[NicolasB]

Originally Posted by Jenn

In France the speed limit on motorways is 80 mph so in France he'd have been 7mph over the limit if he was on a French motorway which is within the tolerance therefore not considered to be extremely dangerous.

French motorways aren't necessarily built in exactly the same way that ours are. They may, for example, be wider or have gentler curves.

Originally Posted by sidicks

Yes some camera sites have shown a reduction in deaths accidents

Most of them, in fact.

(which could be just as much due to statistical effects as a genuine long-term improvement, as often these sites were chosen where there had just been a higher than normal number of accidents.

If the fact that a particular location is a known blackspot for accidents caused by drivers driving too fast is not a reasonable criterion for choosing where to put speed cameras, how else would you do it?

And if you don't judge success by the fact that the number of accidents falls dramatically from a peak immediately prior to the camera being installed, how do you judge it?

reason placing a speed camera at that Equally there are many other sites that have shown no improvement or even a worsening of accident rates after cameras have been put in. Often the prescence of a camera merely moves the accidint further down the road, as inattentive driving causes panic braking for the camera and someone else travelling too close can't stop in time...

This is one of the most wonderfully twisted pieces of logic I've ever seen. You're saying that speed cameras might cause accidents because speeding drivers suddenly slam the breaks on to get down to legal speeds when they see the camera. Your solution to this is to abandon the camera. Wouldn't a better solution be to drive within the speed limit, thus ensuring that you don't have to suddenly slam the breaks on to drive legally?

The way to make the system safer is to have cameras everywhere, and have them unmarked, so there is no stretch of road anywhere in the country where anyone feels they can drive dangerously fast with impunity. There'd be no sudden slamming-on of brakes, then, would there?

I have no patience whatever for people who regard speed cameras as "declaring war on motorists", or feel that the police are somehow "cheating" by putting the cameras in places where they are difficult to see. If you don't want to pay fines, don't commit crimes. That's a far more sensible strategy than whining that the police are somehow not playing fair because you broke the law and they caught you. If your attitude is that you should be allowed to break the law any time you feel like it and always get away with it, you will get no sympathy from me.

[Ian J]

Not the rights and wrongs of speed cameras again




.

[colinwheeler]

Originally Posted by mcfarfs

And a blowout at 70mph would be remarkably different, would it? I don't think so. Obviously it would be slightly less hazardous, but only very slightly.

Having had blowouts at both of those sort of speeds, yes, it does. Most (especially small cars) loose considerable stability that is not proportinate anymore over the 70 range.

[colinwheeler]

Originally Posted by mcfarfs

To be honest the fine doesn't bother me, fair enough £60 I deserve it. It is the points which I think are the real deterrent, especially as I can only get 6 within two years or I lose my licence.

£60 for doing 87 in a 50 zone. Me thinks not. Although what do I know, only ever got one fine in this country and was means tested for it...Ouch.

[Reepicheep]

Originally Posted by Mr Cat

hi, sorry to hijack this thread - but I've a quick query here...

I wrote my pug 306 off about a year ago and i was only 3rd party insured and I did inform the insurance about it...

will this affect my claims bonus as essencely they didn't have to pay up or anything..?

cheers

If you read your insurance policy documents it will more than likely say that you have a duty to inform your insurer of anything that would effect your policy. This include any accidents, even if you are not claiming off your insurance.
Not declaring the accident would not only effect your future premiums, but would probably void you insurance completely!

[lovemunkey187]

Originally Posted by mcfarfs

To be honest the fine doesn't bother me, fair enough £60 I deserve it. It is the points which I think are the real deterrent, especially as I can only get 6 within two years or I lose my licence.

You don't just lose your licence you're also banned for aminimum of 2 years when you then have to redo the theory and practical tests. These details are taken into consideration when you next get insurance.

My friends 25yo wife lost her licence the insurance on an entry level 206 or Polo that was on something like a K or L reg(this thing had no power steering no leccy windows, radio only. Really basi) was nearly £1500 to reinsure. Something to bear in mind.

[Mylo]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Surely if you're getting points 'off' your licence you are doing well - its getting points 'on' your licence that you need to worry about...?

