is how one is forced to pose questions when another is simply ignorant.

I'm now ignoring you as your input is not worth responding to.

 

...

[credit allergy]

I drive hundreds of miles each week and the driving standards are appalling. To answer one of the previous posts. The reason that 120mph is not suitable is because the driver has not been trained to drive that quickly or to stop etc. Furthermore if they come round a bend that has been designed for 70 mph and collide with the broken down vehicle on the hard shoulder then a serious rtc will occur. Until people comply with the law and rules of the road then enforcenment cameras will be neccessary. I accept that GBH is a more serious crime in respect of the sentence etc. However in reality my 17 year old daughter is more likely to be hurt by a driver breaking the law when she is out on the road. I reckon more people are injured through rtcs than GBH. Also most of the so called accidents could have been avoided or made less serious if the correct speed was involved. Lastly to drive at 120mph on a motroway is taking a risk and is a deliberate act this then could make it dangerous under rta law.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

at least I dont call complete strangers liars sir

 

I didn't call you a liar. I said I didn't believe your post.

This could be as a result of just a misinformed opinion or a simple mistake.

I'd thank you to take back that allegation.

 

and I dont assume that someone on a faceless forum is not a 'nice person'

 

 

 

ofc I apologise if there is a discussion on here about the death of a 4 year old child as a result of an individual, I have to confess I havent read the entire thread, just the first few postings where the sometimes illogical postitioning of speed camera's was being discussed and was using the village I live in as an example

 

There is no need to apologise. Maybe just a recognition that a driver who was speeding at 70 in a 30 zone was actually speeding? Something other posters just seem to have a problem with.

 

Seeming as you are so concerned with the health and safety of small cildren around speeding cars (which of course we all shoud be) maybe you could comment on the main point of my OP as to the fact that the drastic traffic calming measures in the village I live in are in fact no where NEAR the school or indeed even on the same road (one of two through roads in the village) as the school and also maybe you would like to comment on why you think it is the council is refusing to place any crossings/traffic calming measures on the road my son's school is on, a road crossed by over 200 children twice a day?

 

This does seem quite odd but I don't have an answer for it.

Why don't you get some answers from your council and write to them?

Speak to your MP if you remain disatisfied.

And I am concerned with the H&S of small children around speeding cars as I have friends who's lives have been destroyed by this menace. One then understands.

I dare say I would also be upset if you posted on here on Monday because your son had a lucky escape with a speeding driver coming home from school.

This is because I am human and I have compassion just like Tom87 but, alarmingly, no one else seems to display.

 

 

/edit

 

actually MORE than twice a day seeming as the school sports fields are on the other side of the road aswell!

...

[morteee]

firstly when you say you dont believe someone it is generally taken to mean that you think they are lying, if you believe them then you think they are tellign the truth

 

you said you dont believe me therefore you must think I am lying

 

secondly if you had read my OP you would see that the pathetic reason the council have given for no calming measures or crossings is down to what they feel is a lack of footfall (I will add here that the council representative who investigated it did so at 16.30 in the afternoon when the school closes at 15.25)

 

and yes my son has had close calls on that road, several of them, as have I walking him across it and so has just about every parent who has a child at the school

 

even the school has requested a crossing or extra calming measures to be told no

 

however on the other through road (remember the one with only a few houses and a pub along one side of it) has excessive amounts of calming

 

2 speed camera's

3 chicanes

2 road narrowings

 

the cameras are by the narrowings and just in front of the first chicanes in btoh directions and therefore are hardly going to catch anyone are they?

 

in the 12 years I have lived in the area using that road numerous times a day I have never seen or heard of an accident there, and yes this includes the 8 years before the calming measures went up (there have however been a couple of minor ones since with vehicles going too far over on the chicanes and hitting oncoming traffic and there was also an incident where a lorry knocked over one of the posts on the chicanes - small village we dont get much to talk about )

 

Yes we are taking this further however MP is out as he has just announced he is retiring!

