NationStates Jolt Archive

On the news yesterday, motorists were complaining about 2 speed camaras because in about a year, they had collected £750,000 in fines.

'Highway robbery' they yelled.

Er.... no!

You only get fined if you break the speed limit - also know as breaking the law! Fool!

That's like a robber saying after being arrested, 'Help! I'm being kidnapped.'

I'm just wandering if anyone else has a similar opinion.

The problem over here is that you'll get ticketted even for going ~2mp/h over the speed limit, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The problem over here is that you'll get ticketted even for going ~2mp/h over the speed limit, which is absolutely ridiculous.

You are still speeding though, aren't you?

It is a speed Limit not a speed target

You should not exceed the limit. If you were not punished for going 2mph over, then when would you be punished? 5? 10? 20?

The problem over here is that you'll get ticketted even for going ~2mp/h over the speed limit, which is absolutely ridiculous.
You're sure about that? Not around here. They can adjust the camera to what ever they like but they never give you tickets if you drive less than 10% over the limit. Usually (what I've heard) it's set to 15% over limit.

There have been a lot of complaints in Manhattan about the speed cameras. People have been ticketted for going not even 1mp/h over the limit.

There have been a lot of complaints in Manhattan about the speed cameras. People have been ticketted for going not even 1mp/h over the limit.
Well that's just plain robbery.

Well that's just plain robbery.

It is.

There have been a lot of complaints in Manhattan about the speed cameras. People have been ticketted for going not even 1mp/h over the limit.

As I said, you are still speeding. Therefore you have still broken the law.

You must have a cut-off point, which is the speed limit.

well for a start an increase in speed cameras tends to lead to a decrease in the number of police patrolling a road. so bad driving (which is way more likely to cause a crash than doing 5mph over the speed limit) goes undetected more often.

and whats the sense in giving someone a ticket for doing 75 on a clear, dry motorway on a sunny afternoon?

there isnt any, its perfectly safe to be driving at that speed. speed doesnt kill, bad driving and inappropriate speed does.

edit: and theres also a question mark over their accuracy.

Excuse me while I step out of this thread and never come back. I have found it quite useless to debate with people such as yourself, so I'll do everyone a favor by just vanishing.

*leaves*

As I said, you are still speeding. Therefore you have still broken the law.

You must have a cut-off point, which is the speed limit.
If I'd drive under the speed limit in city, I'd cause much more dangerous situations than if I drive at the same speed like everyone else.

If I'd drive under the speed limit in city, I'd cause much more dangerous situations than if I drive at the same speed like everyone else.

But they will get fined, because they are breaking the law.

Would you let a robber get away because he only stole on candlestick from your house?

But they will get fined, because they are breaking the law.

Would you let a robber get away because he only stole on candlestick from your house?
stealing a candlestick harms the person it was stolen off.

who does doing 75 on a motorway harm?

nobody.

As I said, you are still speeding. Therefore you have still broken the law.
You must have a cut-off point, which is the speed limit.
You know that the average speedometer isnt a very precise instrument, right? Even the digital versions only seem to be exact. Which is why a lot of countries give a certain leeway, around 10%, to compensate for that. Otherwise everyone would drive 50 where 55 is allowed. This leads to traffic jams and slow-moving car collums, which is not very popular either.

stealing a candlestick harms the person it was stolen off.

who does doing 75 on a motorway harm?

nobody.

If everybody does it, then people get involved in car crashes etc.

if you can do it, everybody should be able to.

Simple. The Government has decided it is unsafe for people to drive over 70mph on the motorway, and they may or may not be right.

The point is, it is against the law.

But they will get fined, because they are breaking the law.

Would you let a robber get away because he only stole on candlestick from your house?
No they won't because I live in Finland and it looks like our police forces are a bit more reasonable than in some other countries.

Would you let a robber get away because he only stole on candlestick from your house?
No! I would grab my trusty shotgun/pitchfork/torch, assemble the good, law-abiding neighbours for a lynch mob and hang that sucker from the highest tree! Thats will teach him! :rolleyes:
Of course i would let him go, work on my home security and leave it that way. Do you have any idea how much stress is involved when you get the police and insurance just for that? I can think of better ways to waste precious hours of time over a non-existing damage.

If everybody does it, then people get involved in car crashes etc.
no they dont. bad driving gets people involved in car crashes, and with less police on the roads, after being replaced by speed cameras, its easier to get away with bad driving. Why do you think the accident rate has been going up?

if you can do it, everybody should be able to.
thats the general idea.

im not saying everybody should drive at 100mph, im just saying appropriate speed for the conditions, regardless of what the speed limit is. if its a clear, dry day with light traffic, then whats wrong with 75 on a motorway? theres nothing wrong.

at the same time, 35 in a busy housing estate is a very bad idea. even 30 generally is too much.

its all about appropriate speed and good driving

Simple. The Government has decided it is unsafe for people to drive over 70mph on the motorway, and they may or may not be right.

The point is, it is against the law.

the government has also decided that marijuana is illegal, yet it doesnt harm anyone who doesnt choose to use it.

i see you live in England.

Do you practice your longbow every week?

Sure do!

As I said, you are still speeding. Therefore you have still broken the law.

You must have a cut-off point, which is the speed limit.

There is one slight problem with that though. Not all speedometers measure exactly the same speed, in research done (i've looked all over and can't find it, but it was on a show called Top Gear here in the UK) they have found there is up to a 5-6% difference between the various manufacturers in what speed they show on the speedo and what the car is actually doing. Therefore, you could be 'doing' 29mph in a car and still get done by the camera.

Do you practice your longbow every week?
I think the real question is does Moley actually drive???

In my future world order speeding or dangerous driving will result in the destruction of your vehicle-regardless of who is in it at the time.

A car crash almost killed my sister a few years back-I 'aint gonna allow it to happen again. :mad:

I think the real question is does Moley actually drive???

LOL

Nope

LOL

Nope

Oh please... Moleys not the driving kind... :D

moleland is absolutely right, i wont bother repeating his/her argument.

now to go slightly off topic...

i dont have a car, i have a bike. i have never been stopped for speeding, and im likely to do a lot less damage to anyone i hit. cycling keeps me extremely fit and healthy. although my average speed is up to about 20mph, i still get places at the same time, or quicker than cars, because i can take the deserted cycle paths where as cars queue up in trafic jams. for example, i live just outsde norwich in norfolk, uk. its about 4 miles to the city centre from here, and it takes me 20 minutes to get there via a disused railway track. in a car, especially at rush hour it can take 25-45 minutes. if im going the other way, into the countryside where the roads are clear, it takes me about twice the time it takes a car to get somewhere. of course, i cannot carry much stuff with me, but i only have to take books etc. (of course these speeds etc are based on my experience as quite a fast cyclist.)

our countries would be much better if more people cycled. cycling would help to reduce CO2 emmissions, reduce the obesity problem, clear congestion on roads, and, in my opinion, make people much happier, as cycling is a very pleasurable experience. and you wouldnt need to worry about speed cameras.

so, if you need to make a journey of about 8 miles or under, and you dont need to carry anything huge, just cycle.

Oh please... Moleys not the driving kind... :D

I would be a danger on the roads...

lOL

LOL

Nope
Point, Set, Match :)

moleland is absolutely right, i wont bother repeating his/her argument.

now to go slightly off topic...

i dont have a car, i have a bike. i have never been stopped for speeding, and im likely to do a lot less damage to anyone i hit. cycling keeps me extremely fit and healthy. although my average speed is up to about 20mph, i still get places at the same time, or quicker than cars, because i can take the deserted cycle paths where as cars queue up in trafic jams. for example, i live just outsde norwich in norfolk, uk. its about 4 miles to the city centre from here, and it takes me 20 minutes to get there via a disused railway track. in a car, especially at rush hour it can take 25-45 minutes. if im going the other way, into the countryside where the roads are clear, it takes me about twice the time it takes a car to get somewhere. of course, i cannot carry much stuff with me, but i only have to take books etc. (of course these speeds etc are based on my experience as quite a fast cyclist.)

our countries would be much better if more people cycled. cycling would help to reduce CO2 emmissions, reduce the obesity problem, clear congestion on roads, and, in my opinion, make people much happier, as cycling is a very pleasurable experience. and you wouldnt need to worry about speed cameras.

so, if you need to make a journey of about 8 miles or under, and you dont need to carry anything huge, just cycle.


