Posted By CFT TGIF I believe there was a recent case that challenged the speeding ticket decision on a precedence that there were flexible speed limits in place in such areas as Schools, etc; I don't have any details so am unable to support the authenticity of the claim. You make a point however that has been around since Professor Pat Pending was last seen scooting here and there, I suspect it will continue to be mooted at appropriate Governmental opportunities such as pre-election manifesto times and similar.Perhaps one day it will come? In reality, I think a lower mandatory speed limit is likely; who ever thought the 20mph would catch on? Were you not aware the camera was sited there? CFT

Posted By David Tandy I have a feeling you are pushing against an open door. Whilst I support the suggestion and have in my lonely journeys across the UK at unsocial hours often thought it about time we had active speed limits that reacted to time conditions etc. I cannot help but think we are at risk of loosing sight of the reasons for them in the first place and the more we challenge their existence the more we give credence to the "boy racer" fraternity (no gender implications intended) who would like nothing more than free reign to use the roads as they see fit. Dave

Posted By Dean Stevens Thanks for the replies so far. I am glad to see that i am not the only one who thinks like this, on one hand i was expecting to have been shot down by several safety proffesionals for even suggesting the idea, but it is pleasing to see that i haven't yet. The school is a good example, a 20mph limit is good practice during school hours, but like you say, should you still be expected to drive at 20mph past thte same school at midnight or later? I have no problems with speed cameras being in locations that they are needed, schools, places with high accident/fatality rates, town centres etc but it is when they are clearly there to make money that it gets to me. Cheers.

Posted By J Knight Two things to say; one is that at 1 in the morning there are probably more drunk pedestrians/cyclists/other motorists about than during daylight hours. Fewer people in total maybe, but those that are around will be at higher risk. Two is that faster cars are noisier cars, and people in villages like to sleep at night, not be woken up by people hurtling through their lives. The limit is the limit; 30 in residential areas is already far too high, John

Posted By Dean Stevens Guys/Gals Thank you all for your input, it is good to see that the views are fairly split between us on this one. Many thanks Dean.

Posted By Gareth W Jones I believe it is 14 days??

Posted By Zaphod I am a bit sore at the moment - having recently got my second lot of points. Now 6 on my licence. I am not proud of this, at the same time I am confused about what I can do to prevent going up to 9 points. Don't speed might be an answer but I tried MY best not to speed before I got flashed. I happen to believe that speed limits are really important and do my utmost to abide by them. However, I find it impossible to maintain 100% concentration 100% of the time when driving. That does not mean in anyway i am flippant about speed limits and the dire consequences of speed - or indeed the need to obtain the maximum concentration that is humanly possible. However, I am on the road a lot, have to drive on A roads and B roads a lot. Every now and again, I realise I've drifted over the speed limit, thank my lucky stars I wasn't flashed and slow the car down. You see boy racers whizzing around and I wonder how they manage not to clock up 12 points and a ban in a very short space of time. Perhaps they are very skilled at spotting the camera's and slowing down - only where the cameras are.

Posted By J Knight Oh, and Gary; re: speed and safety. Think like a safety professional; does speed increase the likelihood of a collision? Yes, a car at 0 mph cannot collide with anything, though it can be crashed into. A car travelling at 500 mph on public roads is almost certain to crash. The line linking zero with almost certain may not be straight, but it will be possible to derive a relationship. Does speed increase the severity of the outcome? Yes, though again we can argue about the precise shape of the graph there is an undoubted relationship. Risk is likelihood times severity of outcome. Speed increases risk. And the definition of 'inappropriate speed' is circular; by definition any speed at which a collision occurs is inappropriate; a drive cannot know what an inappropriate speed is unless they have a collision. John

Posted By Saracen11 Hi Dean, and others... good evening. I think I've added a comment before, similar to the one I'm about to add now... if a driver kills another person whilst going too fast e.g. 38mph in a 30mph zone, will he/she really be able to put a hand on their heart and say they were driving sensibly? Speed limits are basically control measures put in place as a result of a risk assessment based on known facts i.e. accident black spots, history of speeding motorists (because of a nice long stretch of open road) etc... what is so important in life that driving too fast is ok? (considering the catastrophic effects taking the risk could have...) I don't speed because life itself is too important. I understand the idea behind 'lifting' speeding restrictions at certain times during the day. Some drivers might pay attention to this... some pedestrians also might pay attention to this... but if the two don't, and meet half way... another statistic is created. Safe journeys everyone. Regards