[Tom87]

I drive hundreds of miles each week and the driving standards are appalling. To answer one of the previous posts. The reason that 120mph is not suitable is because the driver has not been trained to drive that quickly or to stop etc. Furthermore if they come round a bend that has been designed for 70 mph and collide with the broken down vehicle on the hard shoulder then a serious rtc will occur. Until people comply with the law and rules of the road then enforcenment cameras will be neccessary. I accept that GBH is a more serious crime in respect of the sentence etc. However in reality my 17 year old daughter is more likely to be hurt by a driver breaking the law when she is out on the road. I reckon more people are injured through rtcs than GBH. Also most of the so called accidents could have been avoided or made less serious if the correct speed was involved. Lastly to drive at 120mph on a motroway is taking a risk and is a deliberate act this then could make it dangerous under rta law.

 

Very well said sir or madam.

 

If you think you can control a vehicle at 120mph with no appropriate training for that speed, you are severely mistaken.

 

It doesn't matter if you feel that it is not dangerous. It is excessive speeding and is against the law, that is the bottom line, and the excuse "there were no other cars around and it was good weather" will not defend you.

 

You can compare speeding to other crimes as much as you like, but you can't get away from the fact that exceeding the speed limits is illegal and there is no excuse for it. You cannot feel hard done by if you end up being caught one day for doing it, nomatter how little over the limit you were going, because you know full well what the limits are and you made the conscious decision to break them.

 

I agree fully that there are some places where the speed limit is inappropriately low and frustrating. But this is not an excuse to take the law into your own hands and break the limit. If you're unhappy, seek other means of amending it like speaking to your council, the police or the local MP. Breaking the speed limit on a road just because you disagree with it will again not defend you, and rightly so.

[patdavies]

I drive hundreds of miles each week and the driving standards are appalling.

 

Driving standards are bad; I agree that the test is not tough enough and we all have our pet peeves as to what we regard as appalling.

 

To answer one of the previous posts. The reason that 120mph is not suitable is because the driver has not been trained to drive that quickly or to stop etc.

That they haven't been trained is quite an assumption. Anyway, trained to do what? How are new drivers trained to drive at 70 mph or on motorways? No, but they're allowed straight out there at 70 mph in lane 3

Furthermore if they come round a bend that has been designed for 70 mph and collide with the broken down vehicle on the hard shoulder then a serious rtc will occur.

1) I did specify deserted motorway. Clearly, there is a need to slow for bends.

 

2) If our driver is in lane 2, I fail to see how they can collide with a vehicle on the hard shoulder (on a deserted motorway). It always necessary modify one's speed relevant to the conditions and amount of clear vision - regardless of the prevailing speed limit.

 

However in reality my 17 year old daughter is more likely to be hurt by a driver breaking the law when she is out on the road.

Statistically, she is more likely to be injured whilst driving due to her own lack of experience/vehicle control.

I reckon more people are injured through rtcs than GBH.

I very much doubt this - you have only to visit an A&E department at a weekend to see the high amount of assault cases dealt with. GBH is - in its most simple form - an assault that punctures the skin. But some official figures would be good.

 

Also most of the so called accidents could have been avoided or made less serious if the correct speed was involved.

I accept this. However, the correct speed has little to do with arbitrary limits

 

Lastly to drive at 120mph on a motroway is taking a risk and is a deliberate act this then could make it dangerous under rta law.

I believe that Scottish case law (which is persuasive under English law) has already ruled that speed alone does not constitute dangerous driving.

 

Lastly, consider a police driver of a local beat car proceeding under blues and twos. The blue lights do not give any right of way in English law. To drive a beat car only requires a standard driving licence. (ie no special training) The vehicle will almost undoubtedly exceed the speed limit as some point in this emergency journey - is he (or she) driving dangerously? No, the breaking of the speed limit is a minor offence that will not be prosecuted.

[patdavies]

Found some statistics.

 

In 2006 (can't find complete 2007 data - I don't think that it due to be published before next month).

 

Road traffic casualties:

Killed 3,172

Killed or Seriously Injured (includes figure above): 31,645

Total casualties (including KSI) 258,444

 

The Metropolitan police report 240,372 incidents of violent crime in London alone, and this does not include domestic violence.

 

I would therefore offer that across the whole country, GBH far outstrips traffic injuries

[lamma]

for higher speeds the CPS often push for dangerous - but dangerous is an opinion. AIUI it is the acts or omissions of the driver, or conduct whilst driving, which determine whether the driver has fallen ‘below’ (careless driving) or ‘far below’ (dangerous driving) the standard required.

