speed camera rant!

[Rob S]

But I had to give an extreme example, not least because I know personally of it, as Rob S and the OP simply refused to accept that even extreme speeding is serious.

 

 

 

Making it up as you go along I see Al. Can you point me to my apparant refusal to accept that "extreme speeding" is serious?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Making it up as you go along I see Al. Can you point me to my apparant refusal to accept that "extreme speeding" is serious?

 

No problem, try post #32 of yours for a start. Here it is-

 

 

Thanks for giving me a good laugh!!!:grin::grin::grin: if you think speeding is a "serious criminal offence" how on earth do you categorise aggravated burglary or GBH or murder?

 

I await your response with eager anticipation:rolleyes:

 

C'mon Rob S, don't spin your way out of this!

 

Not only do you think speeding can not be a serious criminal offence you actually think it's a laughing matter!

 

Do you feel foolish now?

[Rob S]

No problem, try post #32 of yours for a start. Here it is-

 

 

Thanks for giving me a good laugh!!!:grin::grin::grin: if you think speeding is a "serious criminal offence" how on earth do you categorise aggravated burglary or GBH or murder?

 

I await your response with eager anticipation:rolleyes:

 

C'mon Rob S, don't spin your way out of this!

 

Not only do you think speeding can not be a serious criminal offence you actually think it's a laughing matter!

 

Do you feel foolish now?

 

Al, you must be getting desperate if you have to take my previous posts out of context in a lamentable attempt to provide the proof that I don't think "extreme speeding" is serious.

 

You''ll have to try harder than that.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Al, you must be getting desperate if you have to take my previous posts out of context in a lamentable attempt to provide the proof that I don't think "extreme speeding" is serious.

 

You''ll have to try harder than that.

 

No way Rob! You are just like a politician.

 

All one needs to do is look back at post #32 of yours as it was a reply to Tom87's question to you where you did not think speeding can be a serious criminal offence!

 

I didn't set you up for this fall-you did!

 

Will you admit that speeding can be a serious offence? Yes or no?

Answer that honestly and we can all move this thread forward where ideas and opinions on both sides can be constructive.

 

It's not worth it otherwise.

[Mr_Joe]

The speed in itself, was not dangerous. The outcome was that the speed was a major aggravating factor in the fatacc. No, this is not true. It was only dangerous because the speed was excessive! A lump of metal traveling at 70mph in a 30 zone is speeding & dangerous! PC Middleton (sp?) was caught doing 90 mph in a 30 mph limit; he is a trained high-speed Police driver, Was his action dangerous. No, he is trained for that speed, a standard licence holder is not.

 

What about formula 1 drivers?

[Rob S]

No way Rob! You are just like a politician.

 

No, that would be you Al, with your taking something out of context and giving it a different twist

 

 

All one needs to do is look back at post #32 of yours as it was a reply to Tom87's question to you where you did not think speeding can be a serious criminal offence!

 

I suggest you go back to Toms original post where you will see he described "speeding" as a "serious criminal offence". His suggestion was that ALL speeding was a serious criminal offence, which would include someone breaking the speed limit by 1 mph. That is what prompted my response. Of course the truth doesn't really fit in with your poor attempt at twisting what I said.

 

 

I didn't set you up for this fall-you did!

 

May I refer you to the above and the true context of my remarks, which you have attempted (poorly) to manipulate.

 

Will you admit that speeding can be a serious offence? Yes or no?

 

The question you ask can not be answered as a closed question. Only a fool would think otherwise.

 

 

Answer that honestly and we can all move this thread forward where ideas and opinions on both sides can be constructive.

 

It's not worth it otherwise.

 

Ask me an appropriate question and you will get an answer but ask me something to which the proper response has loads of shades of grey and you will never get a "yes" or "no" response.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Ok Rob, looks like I'm going to have to take this to the very basics to get any sort of input from you of any value.

 

Right, please just answer this simple question that any driver would know?

 

When you are driving along merrily in your noddy car and you see a 30 mph limit sign, please explain what that indicates to you.

 

No tricks-just a simple question to get an answer.

[Tom87]

Will you admit that speeding can be a serious offence? Yes or no?

 

That is a perfectly appropriate and extremely straightforward question, Rob.

 

Does ducking away from this one imply that your answer is no?

 

Why can't you and any other doubters just admit that speeding, especially extremely highly above the limit, can be a serious offence?

