Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: Ian H on July 25, 2010, 02:43:00 pm
-
Every speed camera in an entire county looks set to disappear following central government funding cuts, it has been disclosed.
Oxfordshire County Council is cutting its funding to the Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership by £600,000 in a bid to meet £11 million savings.
It has resulted in the partnership taking steps to cease all enforcement in the county and switch off its 72 fixed speed cameras, possibly as soon as August 1.
The Government said it was delivering its pledge to \"end the war on the motorist\" by following through its promise to end central funding for fixed speed cameras.
Interesting.
-
Not sure I agree with this. I hate speed cameras as much as the next man but I think they're good when used for the right reasons - to protect people ie outside schools or accident black spots.
Ditch those that are clearly a money making excercise and keep the others?
-
BLIR wrote:
Not sure I agree with this. I hate speed cameras as much as the next man but I think they're good when used for the right reasons - to protect people ie outside schools or accident black spots.
Ditch those that are clearly a money making excercise and keep the others?
I tend to agree with that.
So at a rough guess I reckon 75% to get the chop
My missus is a \"lollypop lady\" and the number of drivers who see a couple of kids with her and then speed up to make sure they get past is untrue
-
I agree too BLIR. I hate the damn things, but they are incrediblya im;portant in black spots etc etc. What really gets up my nose though are the cunningly hidden one in the middle of nowhere designed simply to trap you for no other reason than to raise some dosh. I'd rather pay a sensible rate of income tax. There's 3 of the sodding things on the A427 near here on the road to Oxford. be glad to see the back of them all. They do no one any good at all except some bas**rds' bank balance.
BobG
-
My sister is also a lolly pop lady, and the amount of lunatics she has to deal with is untrue.. They care nothing for the fact that it is a school crossing.. Seems to me that it is a miracle that there isn't more accidents involving school crossings.
As for speed cameras, well, in my opinion if you speed it bloody well serves you right if you get a ticket.. That is the trouble, people get behind the wheel and think they own the road. If you drive you know the rules of the road, and speed limits are there for a reason.
another thing that really gets me is the way they think it is perfectly acceptable to park on the path , especially on a corner..Morons.. :angry:
-
A few weeks back I was driving down Church Balk at Edenthorpe, it was after 3pm, school turnout time. Traffic in front of me waiting to get passed the parked cars and lollypop lady. Not easy as the front driver had to keep giving way to the on-coming traffic. Silly t**t from behind me couldn't wait and drove 50-100 yards down the pavement to get by.
Outside the Hollybush pub 5-6 cars were waiting to join the Barnby Dunn road. Silly t**t actually got out of his car and confronted the driver who had been giving way at the school.
-
That doesn't suprise me in the slightest..You wouldn't want to hear the unladylike comments I spew as I go past my sister about car driving parents. Being on a bike is quite frankly terrifying at that time of day. Divvy cows can't see past their own noses and the number of times I have had to stop fast to avoid beink knocked off is untrue..Getting on the path is no better, they all stand gossiping with car doors open, forcing the pedestrian into the stinging nettles on the vrege instead......
Thank god for the summer holidays!
-
A sad tale of today.
Now we have moved onto schools parking. Schools were built years ago in the middle of housing estates with no parking or on main roads with no parking. In short not built to have 400 cars turn up at once.
Why do people who live 300-400yds from school have to drive there?
Why do parents of kids who are in the same school or class and live next door to each other, both have to drive?
What is the fixation on driving everywhere (short journeys)
Looking at some of them, I would suggest many of the parents and kids ought to walking to be honest.
Half of it is a show of wealth. Most turn up in a massive vehicle, about 10ft off the ground and 1 x 4yr old kid and mother get out.
The ones that park infront of the lollipop lady and abandon their cars. This causes a massive dangerous headache to the lollipop lady and the 100 kids that want to cross.....but hey oh, f**k all those kids, as long as mine is OK. The big fat Kitsons, aaaarrgghhh
-
You sure you don't live in Heacham Cussy?
The one I save most of my loathing for is the bloke who waits for his kid right on the verge and then as soon as the kid is in the car pulls out no matter how many kids are front of his bonnet at the time.. I save most of my loudest comments about stupid parents until I'm just next to his window... My sister is used to me abusing them en masse now...lol
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
A sad tale of today.
Now we have moved onto schools parking. Schools were built years ago in the middle of housing estates with no parking or on main roads with no parking. In short not built to have 400 cars turn up at once.
Why do people who live 300-400yds from school have to drive there?
Why do parents of kids who are in the same school or class and live next door to each other, both have to drive?
What is the fixation on driving everywhere (short journeys)
Looking at some of them, I would suggest many of the parents and kids ought to walking to be honest.
Half of it is a show of wealth. Most turn up in a massive vehicle, about 10ft off the ground and 1 x 4yr old kid and mother get out.
