Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Bill Elliott
Why oh Why on earth would we want a National Speed limit of 112.654 kilometres per hour? Can you imagine the size of the road signs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Allen
So "110" wouldn't be possible?
30 = 45
40 = 65
50 = 80
60 = 95
(sorry, I don't have a symbol for approximately equal)
This is the 21st Century. The metric system has been around for 200 years. It has been legal in Britain for 100 years. I was taught maths and science in metric from 1963. How much longer do we have to wait to properly adopt the sytem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Sneddon
Reading with interest here are my comments:
1. Why design vehicles to travel way above national speed limits in the first place? With these 'fast' cars temptation to speed will always be there no matter what. Government should address this root problem.
2.Speed cameras I believe are only useful for urban areas and should also be complimented by adequate numbers of police enforcers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Out of interest the national speed limit on a dual carriageway is I believe 70mph unless otherwise indicated and it usually is at the start.
On the question of the ability of cars to reach speeds well in excess of the national limit there can be an argument from the environmental stance - Such vehicles are running at much lower revs when at low speeds compared to "standard" vehicles and so are likely to produce less emissions. I well remember the much loved 2CV well regarded by the eco-warriors which had higher CO2 emissions per mile than a Porsche.
Thats my stir for the day. Like Aaron I believe that our driver education is lamentable and the only answer from our government is to make the Driving Test more "stringent" - This does not weed out those with a problem of attitude.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Regarding speed limiters in cars, the statistics quoted by RoSPA show that approximately two thirds of all crashes in which people are killed or injured happen on roads with a 30mph speed limit. A simple speed limiter on vehicles will only deal with the excessive speeds on faster roads, yet these are not the most dangerous and so will not have the desired effect. Only technology that will variably affect the vehicle as it progresses through the different speed zones will achieve the desired outcome. That technology will be expensive and difficult to phase in, since it will require all locations with lower speed limits to have limit signalling equipment installed and it will only affect new vehicles, not the old bangers. To force people to install the technology will create a larger mountain of end-of-life vehicles than we are already facing, as it will become more expensive to adapt the vehicle than it is intrinsically worth. No government has the bottle to take such a politically unpopular decision and then face the backlash at the polls, certainly if records to date are anything to go by. The art of compromise remains all-encompassing.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Mackessack
I am surprised that this old chestnut has reared it's ugly head on such a learned and esteemed forum.
Gatsos are usually housed within a big yellow-painted box, preceeded by a sign depicting a camera (funnily enough).
If you have any competence behind the wheel/bars, you'll see 'em and act accordingly. If you get flashed - tough luck - you're a mug.
It's a no-brainer in my opinion. 'Safety' cameras are a fact of life. They attract criticism not from people who genuinely believe they don't work, but those who are insecure and not big enough to admit that their driving skills (or eyesight!) aren't up to the grade.
Anyone who gets themselves properly trained (i.e. RoADA, IAM etc) are usually ambivalent to the subject of Gatsos as they rarely need to worry about them.
We all have the choice.
Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andy Petrie
If you put speed limiters on cars how would you be able to overtake anything. You would end up with huge queues of traffic on all single carriageway roads stuck behind a sunday driver or a flippin caravan.
The white national speed limit signs are used as there are different speed limits on these roads for different types of vehichle (HGV etc.)
Anyone who watched Fifth Gear last night will also know that there are a host of legal devices available to detect speed cameras and traps (Radar, Laser and IR) so anyone who has a mind to speed just needs to spend a few hundred quid and there chance of being caught is significantly reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
Although I've made my views clear on 'safety cameras' in an earlier response, I can't say that I agree with the radar detectors.
Also these do not detect the new(er) Truvelo cameras, as these do not rely on radar, rather, they rely on electronic loops positioned in the road. These are also forward facing. I'm not sure whether they are designed to flash (as I don't appear to have set one off), but if they do, then surely at night, the resulting flash from the camera could potentially be just as dangerous as the speeding offence it is recording (rendering the driver temporarily 'blind'?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eric Burt
I am a supporter of speed cameras if properly positioned. However, to get away from the "revenue raising" allegations, why not have a variable system of punishment.