Thankyou! some reinforcement!

It's a he.

so, if you need to make a journey of about 8 miles or under, and you dont need to carry anything huge, just cycle.
yes, i would look forward to getting run over every morning on my way to uni in the pouring rain. lovely.

ill stick to the ridiculously overpriced, overcrowded, too irregular, and generally shit bus service for that (but only because theres never any parking at uni), and the the car for most other journeys.

moleland is absolutely right, i wont bother repeating his/her argument.

now to go slightly off topic...

i dont have a car, i have a bike. i have never been stopped for speeding, and im likely to do a lot less damage to anyone i hit. cycling keeps me extremely fit and healthy. although my average speed is up to about 20mph, i still get places at the same time, or quicker than cars, because i can take the deserted cycle paths where as cars queue up in trafic jams. for example, i live just outsde norwich in norfolk, uk. its about 4 miles to the city centre from here, and it takes me 20 minutes to get there via a disused railway track. in a car, especially at rush hour it can take 25-45 minutes. if im going the other way, into the countryside where the roads are clear, it takes me about twice the time it takes a car to get somewhere. of course, i cannot carry much stuff with me, but i only have to take books etc. (of course these speeds etc are based on my experience as quite a fast cyclist.)

our countries would be much better if more people cycled. cycling would help to reduce CO2 emmissions, reduce the obesity problem, clear congestion on roads, and, in my opinion, make people much happier, as cycling is a very pleasurable experience. and you wouldnt need to worry about speed cameras.

so, if you need to make a journey of about 8 miles or under, and you dont need to carry anything huge, just cycle.
Dont know about England, but here, it really is great when cyclists are three across riding around blind corners in a 100km/h zone through the hills :rolleyes:

only too happy to help!

got it, moleland=he.

yes, i would look forward to getting run over every morning on my way to uni in the pouring rain. lovely.



all part of the challenge!

Dont know about England, but here, it really is great when cyclists are three across riding around blind corners in a 100km/h zone through the hills :rolleyes:

three across? shocking!

me and my cycling freind go two across, but thats legal here.

ii believe speed cameras are fine, in ausralia fines range from $100 to $200 and they only book u if your going over the limit by 3 km\ph

The stuff is called speed limit for a reason, I think penalties for it should be even higher. I mean, how many people get killed in traffic accidents in Europe per year? 50,000? And how many % of those accidents are caused by speeding? I'd say the majority.

I think Germany is in the right way, if they catch you at pretty high speeds, you not only have to pay a nice fine, you also get points on your licence. You get too many points, bye bye licence. Austria has something similar. If they catch you at 40 km/h over the limit, you can kiss your licence good bye for a while. The fine itself isn't that high, but eh... you usually are forced to visit a driving school again after a while and that really costs money.

Good idea I say.

three across? shocking!

me and my cycling freind go two across, but thats legal here.
Cyclist have no restricions, except to keep off footpaths

edit: oh and helmets

The stuff is called speed limit for a reason, I think penalties for it should be even higher. I mean, how many people get killed in traffic accidents in Europe per year? 50,000? And how many % of those accidents are caused by speeding? I'd say the majority.

I think Germany is in the right way, if they catch you at pretty high speeds, you not only have to pay a nice fine, you also get points on your licence. You get too many points, bye bye licence. Austria has something similar. If they catch you at 40 km/h over the limit, you can kiss your licence good bye for a while. The fine itself isn't that high, but eh... you usually are forced to visit a driving school again after a while and that really costs money.

Good idea I say.

australia has the same thing, but get points off no matter what, and if going too fast about 30km too fast you loose your licence, works well

*Smiles at people echoing my own opinion. Needs not say anything*

australia has the same thing, but get points off no matter what, and if going too fast about 20k too fast you loose your licence, works well
Not really, there are still plenty of deaths on the roads, but that could be that our roads are pathetic.

isnt it funny that the NT has no speed limit and has the lowest road toll in Australia?

Not really still plenty of deaths on the roads, but that could be that our roads are pathetic.

isnt it funny that the NT has no speed limit and has the lowest road toll in Australia?

it would be alot worse if it wasnt so strict

and nt has like 100,000 people, thats why

You're sure about that? Not around here. They can adjust the camera to what ever they like but they never give you tickets if you drive less than 10% over the limit. Usually (what I've heard) it's set to 15% over limit.
No 79mph on the M6, middle of a sunny day no other cars in site. 3 points, thank you very much.

On the news yesterday, motorists were complaining about 2 speed camaras because in about a year, they had collected £750,000 in fines.
'Highway robbery' they yelled.
Er.... no!
You only get fined if you break the speed limit - also know as breaking the law! Fool!
That's like a robber saying after being arrested, 'Help! I'm being kidnapped.'
I'm just wandering if anyone else has a similar opinion.

I agree completely. There should be more speed cameras, if it's the only way to get people to drive responsibly and not endanger people's lives.

As for the speed limit, over here you're allowed to exceed it by 5kph, to prevent the unfairness to fining someone who accidentally went over by just a tiny bit.

it would be alot worse if it wasnt so strict
I think my second line addresses and dismisses that. Also look at statistics for the Autobahn which has no speed limit

I think my second line addresses and dismisses that. Also look at statistics for the Autobahn which has no speed limit

REMEMBER NT HAS LITTLE TO NOBODDY THERE, AND MOST OF EM DRIVE TRATORS ANYWAY AND THERE SO BLOODY SLOW

I agree completely. There should be more speed cameras, if it's the only way to get people to drive responsibly and not endanger people's lives.

no its not

more police on the roads enforcing the 'rules of the road' and punishing bad driving is the only to get people to drive reponsibly and not endanger peoples lives.

Another point. People who say it is highway robbery.

The two speed camaras I mentioned raised £750,000 in fines.

A lot of money you say?

Each motor-fatality results in a cost on the tax payer of £1 million.

So if they prevent 1 accident, they are already saving money.

and nt has like 100,000 people, thats why
........ Cause the weather sucks?

no its not

more police on the roads enforcing the 'rules of the road' and punishing bad driving is the only to get people to drive reponsibly and not endanger peoples lives.

The police are just as effective as Speed camaras.

People only slow down when they can see them. They speed again when they are out of sight.

The only difference is the police have to stop people to fine them, and also they cost much more money.

Another point. People who say it is highway robbery.

The two speed camaras I mentioned raised £750,000 in fines.

A lot of money you say?

Each motor-fatality results in a cost on the tax payer of £1 million.

So if they prevent 1 accident, they are already saving money.
what source do you have for those stats?

what source do you have for those stats?

A person from the highway comission on the news... I'm not sure where I can find a quote though...

*runs off to look*

REMEMBER NT HAS LITTLE TO NOBODDY THERE, AND MOST OF EM DRIVE TRATORS ANYWAY AND THERE SO BLOODY SLOW
lol

yet thats only a stereotype, have you looked at my other example?

hint: the Caps Lock key is slightly to the left

A person from the highway comission on the news... I'm not sure where I can find a quote though...

*runs off to look*
Dont worry bout it mate im not really taking this debate seriously :)

The reality is that speed limits were originally put in place in the US as a means to temporarily lower gas consumption. When that occurred, there was a significant decrease in accidents noted.

From that point forward, speed limits were about safety. It is a result of statistics PROVING that speed limits save lives.

Sorry, can't find it

On the news yesterday, motorists were complaining about 2 speed camaras because in about a year, they had collected £750,000 in fines.

'Highway robbery' they yelled.

Er.... no!

You only get fined if you break the speed limit - also know as breaking the law! Fool!

That's like a robber saying after being arrested, 'Help! I'm being kidnapped.'

I'm just wandering if anyone else has a similar opinion.

In general speed cameras are not the most reliable things.
Their speed measurement isn't exactly perfect,
so sometimes you get caught when you're not speeding.

Police love speed cameras as you can make $$$ with minimal effort through fines.

Scnarf, get a life and don't bag the NT when you don't live there.