Speaking from experience, the sort of people that describe people driving at 80mph in a 70mph limit as dangerous drivers are the same people that travel everywhere at 43mph, including 30mph limits, 40mph limts, 50mph limits, 60mph limits..................!!!

sidicks

If you read my post carefully I am stating that his lack of experience is the danger and it was 87 mph

As driving everywhere at 43 mph I don't think so


While I think of it, Moving to Motoring.

[mcfarfs]

Originally Posted by colinwheeler

£60 for doing 87 in a 50 zone. Me thinks not. Although what do I know, only ever got one fine in this country and was means tested for it...Ouch.

It wasn't a 50mph it was a 70mph limit.

[Mylo]

are you sure? some Dual carriageways are still 50 mph.

[mcfarfs]

Originally Posted by Mylo

are you sure? some Dual carriageways are still 50 mph.

Oh ****. Are they really? I never knew that.

It was on the A21 between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge, just approaching Tonbridge if anyone knows the area?

I have never seen any signs saying 50mph..........

[Mylo]

has it got lights on it?

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/SEK/sek070.htm If it's this area you could be lucky.

[mcfarfs]

No I don't think so.....

[Mep]

they may just have the white signs with a black line across which means "national speed limit applies"

[mcfarfs]

Originally Posted by Mylo

has it got lights on it?

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/SEK/sek070.htm If it's this area you could be lucky.

Oh my god I was so worried for a second there. I know I was stupid to speed, so a fine I can deal with and three points will be a right biatch but losing my licence would be awful.

Should be ok though it is this camera.

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/SEK/sek062.htm

[Mylo]

Originally Posted by mcfarfs

Oh my god I was so worried for a second there. I know I was stupid to speed, so a fine I can deal with and three points will be a right biatch but losing my licence would be awful.

Should be ok though it is this camera.

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/SEK/sek062.htm

could be a very valuable lesson learned.

[Figment]

I was going to launch into a full response response to Mr Sidicks ill informed post but after reading Nicholas B's well informed and extremely sensible post he has in fact covered most of what I would have said anyway. I would add though that anyone gullible enough to believe a word of what the BDA publish deserves every thing they get for following their advice when the bitter truth comes back and bites their bum. As for quoting TRL statistics I have in the past personally spoken to their Professor Frank Mckenna probably the foremost expert in the country in this subject who was outraged by the use of that much quoted statistic that in fact was I believe taken from one small local study many moons ago. Of course speed kills, the ferocity of any impact is directly proportional to velocity. This is why it has been proven time and time again that pedestrians are likely to survive an impact of less than 30 and unlikely to survive at more than 30. No one is saying all accidents are caused by speeding or even that it is the biggest cause. The point is that when an accident does happen if the vehicle involved is speeding then the end result is far more likely to be serious or fatal. Assuming for one second that the percentage quoted was right, which it isn't, is that to say we should accept that 7 in every 100 road deaths is acceptable enough to allow speeding to go on without enforcement? and just imagine what the figures would jump up to if there was no enforcement. I agree that there are other forms of enforcement that are equally important that are not being addressed such as plain bad driving that traffic officers used to police, but when the government dictates that officers have targets based on points system and arresting junkies etc gives more points than policing motoring offences what are they gong to spend their time doing do you reckon ?
As for advocating speed limits as used in other countries I don't believe it is by luck that this country has the lowest rate of serious and fatal accidents in the world bar none but being complacent could soon change that. I sincerely hope that none of you become a victim.

[Figment]

By the way if it was a national speed limit which unless it was signposted otherwise almost certainly was then 87mph is within the fixed penalty range. Just bear in mind that for the first 2 years after getting your licence you only need 6 points to get banned rather than 12.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Figment

Of course speed kills, the ferocity of any impact is directly proportional to velocity. This is why it has been proven time and time again that pedestrians are likely to survive an impact of less than 30 and unlikely to survive at more than 30.

Yet again the main point has been missed.............

Clearly the faster someone is travelling, the greater the implications of an accident. Energy is actually proportional to velocity squared, so an increase in speed has a dramatic effect.

