Hi to All

Firstly, I am getting a little concerned that the governments revenue collection excuse propaganda is starting to become part of the national conciousness to the point that petrol and diesel heads on car forums are starting to support the fact that (as stated in two recent threads) travelling at 120mph (this thread) or in another thread 100% above the speed limit is dangerous. IT IS NOT. It is dangerous to travel at an inappropriate speed for the road and traffic conditions, visibilty, driver ability and vehicle type. So 30mph in a narrow pedestrian cluttered high street is in many ways more dangerous than 150mph on an empty motorway. Lets get this in proportion. In Germany, people regularly cruise at 3 figure speeds. It is not chaos (apart from just after unification when a big influx of Trabant pilots got let loose on the road system) it just takes a degree of driver discipline.

Personally, I used to find it easy to cruise at speeds of 130mph or more IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES, however, the police have got to tow the party line, and the technology has got better, so I now choose not to use these speeds (plus I lose a chunk of my livelihood for 5 years if I get a ban). The public has listened to all this propoganda for so long they are starting to believe it! At the end of the day, all the traffic officers are interested in is not attending accidents. We should support powers that enable them to prosecute dangerous driving rather than having their numbers cut and replaced by the use of speed cameras.

Fatalities have fallen, as a result of better vehicle design, not as a result of the success of speed cameras. If I understand correctly, fatalities for non vehicle occupants continue to rise. As someone who holds a qualification in applied statistical mathematics and has plenty of years experience using the techniques to find facts, I fully appreciate the possibility of presenting the data to support the taxation gathering. However, I would urge people to ask the questions that really need asking.

1. If excess use of speed was the primary cause of an accident, was that speed over the limit in force at the time? (IIUC excess use of speed is recorded if you went off at 50 in a 60 limit if it was a bend that was taken too fast but still below the limit).

2. If excess speed was a conributary factor, again, was the speed above the posted limit (for the same reason as above).

Excess use of speed is dangerous. However, lets not start believing the politicians and revenue office when they have clearly demonstrated that speed enforcement does not actually reduce casualties.

Last thing to ask yourself. If a smart sign (a sign that measures your speed on the approach to a hazard) costs around

I recently attended a 'speed awareness course' to avoid 3 points.

It was impossible to convince the presenters that speed limits set in the days of the Morris Minor are not necessarily appropriate now (what's so magic about 30 mph?).

The only good news was that the money raised by the course (the same as the fine would have been) goes towards smart signs, which we all agreed were far more effective than either passive signs or cameras. Maybe as the signs get smarter we'll see variable limits: I'll happily slow to 20 mph past a school at 8:30 a.m. in term-time, but on a Sunday evening in August.....?

We were told the limit that is actually enforced is + 10% + 2 MPH.

When asked point-blank if that meant they weren't interested in you unless you exceeded 79 mph on a motorway, they said 'yes'. Of course, that assumes you know what you true speed really is. My three GPSes vary by up to 2 mph (with TomTom consistently under-reading by 1 mph compared to the other two).

Whilst I agree car technology is alot better and that the speed limit on motorways should be upped because of this there are still cars out there that are old and not safe at these speeds.

I am all for the speed limit being raised and also agree there should be variable speed limit sign as certain conditions warrant certain driving speeds but the goverment is to happy racking in the money they are making on "speed traps" because lets face it there are not "accident prevention cameras" but another goverment revenue earning scheme.

I think the only problem with upping the speed limit is that with a speed limit of 70 mph people drive at 80/85 without the serious risk of getting caught.......up it to 80/85 people will drive at 95/100 mhp without the serious risk of being caught. People myself included drive above the speed limit when safe to do so, but obviously not in a 20/30 Zone

Everyone believes what they want to believe. Of course the government use propaganda in order to protect their revenue stream. The anti-camera lobby also use propaganda suggesting that 150mph would be a perfectly safe speed on our motorways. Everybody's trying to convince everybody else that they know best. Common sense suggests that the sensible course is somewhere in between.

Personally what annoys me is not cameras per se - if I know the speed limit, it's my own fault if I drive past a camera exceeding that limit. What's more insidious is the gradual introduction of artificial speed limits on bits of road where the local authority reckons either a speed reduction will have some effect on accidents or give a nice juicy stream of revenue from frustrated motorists who can't see why a perfectly good stretch of road should have an artificially low limit on it.

Well if speed kills, and guns kill, why havent cars been banned ??

You can all see where this is going, its the person BEHIND the wheel of the car / gun that does the damage.

I have recently changed the base location of where I work and now use " off motorway " roads more, and i actually LIKE the DOT speed warnings that are located on the boundaries of the villages I now have to travel through.