Posted By J Knight John, So what? 1,600 collisions a year is utterly trivial if nobody is hurt. Higher speed means more and more significant injuries. Ask the Durham CPO a different question and you might get a different answer. In any event, I simply don't believe his figures. They are estimates, not based on any accurate knowledge of what speed the vehicles involved were travelling at, but this is why I think he's wrong. My experience as a motorist, and surveys, suggest that most people break speed limits most of the time, I think the last survey I read said that in a 30 mph zone some 70 odd percent of traffic would be travelling at 30+, and this is my experience. So if 70 odd percent of traffic travels at above the speed limit, but only 3% of collisions involve vehicles above the speed limit, we have the paradoxical finding that breaking the speed limit increases safety, by an enormous margin. One of the questions that need to answered is how fast were the vehicles involved travelling before the collision chain started? By the time they actually hit anything somebody has probably managed to brake enough to drop below the speed limit, and that's not the point. Sheer and utter man-in the pubbery; the great British driver can do no wrong and if only the enforcers would let him (and it is usually a male attitude) drive how he sees fit there would be no road deaths at all. You might choose to believe this, I don't, John

Posted By Dean Stevens As already stated, i know i'm guilty and will pay fine and take points where neccesary. I actually thought the village was a 40mph zone,until after i was flashed and the 30mph signs suddenly appeared. So to say i was driving excessively fast is wrong, it was an error of judgement on my part that i will put my hands up to, not sure whether the signage was poor or i just missed it as this was the first time i had ever been through this village.No excuse, i know. My point of this thread was not to be slated, (although i realise by posting it i was putting myself in the firing line for this) but to ask for opinions on the variable speed limits, some people have given their views on this and i would like to thank them for their views. It seems the majority of people tend to disagree with me on introducing variable speed limits, i take on board your points and respect you for your input. Many Thanks to all.

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Did anyone see the Anatomy of a Crime last night on BBC2? That programme answered (in my mind) clearly answered this emotive question!

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith John, Putting the outcome of the impact of this programme has on me into professional speak, this clearly showed me the impact that the inappropriate use of a road vehicle could have on an innocent family, the community and even the young driver concerned. If there was ever a location which needed a speed camera, it was precisely the location under investigation last night.

Posted By Brett Day In New Zealand they have timed variable limits around 'sensitive areas' such as schools, hospitals and the like, they seem to work very well. If we are to review this system over here we MUST improve the standard of driver training and testing at present it is woefully inadequate despite things like Pass Plus and the touch screen theory and hazard perception tests. As far as speed limits changing in rural areas go, in Norfolk several roads had limit changes, up and down (60-30-60-40 etc) the accident rate on these roads actually went up and were deemed at coroners inquest to be a contributary factor in two fatalies. These limits were put in after locals and local councillers deemed that 30 in a residential was too high. There is the argument about if you don't speed you cannot be fined, at present there are several cases regarding the accuracy of the LTi 20-20 laser detector, we have had numerous cases of equipment being used outside of its Type Approval, a legally defined standard that ensures the data used for prosecution is valid, we have had cases such as Folly Bottom where the speed limt imposed and the signage were illegal, also to add insult to injury the camera was picking vehicles up in the area PAST the end of the temporary limit. So don't belive for an instant that by adhering to the limit you can be safe from prosecution. As for the solution, in addition to improving driver standards through better training and testing we should be looking at better police enforcement. The 'Telling off' from the local trafpol is often very effective and it catches the person IN THE ACT of commiting an offence and gives the police a chance to stop a dangerous behaviour THERE AND THEN not 14 days after the fact. "“Exceeding the speed limit related to just 60 collisions per year out of a total of 1,900 collisions in the Durham area — that’s about 3%.” Paul Garvin, Chief Constable, Durham Constabulary Sunday Times 2003-11-23" John, re the above, I have the pleasure of knowing a serving trafpol from the Durham area, they do not have a camera partnership, they do still use handheld cameras as a tool, and are quick to stop dangerous drivers irrespective of speed. Durham have a better safety record than counties with camera partnerships and they are a lot more open about thie accident stats being scrutinised. I am not advocating speeding and perhaps in the OP's posting there could be things that can be taken away as learning points. Road Craft and instructors from the Police School of Motoring at Hendon, on the Class 1 training state that "The only safe speed is one that allows you to stop in a controlled manner, on your side of the road or in your lane, within the distance you can see to be clear". Dean you said "I actually thought the village was a 40mph zone,until after i was flashed and the 30mph signs suddenly appeared. So to say i was driving excessively fast is wrong, it was an error of judgement on my part that i will put my hands up to, not sure whether the signage was poor or i just missed it as this was the first time i had ever been through this village.No excuse, i know." Something that I am a little concerned about is that you thought that the limit was 40mph, and you state that the 30 signs 'suddenly' appeared, it indicates to me one of two things: a. the signage was not to legal requirements in terms of legal size, shape, visibilty standards, in which case there is a case for contesting your conviction and bringing this to the local authorities attention (after all if signage is wrong, damaged, obscured etc it is not going to be doing it's job correctly so something needs to be done). b. there may be some problems with regards to your observation skills (are you scanning ahead far enough for the road and speed, are your headlights set correctly, are you using observation links correctly?). I hope that you don't mind these comments, I'm hoping that they may be of use.