Rather like double charging for speeding it is more often brought to induce a cough from the defendant - but as it is an opinion unless there is clear evidence of 'far below' then it is very arguable. Much cheaper for the CPS to accept a lesser charge than go to expense of fighting a dangerous whne the evidence is not 'clear cut'.

You can opt for a jury trial at Crown if charged with dangerous - you can go to prison on for it don't forget.

 

On the flip side the major cause of accidents is poor observation - many accidents caused by observation that is 'far below' but very rare to see a dangerous driving charge against them when the speeds involved are not 'mega'. this is wrong IMV but reflects on the difficulty of convicting of dangerous unless it is clear cut.

 

An example of the latter. Queued traffic on a straight A road just after dark. from over 3/4 of a mile you could clearly see the double lines of stationary cars due to the contours - many with their brakes lights on so it was like a Las Vegas Casino frontage really as you could so many lights on the stationary traffic. REALLY REALLY obvious, unmissable stuff.

 

Car comes down the empty 3/4 of a mile straight and ploughs straight into the back of the queue, emergency braking only at the very end when it was far too late. No one up his rear end or anything.

Was he done for dangerous - no. Should he have been, I say yes.

[toadsRmylife]

Actually, whilst mentioning police beat cars breaking the speed limit, i know for a fact that the police regularly break the speed limits when not attending an emergency, i once lived next door to a police constable and over heard a garden conversation and i quote

"..... i was testing my new car the other evening and i had 125 out of it on the M**, it was ok though, i had the area car behind me for protection ...."

 

these are the very same public servants that apparently have such a dim view of speeding drivers, that is a classic example of 'the law doesn't apply to me' driving

 

i have also personally seen a police rider on the M5 travel past me at approx 100 mph, take a slip road off, go around the round about system, then come back down on to the motorway and overtake me again at 100mph, then do it again!! the officers tactic is clear - they all think i've left the motorway, so now i'll catch them up and see if i can catch them speeding - in order to do this, i am allowed to speed with impunity.

a clear indication that in the view of even the police, 'correct use of speed' has little to do with arbitrary speed limits

[Weird Al Yankovic]

When learning to drive a car one is made aware that there are speed limits as part of the learning process and one is tested on them.

 

Why do you speed demons then whinge about them once you have passed?

 

Why did you ever bother applying for a licence to drive in the first place if you don't like the rules?

 

Should it be acceptable for a publican who is granted a drinks licence, knowing the law beforehand, simply decide they then don't agree with it as soon as they start trading and so serves beer & spitits to 12 year olds on their lunch hour from school?

 

Why don't you just hand back your licence and leave the roads to those who can drive properly?

[toadsRmylife]

When learning to drive a car one is made aware that there are speed limits as part of the learning process and one is tested on them.

 

Why do you speed demons then whinge about them once you have passed?

 

Why did you ever bother applying for a licence to drive in the first place if you don't like the rules?

 

Should it be acceptable for a publican who is granted a drinks licence, knowing the law beforehand, simply decide they then don't agree with it as soon as they start trading and so serves beer & spitits to 12 year olds on their lunch hour from school?

 

Why don't you just hand back your licence and leave the roads to those who can drive properly?

 

your post is irrelevant, and adds nothing to the discussion, which anonymous poster whom you know nothing about are you now refering to as a 'speed demon'.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

your post is irrelevant, and adds nothing to the discussion, which anonymous poster whom you know nothing about are you now refering to as a 'speed demon'.

 

Answer the questions.

 

You knew there were speed limits when learning to drive, if a sign says 30 then you're not to go above that. You accepted these rules and laws as part of gaining your licence.

 

Why do you now want to complain about them?

 

Why not send your licence back and use a bus instead?

[patdavies]

Why do you now want to complain about them?

 

I'm sorry - not only are we to obey them without question - but we're also not to complain about them.

 

Where a limit is inappropriate, then it is every drivers duty to complain.

[Tom87]

You're perfectly entitled to complain about it, it is your right. But just because you disagree with them, it is not a reason to ignore the speed limits; and it is inadvisable to condone or congratulate those arrogant and overconfident drivers who do.

