Coffin dodger cams a possibility?
12 February 2003, 12:00 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I didn't actually mention a camera. Although, of course, our local authorities are just as quick to spot a revenue opportunity as those North of the border...
In my opinion, I don't think Edinburgh are being TOO nasty with the locations. Most in the city are in locations where they could be seen as a sensible decision.
No, it was more to get an alternative perspective on the process that says "this road is safe at 60mph" on Monday and on Tuesday says "This road is only safe at 40mph and anything else is bordering on criminally irresponsible."
I don't know how much thought and decision goes into speed limits on a local level. However, if a limit was reduced with NO camera being put in place, it can't be seen as a revenue generating exercise can it? Surely there must be a reason for it.
Certainly in Edinburgh, I can think of some roads that used to be 60mph in a semi-urban environment that are now 40mph. OK, they were fun roads at 60mph, but sensibly, given their urban location, probably best they are 40mph - some, for example, had housing estate entrances on them while 60mph, but guess someone decided anything near housing estate entrances was not a good idea to leave as a 60mph zone. Also, said road went from a 40 to a 60 back to a 40, so guess the same limit applied all along it is more sensible too.....the road I'm thinking of has been a 40mph limit for a few years now, and has NO camera.
[Edited by imlach - 12/2/2003 12:01:11 AM]
In my opinion, I don't think Edinburgh are being TOO nasty with the locations. Most in the city are in locations where they could be seen as a sensible decision.
No, it was more to get an alternative perspective on the process that says "this road is safe at 60mph" on Monday and on Tuesday says "This road is only safe at 40mph and anything else is bordering on criminally irresponsible."
I don't know how much thought and decision goes into speed limits on a local level. However, if a limit was reduced with NO camera being put in place, it can't be seen as a revenue generating exercise can it? Surely there must be a reason for it.
Certainly in Edinburgh, I can think of some roads that used to be 60mph in a semi-urban environment that are now 40mph. OK, they were fun roads at 60mph, but sensibly, given their urban location, probably best they are 40mph - some, for example, had housing estate entrances on them while 60mph, but guess someone decided anything near housing estate entrances was not a good idea to leave as a 60mph zone. Also, said road went from a 40 to a 60 back to a 40, so guess the same limit applied all along it is more sensible too.....the road I'm thinking of has been a 40mph limit for a few years now, and has NO camera.
[Edited by imlach - 12/2/2003 12:01:11 AM]
29 November 2003, 01:38 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last week Richard Brunstrom, head of the technology committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers, raised the possibility of introducing impairment meters to test the reaction times of elderly motorists
At last. The possibility of a law that I would approve of. Finally not only can you not drive too fast, but you can't drive too slowly either. About time IMO. I wonder if it will ever see the light of day?
UB
[Edited by unclebuck - 11/29/2003 1:41:41 PM]
29 November 2003, 01:45 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the reaction times of ANY motorist? Why are you discriminating against the elderly?
I think they should also introduce an IQ test as most of the motorists on the road can't seem to understand the laws of the land, nor the rules & guidelines of the Highway Code. Most on this forum are guilty as charged.
I think they should also introduce an IQ test as most of the motorists on the road can't seem to understand the laws of the land, nor the rules & guidelines of the Highway Code. Most on this forum are guilty as charged.
29 November 2003, 01:46 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our operatives are responsible people. Many are professionals with families who lead normal lives. Yet they feel aggrieved and will not just sit back and accept this. Direct action is our only form of defence.
'These cameras are there to make money. The people attacking them are not boy racers or speeders. They are ordinary drivers who use cars to go about their business every day. They are trying to defend their livelihoods.'
What a load of tosh! They know the law, and they were speeding, so they can have no complaints. If their "livelihoods" were at stake, why don't they drive accordingly? I'm sure most would not drink & drive, so why speed & drive? What is the distinction?
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 1:49:49 PM]
'These cameras are there to make money. The people attacking them are not boy racers or speeders. They are ordinary drivers who use cars to go about their business every day. They are trying to defend their livelihoods.'
What a load of tosh! They know the law, and they were speeding, so they can have no complaints. If their "livelihoods" were at stake, why don't they drive accordingly? I'm sure most would not drink & drive, so why speed & drive? What is the distinction?
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 1:49:49 PM]
29 November 2003, 02:15 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed in itself isnt a dangerous thing. Many local trunk roads have recently had their speed reduced by 10-20 miles an hour. A good number of these roads that I am familiar with are not 'dangerous' and do not have pedestrians. Then some bright spark locates a camera on there, and you have a previous sensible 60-70 limit down to a stupidly slow 40-50. Of course people arent going to obey the limit.
For the life of me i cannont understand how the standard of driving has gone down so much, or cars have got harder and less safe to drive then when the original limits were imposed.