Posted By Merv Newman Sorry, but the law is the law. Speed limits in the UK are clearly sign posted at least 10 meters before the camera. I recently lost 1 point for not slowing down by a very short coned area. I would have had to brake very fast (and maybe dangerously) from 90 mph to 40 and the camera was placed behind a works vehicle. A deliberate trap in my opinion. Whatever. I got done. Pay up and give up the point(s) Two or three years of SAFE driving and I get my point(s) back. The law is the law. Pay up, submit, and be safe. Then you can argue about changing the law. Merv

Posted By BB Dean, You accuse the Gatso of being a money-spinner -and yep, you're probably right, but the old adage: "A fool and his money is soon parted" comes to mind. These are always big, luminous yellow boxes with preceding signs. I always cheer when I see someone get the double flash because they are obviously not concentrating. It's a bit like taking candy from a baby. The journalist - Rupert Paul wrote in his column in Bike Magazine last week that Britain is now a Mecca for speeding - and I agree. His point is that once you've got past the Gatsos - there is precious little to stop you really speeding now as decent traffic police enforcement has been cut to the point of impotence in most parts of the UK. Res ipsa loquitor. Pay up and move on.

Posted By Zaphod John Can I just check that I am getting this right. Are you saying that when driving you keep pretty well 100% concentration, 100% of the time so that you never drift over the speed limits? I wish I could do that. The thought of killing a child or being caught for speeding helps keep the mind focused . However, on a long journey through lots of country roads, there is lots of stuff going through my mind - e.g. the implications of the H&S inspection I have just carried out, I like that song on the radio, I wonder if I could transcribe it for my band, I wonder what my kids are up to at the moment, I hope I find a service station soon - I need a loo, etc etc. I hope I am not making excuses for myself, I just wonder if there are two types of people in this world - those that are always alert and focused on the world around them - the sort of people that make good body guards, and there are dreamy people like me on another planet a lot of the time. May be us dreamy types are more dangerous on the road and will be filtered out by the speed camera process.

Posted By Gareth W Jones Yes indeed, I wish I could say I am 100% alert all the time when driving, perhaps on the odd long trek to places I havent been before, but on the day to day trip to work, I slip into Alpha sleep like nearly everyone out on the roads, as i discuss in my behavioural training this is the majority of all drivers!!

Posted By Zaphod A few months ago, I had practically no sympathy myself for people getting flashed by speed cameras. This was when I had three points and the prospect of 3 more camera flashes resulting in a loss of licence wouldn't happen to me because I do my best to keep within the limits. Now that I have 6 points (2 offences), my attitude has changed. One more lapse of concentration could take me to court which is standard for the third offence, 2 more, I will loose my licence. I am not looking for sympathy, I'm just not sure that speed cameras alone are the answer. More of those things with flashing faces to tell you that you are above or below the speed limit would help. Also, how come some areas give you the option of attending road safety awareness session instead of the points while others don't - this seems rather unfair.

Posted By garyh Safety awareness training doesn't generate money like fines do!! I think we should separate out the fines from the picture. I propose that ALL revenue from speed cameras should go to charity. This would then demonstrate that these devices are ONLY safety devices, and not a form of revenue generation. Don't hold your breath.