The ones that park infront of the lollipop lady and abandon their cars. This causes a massive dangerous headache to the lollipop lady and the 100 kids that want to cross.....but hey oh, fcuk all those kids, as long as mine is OK. The big fat cnuts, aaaarrgghhh
It's like that old Viz spoof advert. Picture of one of them big, macho, cock-substitute off-roaders driving through the wilderness. Tag line underneath. \"Is your kid's school half way up a mountain? Then what the f**k do you need one of these for?\"
-
Dagenham.Rover wrote:
My missus is a \"lollypop lady\" and the number of drivers who see a couple of kids with her and then speed up to make sure they get past is untrue
Not sure if it's true, or an urban legend, but I heard that there is a black bar on the lollypop and the lollypop man/lady was issued with chalk so they could write the reg plate of the offending cars and then report to the correct authority?
Guessing this might have been true years ago, but they'd run out of room nowadays ;)
RoversDave wrote:
Silly t**t actually got out of his car and confronted the driver who had been giving way at the school.
How I wish I had been in the car that the idiot had a go at. Anyone getting out of their car constitues an act of aggression to me, and they get what they deserve!
-
BLIR wrote:
Anyone getting out of their car constitues an act of aggression to me
Bit harsh that isnt it?? ;)
-
Maybe should have included something along the lines of \"...and confronts me....?\"
It's easy to be a bully in a big 4x4, and also to be aggressive towards a young mum in a car, but not sure he'd have stayed out of his car for very long if it had been me he tried it on with.
I'm on the large side and don't get intimidated very easily :laugh:
-
It's not your size people are afraid of Neil it's your sandals. :)
-
CusworthRovers wrote:
A sad tale of today.
Now we have moved onto schools parking. Schools were built years ago in the middle of housing estates with no parking or on main roads with no parking. In short not built to have 400 cars turn up at once.
Why do people who live 300-400yds from school have to drive there?
Why do parents of kids who are in the same school or class and live next door to each other, both have to drive?
What is the fixation on driving everywhere (short journeys)
Looking at some of them, I would suggest many of the parents and kids ought to walking to be honest.
Half of it is a show of wealth. Most turn up in a massive vehicle, about 10ft off the ground and 1 x 4yr old kid and mother get out.
The ones that park infront of the lollipop lady and abandon their cars. This causes a massive dangerous headache to the lollipop lady and the 100 kids that want to cross.....but hey oh, fcuk all those kids, as long as mine is OK. The big fat cnuts, aaaarrgghhh
Because people want to go to the best school, not the one closest to where they live. Results in the situation we had when we moved back to Doncaster in 2001 when I was 14 from Scotland. I had a 4 month break that summer due to schooling issues. Living in Edenthorpe, 10 minutes away from Hungerhill it was quite logical that I would go there we thought, especially as my younger sister had a place there. No was the answer, I was to go to a different school as the school was full. Another person at the same time from Hatfield was awarded a place. Crazy, there's a bloody school in Hatfield FFS. On top of this I was told I wasn't to be given provisions for getting to a school further away and was to walk down a path that's well known for not quite being safe alongside fields etc and through subways on my tod.
Life was far simpler when we went to the school closest to our house, it makes sense. Now we have people driving accross towns to go to the better school etc. Something's not quite right there and I can't say I agree with it.
-
You're quite right, Andy. It's a ludicrous state of affairs which perpetuates its own problems.
When people went to the nearest school there would be a balance of people with wide ranging abilities and personalities mixing together. The standard of education could be maintained through the set system so that the brightest and hardest working could crack on apace whilst those at the other end of the scale could get the extra attention and the slower pace they needed to attain any positive results. Outside of the classrooms the mixture of pupils (I can't bring myself to call schoolchildren \"students\") would give each other valuable exposure to the many-faceted society and prepare them for the world at large.
Today you find all the brightest kids in one school which is subsequently far more attractive to the best teachers whilst the divs, nutters and nincompoops all end up in a school that's more akin to a zoo with only the barrel-scrapings form the teaching profession biting their nails to the quick and trembling in corners whilst the kids run riot. What chance has anyone got in that environment?!
-
Not sure if it's true, or an urban legend, but I heard that there is a black bar on the lollypop and the lollypop man/lady was issued with chalk so they could write the reg plate of the offending cars and then report to the correct authority?
Guessing this might have been true years ago, but they'd run out of room nowadays ;)
Dunno but shes got an official notebook :)
And just as a point of interest the only people in law allowed to stop moving traffic is coppers and youve guessed it ...Lollypop Ladys/men and yes they can technically report you
-
The 'I have to drive my little darling across town' might work in a town....But in a village like mine it's more lazy women with lazy kids who can't be arsed..
It gets so bad that every now and again Cheryl has to have a copper there to point out that the way some park is illegal, and it's even worse at the main enterance which is in the middle of an estate. Home owners are blocked in by parents too idle to walk, some get really abusive when asked to move. It just isn't right.
-
Mike_F wrote:
You're quite right, Andy. It's a ludicrous state of affairs which perpetuates its own problems.
When people went to the nearest school there would be a balance of people with wide ranging abilities and personalities mixing together. The standard of education could be maintained through the set system so that the brightest and hardest working could crack on apace whilst those at the other end of the scale could get the extra attention and the slower pace they needed to attain any positive results. Outside of the classrooms the mixture of pupils (I can't bring myself to call schoolchildren \"students\") would give each other valuable exposure to the many-faceted society and prepare them for the world at large.