 

Going back to some earlier comments:

 

Learners are taught to drive at 70mph, on a dual carriageway. Although not a motorway, it still enables them to experience the control of a vehicle at 70mph. I might add that I think a problem with learning to drive is - in my experience - learners are put under a lot of pressure to drive at the speed limit when it might not always be safe to do so. They are taught that it is a cardinal sin to drive at 55 in a 60 zone - I feel this is the wrong way to teach an inexperienced driver because once they pass they will think they have to go at the limit all the time even when it is not appropriate to do so, thus causing accidents as the agegroup statistics suggest. But that is another discussion...

 

If you are in lane 2 when you do not need to be, you are one of those idiots who sticks in the middle lane when not necessary. "Middle lane morons" I once heard them described as and I would say I agree with that. It's generally acknowledged that this behaviour is very dangerous. You should always be in lane 1 if there is no other traffic to overtake.

 

Rob S: driving instructors saying it is OK to go at 70 in a 30 zone - well you seem to be jumping to the defence of the driver in this example that Al gave. Trying to deny that he was speeding and trying to defend the indefensible on a definition technicality. It seems like there are a lot of people on here from Nick Freeman (Mr. Loophole)'s brigade - trying to get bad and dangerous drivers off their deserved sentences over legal loopholes even when a driver has gone more than twice the speed limit and killed someone. By having this attitude, you are clearly implying that it OK to drive at completely inapproprate speeds and think you're above the law.

[credit allergy]

I have tried to state my view however i have read the replies and now form the following view. All the rtcs i see every working day must be due to ufos landing in the road. Remember this even formula one drivers have accidents on purpose built tracks in purpose built cars. You cannot beat nature so to drive even on a so called deserted motorway if there is such a thing is to say the least dangerous for a member of the public to do. However if you do and are fortunate enough to survive dont come on this forum moaning about your ban. Unless you wish to go abroad and do it and get your car impounded or pay the on the spot fine.

[Rob S]

Rob S: driving instructors saying it is OK to go at 70 in a 30 zone - well you seem to be jumping to the defence of the driver in this example that Al gave.

 

Please point out precisely where I have defended this particular driver?

 

Trying to deny that he was speeding and trying to defend the indefensible on a definition technicality.

 

Well duh! Saying that someone was more likely to have been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving rather than speeding is hardly defending the indefensible:rolleyes:

 

 

It seems like there are a lot of people on here from Nick Freeman (Mr. Loophole)'s brigade - trying to get bad and dangerous drivers off their deserved sentences over legal loopholes even when a driver has gone more than twice the speed limit and killed someone.

 

Can you point out where anyone has actually done this in this thread? Or is this just another ill thought and hysterical outburst from you?

 

 

By having this attitude, you are clearly implying that it OK to drive at completely inapproprate speeds and think you're above the law.

 

The only people who have come to this conclusion so far are you and Weird boy. But that's hardly surprising with your view that it's fine to drive at 30mph in a 30 limit but as soon as they creep up to 31mph they are driving dangerously and committing a serious criminal offence.

[Rob S]

Answer the questions.

 

You knew there were speed limits when learning to drive, if a sign says 30 then you're not to go above that. You accepted these rules and laws as part of gaining your licence.

 

Why do you now want to complain about them?

 

Because there has been a general reduction of speed limits on numerous roads around the country, often with no justification by the authorities to reduce the limit. In these circumstances we should demand the authorities explain their reasons in full to justify a reduction in the limit. If they can come up with good grounds for doing so then fine, but I suspect in most cases the grounds would be tenuous at best.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Rob S
spelling mistake

[Conniff]

I'm a great advocate of the saying 'rules are made to be broken' and don't bother with speed limits. I'm the one who brakes hard at the speed camera, usually down to about 20 and boy does that annoy other motorists, though not as much as overtaking on the inside, I love that, you should see them mutter under their breath and cuss, even more than the ones beaten away from the traffic lights that I then cut in front of.

See there are still some pleasures in life.

[patdavies]

Trying to deny that he was speeding and trying to defend the indefensible on a definition technicality. It seems like there are a lot of people on here from Nick Freeman (Mr. Loophole)'s brigade - trying to get bad and dangerous drivers off their deserved sentences over legal loopholes even when a driver has gone more than twice the speed limit and killed someone. By having this attitude, you are clearly implying that it OK to drive at completely inapproprate speeds and think you're above the law.