To add my own thoughts I think the money spent on speed cameras plus the money the current ones make should be used for funded advanced driving courses, if a person realised his own ablity, the cars ability and the condition of the surface etc, there would be many less accidents. As people wouldnt lose control if they didnt exceed them.

To add my own thoughts I think the money spent on speed cameras plus the money the current ones make should be used for funded advanced driving courses, if a person realised his own ablity, the cars ability and the condition of the surface etc, there would be many less accidents. As people wouldnt lose control if they didnt exceed them.

Fines tend to spent on repairing roads, and improving road safety anyway....

On the news yesterday, motorists were complaining about 2 speed camaras because in about a year, they had collected £750,000 in fines.

'Highway robbery' they yelled.

Er.... no!

You only get fined if you break the speed limit - also know as breaking the law! Fool!

That's like a robber saying after being arrested, 'Help! I'm being kidnapped.'

I'm just wandering if anyone else has a similar opinion.

i agree entirely!

The police are just as effective as Speed camaras.

People only slow down when they can see them. They speed again when they are out of sight.

The only difference is the police have to stop people to fine them, and also they cost much more money.
a police car driving up and down a stretch of motorway or road, with a clear police presence will make people pay more attention to their driving than a speed camera every now and then ever would

police dont just catch speeders, they can pull people over and speak to them about their driving, point out if theyve done something bad, punish those who do something stupid. a speed camera can never do that. thing is, dangerous and poor driving, poor lane discipline, lack of signals, not looking in mirrors etc cause alot more crashes than simply doing 5mph above the limit.

there could be a car going along at 75 on the motorway, with the driver doing everything perfectly expect the speed, sticking to the right lanes, always following mirror, signal, manouvre...being the model driver, but they would still get a ticket

then there could be a car going along at 65, swerving about, with a drink driver, not indicating, not looking in mirrors, and the camera doesnt care, it just ignores that car and snaps the driver who is doing everything right.

If everybody does it, then people get involved in car crashes etc.

if you can do it, everybody should be able to.

Simple. The Government has decided it is unsafe for people to drive over 70mph on the motorway, and they may or may not be right.

The point is, it is against the law.

You like obeying, don't you? Many of us in the US are still rather rebellious in nature. We question authority because no one has a "right" to rule.

An arbitrary number was plucked out of the air by a VERY small number of people (some weren't even elected to represent the populace)--this is the problem.

Cars have different braking distances, humans have different reaction times. Why the change from 55 MPH to 65MPH in the 80s? Isn't it more dangerous? Shouldn't we protect people more?

The racket that the "authorities" run when trying to fund their already over-inflated budgets just goes to show that those in power try to get more power.

so if i drive at 69mph in a 70mph limit I'm doing right?
What if its foggy? in that situation the limit should be 10mph.

The limits should reflect the conditions.

I also belive that we should be retested for reaction times, ability to predict traffic flows etc. and get a licence that restricted car performance to match.
The idea is that a 30 year old with experience and good reactions can drive sports cars, as they will drive them sensibly, but 17 year olds and 70 year olds will be limited to 950cc hyundai's cos they cant read the road or are too slow to react.

Fines tend to spent on repairing roads, and improving road safety anyway....
not really its hard to say which funds are spent where, also didnt you say that if it reduced fatalities it would save us lots of money? The maintainance of Australian roads is woefull

You like obeying, don't you? Many of us in the US are still rather rebellious in nature. We question authority because no one has a "right" to rule.

An arbitrary number was plucked out of the air by a VERY small number of people (some weren't even elected to represent the populace)--this is the problem.

Cars have different braking distances, humans have different reaction times. Why the change from 55 MPH to 65MPH in the 80s? Isn't it more dangerous? Shouldn't we protect people more?

The racket that the "authorities" run when trying to fund their already over-inflated budgets just goes to show that those in power try to get more power.

The point is, if you don't speed, you don't get fined. Ignoring the possible problems with speed camara and speedometer accuracy.

Didn't read my other point? It cost more money clearing up car accidents, then preventing them with camaras.

The concept of speed cameras is fine - use them to free the police up for more important work (how many times have I heard my Dad ask a cop "shouldn't you be chasing a REAL criminal?"). Nobody said to do away with traffic cops in patrol cars - if they aren't busy writing speeding tickets they can patrol for more serious offences.

I worry that they can actually cause dangerous conditions and worsen traffic flow. If the traffic on any busy street in the UK was driving at the speed limit you would still see half the motorists STAND on the brakes as they pass a speed camera. In addition to almost getting themselves rear-ended, this causes a ripple effect on a busy road and results in heavy traffic snarls. I think that you should only have speed cameras if they are in very plain view and the speed limit is clearly marked on them.

Fines tend to spent on repairing roads, and improving road safety anyway....

Well, supposedly. It's like Australians paying taxes on fuel which is supposed to go fixing roads, but they only go fix roads when people start dying in road crashes on dodgy roads.

so if i drive at 69mph in a 70mph limit I'm doing right?
What if its foggy? in that situation the limit should be 10mph.

The limits should reflect the conditions.

I also belive that we should be retested for reaction times, ability to predict traffic flows etc. and get a licence that restricted car performance to match.
The idea is that a 30 year old with experience and good reactions can drive sports cars, as they will drive them sensibly, but 17 year olds and 70 year olds will be limited to 950cc hyundai's cos they cant read the road or are too slow to react.
the problem I have with power restrictions is, say we have a family with one car, their child gets their licence but cant drive the well maintained family car, the chances are they will be fairly poor on their $6 and hour wage at Micky D's, they will likely buy a $500 lemon with poor handling and bad breaks, which in my opinion is dangerous

The concept of speed cameras is fine - use them to free the police up for more important work (how many times have I heard my Dad ask a cop "shouldn't you be chasing a REAL criminal?"). Nobody said to do away with traffic cops in patrol cars - if they aren't busy writing speeding tickets they can patrol for more serious offences.

I worry that they can actually cause dangerous conditions and worsen traffic flow. If the traffic on any busy street in the UK was driving at the speed limit you would still see half the motorists STAND on the brakes as they pass a speed camera. In addition to almost getting themselves rear-ended, this causes a ripple effect on a busy road and results in heavy traffic snarls. I think that you should only have speed cameras if they are in very plain view and the speed limit is clearly marked on them.

They usually are. Speed limits are posted at the start of the road you are driving along AND camara warning signs are placed before you enter a stretch where they are.

The general rule of thumb here is within 10mph of the speed limit. More than that, you get ticked for speeding (if you exceed by 30, they charge you with wreckless driving)... if you go 10mph less, you get ticketed for obstructing traffic (this applies where the traffic pattern is moving around the speed limit). (The only place the 10mph lee-way is not in place is in school-zones, which are 25mph period). Unless it is a designated bike route, cyclists cannot ride line abreast (if they do, they will be ticketed for obstructing traffic).

I like it... There was some asshole not that long ago, comming out of rushhour moving away from the Oceana Naval Air-Station, moving at 2mph along the road, talking to somebody walking along the sidewalk, holding up an entire line of cars.... I laughed as people slowly began to pass him, and a State Trooper was right behind me, when I finally got around; the trooper turned his sirens on, and pulled th guy over.... woot!.

The lee-way is because speed-limit is set conservatively + the fact that the speedometers are not accurate.

The point is, if you don't speed, you don't get fined. Ignoring the possible problems with speed camara and speedometer accuracy.

Didn't read my other point? It cost more money clearing up car accidents, then preventing them with camaras.

Yes, if you obey, you don't get hit with the newspaper, I understand. I don't want to be ruled, however.

Charge the person responsible for the accident.

Yes, if you obey, you don't get hit with the newspaper, I understand. I don't want to be ruled, however.

Charge the person responsible for the accident.

Do you have £1 million spare? Do insurance companies have that kind of Money?

Are you willing to pay this in taxes or insurance costs... OPh wait? You already do.

The point is every tax payer (Not me.... yet) pays for everyone else accidents... one way or another.

The point is, if you don't speed, you don't get fined. Ignoring the possible problems with speed camara and speedometer accuracy.

Didn't read my other point? It cost more money clearing up car accidents, then preventing them with camaras.

the point should be if you drive safely you dont kill people.