 

Anyone who seriously thinks 'no' should go to a road traffic safety course that convicted dangerous drivers often go to, and should see the effects that speeding has on people's lives.

 

And what if speeding itself only accounts for the direct cause of a small percentage of accidents? Will that bring back those who have been killed in such accidents? Try suggesting the irrelevance of breaking the speed limit to someone whose child has been mowed down by one of these selfish killers who thought excessive speeding does no harm. You could be that know-it-all driver one day; or worse, it could be a relative of yours killed. I think you would lose your "speeding doesn't matter" attitude then. I just hope, as a fellow human being with feelings, that you lose the attitude before this happens.

[lamma]

How are we going to bring back all those killed in rail accidents.

Slow those trains NOW !!

[Rob S]

That is a perfectly appropriate and extremely straightforward question, Rob.

 

Does ducking away from this one imply that your answer is no?

 

Why can't you and any other doubters just admit that speeding, especially extremely highly above the limit, can be a serious offence?

 

If an offence of speeding is as serious as you make out, why is it a non recordable criminal offence which is often dealt with by means of a conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice and payment of a £60 fine?

 

Anyone who seriously thinks 'no' should go to a road traffic safety course that convicted dangerous drivers often go to, and should see the effects that speeding has on people's lives.

 

You said convicted dangerous drivers, not those convicted of speeding, and then you went back on to the subject of speeding. Which is it to be?

 

 

And what if speeding itself only accounts for the direct cause of a small percentage of accidents? Will that bring back those who have been killed in such accidents?

 

What a stupid thing to say.

 

 

Try suggesting the irrelevance of breaking the speed limit to someone whose child has been mowed down by one of these selfish killers who thought excessive speeding does no harm.

 

Are you suggesting that it is always the drivers fault when a child gets knocked over?

 

 

hat know-it-all driver one day; or worse, it could be a relative of yours killed. I think you would lose your "speeding doesn't matter" attitude then. I just hope, as a fellow human being with feelings, that you lose the attitude before this happens.

 

In August 1987, my Uncle was killed in a road traffic accident. He was riding his motorcycle when a bus driver pulled out in front of him after failing to give way. I am far more fearful of inattentive and careless drivers than those who speed, because they are the ones who can do me, as a motorcyclist, far more damage. They cause the vast majority of accidents, not speeders, and the facts support this.

 

So Tom, why don't you drop the sanctimonious holier than thou crap and look at what really happens out there on the roads. I won't be that "know it all" because I know the value of looking at the road conditions ahead of me and planning my driving, rather than being fixated on the reading from speedometer.

 

Who do you think is going to be the safer driver Tom, the one sticking to 30 mph and watching their speedo rather than the road, or the one doing 35 and watching the road ahead and seeing everything that is happening ahead of them and reacting to the situation in a timely fashion?

[letshelp]

Hi Tom,

 

The person on the dangerous driving course, is there by the fact he has been convicted of dangerous driving, NOT for exceeding the speed limit alone, no matter by how much they exceed the speed limit.

best regards

[Conniff]

It's great this thread, it's like watching a load of drunken sailors on a bouncy castle.

[Tom87]

You said convicted dangerous drivers, not those convicted of speeding, and then you went back on to the subject of speeding. Which is it to be?

 

Like I've said before - I don't care what it's called officially. All that bothered me is that you and others are still refusing to accept that excessive speed can be dangerous. How unrealistic and arrogant of you.

 

What a stupid thing to say.

 

You wouldn't be saying that if your life had been ruined by a speeding driver.

 

Are you suggesting that it is always the drivers fault when a child gets knocked over?

 

No, I am not. It is often the case that the pedestrian hasn't looked properly before crossing a road. But if the driver had not been exceeding the speed limit, the pedestrian may not have been killed.

 

It's nothing to do with "holier than thou" - you just seem upset that some people actually obey road traffic law. I would say it's rather "holier than thou" to imply that it's safer to exceed the speed limit than not to, which you have clearly stated in your example of going at 30 and looking at the speedometer constantly or going at 35 and looking at the road. There is no need to constantly look at the speedo to drive at a legal speed. You can hear it in the engine and the revs if you are going faster, as well as seeing it visibly as you drive. And you can see the speedometer without having to take your eyes off the road.

