OT: How come no one has mentioned...

[PCPaul]

OK, I'll rephrase it. 'at your speed +100'

[PCPaul]

I know of at least two cases where the 'death on the road' was caused by a deliberate suicide *of a pedestrian*.

Speed was not a causative factor *at all*. In one case the deceased jumped off a bridge and was killed by the fall, so the presence of moving traffic was totally irrelevant.

[Andy Champ]

There's one like that on my way to work. On a 1km section of urban dual carriageway, with horrible complex dangerous junctions at each end. I'm not surprised they've had three accidents within 500m of the camera - which is halfway down the dual carriageway.

This is followed by a place where a 30 limit was extended with new development at the edge of a village. So they stretched the 40 to meet the 30 - over a motorway flyover. Obviously it was imperative to have the 40 limit over that bridge, if only to control noise for the locals.

Or it could be wrong.

Andy

[dennis]

Blatantly untrue, there are plenty of more dangerous things to do if you aren't driving.

[dennis]

Obeying the speed limits doesn't require you to drive at the speed limit. Do you know how to drive or are you a pedestrian?

You can't drive. You have no idea how to drive as the above comment proves.

[dennis]

So? You get done for dangerous driving if you are driving at an unsafe speed. This is about breaking speed limits. You can done for driving too fast even if you are below the speed limit BTW.

Also speed limits are set for reasons other than safety in many cases. One example is a reduced limit to reduce the traffic noise. Only the idiot drivers think speed limits are only about safe driving.

[dennis]

It is never safe to exceed the limit.. other road users may not be used to some idiot speeding down the road and do something that results in an accident.

Yes if only people were more sensible than you.

So? Do you never make mistakes, besides all the ones in your post?

You must be getting desperate.

Your ideas are just daft.

Why does having cameras stop any of this? You claim they generate revenue so they can pay for the education.

No but the idiot drivers are the ones that drive too fast and get caught. Any good driver will never get caught. If you are worried about getting caught you are not a good driver!

Who cares? Speed is a factor and its easy to enforce with cameras, allowing the police to do other things.

You think its OK to exceed the limit so its evidence that you don't know how to drive. Your arguments are pretty stupid when you think about it. Like.. its safe to drive on the wrong side of the road in the early hours. its safe to drive without lights on in the early hours. its safe to jump red lights in the early hours.

All are as true as your statement that you can exceed the speed limit in the early hours.

Part P *is* stupid.

[dennis]

They should be worried.. they step them down gradually.. if it suddenly goes to 40 there is imminent danger.

It is simple, if you break the law you should expect to be done. This is nothing to do with what is safe, that is just an excuse used by speeders to justify their law breaking.

Its not a problem as blue light services are allowed to break the speed limit if it is safe to do so. They aren't supposed to do anything that endangers others even if it kills the patient.

[dennis]

So?

[Rod]

Not always. And a general being worried is not a reason to slam brakes on - especially if following vehicles do not have at least as good stopping capacity.

But the fundamental justification for speed limits is usually danger. (Possible other reasons, such as noise, pollution levels, etc. seem rarely cited - even by those justifying limits.) So of course it is something to do with what is safe - albeit with different viewpoints on what people think is safe.

But you have claimed that exceeding the speed limit always increases the danger. That they are allowed to does not alter the fact that they do exceed posted limits.

[Dave]

I live in the Preston area. For 18 months I see a sign in the middle of the motorway that says 'Clear'. Next thing I know, I am running into the back of the trafic that is heading into Blackpool on the M55.

Those signs are as much use as those that advise that you are X minutes from a junction that you have no knoledge of. Another one is the one that advises that there is spray on the road when it is raining. How many millions did Gordon spend on those? What driver does not know that spray happens when it rains?

I am in the middle of defining what a double yellow line is. Which way should I go next?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I have driven somewhere over half a million miles in all sorts of vehicles including motorbikes - for which I hold a full licence. And have never been involved in an accident where anyone was hurt - or had one which was my fault. I have, however, been run into a few times by wankers like you who prefer looking at their speedometer than the road.

[John Rumm]

So what speed would *you* drive on a deserted Autobahn?

[John Rumm]

You obviously don't think this stuff through before parroting it do you?

When is the last time you drove down a motorway? It is not uncommon to find just about all users exceeding 70. So I can't see it coming as a surprise for them that yet another motorist is doing 80.

Here we go again - personal attacks based on your own presumptions.

I will let my record stand against yours any day.

Not at all, you were the one suggesting that fine revenue was a non issue. The collectors of the revenue obviously see it differently.

In your opinion perhaps, but what relationship does that have with reality?

