DAVE-W

Wouldn't transport 2000 be better off trying to deal with the UK's innefective and out dated road system?

And as for this SPEED KILLS business....I will argue this to my grave. It is the innapropriate use of speed which kills not speed itself-these to55ers need to take their blinkers off.

Surely another factor to consider is the car being driven? ALL cars have come a long way since the 70mph limit was implemented on the motorways, but the sort of cars that we own are capable of travelling more safely at 100mph than many cars on the road are at 70mph.

Come on transport 2000, wake up.

Now count to 10......and relax.

David

Adam M

All this speeding cr@p really annoys me.

Yesterday i was cruising healthily on the m25 overtaking cars one by one whilst in the overtaking lane, without breaking the speed limit. Although I was doing 70 in the overtaking lane, no one was waiting behind me to overtake.

The next moment I look in my mirrors to see a buggered up old xr2 in the slowest lane doing around 90. I presumed he would pull up behind me as he overtook the lorry in his path, and sit on my backside. So I moved over at the first opportunity to the middle lane assuming he would want to overtake me.

There was no need for my considerate driving, he just undertook at 100mph into the hard shoulder.

I presumed he had made a mistake and hadn't had time to react correctly.

Nope. He did it again, and again, and again as if it were a legitimate over/undertaking lane.

Saw him do this for around three miles maybe thirty times.

These are the people that should get fines and bans, and beaten senseless.

But I guarantee, it will be me that will get three points and a forty pound fine for doing 30.0000000000001 mph in a 30 zone at 1 am on a bank holiday morning during a tyson fuight

Richard F

People like that always get away with driving like n0bbers. I'm about to begin a new campaign. It's called "Name and Frame" whereby if someone drives like an absolute @rse, I take their number and ring the police (doing "141" first). I then report them. Some time later I do it again. And again. And again, until the police get so p1ssed off with me ringing that they do something about it (like caution the bloke).

It's fun for all the family! Indeed, they can be involved because they can ring up as well. Obviously you'd need to give a false name or something.

I hope the bloke with the Skyline in Eastbourne is watching because you have been seen numerous times driving like a w1lly and your time is approaching!!

DavidRB

141 hides the caller's number on the receiving display, but it doesn't guarantee you anonymity. The police can still easily find out who was making the call by checking the telephone company's call logs.

Richard F

Yeah I was wondering if that might be the case. Having said that though, I suspect they probably wouldn't bother if you were just reporting someone...

MorayMackenzie

Richard,

Wasting police time is an offence.

Note: I think police wasting the public's time should also be made into an offence.

Moray

DazW

iTrader: (1)

Transport2000 did have a web site at

Richard F

Is reporting dangerous driving an offence though? I've seen a few people recently who were driving in a simply unacceptable fashion (how about trying to overtake me and another car across a level crossing with on-coming traffic?).

Is the fact that I ring them more than once pretending to be someone else the problem? Surely they could have received numerous genuine calls so how would they know the difference?

I guess I'm trying to say that if the police are happy to nick people at 31mph then they should also be happy to have a word (not necessarily nick) someone if they get a report about poor driving habits.

Anyway, I wouldn't definitely do it but if I keep on seeing the same cars driving stupidly then I might...

jbryant

I doubt the Police telephone system can be fooled by a simple 141 prefix. That's just for ordering pizzas to someone you don't like at 3am The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL know that we are excellent drivers.

...except for those Transport2k to$$ers who have obviously got their heads so far up their collective ***** that they've forgotten what planet they're on.

When the government uses woolly statements like this in their transport policy then we have no hope..."Speeding or inappropriate speed contributes to a significant percentage of all crashes and a higher percentage of more serious crashes. Driver error is a contributory cause in over 90% of accidents: <B>driving too fast is a driver error in judging what is safe.</B>"

Taken from Department of Transport website

jac

Come on, own up! Who exactly voted the current set of t055ers in to power? It was obvious the cost of living and amount of general namby-bamby behaviour would spiral under these pr!cks. Transport policy is just another example. Everyone seems to hate 'em yet a whole bunch of dumb asses must have gone out there and voted for them at the last election. When an average fella can be called a criminal just by getting into his car to drive safely from A to B something is seriously wrong. Especially since no-one is interested in the scumbag who will probably knick it when he arrives, just because they can't screw any money out of a sumbag. Blair/Prescott/Straw et. al. seem determined to take the Great out of Britain and crush all our spirits. Presumably paedophiles, illegal immigrants and M.P.'s will be excluded from this zero tolerance policy and given extra large cars.

