markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Changing the subject slightly, how do you feel about the question of setting a good or bad example, where speeding is concerned? If you're constantly driving at 10mph above the posted limit, other road-users are bound to see you doing it, and like it or not that's inevitably going to encourage some of them to do the same. The problem then obviously is that however experienced and focused a driver you might be, there's no guarantee at all that those people now following your example were born with the same driving-God like talent(s). Ultimately then, isn't it fair to say that overall you're contributing to the roads being less safe than they would be otherwise?

JackClark

If you don't want to speed and you don't speed then STFU and leave us adults alone, you have no point.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Well, given the fact that I've already posted on here at least twice that I DO NOT condone speeding and have no points myself, I think the answer is patently obvious.

What it doesn't address is the stupidity of some limits. Both too low and too high.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

That's it...you really ARE stupid. I've given you leeway before with your Apple fanboy stuff, but to say that I have no points after, hopefully reading all the points I've made, is just utterly pathetic.

I suggest that, since you obviously fail to understand the least bit about the argument, YOU stay out of it. Or re-read it and TRY to keep up. Your argument seems to be based on, "If you don't speed, there's no problem with the setup as is"?

Do you REALLY believe that?

JackClark

Yes, I think the limits should be lowered. What is your point exactly, you don't seem to have one.

Felix.

True, and doing 80 on a motorway doesn't usually result in a ticket. But, the limit has to be set somewhere, otherwise the argument will be why not do 90,100 etc. So the limit has been set at 70mph and road users ought to know this. And if they go over 70mph then they should accept that they take a chance. And, yes you can legally drive past a school at the speed limit and most people, I suggest, will do this. This being possibly social unacceptable to do otherwise. Either way, there they doesn’t seem to be an issue with speeding near schools. However, our school still has camera enforcement signs about and council officials monitor dangerous parking etc to keep things safe. However in these areas, speeding will cause significant injuries to the little darlings if they wander into the road.

So, if a local community has a problem in their area with speeding cars flying through their villages and the speed signs tend to be ignored. Would enforcement not be a good idea (like you suggested near schools since there is a safety issue there). If that community fears that injuries as a result of RTA's will be a lot higher due to higher vehicle speeds – would they not be sensible to campaign for a lower speed limit and to have it enforced with speed cameras as an attempt to 'catch' those ignoring the speed limits? Can you not see that there are lots of reasons for lowering the speed limit on sections of road – higher accident rates at that point or a higher report of near misses?

As above, if that particular area doesn't not have an issue with speeding – even if it is a school etc – why put the camera there?

See my previous post for unmarked cars? I have used them twice this week so far with good effect. Both for burglaries



And why does he feel he is not guilty. So far he receives a letter detailing that a camera has clocked him at a certain speed. He has to ask himself "Was it me". If the answer is 'Yes' why does he not just admit it. If he cannot remember, he has 'due dilligence'. If it wasn't him and he can prove it, then he will be found not guilty. Or is he just trying to chance his arm and 'get away with it'.



MrXXXXX probably pleaded guilty from the outset – hence why no court costs. The compensation seems to suggest a shop theft with it being an exact amount. He does not have a 'shoppers licence' so we cannot give him points but another punishment not mentioned will be that the store will ban him from entering the store from now on – and this will be nationwide. I know it's unlikely to be enforceable from one end of the country to the other, but locally, he details and photo will be passed and he will be ejected from the store if he tries to enter again. So similar to a speeder who admits is from the start – he will just get a fine and points – which is what you suggested should happen
Mr YYYYY & Mr ZZZZ have obviously pleaded not guilty and gone to court over the matter. It doesn't detail anything about the case. Was Mr ZZZ going 100mph in a 30? Was Mr YY a previous offender of this offence and hasn't learned. Was he involved in a crash and injured the other party? The punishments will always be lower for an early guilty plea as I have described earlier. The court, judge, jury will have to decide if their 'not guilty' plea is based on anything substantial or are they just taking the proverbial.
I do agree though that thieves should be given more jail time, but that’s down to Mr Cameron and Ms May. Here's a good one for you as a punishment for shop theft - 'A day in the court house', the fact he had to turn up at court is his punishment. Work that one out, my argument is 'I and the witnesses had to attend also, does that mean I'm getting punished too?'