Because it allows the various bodies charged with maintaining and improving road safety to side step their responsibility and still maintain some plausible deniability that they are "doing something". One camera at £20K is significantly cheaper than a trained traffic officer on patrol. What is more they make the clearup stats look good since it is one "crime" that can be detected, solved, and added to the stats with little effort.

Like the "road fund licence" pays for new roads huh?

Idiot drivers do many inappropriate things - most of which are not capable of being caught by a speed camera. Remember in most accidents inappropriate or excessive speed is not an issue.

Ah, so the fact that I have never been caught means I am a good driver now does it? You seem to change your tune quite frequently.

Personally, no I am not worried generally. However as camera proliferation increases the number set to try and catch people out will no doubt increase. Remember even the best drivers speed sometimes (note we are talking 32 in a 30 limit here - not 70 past a school at 3pm)- its almost inevitable if you are devoting your attention to road conditions and the driving environment.

I thought you cared about road safety? Perhaps not...

It would seem sensible to make policy and devote ones efforts to the things that will have greatest impact. Not target the smaller percentages just because they are easy.

What no answer?

You seem to be confusing me with someone else... however no mind.

No, does not really make much sense in general. Safe to use the full width of the road in some circumstances certainly.

No, don't follow your logic there.

It would probably be quite safe to make many more traffic lights part time, and have them switch off after a certain time.

Again, not something I said.

However many or our roads are of a design that would allow significantly higher speeds when conditions permit with no safety issue. The fact that the 70 MPH limit on motorways is universally ignored, and we have the busiest roads in Europe, yet we still have the best safety record tends to support this.

You will also note that if you compare the roads to those in other countries that are unlimited, that the design is not significantly different.

Even the unlimited sections of the German Autobahns have fewer accidents per billion vehicle km than a good proportion of the rest of Europe.

So is blanket coverage with speed cameras. However I bet they will kill far more people this year than part P.

[John Rumm]

There was no justification to install a camera on safety grounds. However it was down anyway, which leads to the only plausible reasons being political motivation or financial.

Was that not obvious?

[dennis]

More evidence that you can't drive. I have driven half a million miles and not had an accident (well I scraped my door mirror when I opened the door without looking once). The last accident was while I was parked and was some idiot like you that thinks he can drive. So that makes two in about three quarters of a million miles. Just how many accidents have you had? Why were you not sufficiently aware to avoid them? I just wish they had twenty ear no accident discounts.. they would be paying me. The wife has never had an accident in twenty years either. Have you thought about attending driver education?

[dennis]

However far I could see.

That wouldn't be 150 mph at night and it would be less than the speed limit.

[dennis]

You are proving you are daft. You are spewing drivel that has nothing to do with obeying the law.

You would be wrong to do that.

How? The police set up a camera and fine a few idiots and it costs them cash. They have to pay to police the idiots, you think they make a profit. Even after you have been told they don't make a profit you persist in trying to make out they do.

More than yours by the sounds of the rubbish you come out with. Do you still think all speed cameras are operated for profit? I bet you do.

Have you noticed less police since they started having cameras? If so post the evidence. They have more here.

Take that up with your local operator of the safety cameras. They have accounts so you can see where the cash goes. Don't bother with the other speed cameras as the cash goes where all fines go.

So you always claim. The facts are a little different. Just because an accident is recorded as someone jumping a light or drunk driving doesn't mean it wasn't the idiot going too fast that caused the crash. What do you suppose the idiot cyclist that killed the pedestrian was recorded as? He was doing about 20 mph on the pavement but it wont be down as speeding.

That is irrational, but your whole argument is irrational and based on lies.

If you can't drive within the law you can't drive. Takes some driver education and learn how to.

The statistics are just that, statistics. Look at how they are recorded and stop spouting cr@p.

Or do both if cameras generate revenue like you claim they can pay for the other.

To what?

So what? If you want the speed limits increased write to your MP. Otherwise obey the law.

A stationary object can't kill anyone. Something has to be moving too fast to kill someone. I suppose you think the idiot that wrapped his car around a speed camera on the Newton Road was killed by the camera and not by him being an idiot speeder. Personally I think its better that he killed himself than some innocent road user. Its a shame there weren't enough cameras around to get him disqualified before he killed himself.

[dennis]

If you think the vehicles behind can't stop if you do why are you driving too fast?

There is a big difference between a vehicle with flashing lights and a siren speeding and a car doing the same. Even so my daughter was nearly killed when an idiot in a fire engine came around a blind bend on the wrong side overtaking when he shouldn't have. It would have been really good to have totaled a school minibus just to get to a fire where there might have been someone trapped. Not all fire engine drivers are good.

[dennis]

The better ones say X min to junc Y Z miles.

Well they are there so they may as well use them.

Not much of the total.

The same idiots that don't know the speed limit or how fast they are driving?

Use a pantone swatch chart?