alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Nope, it would save lives. If they were going slower, by felix' own statistics, fewer would die if involved in accidents...hell, if they slowed down they might AVOID hitting stuff?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Or how about turning off all the cameras and putting more people in cars...that could catch drink drivers, mobile users, dangerous drivers, oh I don't know, loads of other stuff as well?

neil-h

So let's just power the speed limits then? If we're accepting that speed is only a secondary factor in motorcycle deaths, then accidents will still occur at a similar rate. The end result of a SMIDSY incident at 70mph will be pretty close to the end result at 90mph, you don't end up more dead because you're going faster.

JackClark

£2,000 fines to pay for it?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I've already answered that Jack, you are just talking daft now, but hey...whatever you want.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Semantics and a bit of a Strawman argument?

No, lets NOT get them going faster, let's educate them and stop a few speeders, eh?

JackClark

It's you that wants change, but you're very much like a politician in never mentioning that change costs and where the cash will come from. I totally agree with replacing Speed Cameras with Policemen who wouldn't, but I don't think I'm daft for recognising that it would cost a lot of money.

I haven't seen you provide any solutions, just a lorry load of whine.

JackClark

Educate them, really, give out copies of the Highway Code?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Given that every new speed camera costs a MINIMUM of £38,000 to set up, surely some of the costs involved could be diverted to road policing the proper way?

They just seem to be putting cameras in for the hell of it now, every time I use a motorway, there's more. And EACH one costs £38,000...that's a copper's pay, right there!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Are you really this stupid, jack? Do you practise?

You know very well what I mean. Catch, educate. Next time, catch, fine.

But it's the catching that isn't getting done.

And it's all very well having the "THINK BIKE!" campaign, when there also ought to be a "THINK, BIKER!" campaign running alongside.
As I said earlier, I've lost count of the number of times MY thinking has saved a biker, who was massively in the wrong.

neil-h

That doesn't make sense, I didn't say anything about getting them going faster.

As i said, if you want targeted action for safety reasons then why does it matter that forward facing speed cameras don't catch bikes? It's been proven over consecutive years that the highest percentage of bike related incidents are down to poor observation on the behalf of the other vehicle.

JackClark

Are we living in a different country? That happens around here, get caught, get a training course, keep getting caught it keeps getting worse.

You need to change your meds.

JackClark

You think a Policeman costs the same as a speed camera per year, you've lost it.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Oh aye? and how DO they catch the bikers, "around here", pray tell?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Let's have a look at the managed motorway cameras, then.....three/four lanes, each with camera, every two to three miles? How many police officers?

And the logistics of their operation?

And the issuing of penalties?

Surely an intelligent (sic) bloke like you isn't arguing that cameras are MORE efficient than a police officer? That we NEED less officers on the roads? That today's status quo is right????

JackClark

Yes, speed cameras are more efficient than a police officer, much more. No, I'd love more police officers. Yes, speeding is about right as far as I'm concerned, I've been caught less as I've driven slower and paid more attention.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I hope that's your last post then...it's about as soft as the first.

Speed cameras are better than a police officer......aye, they can catch so much wrong-doing, can't they?

JackClark

Do you ever read your questions and think? Because a thinking man wouldn't bet against a speed camera's efficiency at catching people breaking the law, which I believe is what you mean by "wrong-doing". Speed cameras are a lot better and cheaper than police officers at catching speeding vehicles, simple.

Soft, not sure what you mean, appreciative, not in a hurry, no chip on my shoulder? What are you trying to say?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Soft lad: Manc for not too bright.

A speed camera can catch someone at a fixed point. Most folk see them, slow, speed up again after. What use is that?

A cop car is mobile, can catch them speeding, using mobiles, not stopping for STOP signs, overtaking on double white lines, drink-driving, parking on zebra crossings, dangerous driving, careless driving etc etc.

NOW who is the most efficient?

JackClark

At catching and preventing speeding vehicles, the speed camera, it works 24/7 and it's in the right place. Anyhow, if people really do slow down and beat the system why are you still banging on about it soft lad.

Felix.

As i keep saying, read Torqumedas post from before, also cameras will snap bikers, but there will be evidential difficulties if it goes to court.