If I hit someone standing in the middle of the road who I can see clearly while still in a position to stop, whether or not I am doing less then the speed limit is irrelevant, I would be a bad driver.

Yes you should drive under the limit, and I normally do. But there are plently of times when the limit is irrelevant. in some cases it could be higher in other lower.

If we had my testing scheme, we could have the driving licences as smart cards with your ability on them and that could cause engine limiters to keep the car set to your ability, you could also have a broadcast signal to allow bridges to have sensors to check data so you could catch those driving on forged/fragged cards.

You guys have turned this into an either/or argument.

It's interesting, really. Why do we conceive of new technologies as potential replacements for human workers, instead of as supplements? I mean, just because a machine is handy, doesn't mean that human workers aren't still handy too. And vice-versa.

Here's a case in point: I live in South Korea. I cycle here, and daily face hordes of extremely unsafe drivers. People here drive as if they're crazy. I'm not joking. If you're cycling, your regarded as not existing. Pedestrians have no business crossing the street on a WALK light because someone in a hurry may decide to run that red light, courteously holding up his hand and honking at people to excuse himself ignoring the law. People sometimes don't even slow down for little children who wander in front of their cars. That's why South Korea has the highest traffic-accident fatality rate (for both adults and children) in the developed world (the OECD anyway).

Now, cops are often young men. A lot of the people doing the boring street work are guys doing their 2 years of national service, who ended up doing police work instead of serving in the army. Now, if you know anything about Korean culture, older men are the top of the food Confucian chain. Not all of them are the type to collect on this, pulling rank, but I've seen some older men yelling at young traffic cops trying to ticket them. I've seen older women act all "listen little boy, don't bother me" with traffic cops. Now, in the West, people pull this kind of crap but cops basically have authority. Officially, it's the same here, but it doesn't really work that way. Here, some older guys will get away with speeding, being pulled over, and so on, because they're older than the cops in question.

For those guys, the speed cameras regulate their speeding, at least, they do until everyone develops a routine of slowing down near known cameras and speeding up immediately after them. (You can see the pattern on the highway, where EVERYONE knows the location of the cameras.) Given that this does develop, does it mean speeding cameras are a bad, ineffective technology?

Not if they're only supplemental to the police officers. If they were a replacement, they'd be useless. (Sadly, they seem to be conceived as a replacement for what little enforcement traffic laws get here -- which isn't much to begin with. So they are somewhat more useless.) But if they're well-placed, well-maintained, occasionally moved around, and most importantly understood as a SUPPLEMENT to police officers catching and fining speeders, then they are worthwhile.

And someone's comment about the automated destruction of cars that break traffic laws rang true for me... I have wished for such a thing; something like if someone breaks speed limits or other major traffic laws (running red lights, hitting something and not stopping to check, and the like), I would be all for the damaging or destruction of their car. Perhaps not an explosion -- that could injure other people all around -- but the locking of the engine, or even a total engine meltdown, would be nice. The very expensive eplacement/unlocking fees would be handled through authorized companies, and the bulk of the revenue would simply be tax -- a stupidity/recklessness-regarding-others tax that would be put towards road maintenance, development of better technologies for the same purpose, and defrayment of costs for treating those injured by such accidents and repairing public damage.

Except of course in the case of an attempted hit and run. Should it sense a hard collision with a human-like object and the presence of blood on any of its external sensors, and no decelration of the car to a stop, the car should completely lock down, the windows be immediately reinforced, and immediately decelerate of its own accord; then the car can sit and wait till an available cop responding to its outgoing emergency signal shows up to arrest the criminal, hopefully not too long after the ambulance has arrived for the accident victim. (And if someone was being attacked and used the car in self-defense, this can be explained to the officer who eventually comes.)

Of course, all the gun nuts will scream and whine about how this would infringe on freedom. But the only freedom it infringes on is the freedom to violate laws and endanger the lives of others, which, even libertarians would agree, none of us has the right to do on a regular basis. Rights and responsibilities both exist; one who cannot fulfill his or her responsibilities as a citizen (by merely not committing crimes) loses his or her rights to cheaper transportation, or even the right to autonomous transportation altogether.

Which is hardly objectionable in itself.

the point should be if you drive safely you dont kill people.

If I hit someone standing in the middle of the road who I can see clearly while still in a position to stop, whether or not I am doing less then the speed limit is irrelevant, I would be a bad driver.

Yes you should drive under the limit, and I normally do. But there are plently of times when the limit is irrelevant. in some cases it could be higher in other lower.

If we had my testing scheme, we could have the driving licences as smart cards with your ability on them and that could cause engine limiters to keep the car set to your ability, you could also have a broadcast signal to allow bridges to have sensors to check data so you could catch those driving on forged/fragged cards.

That's actually a good idea... But I can't see that happening soon... amybe in a couple of decades...

However, whats to stop me stealing your 'smart card' because it has a really high speed limit?

They usually are. Speed limits are posted at the start of the road you are driving along AND camara warning signs are placed before you enter a stretch where they are.

From a cyclist's perspective, that's fine and dandy. Not so much for a driver in traffic at 40mph. Each camera should have the speed limit posted ON it. I'm not nearly as worried about getting a ticket as I am about slamming into the guy in front of me who tried to get down to 30mph in a 40 zone in 10 feet.

See u Jimmy's scheme is interesting, too. Less intrusive, at least.

the problem I have with power restrictions is, say we have a family with one car, their child gets their licence but cant drive the well maintained family car, the chances are they will be fairly poor on their $6 and hour wage at Micky D's, they will likely buy a $500 lemon with poor handling and bad breaks, which in my opinion is dangerous

That is the reason for the basic MOT test. This test should never be "bought" because all they check are the brakes, structure, safety features (and the emissions stupid polititians).
You can pass the MOT but still have an illigal car.

Are you suggesting that we give new cars away?

Do you have £1 million spare? Do insurance companies have that kind of Money?

Are you willing to pay this in taxes or insurance costs... OPh wait? You already do.

The point is every tax payer (Not me.... yet) pays for everyone else accidents... one way or another.
the way you are looking at it is massively oversimplistic

bad driving causes crashes and kills people, not doing a few mph over the limit

You guys have turned this into an either/or argument.

It's interesting, really. Why do we conceive of new technologies as potential replacements for human workers, instead of as supplements? I mean, just because a machine is handy, doesn't mean that human workers aren't still handy too. And vice-versa.

Here's a case in point: I live in South Korea. I cycle here, and daily face hordes of extremely unsafe drivers. People here drive as if they're crazy. I'm not joking. If you're cycling, your regarded as not existing. Pedestrians have no business crossing the street on a WALK light because someone in a hurry may decide to run that red light, courteously holding up his hand and honking at people to excuse himself ignoring the law. People sometimes don't even slow down for little children who wander in front of their cars. That's why South Korea has the highest traffic-accident fatality rate (for both adults and children) in the developed world (the OECD anyway).

Now, cops are often young men. A lot of the people doing the boring street work are guys doing their 2 years of national service, who ended up doing police work instead of serving in the army. Now, if you know anything about Korean culture, older men are the top of the food Confucian chain. Not all of them are the type to collect on this, pulling rank, but I've seen some older men yelling at young traffic cops trying to ticket them. I've seen older women act all "listen little boy, don't bother me" with traffic cops. Now, in the West, people pull this kind of crap but cops basically have authority. Officially, it's the same here, but it doesn't really work that way. Here, some older guys will get away with speeding, being pulled over, and so on, because they're older than the cops in question.

For those guys, the speed cameras regulate their speeding, at least, they do until everyone develops a routine of slowing down near known cameras and speeding up immediately after them. (You can see the pattern on the highway, where EVERYONE knows the location of the cameras.) Given that this does develop, does it mean speeding cameras are a bad, ineffective technology?

Not if they're only supplemental to the police officers. If they were a replacement, they'd be useless. (Sadly, they seem to be conceived as a replacement for what little enforcement traffic laws get here -- which isn't much to begin with. So they are somewhat more useless.) But if they're well-placed, well-maintained, occasionally moved around, and most importantly understood as a SUPPLEMENT to police officers catching and fining speeders, then they are worthwhile.