Hiiiissssssssssss....sound of letting off steam.

xyzpaul

Oh dear.

skipjack

jac

interesting point. i'm inclined to agree. if you vote for a party, they get elected, they try and sh@g you, you only have yourself to blame.

IMO no political parties understand now - or have ever understood - the true dynamics of transport. because everything comes down to money: either saving it or generating it through taxes, sorry fines, all driven by the treasury. common sense doesn't figure: just look at the government's road expansion plans.

yes widen the roads more at the chokepoints (eg M6 Birmingham): cause five years of slow contraflows and hold ups and by the time you've finished, traffic levels have doubled again and you're back to square one. they never learn. didn't *exactly* that happen with the M25 widening?. the last conservative government originally planned the M25 at four lanes per carriageway all the way round but choked because of marginal extra cost on a major capital project.

and whatever happened to express delivery of goods by rail? non-priority, non-urgent delivery of freight by canal. even get a third of the heavy cr@p off the roads and think what a difference it would make.

face it folks: transport in the UK is permanently jiggered by lack of political will. 50 years from now, your scooby (genus: subarubicus grinonyourgobbicus) will be in the science museum.

jac

I should of clarified myself xyzpaul, I meant who else? apart from you, obviously.

jac

[This message has been edited by jac (edited 25-07-2000).]

GCollier

People, be honest and cut straight to the point. Would I be correct in thinking that reading between the lines, most peoples true view is as follows (however non PC they may be)?

"Most things in life come down to a risk/reward balance. In my view, the enjoyment I obtain from driving my impreza quickly even if this means breaking the speed limit, is worth any extra risk of accident/fatality/injury to myself or other road users."

jac

Not really my point at all!! An example, a road I drive regularly, central reservationed dual carriage way, ring road around town. Low traffic volumes, high embankments, no immediately adjacent habitation on either side, no reason for pedestrians to be crossing. Sounds a bit like motor way doesn't it? - actually 40 mph. If I drive down there at 60 my @rse am I likey endanger someone elses life.

On the other side of town, busy residential area, road on a bend, entrance to a supermarket, old folks home and crossing, plenty of chip shops etc to attract kiddies. No one in their right mind would drive above 30 mph. Council install the most confusing traffing calming measure, reducing the road to one lane with the supermarket entrance in the MIDDLE. There are now several accidents a week there, and people drive like nutters to dodge on coming traffic and do not pay attention to pedestrians.

the people that make these sort of descisions and suppport this clearly don't know what they are going on about.

[This message has been edited by jac (edited 25-07-2000).]

Nimbus

OK, seems like there is some pretty strong views on this from the BBS. This is just another in the list of things the Gov do to dump on the 'driving public' (petrol prices, speed limits, Gatsos, useless 'traffic calming' - read: too busy concentrating on the obstacles to look for peds running out in front of car).

Now, I'm no advocate for speeding, or any bad driving habbits. It does contribute to accidents, although it's not the main cause. However, I belive, as I'm sure most of us do, that I drive giving thought to the variuos dangers that lurk around every bend. But I do belive that what is happening now in this country will slowly (and here is the danger) turn what we now concider an enjoyable activity into something which has so many resrtictions and petty laws to catch you, that if you so much as put a wheel out of line that it will become a real success if you get from A to B with out clocking up enough points and fines to finish you.

The questionn is what's to be done about it. If T2000 can act in this way to force the point for the Anti-Car sect, what can we do to promote the car using public? Is there an offical body that represents motorists out there, one that has some teeth? It's OK to rant on the BBS if it makes you feel better, but we need to take some action. I don't mean anything disruptive (although the French do seem to get results with that tactic). But we need to get the motorists views and needs put across to the Gov in way which makes them listen and act.

And I will no doubt be drawing my pension when that happens!!!

xyzpaul

jac

Nice animation. Good to see we have a Young Conservative aboard.