This was based on your argument that speeders have not hurt anyone and whether you should be prosecuted for attempt rape as 'you have the equipment' I didn't think your argument was worth a response to be honest, but I did so.


In what regard – they don’t have to have number plates at the front, you can insure more than one rider, most accidents do occur at junctions, they do get 'done' for speeding, but you need the evidence to prove the offence – innocent until proven guilty remember – so it has to pass a threshold evidentially.

You never did answer this one? The camera will need to take a photo of the driver to prove the offence. You can argue that this also happens for bikers and even if they had a 'barcode' on the front, you still hit the problem that you can not prove who the rider is as he has a helmet.

jonc

Punishment is proportional to tho severity of the offence, whether it be for theft or a speeding offence. If you are caught for a minor speeding it is a fine and points on your licence, that's it, you don't automatically go to court and pay court costs! If you are caught speeding, generally over 20mph over the limit, that is deemed more serious in which case a court appearance is likely. If you're caught doing well in excess of the limit, well then you deserve it. The old duffers responsible for the Hatten Garden theft won't get away with a £57.60 compensation and £150 costs for example! So your argument is facile too!

neil-h

Those 5 punishments which any normal person who doesn't have a chip on there shoulder about speeding (a crime which they profess to neither commit or have ever committed) would actually take to be 2 punishments, points and a fine.

As for the change to insurance premiums, yet again we've already covered this (to paraphrase, the courts don't enforce it). So i really don't see the point in covering this again. Yet again you're too blinded by your own personal agenda to see it any other way.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Sigh.

So there's nothing wrong with the system as is?

ALL limits are sensible, from 30mph past a school to 70mph on a dry, straight, lit, empty motorway and so should be enforced as such?

NO limits are artificially low to catch speeders?
NO cameras are positioned at the bottom of long downward slopes where there is NO danger but it would be easy for your speed to creep up?
There are NO areas where limits change for NO reason other than to get drivers confused...and then catch them out?

And all this, this pursuit of the motorist as a cash cow, all this is OK? Or do you just think it's not happening? Or just turn a blind eye because "I don't speed".

IS IT FAIR?

Can we continue to condone the death rate amongst motorcyclists as we are doing, because we want to be certain of our income from car drivers?

Can we continue to dish out more and heavier punishments for trangressions THAT HURT NO-ONE AND DO NO DAMAGE?

Sorry, but if you think so, you are part of the problem.

Here's one for Jack: How would you feel if Apple intoroduced a limit to the length of the call you can make on your phone, an aribitrary limit which changed according to where you were, and which meant that you couldn't concentrate on your call, or who you wee calling, because you had to keep checking that you weren't over this limit?
THEN they decide not only to FINE you £90 every time you go over, but give you some "penalty points" on your phone, which will, if you don't keep looking at the limit and your timer, end up with them taking the phone off you?

Oh...and the limits are stupidly low in some areas and stupidly high in others.....Silly?

Of course it is, but it's how speed enforcement is done. IT'S a SCAM!

And all your, and others saying I have an axe to grind, I don't understand, it's fine, I have an agenda, etc etc is just so much pap...you are simply accepting the status quo because it's there. You have not stopped to question it at all.

QUESTION it, FFS, and you'll pretty soon see how unfair and scam-like it is. It's a whole industry based on a false premise. Speed kills.

Honestly, with folk like you lot about, I can see why governments get up to the cr@p they do, and get away with it. Sheep. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

So this whole time you've been droning on on behalf of a group of people you don't even represent? Truly mind-boggling.

