It's not speeding that kills, it's the reckless driving that does.

Cloudcuckooland springs to mind

With most forces being strapped for cash by government cuts, where are these vehicles and officers going to appear from, thin air?

Many busy city centres struggle to have officers on the beat dealing with 'real crime' as you put it, let alone putting them all out on mobile patrol, where at best they can probably only process one vehicle at a time on a physical stop

For me the education element came from having to pay for the SAC, I don't want to get points, fines etc for getting caught again

Those who learn nothing from being caught on numerous occasions arguably deserve everything they get

You slightly miss the point. We are told that speeding is dangerous, but there is little proof that it is. Therefore the government doesn't actually target resources at this area because they know it'll make little difference to safety on the roads.

 

Therefore the reason we're being told that "speeding is dangerous" is in order to justify using speed enforcement cameras and raising cash that way (keep telling people the same message over and over and eventually they'll believe / accept it).

It's just another cynical and manipulative mode of government that leads to people being less trusting of politicians. And also, interestingly, the storey appears at a time when fuel prices (and corresponding tax and duty revenue) is declining, therefore leading to the conclusion that they are making up the shortfall via speeding fines.

 

Motorist's have long been seen as a group fit for fleecing by successive governments and it gets a lot of people (me included) pretty p***ed off!

If "speeding" is defined as driving too fast for the conditions, then there is no excuse. If it's simply defined as breaking a law, then the legal limit for safe driving should be open to debate. Let's have variable limits everywhere. 50 in busy periods as is the case in managed areas, and maybe 80 or 90 at 3am on an empty m way. Make them zero tolerance so there is no speed creep as is the case now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30841666

 

Presumably you'd see a fine for shoplifting as a tax as well?

You slightly miss the point. We are told that speeding is dangerous, but there is little proof that it is. Therefore the government doesn't actually target resources at this area because they know it'll make little difference to safety on the roads.

Therefore the reason we're being told that "speeding is dangerous" is in order to justify using speed enforcement cameras and raising cash that way (keep telling people the same message over and over and eventually they'll believe / accept it).

It's just another cynical and manipulative mode of government that leads to people being less trusting of politicians. And also, interestingly, the storey appears at a time when fuel prices (and corresponding tax and duty revenue) is declining, therefore leading to the conclusion that they are making up the shortfall via speeding fines.

Motorist's have long been seen as a group fit for fleecing by successive governments and it gets a lot of people (me included) pretty p***ed off!

I didn't miss the point

I merely mentioned the word resources

There simply isn't the money to police everything, so something has to give

Bad driving can happen anywhere, gone are the days where it is cost efficient to have two officers sat in a patrol car just in case something happens

I presume you'd rather have officers doing that to being able to come out quickly if, heaven forbid, you were burgled or robbed etc

People always want to push boundaries

Apologies if I've said this already, but when you learn to drive, pass your test, choose to drive, you know clearly what the law is regarding speed limits

You might think they are outdated, you might not agree with them, you might think they should be conditional on the circumstances and time of the day, you might think they are used as tax collectors

But at the end of it all, from day 1 you know the rules and the laws, by implication if you drive you agree to abide by those rules, whether it be a city centre, country road, or empty motorway

There really is nothing more to it than that

^^^^^^
This.

 

I speed sometimes, but I'm fully aware of the risks I'm taking and know that if I get caught (Which amazingly has never happened) I've got nobody to blame but myself.

But there was never the intention to direct police resources at speeding because it simply isn't the danger that the government keeps trying to propagate.

 

I agree that we all know the speed limits, but the problem is that the the actual limits set are arbitrary and whilst national speed limits are effectively set by government, local speed limits are set by councils and therefore can vary on similar roads in different places. They also do not take into account circumstances (except on the variable limits on motorways), so there are times when driving at or below the limit can be dangerous but drivers are never caught, hence the reason why accident statistics remain fairly consistent despite the number of speeding tickets issued.