And someone's comment about the automated destruction of cars that break traffic laws rang true for me... I have wished for such a thing; something like if someone breaks speed limits or other major traffic laws (running red lights, hitting something and not stopping to check, and the like), I would be all for the damaging or destruction of their car. Perhaps not an explosion -- that could injure other people all around -- but the locking of the engine, or even a total engine meltdown, would be nice. The very expensive eplacement/unlocking fees would be handled through authorized companies, and the bulk of the revenue would simply be tax -- a stupidity/recklessness-regarding-others tax that would be put towards road maintenance, development of better technologies for the same purpose, and defrayment of costs for treating those injured by such accidents and repairing public damage.

Except of course in the case of an attempted hit and run. Should it sense a hard collision with a human-like object and the presence of blood on any of its external sensors, and no decelration of the car to a stop, the car should completely lock down, the windows be immediately reinforced, and immediately decelerate of its own accord; then the car can sit and wait till an available cop responding to its outgoing emergency signal shows up to arrest the criminal, hopefully not too long after the ambulance has arrived for the accident victim. (And if someone was being attacked and used the car in self-defense, this can be explained to the officer who eventually comes.)

Of course, all the gun nuts will scream and whine about how this would infringe on freedom. But the only freedom it infringes on is the freedom to violate laws and endanger the lives of others, which, even libertarians would agree, none of us has the right to do on a regular basis. Rights and responsibilities both exist; one who cannot fulfill his or her responsibilities as a citizen (by merely not committing crimes) loses his or her rights to cheaper transportation, or even the right to autonomous transportation altogether.

Which is hardly objectionable in itself.

Another good idea.

In England, police do sometimes set up mobile speed camaras, with no warning signs.

Same in Germany too. I have one thats near my flat every now and then...much to the swearing of my flat mates who got caught once

Same in Germany too. I have one thats near my flat every now and then...much to the swearing of my flat mates who got caught once

LOL. So I can imagine.

The speed camera's here don't make sense.

Who on earth can keep to the 80km/h (50mph) limit on the 4 lane highway? Even the fastest interstate highway here is 110km/h (68mph).

Plus what police here like to do, is camp at the locations in between speed limits. Like between 110 and 90. So people who cross the border still doing 110 get caught. Then you'll see the roadblock a kilometre down and they'll probably ask for some "kopi duit" (Coffee money/ Bribe if your blur).

three across? shocking!

me and my cycling freind go two across, but thats legal here.Indeed, as long as the road conditions allow (which should be fairly obvious to the person on the outermost bike, who can then drop back/move on when they don't).

I speak as an almost lapsed cyclist (I don't much time these days) with experience of the road since... well, as long as I can remember. Can't even recall what age I graduated from the back of the tandem to my first solo bike (6 or 7, at a guess) but take that pedigree or leave it.

That is the reason for the basic MOT test. This test should never be "bought" because all they check are the brakes, structure, safety features (and the emissions stupid polititians).
You can pass the MOT but still have an illigal car.

Are you suggesting that we give new cars away?
No im just saying that newer/well maintained cars regardless of power have improved safety, hence the lower amount of older cars on the road the better.

anyway its not the speed that kills,




its the sudden stopping :cool:


:headbang: stupid puppet

What I've gathered so far from this thread is that you neither drive nor pay taxes, which leads itself to the assumption that you do not work. This leads me then to the assumption that you are either

A) Twelve

or

B) A businessman on a laptop being held at the end of a shank so your homeless assailant can spout off his words about obeying the man.

I'm leaning toward the twelve year old myself. Your righteous crusade for the collection of speeding fines is great and all, but I think your tone would change if you were driving along, speedometer pegged on 40 km/h and you get ticketed for 42. You were breaking the law there, right? But how were you to know? News Flash: They don't care if your car's speedometer isn't calibrated. They probably don't care if their own radar isn't calibrated. In fact, they'd rather have it that way, because they can make more money like that! And then there's the problem of everyone driving like an old grandma going 20kph on the expressway so they don't get nailed. That's safe, isn't it? Well, you may think so because you've never driven, but it's more hazardous than a speeder, that's for damn sure. See, it's not about 'breaking the law' so much as it is letting the government start taking a little bit every day.

Perhaps the government should start funding speedometer calibrations every month. That would help out, but then they'd be even farther from that 1,000,000 pounds that they would need to offset the cost of one death on the road.

B) A businessman on a laptop being held at the end of a shank so your homeless assailant can spout off his words about obeying the man.

You got me :)

so if i drive at 69mph in a 70mph limit I'm doing right?
What if its foggy? in that situation the limit should be 10mph.

The limits should reflect the conditions.

I also belive that we should be retested for reaction times, ability to predict traffic flows etc. and get a licence that restricted car performance to match.
The idea is that a 30 year old with experience and good reactions can drive sports cars, as they will drive them sensibly, but 17 year olds and 70 year olds will be limited to 950cc hyundai's cos they cant read the road or are too slow to react.

In France, they do have lower limits in bad weather, however varying speed limits are difficult to enforce (Imagine the potential for complaints if a speed camera was accidentally set at the bad weather setting in good weather).

And you try insuring a sports car for a 17 year old. If they will give you insurance (which many companies won't), it'll be very expensive.

there could be a car going along at 75 on the motorway, with the driver doing everything perfectly expect the speed, sticking to the right lanes, always following mirror, signal, manouvre...being the model driver, but they would still get a ticket

then there could be a car going along at 65, swerving about, with a drink driver, not indicating, not looking in mirrors, and the camera doesnt care, it just ignores that car and snaps the driver who is doing everything right.

You missed one detail, the driver isn't doing everything right, he's speeding, which is the easiest mistake to regualate, so is the most commanly picked up flaw in a person's driving.

No 79mph on the M6, middle of a sunny day no other cars in site. 3 points, thank you very much.

79mph is more than 10% of the speed limit, which is the point where a prosecution can no longer be disputed on the grounds of the speedometer being calibrated incorrectly, as you allowed 10% leeway. Also most manufacturers calibrate their speedometers so they will show a speed BELOW the actual speed, not above, so if your speedometer shows 30, you're probably doing 28.

Just had to ask, you managed to find a clear stretch of the M6 in the middle of the day?

79mph is more than 10% of the speed limit, which is the point where a prosecution can no longer be disputed on the grounds of the speedometer being calibrated incorrectly, as you allowed 10% leeway.I've a feeling the OP was refering to the 15% value of leeway at the time...

Also most manufacturers calibrate their speedometers so they will show a speed BELOW the actual speed, not above, so if your speedometer shows 30, you're probably doing 28.Is that the right way round? (Showing) 30 is above (actually) 28.

Anyway, I know what you mean. Speedos are erred towards ensuring you aren't going faster than you think you are (both for ego and safety reasons, I suspect), though still might vary, and it does not mean that you can't have an abboration and one which under-reports your speed.

What gets me, is the number of people who say "they always give 10% leeway, so I can drive at up to 10% faster than the limit"... It's a 70MPH zone, say, and you apply that, so you drive at (what you think is) 78MPH. Not too bad. But what if (despite the above bias) your equipment is reading 10% low. That's around 85MPH you're going, which may be 'safe', but certainly isn't playing by the rules...

When it comes to safety, it should always safer to not exceed the limit. If 99% of the traffic is speeding, then I say it's safest if they don't, and only a poor second-best that the 1% (driving legally just below the limit) speed up to match them. Saying that weight of numbers makes it 'right' isn't helping matters. If the 1% of traffic that isn't matching speed is going half the speed of everything else, but all are within the limit, then the problem is definitely the slower traffic, I'd allow.


As to cameras, I think they are a mixed blessing. If it's freeing an (identical) number of traffic units to patrol other areas, and all the while ensuring a steady flow of sub-limit traffic along the road (whether or not the camera is active!) then good. Obviously, retiring off experienced officers isn't good.

The main problems around cameras are when they suddenly affect traffic patterns. Whether that be traffic speeding through the zone then slowing to legal just for the camera or (like happens at a camera I pass by once a week) traffic travelling at the speed limit (40) quite legally and safely then suddenly see the camera, get 'zone-doubt' and reduce to 30 or less to pass the camera. I'm quite used to this, so having recognised the signs I kep a bit of space so I don't have slow down so quickly and hence pass a severe 'braking oscilation' to anyone who might be tailgating me (for not driving 10% or more above the limit)...