I don't think anyone would argue that breaking the speed limit outside a school was acceptable, so why not have the harshest penalties for breaking the speed limit in certain locations, such as schools, accident blackspots, housing estates etc. I would advocate a ban (and we can argue about the length of the ban but I would suggest one week to start with). This would then do away with the money-raising arguement, and certainly focus the mind of errant drivers.
Hitting people in the pockets isn't always the best way to impose a punishment which is intended to change behaviour.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
Here, here Eric - now that I thoroughly agree with. There can be no excuse for speeding in school areas, accident blackspots and the like.
Also, following on from my last posting, I've just carried out a brief internet search, and it seems that the Truvelo cameras do emit a flash when they are set off. Now, a bright flash of light aimed (forward facing) at capturing a photograph of both the vehicle and the driver, at night, in the rain (although they would be even more stupid to speed in the rain - but that's another argument), a safe way of collecting evidence of a speeding motorist/ rider? Hmmmmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
Unfortuanly you will find that many banned drivers are still on the road. The Insurance, and reporting logistics would be too expensive.
Again I state that cameras are usefull to an extent but no substitute compared with an alert policeman.
Are we not seeing this,
1. even though some would say their are more police now than 10 years ago etc, these officers are tied down with procedures, paper work, and "DO" seem to be spending more time in the station.
2. Imagine a small town after a weeks blitz.
The non insured will get insured or charged.
The tax evader will be coughing up his tax.
The speeder will be a little more carefull.
Maybe a couple of thieves would be caught.
A possible rape or abduction may have been prevented.
Assistance may be required to capture a burglar.
This does not have to be consistant but random.
I dont know, whats happened to this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Hogarth
Eric,
Re your comments about more severe penalties for speeding outside schools etc.
Given that you are caught and brought before the Courts you will find that this is dealt with under "Aggravating Factors" of the offence and is certainly taken into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
As a safety practitioner and a driving studying for my advanced driving test I am very anti camera.
My reasons are thus:
The british driving test does not equip the driver to drive on all british roads in the typical weathers that are often encoutered - my first test was cancelled due to heavy rain. surely like anything else safety related there should be the approriate training in place before all else. there are amendmends like the the multiple guess test and soon the basic mechanical test. BUT ultimately we are building on a very shakey foundation.
Why not scrap the current test - it has had it's day and introduce the test fit for the 00's a multiple stage test with limits on the times a learner can drive, types of road and engine and power limits. It works in Germany, Australia and NZ (NZ is a good example as they used the british test and most of their road code is based directly on the highway code, the accident rate was pretty grim, it improved markedly after introducing the multi stgae test system).
Speaking to IAM examiners (most of whom I've met are ex traffic police) admit that if the british test system was up to scratch they would no longer exist in the form they do today. A sad reflection on our current system.
I live and work in Essex, one of the original trial areas for speed cameras, and have a great collection of photos of speed camera sites that have manged to create very real hazards to control another hazard. This doesn't seem to be very good safety management to me !! I have of course contacted the Essex camera partnership but with no response, only after I contacted a few of the anti camera websites and the pictures were posted on the internet were the camera sites amended - draw your own conclusions.
Likewise there are roads in Essex that have had several changes in speed limit but are often inadequately signed (though the cameras are often spot on) for this reason I am looking at a GPS detector that displays speed limit info (the detector is udated from the highways and local authorities).
If drivers were adequately trained,
Speed camera sights were sited safely,
If the current trend of reducing traffic officers was reversed (so they could catch tail gaters, the wallys that drive with fog lights on, using mobile phones etc)
Then I could say that cameras are worthwhile as they are being used as part of a combined method of road safety management, at the moment they seem to seen by the government as a good way of filling the coffers and as a panacea to all road safety ills, which they are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian mcnally
Hi Guys,
If you don’t want to read all the stuff in the middle I’m in favour!