If a pedestrian has been hit then either a) the pedestrian has been inattentive and walked into the road, or the driver is being inattentive and not observed the pedestrain or c) the driver was travelling too fast to stop in the distance he could see safely. However the driver would not have necessarily been speeding (i.e. exceeding an arbritrary limit).

By targetting 7% of the accidents we are missing out on the other 93% due to other causes.

The point I'm making is that certain drivers seem to think that by travelling under the set speed limit you are automatically a safe driver and conversely travelling over the limit you are a dangerous driver.

I agree that if you exceed the limit then you deserve what you get. I'm also in faour of more 20mph limits around schools and residential areas. However there should also be higher limits on motorways and certain dual carriageways.

If you think that SOME cameras are only placed in accident blackspots and not for revenue generation then you are very naive.

Sidicks

[Bristol Pete]

Personally I am appalled by the lack of integrity showed by mcarfs throughout this debate. Firstly, I must stress that I have just walked home from the pub and as such am drunk but this is shocking. You were caught doing 87mph on a road restricted to maybe 50 mph and you state that the conditions warrant it. Seriously, you have a lot of growing up to do. Pull your finger out kid, before you kill yourself or someone else. I am not joking. If I met you in person I would read you the riot act. 17 or not, I could not give a ****, just think about it and sort it out. You cannot turn back the clock and your actions at 17 will only come back to haunt you at 30 odd.

Pete.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by NicolasB

The way to make the system safer is to have cameras everywhere, and have them unmarked, so there is no stretch of road anywhere in the country where anyone feels they can drive dangerously fast with impunity.

Your whole argument is based on your opinion that if you are travelling above the set speed limit (which was probably set 30 years previously) then you are automatically driving dangerously....

Presumably you would still have someone walking in front of a car waving a red flag to warn pedestrains of the car's imminent arrival....?

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Captain Benefit

Personally I am appalled by the lack of integrity showed by mcarfs throughout this debate. Firstly, I must stress that I have just walked home from the pub and as such am drunk but this is shocking. You were caught doing 87mph on a road restricted to maybe 50 mph and you state that the conditions warrant it. Seriously, you have a lot of growing up to do. Pull your finger out kid, before you kill yourself or someone else. I am not joking. If I met you in person I would read you the riot act. 17 or not, I could not give a ****, just think about it and sort it out. You cannot turn back the clock and your actions at 17 will only come back to haunt you at 30 odd.

Pete.

That's just a stupid thing to say - the offence was for 87mph on an open dual carriageway (70mph limit) with only one other car on the road. You have no evidence that this was dangerous driving.


From what I've read, at no point does mcarfs say that he shouldn't be punished for his offence, he was just asking for some indication of the punishment he might expect.

Maybe you should grow up and check some facts before posting?

Sidicks

[Bristol Pete]

That's just a stupid thing to say - the offence was for 87mph on an open dual carriageway (70mph limit) with only one other car on the road. You have no evidence that this was dangerous driving.


From what I've read, at no point does mcarfs say that he shouldn't be punished for his offence, he was just asking for some indication of the punishment he might expect.

Maybe you should grow up and check some facts before posting?

Idiot. Please stop defending a 17 year old kid who was clearly speeding in the wrong place at the worng time. Your mentality is evident when you try and defend this type of drving or indeed post. Your retort says it all, even if it was 'only' 87 in a 70 miles per hour zone, he was still 17 miles per over the limit.

I rest my case.

Thanks.

Peter.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Captain Benefit

Idiot. Please stop defending a 17 year old kid who was clearly speeding in the wrong place at the worng time. Your mentality is evident when you try and defend this type of drving or indeed post. Your retort says it all, even if it was 'only' 87 in a 70 miles per hour zone, he was still 17 miles per over the limit.

I rest my case.

Thanks.

Peter.

So if the circumstances were exactly the same except the limit was 90mph not 70mph, then suddenly it would no longer be dangerous because he's not exceeding the speed limit?


What do you mean by wrong place at the wrong time?


Sidicks

[Curry Monster]

Havent read all of the thread so sorry if I am repeating anything...

But working in the telematics industry has given me an interesting insight into things such as vehicle speed.