The fastest roads in the country (motorways etc) don't tend to have schools, paths etc running alongside. There are also designed for speeds unlike the twisty country roads which run into a little village. I still can't understand how you can not see how speed increases the level of injury? Drive a car into an object at 10mph - you should be ok. Do it 70mph, then its a different story.

And i don't understand your argument at 40mph the car will have already passed. You could argue with that a car going at 30mph would have passed by the kiddy after they had crossed, but one travelling at 40mph would have got there earlier and hit them - so whats your point here....



As above, we do - but it doesn't mean you ignore everything else other than bikers. And as my previous post suggests, its the road users other than bikers who tend to speed. So why do we need to target bikers - or is this just another of your assumptions like - 99% of the public's contact with the police is for speeding.

And £38,000 is the approximate salary - but the price will not include training, equipment, the panda car. And even if you recruit, there are other things that the officer will be diverted to - remember the other 99% of things that the police do other than motoring offences. Hence the speed for roads will be ignored, not enforced and injuries will increase. So why not just leave a camera there?

Of course we all would like more police, but the government wants less with less money. Our speed cameras have gone and i suggest other forces may follow suit.

But at present I suggest you watch your speed, or just accept the fact that you take a chance if you don't.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

because the system is so obviously flawed and yet is being touted as being better than police patrol cars...you just repeated the lie.

Are you really this daft?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

none at all......since forward facing cameras are PREFERRED, so those pics will be chucked. You know it, I know it. Why not admit it?


Obviously, and I never said motorways had any of those things. But "Speed kills" is your mantra...so we're all dead, then, having traveled at 70mph?

MY point is that your lot would have us believe that the faster we travel, the more danger we are in.

I have news for you..that's a facile assumption. The fastest roads are the safest. What IS dangerous is not driving to the conditions...which is where your speed cameras have a HUGE fail. In fact, we are SOOOO bothered about road safety in the UK, (and not revenue, of COURSE), that WE don't even bother lowering the limit on motorways in the wet.
Makes a mockery of your "Safety Cameras" doesn't it?

The video, a spoof, as I said, was trying to show the stupidity of your "Speed kills!" mantra. It showed a kiddy walk out in front of a car doing 30mph, and be knocked down. The second clip showed that, had the motorist been doing, say 40mph, by the time the kiddy got onto the road, that car had passed, so kiddy was safe. Silly? Of course...but it makes the point that it's NOT speed that kills, it's inapproriate speed.

And another question here: if Road Safety, and saving lives is SOOOO important, what has happened to the endless adverts teaching kids how to cross a road, the in-school training on road safety, the Cycling profficiency Awards? All gone. So perhaps it's NOT so important and you just want revenue from drivers? Who haven't harmed anyone.

You target speeding motorbikes? Pray tell how, when your PREFERRED camera can't catch them?

As for your next assumption, please drive a few "biker" routes. Please watch them weaving in and out of traffic which is traveling at the limit, as they overtake. That assertion is so silly as to be capable of sinking ALL your other arguments in one.

And the 99% thing? It's not MY assertion, it was the Chief Constable of Manchester's...would you like to tell HIM he's wrong? because I have his number? I would guess your rank is nowhere near his? So how about it?


And meanwhile, bikers get away with it, mobile phone users get away with it, drink-drivers get away with it...the camera can catch only ONE type of offence and it's not even the most important. So WHY depend on them so much?

I suggest that many went when government demanded ALL the revenue...which neatly underlines my case that it's NOT about road safety, it IS about revenue.

I do...no points up to today. But then, I don't do much driving in the UK any more. I heard recently that a majority of drivers now have points? if so, your scam is working well.

neil-h

****, amongst the usual blustering rubbish you've actually raised some very good points and i feel they should be highlighted.

I can remember all sorts of adverts about road safety when i was a kid (including one involving 2 hedgehogs and a bee-gees song), these days the closest you get is the one telling you too much sugar is bad.

Torquemada

Mind boggling....