Having just read all the threads, took me a while as I’m a slow reader, I have to conclude there is still a fair amount of mixed opinion. There is some fascinating information on statistics in both France the UK plus a bit about driving in USA. It really does make good reading at lunchtime. I agree with a huge amount of what has been said. I have driven / ridden in Europe and USA and enjoy driving fast, perhaps this is a male thing no doubt someone could produce statistics to prove that more young male drivers are killed in RTA’s. Like many I consider myself to be above average competent driver. Like many safety advisors I cover 25 to 30,000 miles per year and like many others have probably developed plenty of bad habits and perhaps misplaced confidence my actual ability. There seems to be a good number of extremely law abiding citizens voicing opinions and I guess this is to be expected given what most of those reading this web site do for a living. I know plenty of people, some of them police officers that drive too fast.
I believe some of the solution to driving too fast has already been said, personally I am an advocate of speed cameras but unlike many, I think the actual boxes should be camouflaged as best as possible to reduce the idiots that hit the brakes when they see them, instinct has caused me to slow down having spotted the box on occasions so I guess I fall into this category too.
I have been very lucky and have held an unblemished licence for many years having a young family has had an impact on my behaviour but I still drive too fast at times and maybe a large fine and points might focus the mind. Having said all this I am strongly in favour of the following controversial suggestions;
Significantly increasing the number of speed camera’s in built up areas or other areas with particular or known hazards for speeding drivers.
Increasing the fines and linking it to income and increasing the fines according to the amount over the speed limit.
2nd or further offences to incur retraining and/or re-test
Increasing the number of automatic bans for excessive speeds over defined limits perhaps 45 in a 30. 55 in a 40. 90 in a 70.
I would love to see a camera that could prevent tailgating, lane hopping and as for those who use a mobile phones while driving (yes I have too before the hands free kit)
On the mobile phones problem …..if you reported such an offence with date and time could this not be verified by the service provider?
Certainly generated some interest with this one Bryn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
There have been several comparions in the postings with how road safety is addressed in other county's usually saying 'they' do things better. In fact the fatal accident stats show UK in a favourable light. Lowest fatal rate per million population in Europe except Malta (which must suggest the recent Dutch proposals for removing all controls has some merit!!).
For example, Germany (cited above as having superior testing procedures) had 83 per million pop against UK 60 (2002). The figures are coming down in Germany so perhaps their testing regime is having an effect?
France had a figure of 129 which seems to contradict some other statistics cited.
Within the figures though there are some interesing differences. For example the relatively high proportion of pedestrian deaths in urban areas in the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Mains
You have touched on an interesting point there Jack - the number of pedestrians involved in accidents.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who decide to cross the road wherever it takes their fancy despite the fact that there is usually a crossing within 20 metres of where they are standing getting ready to jump out in front of moving vehicles.
This is actually my main gripe with speed cameras - the fact that they are seen as the solution to the problem of injuries and accidents.
In my opinion what is needed is training and education for the public at large and also for drivers but that takes resources and finance. Anybody know of a way to finance this???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Tangent alert
Just to clarify your point David...
Are you saying that pedestrians wilfully & deliberately throw themselves in front of your vehicle?
Isn't that like blaming the victims of gun crime for standing in the way of the fired bullet?
The other possible alternatives are surely b) that UK speed limits in urban areas (30mph) are too fast resulting in greater pedestrian casualties or c) UK drivers ignore the urban speed limits resulting in greater pedestrian casualties.
There may even be other possibilities I've not thought of.
Please can you validate your conclusion or it may risk being unfairly dismissed, especially when your suggestion of pedestrian awareness seems otherwise reasonable.
End tangent alert
Jack, thanks for those figures, they add a very useful bit of quantitative data to the discussion.
Any ideas how they relate specifically to speed cameras?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.