Today you find all the brightest kids in one school which is subsequently far more attractive to the best teachers whilst the divs, nutters and nincompoops all end up in a school that's more akin to a zoo with only the barrel-scrapings form the teaching profession biting their nails to the quick and trembling in corners whilst the kids run riot. What chance has anyone got in that environment?!
nincompoops :laugh: :laugh:
Mike, you`ve morphed into an 80 year old lady thats never used a swear word in her life :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Go and f**k yourself! :P ;)
-
Oooooo! you nincompoop! you! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
Sheepskin Stu wrote:
It's not your size people are afraid of Neil it's your sandals. :)
Still got them, still going strong :laugh: :laugh:
-
jucyberry wrote:
My sister is also a lolly pop lady, and the amount of lunatics she has to deal with is untrue.. They care nothing for the fact that it is a school crossing.. Seems to me that it is a miracle that there isn't more accidents involving school crossings.
As for speed cameras, well, in my opinion if you speed it bloody well serves you right if you get a ticket.. That is the trouble, people get behind the wheel and think they own the road. If you drive you know the rules of the road, and speed limits are there for a reason.
another thing that really gets me is the way they think it is perfectly acceptable to park on the path , especially on a corner..Morons.. :angry:
My guess is that you don't drive?
Yes, anyone who breaks the law deserves to be punished, but the speed limits on our roads are so outdated its untrue. Cars have come such a long way since the national speed limit was set at 70mph, the limits should be reassessed and set according to the conditions and flow of traffic rather than just a blanket speed.
-
But, just because cars can go faster it doesn't mean they should.. There are too many on the roads that cannot handle speed. They think they are Sterlng Moss but have crash test dummy tendancies, they sure as hell don't have the skill to control a car at speed...
If every speed camera in the country saved one life, then surely they would be worth it?
-
If every speed camera in the country saved one life, then surely they would be worth it?
;) - Not if the life was Ian Huntley :D ........
I am happy to have speed cameras in urban settings - the ones on motorways annoy me though (imho 70 is not a suitable limit on motorways) and, as Bob says, the ones that they hide in a bush on the few bits of straight road after you've been following a bloody caravan for ages, just to get your cash.
-
Redandwhitewhizards wrote:
Yes, anyone who breaks the law deserves to be punished, but the speed limits on our roads are so outdated its untrue. Cars have come such a long way since the national speed limit was set at 70mph, the limits should be reassessed and set according to the conditions and flow of traffic rather than just a blanket speed.
Absolutely agree with this but not sure it's feasible. I drive somewhere around 450 miles per week, the vast majority on either motorways or dual carriageways. I drive more quickly when I finish in the early hours of the morning than I do in the afternoon because of the volume of traffic.
I can finish at 2am on a Saturday morning and drive from Stoke back to Doncaster barely seeing another car - there's no way that 70mph is the safest maximum speed in those conditions? My car has ABS, disc brakes all round, vehicle stability assist technology etc etc etc - none of which were available when the speed limits were set. I can (in my opinion) safely drive at 90mph when conditions are suitable but recognise that there are times when 70mph is TOO fast on a motorway when weather conditions are poor or traffic is heavy.
I think there are too many variables to impose varied speed limits and they would be impossible to police, but the idea is a good one!
-
Never ceases to amaze me just how casual we are about the annual carnage on the roads. In my lifetime, there has been something like 250,000 deaths on the roads in this country. The rate has dramatically reduced in recent years but we still have the equivalent of a 9/11 death toll on our roads every 14 months or so.
Imagine if there were 10 plane crashes every year in the UK that killed 250 people a time. Or if 5 tower blocks collapsed every year killing 500 people each time. There would be outrage. There would be riots on the streets demanding that businesses and Government sort it out. But THAT is the scale of deaths that we have on the roads every year - predominantly caused by rank bad driving. And all that drivers do is moan when the mesures that reducde this toll are introduced and enforced.
Since we started getting serious about enforcing safer driving and safer driver behaviour, there has been a steady decline in road deaths in this country. In the mid 60s, there were about 7000 deaths a year on the roads in the UK. Then we introduced breathalyser tests and the number declined markedly. When we enforced wearing seat-belts in the early 80s, there was a marked dip in the casualty rate, and most significantly of all, when speed cameras started to come in in the late 80s, the casualty rate dropped dramatically - from 5000 deaths a year in 87 to 3500 deaths a year in 92. Every one of those impositions caused outrage among drivers - infringing on our right to do just what the f**k we want.