Normal people will drive within their limits, and see speed signs as a guideline rather than an absolute limit.
If the government are so intent on saving lives, then surely smoking has to be banned, as there are probably 100 times more deaths per year attributable to smoking than road deaths, yet 99% of the population use roads and probably less than 40% smoke.
For the life of me i cannont understand how the standard of driving has gone down so much, or cars have got harder and less safe to drive then when the original limits were imposed.
Normal people will drive within their limits, and see speed signs as a guideline rather than an absolute limit.
If the government are so intent on saving lives, then surely smoking has to be banned, as there are probably 100 times more deaths per year attributable to smoking than road deaths, yet 99% of the population use roads and probably less than 40% smoke.
29 November 2003, 02:18 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the short term, smoking doesn't affect/injure/kill innocent 3rd parties though (there may, of course, be a link long term in terms of passive smoking but the govt are looking into that law as well, so good on them).
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 2:25:13 PM]
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 2:25:13 PM]
Trending Topics
29 November 2003, 02:27 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed in itself isnt a dangerous thing.
Err....but speed can NEVER be considered "in itself" in the real world. Speed can contribute to the severity of any incident, when, heaven forbid, something goes wrong (yes, real world again!)
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 2:27:49 PM]
Err....but speed can NEVER be considered "in itself" in the real world. Speed can contribute to the severity of any incident, when, heaven forbid, something goes wrong (yes, real world again!)
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 2:27:49 PM]
29 November 2003, 02:41 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
LOL! I've said my piece on this subject for today, not getting involved in this thread!
I'm off to chill with a beer...
imlach, preach away, the floor is yours!
[Edited by ajm - 11/29/2003 2:42:50 PM]
29 November 2003, 02:45 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the short term, smoking doesn't affect/injure/kill innocent 3rd parties though (there may, of course, be a link long term in terms of passive smoking).
Every year, on average, 140 deaths and over 1,800 injuries each year occur as a result of fires caused by smoking.
I am assuming that the persons not dying needlessley arent just smokers, but perhaps non smoking members in a dwelling.
And a recent study has found that passive smoking is a very real and dangerous threat, not may be a threat which you seem to suggest. so much so that the have recommended to the government that smoking be banned in pubs/clubs etc.
The number of deaths caused by cigarette fires increased by 11% in the UK, or nearly 30% in England and Wales.
118,800 persons in the uk alone die from smoking each year
Compared to 3,423 per year killed on the roads (1999).
It seems obvious to me that smoking is far more dangerous than our roads.
Now Im off elsewhere, I have no time for wallies that have to edit every single post they put up.
Every year, on average, 140 deaths and over 1,800 injuries each year occur as a result of fires caused by smoking.
I am assuming that the persons not dying needlessley arent just smokers, but perhaps non smoking members in a dwelling.
And a recent study has found that passive smoking is a very real and dangerous threat, not may be a threat which you seem to suggest. so much so that the have recommended to the government that smoking be banned in pubs/clubs etc.
The number of deaths caused by cigarette fires increased by 11% in the UK, or nearly 30% in England and Wales.
118,800 persons in the uk alone die from smoking each year
Compared to 3,423 per year killed on the roads (1999).
It seems obvious to me that smoking is far more dangerous than our roads.
Now Im off elsewhere, I have no time for wallies that have to edit every single post they put up.
29 November 2003, 02:51 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now Im off elsewhere, I have no time for wallies that have to edit every single post they put up.
Always love the maturity when someone has to resort to personal insults.
I am as anti-smoking as the next man. Yes, smoking is bad, but it is a different story altogether from speeding!
Always love the maturity when someone has to resort to personal insults.
I am as anti-smoking as the next man. Yes, smoking is bad, but it is a different story altogether from speeding!
29 November 2003, 07:56 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imlach,
i find your stance amusing,,, from what you say you are holier than thou.... have you ever broken the law for speeding???
if you answer truthfully as i know you will, i would hazard a guess that the answers yes, you may think not,,, but i guarantee that when you were learning to drive, your speed slipped over the limit............................................. .......
then you are GUILTY please hand yourself in at the nearest police station to be prosecuted..................................
i believe what pisses most people off is the arbitary way the feds & hmg place speed cameras in areas / locations that are designed to make money... Near to where i live a young lad (my inlaws nextdoor neighbours son)was killed. Its a fairly straight road 40mph limit... he was killed by a tragic freak accident, no speeding involved..... so the feds put up a camera
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1/4 mile away facing away from the accident..... why.......cos its on a slight bend on an slight incline (less than 3 degrees,) that way they grab people as they go past it , and/ or accelerate to come up the incline in the offside lane.
now im not against speed cameras in the correct places schools, or accident black spots, but i find the current crop of forward facing gatsos/ truvelos intimidating!!!! you tell me why an urban clearway (dual carrigeway) has a forward facing gatso on it!!!