In any case though, that only deflects my question, it doesn't answer it. IF you were a habitual speeder, or were to put yourself in the position of one, taking into account what I said in my previous post would you not agree that your behaviour would be making the roads generally less safe?

JackClark

Your thinking that speed has no effect on death is where your argument falls over. It does.

dpb

This one wasn't going much more than 10 mph over 30
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14230...d_run/?ref=trn

neil-h

And there went the last semblance of any sensible debate in this thread.

Felix.

Or could it be that there is a safety issue on that stretch of road that you don't know about. Has there been a series of accidents or near misses to other road users or pedestrians. Could it be that there is a village up ahead and drivers are not taking any notice of its speed limits. But, by lowering the speed limit on the approach seems to have the effect of lowering the speeds of motorists through the village. Is it a stretch of road in the middle of nowhere which speeding will harm no one – but it does have an effect on wildlife and campaigners have successfully campaigned to lower the speeds and save the local rare ducks. A whole host of reasons for lowering speed limits for sections of roads, but it is rather ignorant of road users to think they can travel at a speed that they want without regards to others or fear of constraints.

But if its advertised everywhere that this will happen and you were warned that you were approaching that limit, who's fault is it really if you go over it.

And if you can't drive a car and hold it at a set speed without constantly looking at the speedo – should you really be on the road? Your observations whilst driving should be:

Far distance
Middle distance
Near distance
Instruments
Mirrors
Repeat

That way, you can see upcoming speed limits, road conditions and your current speed


The faster you go, the more injury potential you have. Lower the speed lessens the injury potential. In theory, we should all travel at 10mph, but this is not practical, so the law allows increases in speed on certain roads so long as you stick to that given limit OR accept the fact that you take a chance if you don't

If you're not happy with the points/fine system then perhaps it should be a straight ban for those who speed.

But I would suggest that the public prefer the points/fine system to being banned for speeding. In fact the public seem happy with the system the way it is as there is never anything in the media to suggest that they want to change. And as we 'police by consent', then we are following this notion. I see more media reports of local villages buying themselves speed cameras to catch speeders through their village and call on the police for more prosecutions. Most community meetings have speeding motorist high on the agenda along with dog fouling.

And to complete the prosecution (as above) you will need evidence as to who is driving, hence the forward facing camera, hence your argument of:

does not make any sense

Felix.

Or another way to look at it:

Before you got your Apple contract, you were given lessons where it was explained what the rules were and you were taught how to ensure you knew how to spot the signs which tell you that you are in a certain zone with a changing limit. You take a written and practical test to show you can follow these rules and that you are happy to accept these rules and you know what penalties exist if you break these rules. You are aware that you get fined and get points on your contract and may lose your contract all together if you beak these rules. Knowing all of this you are happy to accept your contract and sign for it.

Now, if you then break these rules - who's fault is it? Would people have sympathy if the contact holder says "its not fair that i get points and a fine". If it then transpires that he regularly breaks these rules but often gets away with it, going over his limit when Apple aren't looking. Would he not be better to accept that he often takes a chance, but on this occasion he got caught and he knew what the penalties were going to be. He could always say "prove it was me on the phone" so Apple provide him with a photo of him which is timed and dated. If he still refused to pay, would other Apple users who stick to the rules (or pay up when they get caught) want further sanctions against him?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Why does your mind boggle, markjmd?
Do you care about anyone other than yourself or your family? Do you see unfairness and think nothing, or do you see unfairness and think, "Hey, that's not right....."?

As for your last question, I cannot answer, since I am not a habitual speeder, so would not know.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh dear God.........NO Felix, stop with the sanctimonious rubbish PLEASE.
THERE ARE speed limits out there which are there for one reason and one reason only. If you disagree, which you undoubtedly will, it's because you are brainwashed, and there's no arguing with one who WON'T see the problem.