The Top Gear mob will tell you it's all down to better, safer technology. Utter b*llocks. If that was the case, then why has the death rate in America (where they don't enforce the speed limit law as aggressively as we do) been pretty much static over the last 20 years while ours has more than halved? Or Italy. Their death rate was very static until four or five years ago when they started more aggressively enforcing the speed limit with fixed cameras, and giving out penalty points and bans for trangressions. There has been outrage in Italy at the prospect of the Government daring to take away drivers' licences for as trivial a thing as repeatedly driving like a t**t. My in-laws in Italy have talked about it as though it was a removal of their human rights. But the death rate on their roads has come down by 25% in five years after this, after hardly fluctuating for the previous 2 decades. f**k-all to do with new safety technology - everything to to with FORCING drivers to drive more sensibly. Just like we have been doing in this country for the last few decades, with spectacularly good results.
There's something about cars that brings out the worst in us. We're isolated from the rest of society, cossetted, safe. Everyone else on the road is a shit driver and we personally are excellent. We are competent to judge for ourselves when it is safe to break the law, beacuse we, individually are superb at driving. I wonder what the people involved in the crashes that kill 2,500-ish people every year in the UK think about their own driving? Do they go out on the morning that they become a killer thinking, \"Actually, I shouldn't be doing this - I'm not a competent driver\"? Or do they, like the rest of us get in the car and drive how the fcuk they want, safe in the knowledge that the road laws are for soft liberal t**ts and they personally know better than that?
-
BobG wrote:
I agree too BLIR. I hate the damn things, but they are incrediblya im;portant in black spots etc etc. What really gets up my nose though are the cunningly hidden one in the middle of nowhere designed simply to trap you for no other reason than to raise some dosh. I'd rather pay a sensible rate of income tax. There's 3 of the sodding things on the A427 near here on the road to Oxford. be glad to see the back of them all. They do no one any good at all except some bas**rds' bank balance.
BobG
Really? Is that all of them, or just the oens you say are designed to add to someone's bank balance? As another posted has said, if all the speed camera's in the country save one life between them, then it is worth it.
This is one Tory policy I don't agree with. I have absolutely no problem with speed camera's. Anyone stupid enough to be caught by one, then you only have yourself to blame. Speed limits are in force, it is the law no matter how much you may not agree with them, you have to abide by them. If you don't, be prepared to take the punishment.
One thing I would start doing is limiting the engine size's young drivers are able to drive.
A 17 year old fresh from their test shouldn't be jumping into large cars with massive engines. Its a recipie for disaster.
I would make everyone take a seperate test before they can drive on the motorway.
-
Strangely though, whilst all this talk is going on, it appears that the ones where multiple deaths occur are down to Large Vehicles, behind the wheel of which are \"professional drivers\".
A 17 year old can go fast in any car, and give me a kid with good sense over an 85 year old with no reflexes.
I admit that I don't like speed cameras (I drive about 2000 miles per month), I have (as at right now) no points on my license, but I cannot compare any other countries, and as someone who has manipulated stats at different times in my life I set little store in the selective use of figures.
It is true that deaths on the road have reduced in the UK, and it is also true that in-car features like seat belts & air bags have assisted in driver protection.
Do the stats tell us how traffic volumes have risen, or whether the number of collisions has increased or reduced or whether lighting technology has assisted drivers' vision?
It is also true that I seldom meet anyone who admits to being a crap driver, or who doesn't follow correct lane discipline, and I see a certain pride in people when they tell me how much quicker they are than me from A to B.
I am an experienced driver, I understand about lanes, I sometimes get in the wrong one, I apologise if I appear to have f**ked up, I acknowledge people who let me in/out, but I still think that there are opportunities on motorways to reassess speed restrictions, and what America does or doesn't do on their roads is not important to me - they can't even drive on the correct side of them!
-
Don't most countries drive on the right side? It's only UK and Bermuda that I can think of offhand that don't.
Does anyone know the origin of this?
-
I too think the issue is both more complex than you portray Billy, and less capable of knee jerk solution than either side (including me!) would have us believe.
A few examples: I used to drive a beat up old Vauxhall Viva. It didn't go fast. It couldn't. It did, always, have an MoT but it's brakes were terrible, it's steering was worse and it's road holding and stability were worse again. Today I drive an Alfa. A sports car. It is capable of going fast. Faster than any speed limit. But it has bloody superb brakes, better steering and even better rodholding and stability. I know it's an opinion, and of only one person with a vested interest, but I suspect the Alfa at 70 mph is safer than the Viva at 40 mph. Now, clearly, if I were to drive the Alfa on somebody's bumper at 70 then no brakes, no road holding and no steering would prevent a much worse accident than me driving on someones bumper at 40 in the Viva. But that's not really the point. Some cars are inherently safer than others, just as, as Ian suggests, some types of folk are inherently safer than others, and as BLIR says, some times and some roads are inherently safer than other times and other roads.
I was banned once for a short period for doing over a 100mph. Under the current laws I deserved it. Maybe I deserved it full stop. But it was at 2 in the morning. It was on the M5. There wasn't another vehicle in sight (at least until the boys in blue whizzed down the slip road anyway!) and I was in a bloody good, well maintained car. I might well deserve the punishment, but I do think doing 100 mph in taht set of circumstances was less dangerous than me doing 40mph through our village at school chucking out time.