KenG

Ah, politics, brings out the worst in people. That and religion should be kept at home, not on here.

Most of us pay subscriptions to the RAC, AA, etc. They are supposed to represent us at legislative levels as well as give the odd tow to an exploded Scooby. If you are a member, drop them a mail and vent your feelings.

T2000 are no different to any extremist minority. They are usually better organised than the middle of the road majority and know how to play the game. The fox hunting lobby are a similar bunch of loonies. Trouble is they can't be ignored, else we will wake up one morning without cars and pink jacketed hooray henry's chasing foxes over our lawns.

What we need is a court case where someone is brought up for doing 31mph in a 30 limit and wins it on technical grounds - speedo accuracy, more air in tyres distorts readings, etc. Once there is a ruling then T2000 can kick and scream all they want. Of course this assumes one could win such a case.

Ken

Tim Skerry

Speedo calibration was part of this at the start, and you can check it yourself easily.
Find a clear straight flat piece of motorway. Drive along it at a steady speed, with a passenger with a stop watch. The marker posts are 100 metres apart. pass some multiple of 10 of them (the more the better for accuracy if you can keep to an even speed), and work out the time for 10 spaces i.e 1Km. Divide that time into an hour and multiply by 0.621.

So for example
at an indicated 60 mph:
time to travel 1Km = 40 seconds
3600/40 = 90Kph
90*0.621 = 55.9 real mph.

This takes account of everything, gearing, wheel size, tyre wear etc.

xyzpaul

Does anyone genuinely disbelieve the following two statements?

1) If all speed limits were doubled, there would be more accidents.

2) If all speed limits were halved, there would be less accidents.

Why does mentionioning the fact that speed is dangerous (simple physics) cause people to fly off the handle?

Richard F

Yeah and if someone lies in the road and I run them over at 1 mph, they'll still die. Maybe all cars should be stationery?

An over-simplification maybe, but then so is saying that "speed kills". I think it's clear that most people are saying it's fine to crack down on speeding but trotting out the same old cobblers about speeding being the root cause of most accidents is not acceptable, particularly when all but the most hardened anti-car nutter can see that motorists are being used to generate revenue. Without the tax on petrol and other car associated costs (like road tax, speeding fines etc), this country would be bankrupt.

dholmes

tiggers, spot on.

White van man sitting 2 feet from my rear in rain at 70 makes me soooo mad. If I had to brake hard, it would be a crash every time.
I hate the idea of zero tolerance.
Bad driving and road safety are not just about speeding by a long chalk.

However, playing devils advocate for a change:
You yourself may become more sympathetic to the T2000 cause if some tosser was testing the cornering ability (at 36 mph ) in his Nova GTE in a 30 zone, comes off the road, collecting your wife and the 2 children that she was walking to school, killing 2 and putting the other in a wheel chair.

The point being that my first reaction was the T2000 crowd are all just a bunch of old fuddy duddy Omega driving *******s. Then I took time to think about it and realise that most probably can be described as above, but a fair number of them may have suffered at the hands of a few idiots and if by campaigning for zero tolerance and succeeding in changing the police guidelines and saving several hundred families the grief and heartache they have endured, then they may have good grounds for their opinion.

End of being devils advocate.

As I have said before on this BBS, I brake the speed limit everyday ( 85 on motorway conditions permitting etc), but since having kids, I rarely speed in built up areas. Zero tolerance is not the answer. Lets put the speed cameras outside schools and playing fields not behind signs on the A14 Dual Carriageway, double the penalty for death caused reckless driving. Has anyone seen an unmarked car sitting outside a school monitoring drivers speeds? I think not.

Darren

HunterB

Nimbus (and others)

The best hope we have of an organisation that stands up for motorists is the Association of British Drivers (http://www.abd.org.uk). To be effective, an organisation needs people who are willing to put their energies where their mouths are, so get in touch with them, join up, and know that your voice will be heard.

KenG,

Unfortunately, the AA and the RAC no longer represent the interests of motorists. They're too busy selling insurance. It's in their collective interest to support Gatsos, low speed limits and other such measures because every time one of their policy holders gets a fixed penalty, they can hike up the premiums.