IF your argument had any sense in it at ALL, the speed camera on the M180 between J2 and J3 would NOT be there on fine, dry days with light traffic...but he is, and EVERY saturday and some sundays too. catching folk making for the coast.
And as I said, the ONLY accident EVER on that stretch was a woman driving the wrong way up the motorway while under the influence of prescription medication, who ran into a vehicle AT REST pointing the right way. Speed kills? pah!


But we often aren't and limits are set artificially low...as I've noted ad infinitum.

In theory, yes. In practice, bullsh!t. Try driving an HGV, or a heavy car down a steep hill, without the speed creeping up. But do you WANT drivers sitting looking at their speedos for fear of a fine, or watching the road? It's about SAFETY isn't it? And watching your speedo, not the road, is UNsafe.



I am in agreement about the POTENTIAL injuries, but that's what they are...potential. Your whole scam is based on setting a limit and catching someone going over it, no matter whether the limit is sensible or not, and NOT taking into account the conditions. Even in France they have TWO limits for motorways, one for wet, one for dry. here? With four times the traffic? Blanket.

My car breaks down.....I'm walking along with a gallon of fuel, and in my pocket I have a hanky and matches. Should I be stopped for intent to commit arson? Because I might....

YOUR argument is the same...utterly daft.

because you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it, (which is starting to NOT surprise me...don't they HAVE an intelligence test to get into the police any more?)

So let's try again:

REARWARD facing camera so as to catch a motorcyclist as WELL as a driver.

IF the driver owns up, or you can PROVE he was driving, give him points, but a lower fine.

If he doesn't, or you can't prove who it was, then fine the OWNER of the car for "allowing a car to be driven in a manner so as to endanger etc". But no points. Same as you would fine me if I allowed anyone to use my Scoob without insurance.

Make ALL motorcycle insurance only available for one rider, UNLESS the riders carry barcodes on their helmets.

And if you were interested in road safety and not just the revenue, you'd be doing MORE to keep bikers safe and within your laws and NOT trying to duck it with excuses every two minutes. You can't have it both ways, matey...it's either ABOUT road safety, for ALL road users...or it's not...and at present it's the latter.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Ok, that's well and good and was how it was. (first para anyway).

Now suppose that the limits to use change regularly, aren't posted easily to see, are not based on anything sensible, are often contrary to what you'd think, and necessitate you stopping your call every ten seconds to check you're not over the limit?? So much so that you can't pay attention to where you are going and walk into something/someone.
But hey...it's not about getting money off the fines, is it? It's all about keeping those phones SAFE, not letting them go faster than an arbitrary limit.

Your credibility is zero. TBH, I've heard other cops spout the same stuff...sanctimonious, self congratulatory rubbish. I used to think you were better.....

JackClark

Limits don't change regularly, are easy to see, are sensible and if you need to pull over to tell if you're accelerating or decelerating you should see your doctor. What you'll never understand is you are the problem here, not the law.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

OK Jack...that's why i have zero points, is it?

how many do YOU have, btw?

More pap, and personal attacks, I see. You really are pathetic, you know? Go and play with your phone mate, it's about your level.

PS: I'll bet you £100 I could drive you in my car and you couldn't tell me if the speed was gently increasing, decreasing, or stable? Not until it got fast enough to be over a silly, recently-changed limit...beside which will be a camera or scam van.

Do you blindly accept every rule, regulation etc., even those designed to fleece you?


Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

JackClark

So you acuse me of personal attack and insult me in one paragraph. That's you all over.

I have no points right now, have broken the speed limit, have been caught and was a man about it.

When I see a speed limit, I adjust my speed, then stay at that speed, I tend to go by my speedo which over reads, cameras don't go off at the speed limit so that's a large margin. I don't have a problem with that.

You don't have solutions, you're just bleating about a problem we all deal with because it's necessary.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

But it's not.

Is speed enforcement necessary? sadly, yes.

Is it enforced PROPERLY and FAIRLY now? Resoundingly no.

Is it necessary to cheat in order to raise revenue? Again, no.

Is it done mostly for road safety, or mostly for revenue? The latter.
Why do I say that?