It's when, and where and in what vehicle that is fundamentally important. But the law doesn't, or can't allow for that. Maybe if the law could, it should be based upon really extreme penalties for the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong vehicle, and no penalty for what is curently abhorred but is actually a risk to no bugger but oneself. But that, inevitably, is always a set of subjective judgements. So we're back to blanket speed limits in blaanket circumstances. And me being pissed off with laws that take no account of time, place and vehicle. And cameras (some, not all) that seem to be there simply to make money - not save lives.
BobG
-
Sandy Lane wrote:
Don't most countries drive on the right side? It's only UK and Bermuda that I can think of offhand that don't.
Does anyone know the origin of this?
Japan drives on the left. Thailand drives on the left. Tanzania drives on the left. Sweden drove on the left until about 30 years ago. Gibralter drives on the left. India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan drive on the left. I knew all those. Wikipedia has just told me that it reckons there are 76 countries and territories that drive on the left with a combined population that accounts for almost 34% of world population.
So no. It's not just Britain and Bermuda.
And if you want a guess, most, though definately not all of those who drive on the left, suffered from significant British imperialist influence. An obvious exception to that is Japan.
I didn't know until just now though that the US itself has a territory that drives on the left. Go on. Name it. Without consulting t'internet! Show off your knowledge of your own country Sandy :)
BobG
-
Ooooh Sorry to say I can't name it Bob. Probably one of the Caribbean islands. But I will take a peek later. :-)
I was also not aware that the speed limits in the US are not as strictly enforced as BST has stated. That has not been my experience. Maybe in Montana or Wyoming though! If anything around where I live anyway, it is strictly enforced - at times too much so. Obviously I can't compare it to yours as I'm not familiar with it. But basically it's 20 mph in school zones, 30 in towns and cities, 55 on major highways and 65 on some open highways. Even though each state can control and set their own highways speed limit, it is tied to federal monies they receive by keeping the speed limits at certain rates.
Of course, other than in towns and cities, 55 really means 60, and 65 means 70, before you're stopped. Could this be what BST means? But having said that -- stopped and ticketed you are! I agree that enforcing speed limits save lives, while helping conserve gas and I'm all for it. BUT, there is nothing like driving really fast on lonely country roads!
As for speed traps existing solely to make money. Absolutely, in fact certain towns budgets are dependent on the fines collected, and the old adage of the police having to meet a quota of tickets issued each month, apparently is true here.
Re: Italy -- I remember reading a quote from the mayor of Naples, who said of their traffic lights -- green means go, yellow is the color of flowers, and red is merely a 'suggestion' !!
-
US Virgin Islands apparently. I never knew that.
Cheers
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
I too think the issue is both more complex than you portray Billy, and less capable of knee jerk solution than either side (including me!) would have us believe.
A few examples: I used to drive a beat up old Vauxhall Viva. It didn't go fast. It couldn't. It did, always, have an MoT but it's brakes were terrible, it's steering was worse and it's road holding and stability were worse again. Today I drive an Alfa. A sports car. It is capable of going fast. Faster than any speed limit. But it has bloody superb brakes, better steering and even better rodholding and stability. I know it's an opinion, and of only one person with a vested interest, but I suspect the Alfa at 70 mph is safer than the Viva at 40 mph. Now, clearly, if I were to drive the Alfa on somebody's bumper at 70 then no brakes, no road holding and no steering would prevent a much worse accident than me driving on someones bumper at 40 in the Viva. But that's not really the point. Some cars are inherently safer than others, just as, as Ian suggests, some types of folk are inherently safer than others, and as BLIR says, some times and some roads are inherently safer than other times and other roads.
I was banned once for a short period for doing over a 100mph. Under the current laws I deserved it. Maybe I deserved it full stop. But it was at 2 in the morning. It was on the M5. There wasn't another vehicle in sight (at least until the boys in blue whizzed down the slip road anyway!) and I was in a bloody good, well maintained car. I might well deserve the punishment, but I do think doing 100 mph in taht set of circumstances was less dangerous than me doing 40mph through our village at school chucking out time.
It's when, and where and in what vehicle that is fundamentally important. But the law doesn't, or can't allow for that. Maybe if the law could, it should be based upon really extreme penalties for the wrong time, the wrong place, the wrong vehicle, and no penalty for what is curently abhorred but is actually a risk to no bugger but oneself. But that, inevitably, is always a set of subjective judgements. So we're back to blanket speed limits in blaanket circumstances. And me being pissed off with laws that take no account of time, place and vehicle. And cameras (some, not all) that seem to be there simply to make money - not save lives.
BobG
Bob. That argument that deaths have come down primarily due to safer cars WOULD hold water if it were true EVERYWHERE. But it's not. Italy being a prime example (and one that I know a hell of a lot about from unhappy personal experience), where they consider driving like a cnut to be a birthrigh. The death rates (in absolute terms and in terms of deaths per vehicle on the road) were horrifically high until the early 2000s. In 2002, they were killing more than 7000 people per year on the roads - a figure that had been mopre or less static for a generation while car safety had improved immesurably. In 1999, a t**t (who clearly believed that HE knew how to drive safely and how to judge what was a suitable speed limit for the conditions) mounted the pavement at 90kmh in a 50kmh zone and left my wife's handsome, sporty, intelligent 13 year old cousin in a coma and brain damaged.