oh and the warning sign can,t be seen if you turn left onto the clearway from a side road........
i agree that peoples driving standards decline with age, but to impose arbitary reaction tests is an infringement of there rights..
if hmg wishes to address this, a system of refresher tests at ever 10 years up to the age of 50 then every 5 years up to 60 and then every 2 years then on .... result more aware drivers, more test revenue for hmg,
speed does not kill....... collision with fast moving objects, or sudden deceleration kills...
all hmg and mullah brunstrom are going to do is alienate themselves,
then they wonder why morale and public support is at an all time low
Mart
i find your stance amusing,,, from what you say you are holier than thou.... have you ever broken the law for speeding???
if you answer truthfully as i know you will, i would hazard a guess that the answers yes, you may think not,,, but i guarantee that when you were learning to drive, your speed slipped over the limit............................................. .......
then you are GUILTY please hand yourself in at the nearest police station to be prosecuted..................................
i believe what pisses most people off is the arbitary way the feds & hmg place speed cameras in areas / locations that are designed to make money... Near to where i live a young lad (my inlaws nextdoor neighbours son)was killed. Its a fairly straight road 40mph limit... he was killed by a tragic freak accident, no speeding involved..... so the feds put up a camera
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1/4 mile away facing away from the accident..... why.......cos its on a slight bend on an slight incline (less than 3 degrees,) that way they grab people as they go past it , and/ or accelerate to come up the incline in the offside lane.
now im not against speed cameras in the correct places schools, or accident black spots, but i find the current crop of forward facing gatsos/ truvelos intimidating!!!! you tell me why an urban clearway (dual carrigeway) has a forward facing gatso on it!!!
oh and the warning sign can,t be seen if you turn left onto the clearway from a side road........
i agree that peoples driving standards decline with age, but to impose arbitary reaction tests is an infringement of there rights..
if hmg wishes to address this, a system of refresher tests at ever 10 years up to the age of 50 then every 5 years up to 60 and then every 2 years then on .... result more aware drivers, more test revenue for hmg,
speed does not kill....... collision with fast moving objects, or sudden deceleration kills...
all hmg and mullah brunstrom are going to do is alienate themselves,
then they wonder why morale and public support is at an all time low
Mart
29 November 2003, 08:00 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mart360 - I find it "amusing" as to why people assume that if you present a stance on speeding, people resort to trying to paint one as some holier than thou character.
In NONE of my posts have I stated a holier than thou attitude (ie, that I have never sped). That doesn't mean I can't have a view on speeding that contradicts the majority of "safe drivers" on here
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 8:07:54 PM]
In NONE of my posts have I stated a holier than thou attitude (ie, that I have never sped). That doesn't mean I can't have a view on speeding that contradicts the majority of "safe drivers" on here
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 8:07:54 PM]
29 November 2003, 08:04 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm....
speed does not kill....... collision with fast moving objects, or sudden deceleration kills...
OK....so speed has no effect on your "collisions" then Ever read a physics textbook?
speed does not kill....... collision with fast moving objects, or sudden deceleration kills...
OK....so speed has no effect on your "collisions" then
Ever read a physics textbook?
29 November 2003, 08:19 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is actually correct, well almost.... death comes from impartation of energy to the body, in the case of a collision work is done on the body during deceleration. The energy comes from both the vehicles kinetic energy which is a function of velocity and mass.
But this tells us nothing new. If both cars are not moving then we know there will be no crash. This is where the simpleton statisticians get their "speed kills" from - completely neglecting the events BEFORE the collision.
Maybe if one car had been going FASTER they would have missed completely?
[Edited by ajm - 11/29/2003 8:20:00 PM]
But this tells us nothing new. If both cars are not moving then we know there will be no crash. This is where the simpleton statisticians get their "speed kills" from - completely neglecting the events BEFORE the collision.
Maybe if one car had been going FASTER they would have missed completely?
[Edited by ajm - 11/29/2003 8:20:00 PM]
29 November 2003, 08:57 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK....so speed has no effect on your "collisions" then Ever read a physics textbook?
ajm, I really feel for you - I agree with what you have said all day, but stayed out of it. Somehow I can't ever see imlach changing his point of view.
29 November 2003, 09:25 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imlach
Heres something for you to chew on - If you hit another car on a roundabout, it will be because of speed, If you lose control on a wet sutface, its because of speed, If you run into the back of another vehicle, its because of speed.
All of these will be statistically linked to speeding by the police and the government, because it suits their purpose. The accidents will be attributed to speeding, but all can happen within the posted speed limits.
Its not speed which is the killer, its inappropriate use of it in the wrong place which is the root cause of the problem, and this is primarily caused by inexperience or inattention.