1. The FACT that motorcycles are not only not targeted, but largely ignored.
2. The FACT that many areas, once the revenue was taken from them by government, abandoned cameras.
3. The use of unmarked vehicles..they catch, they do not deter.
4. The sneaky siting of cameras...to catch, not deter.
5. The lack of cameras where it matters, yet they ARE placed where it patently doesn't.
6. The artificially low limits in some areas, the changing limits in others, all enforced by cameras.

I repeat: I do NOT speed. I have NO points on my license, I do NOT condone speeding.

What I AM against is the use of speed enforcment to raise revenue.
You obviously don't see it as a problem.....but then, you accept lots of stuff that is so obviously unfair, even fraudulent, that I'm not surprised.

PS: my insult to you was mild and in response to yours, don't get your panties in a bunch.

JackClark

Your facts are just opinions. That's your problem right there.

Torquemada

http://www.keepbritainbiking.com/new...motorcyclists/

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/B...ail/story.html

For balance, Are bikers speeding actually major culprits?: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2...lists-exposed/

I thought some camera schemes were abandoned because they are also quite expensive to run?

There are plenty of deterrents around, adverts, marked cars, signs everywhere, CAMERA's, etc. etc.

Unmarked vehicles, only to catch and not deter....well, many people tend to not break the rules right in front of a cop car but flaunt them when they think no one is looking but what do you suggest, have a cop car in front of every driver on the road and get rid of all unmarked cars?

Cameras are placed in areas where there is a need, via RTI etc. stats, or so I understand. So, if the cameras were purely revenue generating, wouldn't it make sense that cameras would be in both the required and so called non-required areas you speak of, to maximize revenue? Your logic on that one seems skewed.

Felix has already covered the points about ('artificially') lower limits in some areas. In other areas where the speed limits change, there is usually a massive sign showing the changed limit. If there is a problem and the signage is unclear or incorrect and you were done for speeding as a result then you would win a case based on this, I should think.

Still just a lot of complaining so far, what are your (reasonable) proposed solutions? (unless I have missed them, of course)

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You are insane.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Torquemada, I'm not going to reiterate my solutions, since you so obviously haven't bothered to read the thread. They are in there.

This, however, I will respond to:
I can point you at TWO camera sites, here in North Lincs, administered by the Humberside Safety Camera Partnership, that have been placed supposedly because of accidents, but in FACT, could NOT have prevented either one, nor deterred either.

the first is on the M180, positioned nicely as you come out from under an overbridge, there he is in the distance on a slight left hand bend. Reason? A fatal accident on that carriageway about a mile east of there. cause of accident? A woman having taken too many of a prescription medicine, mixed with drink, managed to get onto the wrong carriageway of the motorway during roadworks and set of driving AGAINST the traffic. Oncoming traffic came to a stop, but she ran into one anyway, killing herself and badly injuring three others. Speed as a factor? Negligible.

But that camera is there at least twice a week, usually saturday Morning, sunday afternoon, catching people going to, or coming back from the coast. at that point the motorway is falt, lightly used, well maintained and NOT dangerous. So why the camera?

Second site: south of a roundabout on the towns NW ring-road. He is again positioned in a 30 limit, which REALLY ought to be 40mph, since it leads off the orbital, has no houses, is well lit, wide and only one road leads off it, but no, it's 30mph.....
Reason for camera? Supposedly, a fatality caused by an underage youth stealing his mum's high-powered Vectra and rolling it on the roundabout, killing his teenaged girlfriend. he had no license, let alone insurance.
Woudl a camera have deterred him? No chance, he wasn't even ON that road, he was on the orbital.......which is 60mph rated. But that camera is there weekly, on a nice bend, so as you come round it heading out of town, ping, he's got you. There have been no other accidents at that site or anywhere near! yet tghere are numerous reports of people braking when they see the van, even though they are doing 30mph or less

But go on, you lot, keep accepting, keep paying, keep allowing the motorcyclists to get away with it and get killed. NONE of it will AFFECT me, but it is certainly dishonest.

lozgti1

I got done for for 34 in a 30 and had to go on a speed awareness course :-(

Unmanned camera van

Well,unless they are in there eating doughnuts.lol

jonc

Don't worry, rest assured that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of drivers successfully beat this scam every single day by carefully observing the limit, though many also drive at wholly inappropriate speeds and without due care and attention and can still beat this scam. The Police didn't get these peoples' money.