Of course, police patrols can make more inteligent decisions, based on more than just 'recorded speed' of a vehicle, can move around greater areas and respond to situations more individually, but if putting a box with a flash on it causes calmer traffic (whether or not you supply it with film) then I'm all for it. The roads can only handly a given volume of traffic (and less at high speeds, unless you're willing to reduce the time-gap between vehicles) and the dynamics of traffic flow favours low and steady speed over speeding punctuated by build ups at junctions (never mind hold-ups and rubber-knecking at accident scenes) , and carefully placed cameras/camera zones can help smooth the flow out along fast stretches on the approach to dangerous areas.

I've been flashed by a camera once (that I know of) and yet nothing came of it so I suspect it wasn't loaded wth film. I wouldn't have had many problems had I not been speeding, though, and yet I potentially could have had worse consequences as it was.

I got stopped once by a policeman who (quite rightly, in hindesight) considered my speed excessive and I got told off for it. A camera probably wouldn't have caught it, but it was right that I (or anyone in my position, to be honest) was stopped to make a point.

I've had one accident in <mumbledy-mumble> years of driving and in that event I was driving slightly below (but effectively on) the speed limit and got caught out by circumstances that, had I been not going quite so fast, I would have avoided. (Mea culpa, on that one. I don't like the fact that the person who had stopped on the road, to let someone out, did so with no reason and that they happened to do so immediately in front of a greasy patch of road surface, but I still shouldn't have let myself get caught out. I came off worst from the bump, so the feeling of "doh!" isn't even mitigated by any concern or regret on the part of the other party...)

Just had to ask, you managed to find a clear stretch of the M6 in the middle of the day? :D

Yeah but over in Europe (assuming European because of the pound sign) the police are more.....caring about their job and really DO give people tickets for going .00001 MPH over the speed limit.

In the United States a 30 MPH Speed limit means you can go up to 35-40 MPH before getting a ticket

Do you have £1 million spare? Do insurance companies have that kind of Money?


Spare? No, they get the money from their customers.


Are you willing to pay this in taxes or insurance costs... OPh wait? You already do.


I don't want to pay it in taxes, certainly. It's not my responsibility to clean up someone else's mess.


The point is every tax payer (Not me.... yet) pays for everyone else accidents... one way or another.

Only if we allow the government to step in and pay.

You are still speeding though, aren't you?

It is a speed Limit not a speed target

You should not exceed the limit. If you were not punished for going 2mph over, then when would you be punished? 5? 10? 20?
Usualy it is at least 5
you know why?
old cable spedomiters can vary with temp ... moisture ... tire size, age,milage and you name it
(even new ones are effected by tire wear and changes)

The leyway is given to companste for these inacuracies

In England, police do sometimes set up mobile speed camaras, with no warning signs.
Ok, this is too much. I didnt want to say anything, but "camaras" can never be mobile. You see, what you are talking about are cameras. What you constantly write is camaras, which happen to be immobile objects, namely chambers or houses (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=camara).
Sorry for being that nazi about it, but it bugs me if someone does the same mistake over and over again. Reminds me too much of my apprentices and interns. ;)

Usualy it is at least 5
you know why?
old cable spedomiters can vary with temp ... moisture ... tire size, age,milage and you name it
(even new ones are effected by tire wear and changes)

The leyway is given to companste for these inacuraciesAs long as you don't intentionally 'eat into' the allowance... If your speedo is wrong but you think you're going the limit then you're not at fault, but if you're relying on an error in your favour and it's against you then I don't think you have a leg to stand on if they charge you...

As long as you don't intentionally 'eat into' the allowance... If your speedo is wrong but you're going the limit then you're not at fault, but if you're relying on an error in your favour and it's against you then I don't think you have a leg to stand on if they charge you...
Yes ... but there is no way to determine that with a cemera

(Note I made a slight edit, though I'm sure you understood...)
Yes ... but there is no way to determine that with a cemeraSo cameras should be set at (say, in a 70MPH zone) 78MPH plus any 'camera error' adjustment that they see fit.

So what if you're intentionally going at 85MPH or think you're going 78MPH but are actually going 85MPH... In both cases you're deliberately breaking the speed limit, one with no regard and the other (arguably worse) attempting to squeeze the lemon for all the juice it has...

(Note I made a slight edit, though I'm sure you understood...)
So cameras should be set at (say, in a 70MPH zone) 78MPH plus any 'camera error' adjustment that they see fit.

So what if you're intentionally going at 85MPH or think you're going 78MPH but are actually going 85MPH... In both cases you're deliberately breaking the speed limit, one with no regard and the other (arguably worse) attempting to squeeze the lemon for all the juice it has...
Yup I understand if the camera gives you that same margin off of the REAL speed limit (not speed limit + error correction) then yes I can agree to that

i am a frustrated driver... people are constantly in my way in the left lane, the lane that's supposed to be for the faster drivers.

Mind you, i go maybe 5-10 over... i know that when you hit double-digits over the speed limit (IE, 75 in a 65), that's generally when the cops begin to notice you.

but when people are going 60 in a 65 in the left lane... no wonder traffic gets backed up. It only takes one slow car to slow traffic to a standstill.

people need to learn to get out of the way of faster traffic... nobody should be IN the left lane unless they have to turn or can keep up with (or not block) the smooth flow of faster traffic in that lane.

People complain about tailgaters... well they wouldn't get tailgated if they weren't IN SOMEONE'S WAY. if you're getting tailgated, it's a pretty good sign that the person right behind you wants to go faster than you're going... and if you're in the left lane, and you CAN get over into the right (or center...) lane, you should.

if you're in the RIGHT lane, however, and are being tailgated.. lol, just keep driving. the tailgater is obligated to go around you if he doesn't like your speed.

This has been Rules of the Road in Frangland

lol

i view the speed limit as a speed minimum, and police here have not shown me reason to think otherwise.

just remove your front linsece plate wear a cap and keep your visor down then deny all charges claming it w asnt you in the car :D

If I speed and get caught, I pay for it (I've gotten 2 photo tickets and a few regular ones.)

Here, the norm is a 5-10km/h cushion, the radar and laser systems are calibrated regularily and, having an aquaintance on the traffic patrol, I know they've never been out more than 2km/h in the normal range (0-150km/h.)

on highway I regularily do 130-140km/h (110 limit) if I get caught, my bad, dont' bitch, pay the fine. Usually though there's someone else doing 160+ who takes the cops off me.

Speed cameras are useless. I enjoyed watching a report on our local news (Spotlight) where they pointed a police speed camera as a brickwall and it came up with 85mph, damn fast moving bricks!

On roads such as Motorways (speed limit is 70mph), the limit is to low, and as has been mentioned already, travelling at 75mph is not dangerous. Speed within itself is not dangerous. Poor driving or badly kept vehicles are a problem, but speed isn't.

Just as a side note though, speed cameras in the UK weren't introduced as speed cameras, rather they were supposed to be safety cameras introduced at accident blackspots so that people wouldn't be able to complain that they weren't speeding around corners and causing accidents. There are currently only about 5 such cameras set up, with the others on stretches of road that would otherwise be perfectly safe.

Speed cameras are useless. I enjoyed watching a report on our local news (Spotlight) where they pointed a police speed camera as a brickwall and it came up with 85mph, damn fast moving bricks!

On roads such as Motorways (speed limit is 70mph), the limit is to low, and as has been mentioned already, travelling at 75mph is not dangerous. Speed within itself is not dangerous. Poor driving or badly kept vehicles are a problem, but speed isn't.

Just as a side note though, speed cameras in the UK weren't introduced as speed cameras, rather they were supposed to be safety cameras introduced at accident blackspots so that people wouldn't be able to complain that they weren't speeding around corners and causing accidents. There are currently only about 5 such cameras set up, with the others on stretches of road that would otherwise be perfectly safe.
But speed as you call it reduces reaction times ... increases stoping distance
Higher velocity relitive to other objects in general

It may not directly cause the accident but it can make it worse and it can push reaction times to so small or stoping distances so long that accident avodance becomes not possible

the simple argument against speeding is the one which is currently used in adverts in the uk.