They are more effective at reminding you of the speed through the nice country villages , once you get throught the other side, the speed freaks can kill themselves in the hedges and fields between the villages, doing minimal damage to property and other road users.

I am inclined to agree that the common sense approach by most Police of Motorway speed limits, attack the drivers who are driving at speed NOT appropriate to the conditions.

You can still have a major accident travelling under the speed limit, with serious / fatal injuries, so where does the "speed kills" argument stand there ?

If the government were serious about cutting accidents, then the when will they change the cameras for the DOT reminders ?

Whist on the subject of speed reminders, I know we have some traffic police on here, Please can someone explain why the motorway matrix are not changed after , say an accident has been removed, or fog has lifted???

Whilst I agree car technology is alot better and that the speed limit on motorways should be upped because of this there are still cars out there that are old and not safe at these speeds.

You're confusing maximum speed limits with minimum speed limits.

If the limit is 80, you can still do 60 if you want.

i dont think heis steve, what i b elive he is saying is its all well and good having modrn cars out there with discs all round, abs, esp, tc, eba, ebd and anther number of initals you want but there is stil some old biddy driving round in a standard 1973 morris marina that will do the new higher limit where te car isn't improved like the new ars are so it may not be a safe speed for that car

I agree with Nick and the artificial low speed limits being a pain. Near where I live is a perfectly nice dual carridgeway which skirts round the edge of an estate, for as long as I have been driving and before had a nice 70MPH limit, and as far as I can tell a very good accident record. Then a few years ago the council decided the limit of this nice road, with no houses on it should be reduced to 40MPH, they even installed several paking areas so that the local plod can park there speed guns, it sure feels slow driving down that quiet empty road so slowley.

On the other hand, we have at the other end of town a 60MPH single carridgeway with lots of junctions on it from housing estates and the limit is still 60MPH.

They also seem to think that installing chicanes as traffic calming a good idea, on a bend. or install them with some nice planting on the bit that juts out so you cant see whats coming the other way till you cross over to the other side to go around the obstruction.

You're confusing maximum speed limits with minimum speed limits.

If the limit is 80' date=' you can still do 60 if you want.[/quote']

AAAGHH!!! NO NO NO NO!!!

How many people have been running around country lanes at the speedlimit of 60mph, got round a corner and seen an old lady in a fiesta doing 35. You have to slam the brakes on and rely a hell of a lot on your brakes and tyres in order to slow down. The limit is 60, if you're not willing to do 60 then you can be a real danger on that road!

Road rage and irritated impatient drivers are the ones that can't cruise down an empty NSL road at the correct speed because theres a numpty doing 40 on it.

It's fine saying it's safe to do 120mph down an empty motorway, but if you have a lot of people in old cars or who don't feel safe driving at that speed, you will have half the cars doing 120mph dodging between lanes to avoid those still going 70.

I can understand when people exceed the limit when conditions allow it, but I have no time for people who will go much slower on a road that is capable of a higher speed. You wouldn't drive through a 30 at a constant 20, so why is it acceptable to drive at 40 through a 60?

And don't get me started on people that do 40 through 30's and then carry on at 40 when it turns into a NSL road :mad:

Sorry, ranting over now.

i dont think heis steve, what i b elive he is saying is its all well and good having modrn cars out there with discs all round, abs, esp, tc, eba, ebd and anther number of initals you want but there is stil some old biddy driving round in a standard 1973 morris marina that will do the new higher limit where te car isn't improved like the new ars are so it may not be a safe speed for that car

Yep bengie that is exactly what I am saying

How many people have been running around country lanes at the speedlimit of 60mph, got round a corner and seen an old lady in a fiesta doing 35. You have to slam the brakes on and rely a hell of a lot on your brakes and tyres in order to slow down.

In that instance the driver in question is obviously going too fast for the given visibility.

As for 30mph being a "magic" number, it's because pedestrian fatalities shoot up very quickly above 30 - it's a turning point in the speed vs chance of killing someone you hit curve.

In that instance the driver in question is obviously going too fast for the given visibility.

As for 30mph being a "magic" number' date=' it's because pedestrian fatalities shoot up very quickly above 30 - it's a turning point in the speed vs chance of killing someone you hit curve.[/quote']

And that is why the new Peugeot 407 is so so ugly, cause it is supposed to be pedestrian friendly.

I seem to remember something from some crash test or other (though it's quite possible I've made this up in my head) describing the Fabia grille as "pedestrian-shredding"...

Human chips anyone ?

Just to throw my piece of meat in but what does it matter at the end of the day? The old boys that run the country want us all off the road anyway.