In 2003, they introduced a penalty system for speeding, along with a large extension in the fixed speed camera network. The annual death toll on the roads has since come down by [strike]more than[/strike] EDIT nearly half.
I simply do not understand this obsession that otherwise rational intelligent people have with their \"right\" to determine for themselves what is a safe speed. We should be proud of the fact that we have one of the best road safety records in the world. We have also often led the world in introducing (and strongly enforcing) regulations to FORCE people to obey the rules of the road.
Coincidence?
Those who complain today about speed cameras are EXACTLY the same ones who thought breathalysers, seatbelts, child-seats were an invasion of their right to choose just what the fcuk they did when they got into a car. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.
-
BobG wrote:
US Virgin Islands apparently. I never knew that.
Cheers
BobG
Luckily it's the only one I could think of on short notice! :-)
Personally I have a problem with drunk driving and also with the use of cell phones when driving. I know that I can barely talk and drive and forget texting. They made it illegal in New York State, but no one pays any attention to it as far as I can tell. And you can always tell who is on their cell phones as they're all over the road. My sister lives In Massachusetts where it's still legal and it's even worse there!
-
Hmmm Billy....
I quite agree about the inability of pretty well everyone to judge their own driving competance. And about the power of force in doing something about that. Can't argue with any of that. No rational person could. I guess my point was that in an idealised world, vehicle, time & location would all be factors in determining whether or not an individual drive is dangerous or not. I still think that, in any logical sense, all three have to be taken into account in any decision abaout the 'degree of dangerousness'. But it's an impossible dream. It's an entirely subjective decision. It's impossible of implementation. I regret that. So no doubt I shall continue to collect occasional penalty points for driving well fast on open country roads and below the speed limit in built up areas. Selfish? Yes. Rational? No. But human? Indubitably. I happen to get a socking great buzz from taking a bend accurately, fast and smooth. It's in my nature. I can't stop that. All I can do is weigh the risks and the benefits. Back to the force argument then! It'll be needed. The plan for when I retire is to get hold of a DB9.....
Cheers
BobG
-
Last night I watched a programme about idiots in cars - it wasn't called that, but that was the theme. It even had 4 t**ts (3 male, one female) that had set themselves up to say look at me I'm a shit driver.
It talked a lot about young irresponsible people on the road, and about speed killing people. No speed camera would have stopped the knobheads that were on camera, as many were in stolen cars or driving whilst under the influence.
It may be that we are absolutely blind to our own driving skills (or lack of them), but I maintain that I fully support these cameras in urban areas however I still believe (like Bob) that I have the potential to pick up points because when I have followed a bunch of wagons and cars along a \"National Speed Limit applies\" single carriageway at 45mph, when the straight bit comes along (and there's nowt coming the other way) I'm going to get past them, and that's when the Hidden cam will get me!
I may get done at 3 am on a motorway too.
Anything that slows drivers down where people walk and live is fine.
On the same theme, on Jossey Lane, Leger Way, Nutwell Lane, Barnby Dun there are \"Speed Advisory\" flashing electronic signs - does anyone know whether they help?
-
Ian H wrote:
Last night I watched a programme about idiots in cars - it wasn't called that, but that was the theme. It even had 4 t**ts (3 male, one female) that had set themselves up to say look at me I'm a shit driver.
It talked a lot about young irresponsible people on the road, and about speed killing people. No speed camera would have stopped the knobheads that were on camera, as many were in stolen cars or driving whilst under the influence.
It may be that we are absolutely blind to our own driving skills (or lack of them), but I maintain that I fully support these cameras in urban areas however I still believe (like Bob) that I have the potential to pick up points because when I have followed a bunch of wagons and cars along a \"National Speed Limit applies\" single carriageway at 45mph, when the straight bit comes along (and there's nowt coming the other way) I'm going to get past them, and that's when the Hidden cam will get me!
I may get done at 3 am on a motorway too.
Anything that slows drivers down where people walk and live is fine.
On the same theme, on Jossey Lane, Leger Way, Nutwell Lane, Barnby Dun there are \"Speed Advisory\" flashing electronic signs - does anyone know whether they help?
Doesn't stop folk belting down at 40mph+. I'd quite like one of those mobile cameras to sit down there for a week, that would rake in a bit of dough for SYP. There have been a couple of nasty accidents recently.
-
It's about the CULTURE of driving. We in this country have pretty much led the world in developing a culture where driving recklessly/under the influence/too fast is (generally) seen as being not acceptable. As a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of this, we have one of the best road safety records in the world. This is NOT due to car safety - if it was, then every country in the world that had a modern road network would have a similarly safe record, whereas in fact most other countries have a far worse record than ours. I'd argue that the problem with most of those other countries is that driving is seen as a macho/liberating pursuit to a greater degree than it is in this country.
