No, I agree, but there is a lot of undertaking going on because drivers stick in the middle lanes.
You have a good one then. The last 3 cars I have had read 34 to 35 MPH when I was doing a true 30 MPH. This was cross checked by the police, by the way. At higher speeds the error got worse by a large margin. I reckon that I could have a reading, in the car, of more than 85 MPH before the police got interested. Son is a policeman and he wouldn't be interested in anyone doing less than a true 81 MPH
We will have to wait for an independent verdict on that.
Again in English please?
Cost of setting up a camera - £20K first year. In a good location it can make that a month.
So does a camera catch:
The car obviously in a non roadworthy condition?
The tired / drunk / stoned driver wandering over the centreline and back again?
The driver cutting up another or driving discourteously?
The stolen car?
The under age / banned driver?
People driving too close?
Not paying attention?
Car overloaded?
Not signalling?
Poor observation?
The driver doing 30 in a 30 zone in fog, or by a school at 3pm?
The one with no tax or insurance?
The one hogging the centre lane?
The one using a mobile phone, shaving, reading the paper etc?
or not...
Nor does it prove it was.
It will be recorded as "dangerous cycling" - since that is what it was, and there is no offence of "causing death by dangerous riding" on the statute books.
Ah right - that would be one possibility...
Obviously not the case - even for you.
Are you offering to educate us?
Just stats huh? Not actual people then?
So you think the root of all road evils are people driving too fast and / or exceeding the speed limit?
If that is the case I believe you have an overly simplistic world view, however you are entitled to your own opinion so we will have to agree to differ.
Since when are fines or other road taxes hypothocated back into road improvements?
In English again?
I was irrevocably destroying your argument that exceeding the posted speed limit is in itself dangerous.
Job done.
Why?
I do - a good many of them anyway. Not sure why writing to my MP is an alternative to obeying the law though?
Stick your fingers into your stationary mains socket and report back...
RTAs generally require at least some moving vehicles. They can be fatal regardless of whether any of them are going too fast.
His death resulted from his own behaviour certainly. Excess street furniture does however have the effect of making many roads less safe.
You seem to think it is an either or situation. With experience and education he may have been able to avoid either.
Yes, I see your point, after all young lands never drive when disqualified or even when under age do they?
Concentration and observation is vital when driving. I switch off to the car radio, my wife talking and my amateur radios. Anyone that can't do that should be taken off the road. Many has been the arguments that I don't listen to my wife when encountering junctions and roundabouts, even when she is trying to tell me which lane I need to exit from. So if I can do this, why can't other drivers do it? All they have to do is clear their minds and focus on the job in hand.
So, since they would be aware the death was cased by something the camera can't possibly help prevent in future, why did they bother unless they *wanted* to put a camera somewhere and that was adequate justification according to the rules.
Political, financial, EU camera mountain, quota to use, or just stupidity? Your call.
Anytime I use any motorway anywhere in the country lots of vehicles are travelling at 90mph+. Unless heavy traffic slows them down. I'd say it's a tiny minority that travel at 70 - most are either over or under.
It didn't say anything about riding on the pavement on t'telly and the cctv picture they gave showed him riding on the carriageway. Situation could easily have been a case of militant pedestrians pushing their luck.
They could have charged him with manslaughter if they thought it appropriate.
Does a none existent police man? You are using the same old irrational argument about it replacing policemen when it is in addition too. You really need to try harder.
So you will claim it wasn't due to going too fast.
You think that stopping it will have no effect. You think adding in automated methods of catching speeders is wrong. Who do you think you are kidding if you think I take anything you say seriously anymore?
Since safety cameras were introduced, the fines have to be put back into road safety by law.
s/why/who/
How does that do any such thing? Have you got figures for how many accidents they have when speed limits are imposed on similar sets of drivers? How do accident rates compare in road works with 50 mph limits and those without?
Only in your rather closed mind.
Try thinking.
It won't kill me, I have a high resistance to mains shocks. I have had several in the past.
It made it safer for anyone on the other carriageway. Improving safety for drivers usually makes it worse for others.
Maybe, but probably not.
They might not if they are better educated or experienced.
Agreed. It has become a modern standard. With the recent increase in fuel costs, I 'try' to to observe the speed limit, but when travelling to or from Portsmouth and Preston, the boredom factor kicks in and then I don't have a clue as to my speed, as long as it is faster than most cars :-)
Dave Unless heavy traffic slows them down. I'd say it's a
As was the case in my recent accident. I was leaving a car park onto a dual lane road when one car, driving at about 25 to 30 MPH started to drift into the lane I was going to join. I took the sensible action of coming to a stop. I was rammed from behind by a driver that was not following the traffic.
Indeed, there is no such charge as speeding on a peddle cycle.
More likely to be a case of furious cycling (could be riding, not too sure now.)
I doubt that it was ever thought of when there used to be so many bikes 'on the roads'.
They are now known as RTIs now. Road Traffic Incidents. The PW brigade changed it a few short years ago :-(
A few weeks ago, I saw a police officer with 2 of the children from a local primary school with a camera, mounted on a tripod for the children, at the side of the road, so I parked up off road and went over to talk to him. I said to him that it was a pity that we didn't see more of him in the area (there is a big problem with speeding cars in the area). He told me that the problem was getting hold of a camera. Just where are they all?
You seem to have a short term memory problem. You were the one who claimed that a *camera* would catch "the idiot drivers are the ones that drive too fast and get caught".
I pointed out that a camera was not able to catch the majority of the dumb things people do on the road. To which you said: "So you always claim". So I listed a small selection of the things a camera can't catch and you do a quick body swerve and start talking about police men in the hope that we had not noticed you trying to change the argument after you backed yourself into a corner.
I don't know the circumstances of the case, and neither do you since all we have seen is news coverage.
It seems unlikely however that 17mph is too fast in most road conditions. If he was on the pavement then the speed is not relevant since he should not have been riding on the pavement anyway.
It could not possibly have "no" effect, it will have some obviously. The nett effect may not however be beneficial or even desirable however. I have no doubt it would give some satisfaction to those with self important peaked cap wearing tendencies, but I expect the overall RTA death rate would rise, as human nature steps in an compensates in ways you can't predict.
I suggest you do some reading on "Risk Homostasis"
The safety numpties thought much the same when they made wearing of seatbelts compulsory. Indeed there appeared to be a dramatic drop in driver fatalities. Alas when they remembered to remove the beneficial effects of clamping down on drink driving from the stats (a program which coincided), they found the overall death rate remained about the same. Fewer drivers were killed, however more cyclists and pedestrians died instead keeping the total about the same.
Not in all cases. However I don't believe cameras are an alternative to proper policing and education. Alas they seem to be proposed as such by many.
I am sure my words carry as little weight with you, as yours do with most of us here. However it is worth pointing out the weakness of your arguments so that other readers may be given a chance to form their own opinions.
That is true, they are allowed to buy more speed cameras with the money.
That could explain a few things... Electroconvulsive therapy by any chance?
In there is a significant point that tends to miss the Elf'n'saftey mob. If you take a bunch of drivers accustomed to moving at a reasonable speed for the conditions, vehicles, and quality of road, and force them to travel artificially slower, then their attention becomes distracted, they get board, and start taking less care in general.
If you are going to enforce this situation, at least save it for the higher risk (but non obvious to some) situations like road works etc.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.