 

Again, the disrespect that is displayed for human life on this thread is staggering. It is very naive to assume "it will never happen to me" because it just might.

[patdavies]

Like I've said before - I don't care what it's called officially. All that bothered me is that you and others are still refusing to accept that excessive speed can be dangerous. How unrealistic and arrogant of you.

 

Excessive speed has nothing whatsoever to do with posted speed limits. It appears that you (and Al) can only see that exceeding the posted limit is excessive speed. You appear to be unable to judge what speed is excessive and instead rely entirely on the authorities to do this for you by setting a speed limit.

 

20 mph in very thick fog can be excessive speed, regardless of the posted limit. Near where I live and travel, there are some very narrow lanes - for the most part, 25 mph is excessive speed regardless of the fact that the posted limit is NSL. You seem unable to accept that drivers can (and must) think for themselves.

 

There is no need to constantly look at the speedo to drive at a legal speed. You can hear it in the engine and the revs if you are going faster, as well as seeing it visibly as you drive.

Rubbish, the engine revs will depend on the gear in use and the gradient (ie load on the engine) - they are not a reliable indicator of speed.

 

 

And you can see the speedometer without having to take your eyes off the road.

Unless your car has a head-up display, this is patently untrue. You have to focus your eyes away from long vision (ie outside the vehicle) to near vision (the speedometer). The re-focussing between the two takes finite time during which time, you are not focussed on the road

[credit allergy]

Pat I agree about the difference in excessive speed as opposed to a speed limit. However the problem is that people cannont be relied upon or trusted to drive safely. This could be due to lack of knowledge, tution or just blatant ignoring of the circumstances. In the Highway code which is the good practice manual for the roads it states that driving in the wet requires twice the stopping distance. Well try going to a motorway bridge and see what happens when it is raining. I do not drop litter because it is antisocial the fact that it is against the law is a secondary issue. When drivers start to think of others then standards will rise. When I drive in central london and cyclists travel through red lights causing me and pedestrians to take evasive action this is amongst other things selfish. Speed as you acknowledge in the wrong place can be dangerous. When the accident rate drops then less government intervention is justifed. Lastly my comment about formula one was to highlight the fact that you cannot beat nature, to fast for a bend means to fast.

[Rob S]

Like I've said before - I don't care what it's called officially. All that bothered me is that you and others are still refusing to accept that excessive speed can be dangerous. How unrealistic and arrogant of you.

 

And how arrogant of you to make accusations because we don't share your viewpoint that driving at 1 mph over the speed limit makes you a dangerous driver. The fact is you don't have to exceed the speed limit to be driving too fast for the conditions, and that is where the problem lies with many drivers, coupled with poor observational skills and the inability to be looking further ahead than the bonnet line of their vehicle.

 

 

 

No, I am not. It is often the case that the pedestrian hasn't looked properly before crossing a road. But if the driver had not been exceeding the speed limit, the pedestrian may not have been killed.

 

More often or not it's because the driver is not looking far enough ahead rather than their speed which is a greater factor in collisions. How do you propose to tackle that, given that it is a far greater cause of accidents than speeding?

 

It's nothing to do with "holier than thou" - you just seem upset that some people actually obey road traffic law.

 

I would be interested to see how you work that one out. Is it because I don't share your absurd viewpoint that to stray 1 mph over the speed limit makes you a dangerous driver guilty of a serious criminal offence?

 

 

I would say it's rather "holier than thou" to imply that it's safer to exceed the speed limit than not to, which you have clearly stated in your example of going at 30 and looking at the speedometer constantly or going at 35 and looking at the road.

 

Obviously the point I was trying to make escapes you. Let me put it another way.

 

Driver going at 30mph not looking very far ahead sees hazard late and has to react by braking hard.

 

Driver going at 35mph who is looking ahead sees hazard in good time and lifts off the accelerator or brakes gently,which is suffficient to reduce speed enough to avoid the hazard.

 

There is no need to constantly look at the speedo to drive at a legal speed. You can hear it in the engine and the revs if you are going faster, as well as seeing it visibly as you drive. And you can see the speedometer without having to take your eyes off the road.

 

Pat Davies has rebutted this "point" quite nicely, so I won't repeat it.

 

Again, the disrespect that is displayed for human life on this thread is staggering. It is very naive to assume "it will never happen to me" because it just might.