*little girls voice*

if you hit me at 40mph, theres a 9/10 chance that ill die. if you hit me at 30 mph, theres a 9/10 chance ill live.


*back to my gruff, manly voice*

the figures arent correct, but they are around the ones used on the adverts. i wonder if any of the people here who are saying its ok to speed would keep saying that if any of their family was killed on the road?

imo, the key to accident avoidance is this:

a)coordination
b)ability to anticipate
c)awareness of immediate surroundings
d)acting quickly (based on inputs from the above three)

Just as a side note though, speed cameras in the UK weren't introduced as speed cameras, rather they were supposed to be safety cameras introduced at accident blackspots so that people wouldn't be able to complain that they weren't speeding around corners and causing accidents. There are currently only about 5 such cameras set up, with the others on stretches of road that would otherwise be perfectly safe.

Local to me is the Stocksbridge Bypass (A61somethingorotherIforget) which is a 'fast' stretch of relatively new single-carriageway road that's a particularly bad blackspot. The reason I say it is 'fast' is that it seems perfectly safe and it is well surfaced, with smooth altitude and direction transitions. It's also a heavily used route for traffic making trans-Pennine journeys and because it is a new road (as opposed to some parts further towards the crossing, which are more restricted and 'feel' older) you genrally get the feeling that it's Ok to go very fast along it. Normally that's the case, but that tends to make it a blackspot. Whether that's because it only takes the smallest thing to go wrong and you're in the opposing lane (some might say that is a design flaw, but I'll skim over it for the time being) I don't know, but there's very few poitns along the road where you shouldn't have a good view of oncoming traffic and anything slow, and the bits that are the worst are given appropriate road markings. If you're going at the limit speed you can see far enough to guage whether to pass any slow-moving tractors or not.

Anyway, they've got the 'average speed' camera system (number plates partials automatically identified and matched between two or more points) and that is definitely a good place to put such cameras. Hasn't stopped fatalities, but it could be a lot worse.

Also stops "speed/retard" patterns, because there's no point putting the peddle to the mettle inbetween camera gantries, because you'd essentially have to sit and wait to avoid being caught by the average-speed detectors...

the simple argument against speeding is the one which is currently used in adverts in the uk.

*little girls voice*

if you hit me at 40mph, theres a 9/10 chance that ill die. if you hit me at 30 mph, theres a 9/10 chance ill live.


*back to my gruff, manly voice*

the figures arent correct, but they are around the ones used on the adverts. i wonder if any of the people here who are saying its ok to speed would keep saying that if any of their family was killed on the road?
my cousin was killed in a car crash by a driver doing 45 in a 30 zone. thats inappropriate speed.

theres a huge difference in most cases between the speed limit and an appropriate speed. in many 30 zones the appropriate speed is about 20, it just so happens that on most motorways a safe speed can be above the speed limit.

and if youre paying proper attention the chances of hitting anything at 40mph are next to nothing. with modern brakes and tyres you would have shed a bit of that.

you know the braking distances in the highway code (the one they base the adverts on)? done in a Ford Anglia with drum brakes (only on the front) and crossply tyres in 1965. tell me that we havent advanced in braking/tyre technology since then.

But speed as you call it reduces reaction times ... increases stoping distance
Higher velocity relitive to other objects in general

It may not directly cause the accident but it can make it worse and it can push reaction times to so small or stoping distances so long that accident avodance becomes not possible
Technically, speed doesn't reduce reaction times. Your reaction time remains the same, its just you've covered a larger distance.

I'm not saying speeding is acceptable in areas that are built up with schools and children playing, but speed as and within itself is not a killer. Also, is it not bad driving that makes you drive to close to the back of someone so as to lose your breaking distance so making avoidance impossible?

On a slightly different subject, but still linked to the whole camera debate, some Councils *cough*Plymouth*cough* have been reducing speed limits on certain routes, then installing speed cameras set at the lower limit without much advertising...but they're not just being installed to make money, nooo :rolleyes:

theres a huge difference in most cases between the speed limit and an appropriate speed. in many 30 zones the appropriate speed is about 20, it just so happens that on most motorways a safe speed can be above the speed limit.Sorry, snipped a bit. That's a valid argument (possibly) for reviewing the speed limits, but doesn't really help dismiss cameras per se, IMHO.

(Actually, if we put motorway limits up to 100, then I fear that people who "felt perfectly safe at 90 when the limit is 70" would attempt, albeit briefly in some instances people who "feel perfectly safe at 120 when the limit is 100". And, again, that's not an argument re: speed cameras...)

my cousin was killed in a car crash by a driver doing 45 in a 30 zone. thats inappropriate speed.

theres a huge difference in most cases between the speed limit and an appropriate speed. in many 30 zones the appropriate speed is about 20, it just so happens that on most motorways a safe speed can be above the speed limit.

and if youre paying proper attention the chances of hitting anything at 40mph are next to nothing. with modern brakes and tyres you would have shed a bit of that.

you know the braking distances in the highway code (the one they base the adverts on)? done in a Ford Anglia with drum brakes (only on the front) and crossply tyres in 1965. tell me that we havent advanced in braking/tyre technology since then.


ok, but i have another argument up my sleeve.

what is the real value of going 5mph over the limit? you may knock five-ten minutes off your average journey.

if you speed, you are breaking the lawswhich are there for your safety and the safety of others. i think that speeding is just as bad a crime as drink driving, if not worse, seeing as you are meaning to do it.

i know that if i was knocked off my bike by someone who was speeding, however much or little, i would want their hypothetical blood.

Sorry, snipped a bit. That's a valid argument (possibly) for reviewing the speed limits, but doesn't really help dismiss cameras per se, IMHO.

what im saying is that if there is a police officer there patrolling the motorway, he will see someone going past at, say, 75 on a clear motorway on a clear day and think "thats fine", whereas a speed camera would flash the driver for it, which is just wrong really.

likewise it might be an awful day, pounding rain, fog, poor visiblity, bit of traffic, and the police would book the guy for doing 71.

a speed camera doesnt have the ability to tell if its a safe speed or not, and it doesnt have the ability to see if someone is driving safely or not (someone could be swerving about all over the place causing near misses but only doing 65 and not get flashed and someone else could be sticking perfectly to their lane but doing 75 and get punished) whereas, again, a police officer can pull someone for bad driving.

(Actually, if we put motorway limits up to 100, then I fear that people who "felt perfectly safe at 90 when the limit is 70" would attempt, albeit briefly in some instances people who "feel perfectly safe at 120 when the limit is 100". And, again, that's not an argument re: speed cameras...)
possibly. but thats an inappropriate speed pretty much no matter what the conditions are.

ok, but i have another argument up my sleeve.

what is the real value of going 5mph over the limit? you may knock five-ten minutes off your average journey.

if you speed, you are breaking the lawswhich are there for your safety and the safety of others. i think that speeding is just as bad a crime as drink driving, if not worse, seeing as you are meaning to do it.

i know that if i was knocked off my bike by someone who was speeding, however much or little, i would want their hypothetical blood.
5mph over the limit wont cause you to crash, bad driving (which, yes, includes excessive speed) would cause you to crash.

drink driving is bad driving

or as the law puts it "driving without due care and attention"

"speed doesnt kill. driving badly does"

doesnt quite have the catchiness of "speed kills" does it? but then...it isnt as overly simplistic as the government catchphrase...

what im saying is that if there is a police officer there patrolling the motorway, he will see someone going past at, say, 75 on a clear motorway on a clear day and think "thats fine", whereas a speed camera would flash the driver for it, which is just wrong really.

likewise it might be an awful day, pounding rain, fog, poor visiblity, bit of traffic, and the police would book the guy for doing 71.

a speed camera doesnt have the ability to tell if its a safe speed or not, and it doesnt have the ability to see if someone is driving safely or not (someone could be swerving about all over the place causing near misses but only doing 65 and not get flashed and someone else could be sticking perfectly to their lane but doing 75 and get punished) whereas, again, a police officer can pull someone for bad driving.

(Actually, if we put motorway limits up to 100, then I fear that people who "felt perfectly safe at 90 when the limit is 70" would attempt, albeit briefly in some instances people who "feel perfectly safe at 120 when the limit is 100". And, again, that's not an argument re: speed cameras...)
possibly. but thats an inappropriate speed pretty much no matter what the conditions are.[/QUOTE]



I feel perfectly safe at 100 on 65mph freeways.