Brian

skipjack

quite,

if T2000 can make a high profile fuss so can we. the media loves a good scrap.

i'm off to the abd.

blubs

DHolmes,

You are absolutely spot on with the remark about the positioning of Static speed cameras.

Outside schools? No.
Supermarkets? No.
Pedestrian Access area? No

Behind a bridge parapet on the borderline from de-restricted to 30mph zone on an open main road with no other hazards to sensibl;y restrict speed? Yes.

Revenue generating. Nothing more, nothing less.

blubs.

GCollier

Just a little bit more fuel for this fire...

The speed management review (link above, and below) makes interesting reading. I think people should read it before making potentially mis-informed comments here.

Richard F

Hmmm not sure about that. If you look at the table then the TOTAL road deaths by road category indicate that urban roads are more lethal (26604 in urban areas against 16176 in non-built up areas). Granted, the specific highest category of road deaths is as mentioned but is it right to look at it in isolation? 5167 children were killed or seriously injured in urban areas against 838 in rural areas. From that you could suggest that maybe a more aggressive policy of pedestrian education should be instituted.

I think that these reports can basically be made to read pretty much whatever you want them to.

Anyway, how about Chapter 3, paragraph 192:

192. For the foreseeable future it is impossible to operate a system of ‘zero tolerance’. We have to allow for the accuracy and calibration of detection devices. We would also wish to maintain the principle of giving people a fair chance to stay within the law.

Nuff said.

[This message has been edited by Richard F (edited 26-07-2000).]

tiggers

OK this is getting interesting now.

Leaving politics aside as in my opionion both sides are as daft as each other we have some interesting points being raised here.

Firstly I do not object to the enforcement of speed restrictions where (and this is the key point) appropriate. What I do object to is the enforcement of one law to the letter and others not at all. I know it's been said before, but I'll reiterate it for the benefit of those who are not bored by it yet. Which is more dangerous - a car doing 100mph on a clear dry motorway or a car doing 50mph 2ft from the rear of another car on a busy wet motorway. Now I'm sure you know the answer, but who is more likely to be stopped - yep you guessed it the 100mph man (or woman) every time.

Now the other point which has been touched on here is the ridiculous traffic calming measures and speed restrictions that are being put in place everywhere. Near where I live there is a road called Grane Road that connects the M65 to Haslingden in Lancashire. This road used to be a nice 60mph country road, but due to the fact that there have been 75 accidents in 5 years it is now down to 40/50 with regular mobile police speed traps. Now bear in mind that this is a road across the moors with no houses, pavements, walls or whatsoever near it. Just because 75 prats have driven across it in the last five years it's been spoiled for the rest of us. Meanwhile outside our local primary school on the narrowest of roads the police never bother yet people hammer past it at 40 or even 50 mph.

At the end of the day we need some common sense to prevail. If they said OK on motorways you can do 90 when it is dry and clear, 70 when it is raining, but in busy urban areas reduce the limit to 20 I'd like to think that most of us would say OK I'll buy into that, but what's happening at the moment is just stupid.

Regards,

tiggers

BarryK

It's not the speed issue that galls me. It's the "zero tolerance". Should the people who post on here about damage to their vehicles or thefts where plod shows zero interest, never mind zero tolerance, be suing to make their point?

I try not to speed generally, I try to think what repercussions my speed might have in a given situation and tend to assume there is a valid reason for the restriction, although that is becoming more and more less obvious.

There are way too many drivers who either don't give a toss about anyone else, whether its speed or something else, and there are loads who just don't get it, ie can't follow simple lane discipline etc. like constantly hogging not just the middle lane of the motorway, but now even dorks who do the same with the outside overtaking lane.

Don't get me started on roundabouts (islands some may call them) and their "mini" brethren.

Where is the "zero tolerance" in all other areas of the law? Some gob$hite round our manor a "one man crime wave" who had more convictions than you can shake a stick at for burgling, criminal damage, assault blah blah blah, was subjected to a "crackdown" by the court. He was sentenced to 2 years!!!!!!

This detritus is 22 now, when he gets out he will be still 22 probably and will be even better tooled up for the job.

Zero tolerance my ar$e!

And I still want to know, what the Romans ever done for us.