As for the 10% + 2mph rule, when I had my speed awareness course I was told it will tighting up in 2006! How true that is I dont know but from what I was lead to believe errors will not be an excuse for much longer, the view is if in doubt go slower

Speed does not kill. Accidents have been proven to have increased since the introduction of speed cameras. Accidents to which speed is a contributary factor are very few indeed. Most accidents are in fact not accidents at all, they are due to human error. If a pedestrian ran out in front of you and you hit him with fatal consequences, who's fault is it? His of course. It wasn't an accident. He stepped into the path of an oncoming vehicle. I accept the injuries are greater when struck at higher speeds, thats fairly obvious, but that fact alone should not be used to make us drive slowly where we dont need to.

If I was driving along at 140mph on a deserted motorway, and my "W" rated tyre failed, I veered off the carriageway into a bridge stansion, is that a speed related accident. No, it was a tyre failure. The tyre is designed to be run at 169mph.

I have covered well in excess of a million miles all over europe and beyond, and the few accidents I have had/been involved in have all been at low speeds. Clearly this is not scientific proof of anything, but it tells me something.

I agree. Over 90% of pedestrian accidents are the fault of the pedestrian not the motorist, I don't see pedestrian cameras being installed anywhere and their Nike Air's being revoked when they do something silly! These are figures from the government's own TRL that they then contort to add weight to their own cash camera campaigns.

The 'ultra slow motorist' is one of my biggest gripes.Far worse than speeding.Promotes dangerous manoeuvres from motorists following someone driving at speed of a JCB with a similar tailback.Same applies to those driving slowly in the wrong lanes of the motorway.

I drive briskly...but I according to conditions,traffic etc.Go fast but do NOT tailgate.Those that do...you are idiots

As said,should be common sense re speeds.

I still rage just SEEING gatsos.They get me so incredibly angry and I see myself as a placid person.Gnaaaargh

Can i add something , what about the joyriders, and people that drive without even passing a test. For example on the news last week u had a boy of 6 driving in around in a BMW omg :eek:

That

I'm personally not all that bothered about gatso's... on the whole, most of them are easy enough to spot. No... what I do mind is talivans. Sneaky ******* hide wherever they can, sometimes illegally, all to earn even more money for the treasury.

It is undeniable that the fun is slowly but surely being taken out of driving. This is one reason why I am now happy enough driving around in a

I'm personally not all that bothered about gatso's... on the whole, most of them are easy enough to spot. No... what I do mind is talivans. Sneaky ******* hide wherever they can, sometimes illegally, all to earn even more money for the treasury.

I am completely the opposite - don't mind if I'm caught by a copper - it's the cameras I disagree with.

If a marked van zaps you it's a fair cop IMHO.

not when they prk on perfectly safe roads with stupid slow limits where no accidents happen but people aturally drive at 35-40 in a 30 when the road is perfectly afe. ******* indeed

Education!!!!!! This has not been mentioned... Driver trainning is pathetic...

You learn to drive in a 1 litre supermini, driving at no more than 60mph..

pass a test..

Then you can get behind the wheel of anything you like, drive on the Motorway at well over 100mph ,,etc etc.....

Lane discipline, correct use of indicators, keeping safe distances,

propert maintenance of vehicles, concentrating i.e. no smoking, eating,

reading, on the phone, applying makeup.. etc etc...

Incorrect use of lights, no legal must to change from summer tyres to winter tyres...

Lorries overtaking on Motorways ot dual carriageways taking miles to do it, due to the speedlimiters..

Condition of the roads, poor roadwork standards...

Also what happened to the 'Green cross code'? that used to be taught in schools.. to teach kids how to safely cross roads...?

No mention of speed....

I will give you an example of dangerous driving that happen to me this morning... I was travelling on the M62 leaving Manchester on my way up to Leeds... I'm sitting in the fast lane cruising along, when i spot in the distance on the hard shoulder a car that is sitting at right angles to the

traffic. Suspecting that this is a Plod I back off sightly and wait for a clearer

sighting... To my utter amazement it is a Citroen Saxo that obviously has missed there exit doing a u-turn on the hard shoulder/grass verge, then driving the wrong way up the exit slip road...!!!!! These are the sorts of idiots that Gatso's would not catch....

Dazz

You lot make me laugh sometimes.

If an accident happens, then a higher speed increases the chance of that accident being fatal. I agree that we should have more traffic police roaming the streets, but I bet not one is willing to allow an increase in income tax to pay for them. They need their training, uniforms, cars, equipment as well as wages. They do get pricey. Also, you are unlikely to find a traffic officer who always just sits there in a van/car and gets their speed gun out. Most are too busy dealing with other incidents and paperwork. Not sure if anyone has noticed but on some motorways now the DOT are employing people to help out on the motorways and major A roads in dealing with accidents, people broken and all sorts of things that are stopping the steady flow of traffic, look out for them, they drive 4x4's and have black and yellow battenburgs.

Aren't the motorway gantry signs controlled by DOT?