 

It's a classic case of government action done in the name of protecting the public, yet having little or no impact and only serving to raise money. It's easier for governments if they can show they are doing something, even if it's not the right thing, rather than put in place the actions that are really needed to improve road safety as they are too difficult / expensive and as callous as it sounds, every death has a value and if the value isn't high enough, action won't be taken.

 

What the government should do is to make it a policy announcement that speed cameras will not be active when variable limits are not set. That way drivers understand and accept that their use during those times are valid and that at other times drivers use their discretion to drive at appropriate speeds like they do on other stretches of the motorway network. 

I speed sometimes, but I'm fully aware of the risks I'm taking and know that if I get caught (Which amazingly has never happened) I've got nobody to blame but myself.

That's tempting fate for sure!!

 

Perhaps we should open a book on how many days 'til the Doctor gets his first ticket - I'll start with a conservative 138 days.

I give up

Some will argue black is white until they are blue in the face

But there was never the intention to direct police resources at speeding because it simply isn't the danger that the government keeps trying to propagate.

 

 

 

So where is your evidence for that contentious comment? 

Rubbish!

If you want to break the Law, be it speeding or anything else, then you can expect to get caught and pay for your consequences.

Tough, but that's life.

If you don't like it I suggest you sell your car and travel in another way.

Rubbish!

 

In a Democracy, the Law is only upheld and enforced through acceptance by the majority of the people.   Over 80% of motorway users exceed the 70 mph limit therefore the law is not enforceable.   We do not have anarchy, rather we have a government and a police force that cannot and will not accept the wishes of the citizens.   Repeatedly, by successive politicians over the years, we have been promised an 80 mph limit on motorways only for the House of Commons to fudge the issue on every occasion it has been raised.

Anarchy?   We came very close to it in the late 1980's - it could happen but right now people have been too cowed by the great recession.

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by bealine

Rubbish!

In a Democracy, the Law is only upheld and enforced through acceptance by the majority of the people. Over 80% of motorway users exceed the 70 mph limit therefore the law is not enforceable. We do not have anarchy, rather we have a government and a police force that cannot and will not accept the wishes of the citizens

I can't believe I've read that

For fear of repeating myself, what you suggest is that if 80% of people think rape is OK, it becomes unenforceable

You really have lost the plot

Rubbish!

 

In a Democracy, the Law is only upheld and enforced through acceptance by the majority of the people.   Over 80% of motorway users exceed the 70 mph limit therefore the law is not enforceable.   We do not have anarchy, rather we have a government and a police force that cannot and will not accept the wishes of the citizens.   Repeatedly, by successive politicians over the years, we have been promised an 80 mph limit on motorways only for the House of Commons to fudge the issue on every occasion it has been raised.

 

I'd imagine more than 80% would also elect to not pay any taxes also.......................  The law only being enforced through acceptance bit, sounds a bit like the FOTL mindset. If that is the case, it's more a reference to statutes and acts of parliament being enforced by the consent of the governed, as opposed to the borader term 'law', being common law which does not. The RTA though being an act does indeed require the consent of the governed, but by obtaining a driving licence, you have essentially agreed to this and therefore given your consent and as such fully subject to and responsible for the consequences of your actions whilst in control of a motor vehicle on a public road..... ie big boys rules....

The ones on the M62 already do flash even when there is no reduced limit displayed, because then they're enforcing the standard 70MPH limit.

 

Yup! I was on there the other week. About 5pm doing 70mph just joined the motorway.

 

There were loads of people flying past me and I saw the cameras flash several times.

 

I had to chuckle as they slammed on the brakes after the flash... to late!

 

I just take it easy now and stick to 70mph max on the speedo (so even less in reality). Takes no more time really and save a bit of fuel too!

 

Phil

My only issue with these cameras is the lack of road markings...  How do I contest a ticket if there are no road markings to back my claims up?

Yup! I was on there the other week. About 5pm doing 70mph just joined the motorway.