People like you just suck it in and spit it back out as ammunition for the war against all motorists. This ignorance or brown nosing suits the Government and the weak minded who proscribe to this propaganda, which conveniently fits in nicely with the speed camera lobby.
The bottom line is its in place not to reduce casualties, which its not doing, and is being proven statistically, but to line the coffers of the governments central funds.
This government is spending waaaaay more than it can claw in conventional taxation, so its looking and finding new ways to increase its revenue. The Safety Camera Partnership is just one way it can hit those affluent enough to run a car legally (congestion charging is another one).
Its not speeding which kills, its doing it in the wrong place.
Your argument like the governments just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and as long as the speed limits are reduced on open roads which don't justify them, closely followed by the cameras, I for one will remain sceptical for their reason for being there.
Speed is a measurable thing on a moving vehicle from the side of the road, but won't tell, if the driver is high on drugs or drunk, and the cameras won't make a scrap of difference to the stolen or 'pool' cars which are untaxed, uninsured, and mostly unroadworthy, driven by people who just don't give a damn.
Heres something for you to chew on - If you hit another car on a roundabout, it will be because of speed, If you lose control on a wet sutface, its because of speed, If you run into the back of another vehicle, its because of speed.
All of these will be statistically linked to speeding by the police and the government, because it suits their purpose. The accidents will be attributed to speeding, but all can happen within the posted speed limits.
Its not speed which is the killer, its inappropriate use of it in the wrong place which is the root cause of the problem, and this is primarily caused by inexperience or inattention.
People like you just suck it in and spit it back out as ammunition for the war against all motorists. This ignorance or brown nosing suits the Government and the weak minded who proscribe to this propaganda, which conveniently fits in nicely with the speed camera lobby.
The bottom line is its in place not to reduce casualties, which its not doing, and is being proven statistically, but to line the coffers of the governments central funds.
This government is spending waaaaay more than it can claw in conventional taxation, so its looking and finding new ways to increase its revenue. The Safety Camera Partnership is just one way it can hit those affluent enough to run a car legally (congestion charging is another one).
Its not speeding which kills, its doing it in the wrong place.
Your argument like the governments just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and as long as the speed limits are reduced on open roads which don't justify them, closely followed by the cameras, I for one will remain sceptical for their reason for being there.
Speed is a measurable thing on a moving vehicle from the side of the road, but won't tell, if the driver is high on drugs or drunk, and the cameras won't make a scrap of difference to the stolen or 'pool' cars which are untaxed, uninsured, and mostly unroadworthy, driven by people who just don't give a damn.
29 November 2003, 09:29 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not speeding which kills, its doing it in the wrong place.
Errr....so you're saying it IS speeding that kills if in the wrong place?
There is NEVER a right place. The roads are 100% dangerous wherever you are. If you don't realise that, your driving needs some improvement.
Errr....so you're saying it IS speeding that kills if in the wrong place?
There is NEVER a right place. The roads are 100% dangerous wherever you are. If you don't realise that, your driving needs some improvement.
29 November 2003, 09:33 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if your son/daughter was killed by someone doing 50mph in a 30mph zone on a "safe" road, you'd still think speeding was fine?
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 9:33:43 PM]
[Edited by imlach - 11/29/2003 9:33:43 PM]
29 November 2003, 09:35 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also not trying to convert anyone. I just get annoyed at the selfish people in our society who seem to think they can live & do as they please with no respect for others in this world we have to share......
29 November 2003, 09:37 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another person living in the "ideal world`' then?
I hate to think what your insurance premiums must be like if you keep having collisions, mine are bad enough with 10years no-claims.
29 November 2003, 09:40 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto re no claims, but I don't think I'll never have one just because I have 17 years of no claims....
There's always the next patch of diesel round the next corner to catch out the unwary. However, I assume 10 years of no-claims would mean you'd never drive over diesel spills?
There's always the next patch of diesel round the next corner to catch out the unwary. However, I assume 10 years of no-claims would mean you'd never drive over diesel spills?
29 November 2003, 09:53 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 9,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've driven too quickly over a diesel spill before (when I was much younger) and got away with it (just). I was lucky in that I managed to catch the slide and regain control without hitting anything. Now I pay more attention to the road surface and surrounding environment.
No one can say they will never have an accident, but experience and observation can minimise the risk.
No one can say they will never have an accident, but experience and observation can minimise the risk.
29 November 2003, 10:02 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robertio - I agree with EVERYTHING you say in your last post. Good.
It illustrates my point. Your speed on the day was such that you managed to control the unexpected situation. Had you been driving faster, the outcome may have been different given you were in a "loss of control" situation.
It illustrates my point. Your speed on the day was such that you managed to control the unexpected situation. Had you been driving faster, the outcome may have been different given you were in a "loss of control" situation.