Felix.

Your solutions (as posted earlier) seems to be points and a fine - which i believe is in now.

What I don't get is your solution, that if you can not prove who was driving the vehicle, just prosecute the registered keeper? Its not like use, cause, permit for insurance. In that instance you have allowed the car to be driven knowing that it was not insured - you can't say the same for speeding, that's down to the driver.

And what are you basing the siting of the cameras at those locations on? How do you know that there has only been one accident there? Is this from the local paper or have you been disclosed all the stats for that section of road? There may only have been one fatal accident - but dozens of injury accidents, minor accidents and thousands of near misses. Local communities may have campaigned for speed restrictions on these roads for a whole host of reasons. Insurance companies may submit loads of reports detailing accidents on that road and what they think the causes were. Weekday traffic may be 'naturally slow due to the volume of traffic and HGVs on the road - weekend traffic my often put their foot down which causes the problems.

And you're right - speed cameras would not have stopped the 2 fatalities as you mentioned above. But neither would the laws for drink/drug driving, seat belt laws, using phones etc etc - so she would we ignore them or not deal with them the way we do? The speed related injuries/deaths that we are trying to prevent are those by Joe Public who end up in accidents and incidents which may have been largely unavoidable, but their injuries have been worsened by their impact speeds. If some silly sod wants to drive a stolen car at 100mph around a tight bend, then there's not a great deal anything or anyone can do to stop it.

You acknowledge that speed enforcement is necessary, but i don't follow why you don't think this is not done properly and fairly? The speed signs are everywhere and the cameras prove who was at the wheel at the time of the offence. This will prove that Mr X was going too fast on that stretch of road. And as stated above, there could be various reasons why the speed of that road has been set the way it is - none of which will be "because it will makes us the most revenue". If they wanted this, they could simply put a toll on the road. So, if the driver goes too fast he runs the risk of being caught. Should that person be able to speed around safe in the knowledge that "they are not allowed to put a speed camera there as it classed as too sneaky" or "i can go as fast as I can down this bank as they are not allowed to put a camera at the bottom"

If you are approaching a speed camera zone, do you check your speed? Does this make you travel at the designated speed for that stretch of road? Does this not suggest that the cameras (or at least the threat of them) have worked then? Could it be that places such as schools etc don't have a problem with speeding as motorist naturally slow down anyway - so there is no issue with people speeding in those locations.

Motorcycles are targeted - in fact any vehicle going too fast is. There is an evidential difficulty with bikers as it can not be proven who was the rider at the time

Cameras were abandoned, not because the government were taking all the money, but i would suggest the budgets were cut by the government.

Unmarked cars are used for a whole host of things as i have explained earlier.


If there is information/statistics etc to suggest that there is a potential for injuries/deaths on a certain stretch of road because of excessive speed - is it right that we ignore it? Or do we do something about it to prevent those potential incidents turning into a reality. By getting people to reduce their speeds will reduce the injury potential, signs alone don't appear to do the trick - the knowledge of speed cameras with fines and points probably will in most cases.

If you walk along a stretch or road with petrol/matches etc and there have been numerous arsons along that stretch or road caused by someone person setting fires using petrol/matches and a hankey you might be stopped- or do you want the police to ignore you?

Felix.

I can't see how my credibility is zero? or do you still assert that 99% of peoples contact with the police is due to speeding?

I think you are the only one in this thread who is arguing against the current system and any other suggestions you have come up with are nonsense - or the same as what is already in.