 

I think you are more upset because of the disrespect shown to your absurd " black and white" viewpoint rather than that allegedly shown to human life. There is an easy solution Tom................just take off your blinkers and take an objective look at the situation, instead of absurdly labelling everyone who exceeds the speed limit by 1mph as dangerous.

[Rob S]

When the accident rate drops then less government intervention is justifed.

 

And therein lies the problem with the proliferation of speed cameras..............the accident rate has not dropped because of them. It has exposed the huge campaign against speeding being the major cause of accidents as the myth that most of us knew it was. The Government need to deal with the major causes of accidents rather than keep on flogging the dead speeding horse.

[credit allergy]

It is a well known adadage that you can teach a skill but not attitude. So with or without speed cameras the government is stuck. The majority of posts seem to think speed is not a problem. So even if the cameras were replaced by police officers in vehicles enforcing the law I still feel that there would be forum members complaining. If you are saying that if someone is prosecuted at 35mph in a high street by an officer following in a vehicle then they will accept it then ok. However I do not think that this will be the case. I drive within the law so have nothing to fear or resent from speed cameras whatsoever. What I do resent are selfish motorists speeding down my road when my children are walking to school and college. If they travel at 35mph then that is over 10% faster than the limit. So correct me if I am wrong then it will take at least 10% further to stop the vehicle. Or if they decide to swerve cause more damage to my parked car at the side of the road.

[Mr_Joe]

I don't think anyone has a problem with drivers being prosecuted for breaking the speed limit around schools, residential areas or even town centres. I would of thought most people's gripes would be on the motorway and commuter routes that pedestrians aren't allowed near as well as 3.00 in the morning when clearly there is less chance of hitting someone.

 

The problem is that the speed cameras are generally mounted on the motorways and the commuter routes but not outside schools and residential areas.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Ok Rob, looks like I'm going to have to take this to the very basics to get any sort of input from you of any value.

 

Right, please just answer this simple question that any driver would know?

 

When you are driving along merrily in your noddy car and you see a 30 mph limit sign, please explain what that indicates to you.

 

No tricks-just a simple question to get an answer.

 

See, Rob S refuses to answer such a simple question.

 

The point that Rob, patdavies and others are failing to grasp is that there are speed limits and if the likes of Tom, credit allergy and I can drive to them then why can't you lot?

 

31 over 30 is speeding, however minor it is. Is it beyond your skill to drive below that?

 

The reason we have so many cameras is because of people with your attitudes. You are your own worst enemy.

[Mr_Joe]

i don't think anyone is denying that fact that if you go over the speed limit then you are speeding, even if it is 1mph or 60mph. What we are discussing is the difference between speeding and dangerous driving.

 

Drivers are being caught by speed cameras in this country for speeding and not dangerous driving. That is the problem, speeding in itself is not always dangerous, that is why the government have introduced the gradient points system e.g. 2 points for 36mph and 6 points for 60mph. (I'm not 100% sure if this has been introduced but was certainly discussed BBC NEWS | UK | 'Fairer' speeding fines proposed)

 

Although this is an improvement it still only catches speeding and not dangerous driving, which kills a lot more people than speeding.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I agree Mr Joe.

 

All of us can recognise that 1 mph over the limit is probably rarely ever dangerous but some posters just refuse to accept that some speeding can be dangerous.

 

The safest way to not be charged with drink driving is to not drink at all when driving.

 

And the best way to not speed, which may then be dangerous, is to not drive above whatever the limit is wherever you happen to be.

 

If a driver is unable to do that then they shouldn't have a licence because they don't have the skill to actually drive.

 

It's so simple yet beyond some people which is why we have so many speed cameras.

[patdavies]

The safest way to not be charged with drink driving is to not drink at all when driving.

 

Actually, it's probably best not to drink before driving; drinking when driving tends to lead to spilling a lot. :D

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Actually, it's probably best not to drink before driving; drinking when driving tends to lead to spilling a lot. :D

 

Touche!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

Quite possibly because you are determined that everything is black and white and that you cannot possible accept that there are areas of grey that others have alluded to.

 

Regarding speed limits then, yes, the only approach to have is to see things in black and white.

 

If I were to be fined for being just 1 mile over the limit then I agree that that would seem to be harsh.

 

But one can avoid that by viewing every speed limit sign for what it states and drive within them. I just fail to see what the problem with this attitude is.