Recently having worked with shell on their round the world trip (we supplied and installed the real time satellite based tracking equiptment)(www.fuelchallenge.com) we discovered that vehicle spedos are very inacurate.

The car thats travelling the world is a Brand new Golf mk5 1.6 FSI and on the timing and distance equiptment (used for shells official mpg figures) showed that when the cars spedo was reading 80mph it was actually travelling at 71.4mph...

So if this is the case with a new car on brand new tyres etc then a Ford fiesta I would imagine be far more inacurate.

So 87 mph may feel fast and impress your 14 year old girlfriend...but you may have been travelling alot slower than you think.

Not slow enough to not set the camera off but maybee slow enough to just get 3 points and a fine...

Also is it not the case in the first 2 years of passing your test if you gain more than 6 points you get an instant ban and have to retake your test?!



Slow down or you will be back to a mountain bike quicker than you and your mates can shout 'boggies' in a local library. You have been warned by alot of experienced drivers from the forum.Listen to the advice before you either become banned or even worse dead...

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Baldybouncer

Not slow enough to not set the camera off but maybee slow enough to just get 3 points and a fine...

Slow down or you will be back to a mountain bike quicker than you and your mates can shout 'boggies' in a local library. You have been warned by alot of experienced drivers from the forum.Listen to the advice before you either become banned or even worse dead...

Good advice!!

[Bristol Pete]

What do you mean by wrong place at the wrong time?

Simply that he obviously speeds but this time the camera quite rightly caught him.

Your argument for 90mph is misinformed, as such using your ethos, he would then be travelling at 127mph, again in 'relativity', 30 mph over the limit and in big trouble.

Please stop now.

Cheers.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Captain Benefit

Simply that he obviously speeds but this time the camera quite rightly caught him.

Your argument for 90mph is misinformed, as such using your ethos, he would then be travelling at 127mph, again in 'relativity', 30 mph over the limit and in big trouble.

Please stop now.

Cheers.

I'm asking a reasonable question - in your opinion, if on the exact same stretch of road, the limit was 90mph not 70mph and he was travelling at 87mph, would it still be dangerous?

Sidicks

PS: I think you'll find that 90mph + 17 mph = 107mph (although that is irrelevant to the question I posted). We have already established that he was travelling, at most, 17mph over the posted limit.

I think the problem today with road safety is the government obsession with speeding, and brain washing of the public to believe this is the only way to cut road deaths. This has been done for one simple reason, to make cash.
Before i get jumped on, i believe speeding is an issue that needs to be addressed as part of road safety, but it is not the ONLY factor in improving safety on our roads. Too many people believe that if people didn't speed then there would be no accidents, the government and police like to encourage this stance. Its nothing but ******** and propaganda aimed at filling the coffers full of cash.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by golfvr6

I think the problem today with road safety is the government obsession with speeding, and brain washing of the public to believe this is the only way to cut road deaths. This has been done for one simple reason, to make cash.
Before i get jumped on, i believe speeding is an issue that needs to be addressed as part of road safety, but it is not the ONLY factor in improving safety on our roads. Too many people believe that if people didn't speed then there would be no accidents, the government and police like to encourage this stance. Its nothing but ******** and propaganda aimed at filling the coffers full of cash.

Common sense prevails at last!!

Sidicks

[mcfarfs]

Originally Posted by Captain Benefit

Personally I am appalled by the lack of integrity showed by mcarfs throughout this debate. Firstly, I must stress that I have just walked home from the pub and as such am drunk but this is shocking. You were caught doing 87mph on a road restricted to maybe 50 mph and you state that the conditions warrant it. Seriously, you have a lot of growing up to do. Pull your finger out kid, before you kill yourself or someone else. I am not joking. If I met you in person I would read you the riot act. 17 or not, I could not give a ****, just think about it and sort it out. You cannot turn back the clock and your actions at 17 will only come back to haunt you at 30 odd.

Pete.

Unless you were driving along that particular stretch of road, at that time on that day, then I don't think you are in nearly such a strong posistion as me to judge what would be safe speed, regardless of whether or not you have more years driving experience.

I'm not sure what you mean you would read me the riot act? I look forward to it though!