 

There were loads of people flying past me and I saw the cameras flash several times.

 

I had to chuckle as they slammed on the brakes after the flash... to late!

 

I just take it easy now and stick to 70mph max on the speedo (so even less in reality). Takes no more time really and save a bit of fuel too!

 

Phil

 

Yea the speedo thing is one  bring up when I hear people winging like biatches when caught out. Generally speaking as I see it with speedometer accuracy being out by 5-10% model dependant, most cars you need the speedometer to be displaying 80mph+ to be at a true speed of the generally used prosecution threshold of 10%+2mph over the enforced limit. So they were never 'just over' as far as their driving goes, they were travelling at a speed well above the limit, which if they intentionally do an are detected no problem, their licence. But when these retards cry and complain about it as it's unfair because they were speeding and paying so much attention that they couldn't see a speed camera which for the 99% of cases are painted yellow ffs....... My brain goes into melt down! 

I'd imagine more than 80% would also elect to not pay any taxes also....................... The law only being enforced through acceptance bit, sounds a bit like the FOTL mindset. If that is the case, it's more a reference to statutes and acts of parliament being enforced by the consent of the governed, as opposed to the borader term 'law', being common law which does not. The RTA though being an act does indeed require the consent of the governed, but by obtaining a driving licence, you have essentially agreed to this and therefore given your consent and as such fully subject to and responsible for the consequences of your actions whilst in control of a motor vehicle on a public road..... ie big boys rules....

I'd agree with most things there, Fub, other than the consent required of the governed to the RTA

We are ruled by a government effectively, and it is although some of us might not agree with Acts of Parliament, if Acts of Parliament are passed properly we have to comply with them, consenting or otherwise

If it were any other way there would have to be a referendum on every single piece of new legislation

Yup! Agreed!

 

It's just not worth the risk IMO.

 

The extra stress, fuel consumption, fines, points, increased insurance premiums and increased risk of accidents... is it really worth 5 extra minutes of your time!?

 

Phil

My only issue with these cameras is the lack of road markings...  How do I contest a ticket if there are no road markings to back my claims up?

 

That is a valid and genuine concern and does pose a good question on the proof of validity where no system is totally infallible. I do agree strongly that road markings should be used in all cases of fixed cameras for clarity. That said in a fixed position I would imaging they are surveyed and certified at a set angle and with an established distance and range to a capture area, within this any 2 or more fixed points can and could be used in establishing speed where motion video or a minimum of 2 still photographic images are captured. As with almost the entire Road Traffic Act though, it does leave the driver feeling that they are guilty until proven innocent, which is inherently wrong IMO. 

I'd agree with most things there, Fub, other than the consent required ot the governed to the RTA

We are ruled by a government effectively, and it is although some of us might not agree with Acts of Parliament, if Acts of Parliament are passed properly we have to comply with them, consenting or otherwise

If it were any other way there would have to be referendum on every single piece of new legislation

 

That is how it works in effect with being subject to and required to act in accordance with, but I only mentioned as the comment seemed reminiscent of the growing popular culture of FOTL/FMOTL 'movement' which constantly focuses on the subject. A statute can only carry the force of law with the consent of the governed, which is an accurate technical fact in it's wording both legally and lawfully speaking and something which is protected under common law, again 'technically' (broadly technical as it hinges on legal definitions to establish itself....... THIN!), no matter how irrelevant or out dated that is today. However some choose to bleat about it and attempt (failing epically) to use it to their own end picking and choosing what should apply to them based on what they are likely already guilty of and trying to avoid prosecution or just contributing to modern society (tools). By the structure of our society and system of publicly elected government in place, by using the services of, we are by default in acceptance of an subject to compliance with all that is passed through both houses of course and that is essential for the system to work as is.  There is no option for an individual to turn around and say once caught "I do not accept / I do not stand under" etc etc. But it's fascinating and comical to watch some wasters try it on. I do appreciate those who actually live their lives fully under common law, but not the Jeremy Kyle cast, who try and abuse the system for their own ends. 