 

The law is a double-edged sword.

 

If, as your posts would have us believe, it is a serious criminal offence to travel a small amount above a posted limit then presumably the law should be enforced absolutely (without discretion) in order to punish all those that you regard as arrogant and irresponsible.

 

However, the enforcing authority are also subject to the law, and if they fail to follow it absolutely, then there can be no proper enforcement.

 

I find it very strange (and very unjust) that when the authorities win on a technicality, it is following the letter of the law; but when the motorist does it, it is described as a loophole - the implication of course being that if the motorist knows that he is morally guilty, he shouldn't even try to ensure that the enforcement process is legal.

 

If a motorists 'gets off' by using what you describe as a loophole, then don't complain about the motorist, blame those who wrote the law that allowed the loophole in the first place.

Edited May 19, 2008 by patdavies

[patdavies]

Perhaps one of you can answer this.

 

Why do we have a 70m mph limit on the majority of our motorways? What is the justification for setting it at 70 mph?

 

Why is 70 mph safe and 80 mph (the French Mway limit) not safe?

 

Why is it not considered necessary to have any limit at all in on parts of the Mway system in Germany?

 

How come that if I drive at 120 mph on an autobahn I am fine; but if I do it here it is unsafe because I haven't been specifically trained (ignoring, for the sake of argument, that it is exceeding that arbitrary 70 mph limit)?

[Bookworm]

Because there has been a general reduction of speed limits on numerous roads around the country, often with no justification by the authorities to reduce the limit. In these circumstances we should demand the authorities explain their reasons in full to justify a reduction in the limit. If they can come up with good grounds for doing so then fine, but I suspect in most cases they grounds would be tenuous at best.

A very valid point.

 

I give you the dual carriageway up the road from me. Speed limit set at 40 since as far as I can remember. Speed camera installed about 4 years ago. (with no accident reported there that I am aware of). 2 years ago, speed limit reduced to 30. (The interesting thing is that this road is actually on a downward slope, so that even if you start at the top of it at 30 and do not accelerate, unless you brake, you will actually be doing more than 30 by the time you get to the speed camera. But I digress. Or do I?)

 

3 weeks ago, the speed got put back up to 40... and the speed camera has been removed.

 

One can only hazard a guess at the motivation behind the whole thing.

[lamma]

Perhaps one of you can answer this.

 

Why do we have a 70m mph limit on the majority of our motorways? What is the justification for setting it at 70 mph?

 

Why is 70 mph safe and 80 mph (the French Mway limit) not safe?

 

Why is it not considered necessary to have any limit at all in on parts of the Mway system in Germany?

 

How come that if I drive at 120 mph on an autobahn I am fine; but if I do it here it is unsafe because I haven't been specifically trained (ignoring, for the sake of argument, that it is exceeding that arbitrary 70 mph limit)?

 

Agreed. The influence of the Ford Anglia is not to be underestimated.

 

I have seen lots of KSI figures and they show that the lowest risk of KSI is at 10-15 kph above the average speed of traffic on the road. Note NOT the speed limit. And the area under the curve (i.e. the most KSIs) happen on the left hand side of the curve i.e. at speed lowers than the average for that road. The HMG message of "speed kills" just doesn't tally.

 

It also makes you ask why they spend all that money on high speed rail links. A train derailment can be a very serious thing and although thankfully infrequent just imagine how many fewer KSIs there would be in train wrecks if they reduced the speed of trains. But no they spend huge amounts making them faster. The message there is clearly "speed doesn't kill in train wrecks". It can't be related to the fact that there are no speed cameras on railway lines can it ? ?

[credit allergy]

There are no pedestrian crossings on the eurostar link near me. Perhaps we should slow the planes down at heathrow as well. To answer your questions look at all the flowers by the roadside and the police appeal boards. When people drive properly then perhaps the speed limits can be increased. Yes there are higher limits on the continent but what is there rtc rate like. I repeat the standard of driving witnessed by my own eyes on a daily basis is poor. That is the reality and of course if your speed is too high for the hazard/circumstances there is more chance of serious injury or death it is common sense surely.

[Bookworm]

There are no pedestrian crossings on the eurostar link near me.

Last I checked, there were none on the motorway either.

 

I thought this thread was about speed cameras?