Yes, some good points on the need for more education to kids crossing roads and cycling schemes etc. (actually I am not sure about the cycling one, as I see classes of kids out with teachers on bicycling lessons all the time round here). Naff all else of value, though. Just whinge, whinge, whinge.

But, that has eff all to do with the facts that:
- more speed in an accident/incident does increase the likelihood of death
- points and a fine seems like the only reasonable way to enforce (as a blanket)
- Speed cameras only catch people who are speeding. (I don't give a **** what else is said. Any other arguments about speed-cameras is basically irrelevant in the light of this. Speeding is illegal. Get caught and you get punished. Get over it.)
- Bikers are in the minority when it comes to road users who break the law. Car drivers are waaaaay out in front. Efforts are being made to find ways to prosecute law breaking bikers.

Putting as many police cars on the roads as there are people who drive cars is impossible. It's almost what you are saying is an answer to the problem you say there is. Well, you know what? People will still speed and get fines even when a cop car is right next to them. Then I'm sure you will just call those coppers revenue generators as well.

Basically, this thread just comes across as another thing for you to add to the list of wrongs that world is doing to you (or other people) which you can whinge about.

Here's a fu**ing solution - lets remove all need for law and government and just go full Mad Max - then we can just shoot, stab and assault as we like whilst we speed down the road and mow down all those who dare step onto our highways.....boom, no more fines for anyone, just a bit of possible death....

hodgy0_2

scientific study's seem to show they reduce accidents

https://fullfact.org/crime/are-speed...tal-accidents/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10762590

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/realit...road-accidents

http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/07/do...w-study-found/

JackClark

Don't come here with your facts, Alcazar's mate on a motorbike is getting away with speeding whilst his mates in cars get caught, that's all that matters.

Torquemada

Who cares if you have his f**king number, he's wrong!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

You lot are so predictable, I'd guess you are probably anally regressive too?

It must be right, because the establishment says so.......do me a favour.

As for your scientific studies, there are as many that say they CAUSE accidents.

But that's not the point. As I've reiterated I DO NOT speed and have no points on my license.

What DOES annoy me though is someone dreaming up a scam for revenue and branding it road safety. The advent of speed cameras has not seen ANY change in the rate of fall of the number of road fatalities. They simply show you the graph since the proliferation, just as the French government have done. Still a lie, whichever country uses it

I'd like to bet that all you lot would deny EVER having seen some idiot, traveling at the speed limit, ram his brakes on as he's just spotted a camera? Dangerous? You bet........

What's that saying about "For evil to succeed........"? That's what you need to think about. It's dishonest, so we OUGHT to complain. Silence gives them the green light to go further.

Strawman argument and, as such, not worth a response.

Torquemada

You do realize that, although you have written many words, they mean f@ck all. You're repeating random statements that are based in....well they come directly from your imagination. There needs to be some real world facts, figures, rationale, reasonable solutions or observation of things that are actual problems or actually exist. You might as well mash the keyboard with your face, for all the sense that's coming from you.

So far you are being quite obtuse. I know you like a good angry debate but make it seem less like the mutterings of a dribbling mental patient, please

Yes, speed kills. Fact. If you put it in the right context and stop being pigheaded. If you have a crash or run someone over at speed, it will be more likely to cause death or greater injury. Do you disagree?

Points on your license and a fine for breaking the law - what exactly would you prefer instead of this?

Some who speed but they are driving within their skill level and that of the conditions...ok, fine, how do you make one rule for some and then another for others?

Remove all speed cameras and tell everyone that they can drive as they like? What the hell are you saying could be done instead? Some don't care about points on their license or even if they have one in the first place, so hit them in the wallet if possible instead.
Some have a bunch of money and would pay off all speeding tickets *****-nilly, hit them on the licence so they cannot drive if they continue to think that the world owes them something and it should bow it's will to them....

Motorcyclists - how many do you actually think are out there?? And of those, how may do you think are frequent law breakers? The police have made moves to tackle the problems of the few who are regular law breakers.

Are you actually calling speed cameras or those who wish to enforce a reduction in dangerous speeding on the roads "evil"? What evil is succeeding? You are being a little dramatic. Next you will be telling me you are a Freeman, the American government are filled with Lizard People and the female orgasm is a myth