I too enjoy driving fast - I understand the thrill and the attraction. I also like shooting guns, but I do that in controlled places, not in open public spaces. If you get a thrill out of taking a corner in an accurate (subjective, fast and smooth manner, then great - go to a raceway. Don't presume to do it as a leisure activity in a public space where others may end up paying the consequence. And even if YOU never kill anyone, it's this tacit acceptance of driving as personal entertainment that often leads directly to less able drivers doing the same thing.
A bloke I used to work with was a superb driver, able to throw his car into sharp bends on the country lanes on the commute to our lab in the Peak District. Brilliant reader of the road. Never had so much as a scratch. One of the younger lads was in awe of him and copied his driving style. Was the Big I Am for a few weeks. Then one day, he slid at a corner, went straight over a dry stone wall and rolled the car 30 yards into a field. He was the luckiest man on earth that he walked out of that car. Personally, I would not have given a shit if he had wiped himself out, because he was a stupid t**t who would have deserved it. Of course, had there been a couple of kids on the path on that bend...
As Ian H points out, we already have bell ends who are determined to drive like Kitsons. Fortunately, we have relatively few of them (compared to other countries I have experienced) and I'd suggest far fewer than we had when I was a teenager. We've done a very good job of making drink-driving increasingly socially unacceptable. It would be nice to think that we could do the same on the theme of driving a 50 in a 30 zone. You'll not do that by easing off on enforcement though. Ease off on enforcement of speed limits, or raise speed limits and you are sending a message out that in fact we're not that concerned about dangerous/reckless driving - you push the driving culture in the wrong direction.
We already have plenty of people who decide for themselves that driving a 50-60 in a 30 zone is perfectly OK. Reduce the number of speed cameras, or stop enforcing speed limits and you'll vastly increase the number who take this decision. Of course no-one on here will, because we're all intelligent, rational drivers who always take full account of the conditions don't we. But plenty of others will do. And the number of road deaths will go back up towards the levels that most other countries see.
-
Of course no-one on here will, because we're all intelligent, rational drivers who always take full account of the conditions don't we.
Hmm - tongue firmly in cheek BST - when the world falls apart some things stay in place.
I think that we all truly believe that we won't be the ones creating widows & orphans - well signed Speed Cameras don't even need to be working (as long as no-one knows) - perhaps the Oxfordshire thing won't happen.
It was announced today that South Yorkshire is keeping the Speed Cameras, but will re-think the siting of some etc. - I don't know whether that is tactical speak for \"We're cutting back\".
-
Billy I agree with most of what you say however
\"This is NOT due to car safety - if it was, then every country in the world that had a modern road network would have a similarly safe record,\"
that really is a blanket statement you really can't say catagorically it is not down to car safety.
Look at it slightly differently how many fatalities/accidents have been avoided purely because of improved braking systems abs etc etc, 20 years ago a kid may have jumped out from behind a parked car and been a statistic, nowadays the exact same conditions similar driver etc etc but a modern car could well end up as damn frightened kid but thats all.
Statistics would have to be narrowed down for all countrys over many years taking into account the \"revolutions\" in car advancements increase in traffic volume as well as casualty figures etc , crikey I used to drive an Austin A40 and when I finally wound it up to 65mph do you really think it would stop as quickly as the car I drive now.
However having said all that I do not advocate speeding in built up areas (Ive said in a previous post my Missus is a Lollypop lady and believe me I've seen what some morons get up to)
Motorway limits should be increased (80) or a full system of variable limits on motorways as on sections of the M25, this would quite possible and be quite easily and relatively cheaply be done utilising the \"old fog warning\" signs as our friends in Lincolnshire tend to do on the M180 (normally reducing it to 50 for no flippin reason at all)
Okay I'm now prepared to be shot down :)
-
I take your points DR, and of course increases in car safety have helped save many lives. What I said was the fact that we in this country have a better record than almost anywhere else in the world cannot be due to car safety. They have the same cars in Italy, but they still kill nearly twice as many people a year on the roads as we do. And the death rate there only started to come down when they started to get semi-serious about enforcing the road laws.
We kill many fewer people on this country's roads, as a proportion of the total population than Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece. Having driven a fair bit in all those countries, I'm always struck by how much better, safer and more restrained driving is in our country. I don't think the two things are disconnected, and I'm fiercely against anyone trying to slacken off our approach. We should be deeply proud of it, not sit here moaning about it.
-
So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ;)) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?
I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.
-
Ian H wrote:
So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ;)) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?
I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.
Do you know what I bet the overtime will still be being paid at the speed camera partnerships favoruite place on the M180.
I bet the 3 or 4 speed cameras on the A13 going from Dagenham towards Canning Town will still be there.
Guess what you could LOSE your licence (starting with nil points) on about a 3 mile stretch of the A13 oh and the cameras were only put in after the road was made from 2 lanes to 3 and 4 lanes and various flyovers/roundabouts taken out to make a straight road ...oh and then they reduced the speed limit.
On a slightly different issue I once parked in Tower Hamlets in the adjacent parking bay to the pay and display machine, came back and had a ticket, on closer inspection there was one pay and display then one residents only bay alternatly all the way down the street!!!!!...