 

That said while there will always be people who do not agree with this and that with regards to the rules of society, we do have some absolutely absurd acts which most dictatorships wouldn't be so bold as to enforce. 

I can't believe I've read that

For fear of repeating myself, what you suggest is that if 80% of people think rape is OK, it becomes unenforceable

You really have lost the plot

 

If 80% of people thought rape or robbery acceptable then, yes, in a true democracy it would be legal.   However, we all know that the vast majority of us find rape, robbery, vandalism etc anti-social and agree, by and large, with the way justice is administered,

 

Deciding to break the speed limits on the motorways is not anti-social at all, and interferes with no one, providing one does so with due regard to conditions and other road users.   In fact, drivers who are speeding slightly and then slam the anchors on when they spot a camera, Highways Agency vehicle or police car are far more of a danger to us all!

So where is your evidence for that contentious comment? 

Start by looking at the index table and selecting the appropriate government statistic spreadsheets from here https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/road-accidents-and-safety-statistical-tables-index

 

Deciding to break the speed limits on the motorways is not anti-social at all, and interferes with no one, providing one does so with due regard to conditions and other road users.   In fact, drivers who are speeding slightly and then slam the anchors on when they spot a camera, Highways Agency vehicle or police car are far more of a danger to us all!Y

You might not find speeding anti-social, many people do, including myself (admittedly this research was on residential roads) http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR3936.aspx

 

It's also worrying you think you are safe on the motorway at 80-85mph. You probably are, just so long as no other traffic at all is allowed and you are the only vehicle.

 

Speeders are a danger to all of us. It's next to drinking and driving in my mind, when things go wrong the results are very much the same in either case, yet many people see one as being ok and the other not.

 

We all know the speed limit, if you can't stick to it don't drive.

 

It's also worrying you think you are safe on the motorway at 80-85mph. You probably are, just so long as no other traffic at all is allowed and you are the only vehicle.

 

 

 

At 4.00 am on a dry, clear motorway (which tends to be the time I go to work)  - of course 80 mph is safe (as it happens, I don't exceed an indicated 80 mph which is a true speed of 73 mph.)   On a two lane autobahn in Germany, I have driven at 130 mph perfectly safely and legally.   Of course 80-85 mph is not safe in fog, or falling rain with reduced visibility - the time most people seem to speed up!   If 80 mph is so unsafe, why has every other country in the world (except the USA - 56 mph in some states, 70 mph in others - and Germany unlimited) accepted 130 kph (80 mph) as the motorway limit?

 

Since the 70 mph limit was introduced:

 

1.   Tyre technology has improved.

2.   Legally, all cars must have at least 2mm tread depth with no cuts or scuffs that have penetrated the sidewall.

3.   Cars have power steering

4.   Cars have anti-lock brakes 

5.   Drivers (in theory) have all had superior training to those who obtained licences under "grandfathers' rights"

The speed limit should be set at 80 mph as successive governments have promised - end of!

 

Interestingly enough, fatal accidents involving members of the public are declining.   Fatal accidents involving police vehicles are increasing.   What does that tell you?

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by bealine

What really "grinds my gears" (Family Guy anyone?! lol) are people who speed in 20, 30 and 40mph zones!

 

I've seen some real idiots lately too. There was a woman yesterday about 30 something years old I would say in her Volvo S80 (I think- the big one) D5 doing what looked like 60mph+ along a 30mph road approaching a 20mph zone. I was speechless. Just a vacant expression on her face with her foot mashed to the floor!

 

Also all the roads in our area are 20mph which I agree with. They're quite narrow road with lots of kids around, dogs, cats and a school nearby. Nobody else seems to stick to it! I can guarantee that everytime I go out in the car there will be some tool sat on my back bumper trying to push me past 20mph.

 

These are the speeders that need to be tackled not somebody doing 80mph on a motorway!

 

Phil

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by Phil-E