Of course its not a moneymaking exercise ;)
-
Dagenham.Rover wrote:
Ian H wrote:
So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ;)) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?
I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.
Do you know what I bet the overtime will still be being paid at the speed camera partnerships favoruite place on the M180.
I bet the 3 or 4 speed cameras on the A13 going from Dagenham towards Canning Town will still be there.
Guess what you could LOSE your licence (starting with nil points) on about a 3 mile stretch of the A13 oh and the cameras were only put in after the road was made from 2 lanes to 3 and 4 lanes and various flyovers/roundabouts taken out to make a straight road ...oh and then they reduced the speed limit.
On a slightly different issue I once parked in Tower Hamlets in the adjacent parking bay to the pay and display machine, came back and had a ticket, on closer inspection there was one pay and display then one residents only bay alternatly all the way down the street!!!!!...
Of course its not a moneymaking exercise ;)
You'd only lose your licence if you were speeding.
Seriously, people may not agree with speed limits or speed cameras, but if you get caught, it really is your own fault. The law is there whether you agree with it or not.
-
MrFrost wrote:
Dagenham.Rover wrote:
Ian H wrote:
So putting ALL the Safety bits aside, and bearing in mind the fact that South Yorkshire will review their Cameras, do you think that (when the review is complete ;)) they will opt for the ones that make money or the ones that lose money but are in notorious accident black spots?
I think that the only important reason for Speed Cameras is to help prevent accidents, I wonder whether the people that run them agree.
Do you know what I bet the overtime will still be being paid at the speed camera partnerships favoruite place on the M180.
I bet the 3 or 4 speed cameras on the A13 going from Dagenham towards Canning Town will still be there.
Guess what you could LOSE your licence (starting with nil points) on about a 3 mile stretch of the A13 oh and the cameras were only put in after the road was made from 2 lanes to 3 and 4 lanes and various flyovers/roundabouts taken out to make a straight road ...oh and then they reduced the speed limit.
On a slightly different issue I once parked in Tower Hamlets in the adjacent parking bay to the pay and display machine, came back and had a ticket, on closer inspection there was one pay and display then one residents only bay alternatly all the way down the street!!!!!...
Of course its not a moneymaking exercise ;)
You'd only lose your licence if you were speeding.
Seriously, people may not agree with speed limits or speed cameras, but if you get caught, it really is your own fault. The law is there whether you agree with it or not.
Yes I agree, but look at the other bit I've highlighted the cameras were only put in after the roundabouts/flyovers were taken out and the road widened and the speed limit reduced
-
Yes, i dont agree with it, but personally, myself I would obey the speed limit.
-
Or the sods round my way who hide themselves at the bottom of an almighty steep and long hill, right out in the country, having recently built a brand spanking new dual carriageway all the way down it. Previously it was a somewhat nasty and overcrowded single carriageway road where the cops were never to be seen since the cars couldn't get above 40mph for all the traffic. Can't think why they sit at the bottom now....
Of course, as I know where they hide, I am forwarned :) As I warn others almost every single day.
BobG
-
Or buy a decent sat nav thats got free fixed speed camera/map updates shows high risk mobile camera areas so you can reduce speed from 70 to 40 in 30 yards and upset every bugger behind you :)
Snooper do some cracking special offers :laugh:
-
Mr Frost, I admire you - you have the ability to always obey speed limits.
We all understand that we shouldn't get points if we always drive to the limit (or below) - some humans are so weak that they sometimes stray above the line - clearly you're not one of them - Congratulations.
It may be time to put this to bed now - we have all acknowledged that Speed Cameras are important if they stop people from causing accidents in built up areas, we have had stats that show that the UK policy appears to be working better than the more relaxed attitudes elsewhere, we have had strong arguments against cameras that are solely deployed to extract cash from the motorist (perhaps they could be labelled Cash Cams and give the motorist an option to pay a \"double fine for No Points\") and we have been told to accept it because it's the law.
If none of us queries items that are the law we will never get amendments or improvements - I'm interested to see the stats that come out of Oxfordshire.
-
Yes Ian. If you remember it from all those years back, we'd never have had to study the repeal of the Corn Laws without some miserable t**ts argiuing that the law needed changing. Or, heaven forbid, we could still nip dowen the supermarket to buy a couple of nubile black faced female slaves to while away a few hours. These pesky reformers just get my goat.
BobG
-
BobG wrote:
Yes Ian. If you remember it from all those years back, we'd never have had to study the repeal of the Corn Laws without some miserable t**ts argiuing that the law needed changing. Or, heaven forbid, we could still nip dowen the supermarket to buy a couple of nubile black faced female slaves to while away a few hours. These pesky reformers just get my goat.
BobG
Bob. I'm assuming you've been on the pop cocker if you're really comparing the existence of speed cameras with the slave trade!
-
:):) I had had a wee drinkie Billy, but my point is valid. It was aimed at drawing out the point made by IanH that if none of us queries items that are the law we will never get amendments or improvements. The end point of that is as I described.
BobG