In fact i'm running late today so my commute will involve criminal speeding.

I feel perfectly safe at 100 on 65mph freeways.

In fact i'm running late today so my commute will involve criminal speeding.
which bit are you disagreeing with?

Technically, speed doesn't reduce reaction times. Your reaction time remains the same, its just you've covered a larger distance.

I'm not saying speeding is acceptable in areas that are built up with schools and children playing, but speed as and within itself is not a killer. Also, is it not bad driving that makes you drive to close to the back of someone so as to lose your breaking distance so making avoidance impossible?

On a slightly different subject, but still linked to the whole camera debate, some Councils *cough*Plymouth*cough* have been reducing speed limits on certain routes, then installing speed cameras set at the lower limit without much advertising...but they're not just being installed to make money, nooo :rolleyes:
I should have said TIME to react ... which is what I ment

If I'd drive under the speed limit in city, I'd cause much more dangerous situations than if I drive at the same speed like everyone else.

Depends how much under it you drive, more than 10 Mph less and yes you are causing problems. Between 20-30 MPH seems a perfectly reasonable speed to me.

5mph over the limit wont cause you to crash, bad driving (which, yes, includes excessive speed) would cause you to crash

If you hit someone at 35MPH you are twice as likely to kill them than if you were driving at 30MPH

Driving at 35 MPH can increase your stopping distance significently (I think an extra 7 or 8 feet)

Speeding can kill

If you hit someone at 35MPH you are twice as likely to kill them than if you were driving at 30MPH

Driving at 35 MPH can increase your stopping distance significently (I think an extra 7 or 8 feet)

Speeding can kill

Actually, failing to stop in time can kill. Speeding itself cannot. Speeding may make it more difficult to stop in time, however.

If you hit someone at 35MPH you are twice as likely to kill them than if you were driving at 30MPH

Driving at 35 MPH can increase your stopping distance significently (I think an extra 7 or 8 feet)

Speeding can kill
but the likelihood of actually hitting anyone at 35mph is smaller than a very small thing.

if i slam on the brakes and pull off an emergency stop, i lose 10mph within the first few metres

and if im in a situation where i cant see whos on the pavement far enough ahead i wont be doing 35mph anyway, that would be irresponsible.

..i dont have a car, i have a bike. i have never been stopped for speeding...
You have some very good points. I do have a car but very rarely use it in town. But I need it when I go to visit my parents or go to cottage etc. (public transporatation doesn't cover rural areas)

But A friend of mine has actually got a ticket for speeding -driving a bicycle...he was driving 54km/h in 40km/h zone. He was just as amazed as the police who stopped him...

But he's a pro.

If you speed your punished simple as that though 5mph is the max over the speed limit over here.

but the likelihood of actually hitting anyone at 35mph is smaller than a very small thing.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that by going at 35 instead of 30 it decreases the likelyhood of hitting someone. If you are saying that could you explain that further. Or are you saying that hitting someone at all isn't very likely. Because by that logic we shouldnt have any speed limits, since the chance of hitting someone is minute :rolleyes:


and if im in a situation where i cant see whos on the pavement far enough ahead i wont be doing 35mph anyway, that would be irresponsible.

Yes, but policing speed limits on the basis of how far ahead of you you can see is impractical. The only situations that applies to is tricky junctions where you cant see round the corner. And thats where speed limits already apply.

Actually, failing to stop in time can kill. Speeding itself cannot. Speeding may make it more difficult to stop in time, however.

Guns themselves cannot kill, firing them at people can however :rolleyes:

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that by going at 35 instead of 30 it decreases the likelyhood of hitting someone. If you are saying that could you explain that further. Or are you saying that hitting someone at all isn't very likely. Because by that logic we shouldnt have any speed limits, since the chance of hitting someone is minute :rolleyes:
.....no.

what im saying is that even if you dont get stopped in time, you wont hit the person at 35mph, because you will have braked.

Yes, but policing speed limits on the basis of how far ahead of you you can see is impractical. The only situations that applies to is tricky junctions where you cant see round the corner. And thats where speed limits already apply.
what? speed limits dont only apply when youre at a junction.

well, maybe in the US....

the sort of situation im talking about is in a busy housing estate, with parked cars lining the road and kids playing on the pavement. obviously its not wise to be doing even 25mph there.

appropriate speed is the key

so if i drive at 69mph in a 70mph limit I'm doing right?
What if its foggy? in that situation the limit should be 10mph.

The limits should reflect the conditions.


I'm sure I'm not the first one to pick this one.

The limits can never reflect the condition. That's why the driver is responsible to drive as fast or as slowly as needed. BUT the speed limits shows which is the fastest legal speed. Usually people drive 110km/h if the limit is 100km/h no matter what the weather is like. I actually reduce my speed when conditions are not good but more than 50% of the drivers don't. They keep driving 110km/h even when they can't see more than 3 meters. That's just insane. (and caused few deaths just few weeks back in Finland's highways. People drove about 120km/h in a heavy snowfall where they couldn't actually see anything, and of course, the distance between cars was just about 10 meters.)

Yeah but over in Europe (assuming European because of the pound sign) the police are more.....caring about their job and really DO give people tickets for going .00001 MPH over the speed limit.

In the United States a 30 MPH Speed limit means you can go up to 35-40 MPH before getting a ticket
Yeah in New York, Europe they seem to do that :rolleyes:
as states in the first page. Remember I'm not the one who said it.

.....no.

what im saying is that even if you dont get stopped in time, you wont hit the person at 35mph, because you will have braked.


Again, driving at 35MPH has double the stopping distance than at 30MPH. And you assume that everyone would manage to brake perfectly in time.

I must disagree with one of the answers on your poll, where it says, it only fines people thaty break the law, not neccisarily true, they've clocked me before when i was going in the speed limit, plus i got charged for it, and it even said on the bill, you were travelling 38.9mph in a 40.0mph zone. see see, i have an argument against everything.

.....no.

what im saying is that even if you dont get stopped in time, you wont hit the person at 35mph, because you will have braked.

Except the point is that if you hit someone at 10mph its going to injure them. You need to STOP before you aren't going to hurt them, and the chances of doing that at 35mph as apposed to 30mph are halved.

Technically, speed doesn't reduce reaction times. Your reaction time remains the same, its just you've covered a larger distance.

I'm not saying speeding is acceptable in areas that are built up with schools and children playing, but speed as and within itself is not a killer. Also, is it not bad driving that makes you drive to close to the back of someone so as to lose your breaking distance so making avoidance impossible?

On a slightly different subject, but still linked to the whole camera debate, some Councils *cough*Plymouth*cough* have been reducing speed limits on certain routes, then installing speed cameras set at the lower limit without much advertising...but they're not just being installed to make money, nooo :rolleyes:

And?

It took us 7-8 years to get the speed limit through our village lowered, in that time there were several hospital cases from people being hit by cars, and at least one person died. Since they lowered the speed limit there hasn't been a single accident that I am aware of.

Again, driving at 35MPH has double the stopping distance than at 30MPH. And you assume that everyone would manage to brake perfectly in time.
Maybe they look around, not just stare the backlights of the car in front of them.

Sorry, your point is valid. My point is that most of the drivers just don't pay any attention to what's happening around them. They just think they have the right to drive at certain speed and they don't have to watch for others but that's not true. Driver is always responsible (to reduce the speed if surroundings demands it and be carefull at crossroads even if it's "your turn").

Guns themselves cannot kill, firing them at people can however :rolleyes:

Exactly. If someone hits another with a car, punish them. If they drive faster than you, but never hit anything....why punish them for being an exemplary driver?

Exactly. If someone hits another with a car, punish them. If they drive faster than you, but never hit anything....why punish them for being an exemplary driver?

Because the only reason they haven't hit anything is not nessecarly because they are an exemplary driver, but because something hasn't yet challenged the need to use their driving skills. The risk factor is to high.

Speed cameras are great fun... For everyone

Because the only reason they haven't hit anything is not nessecarly because they are an exemplary driver, but because something hasn't yet challenged the need to use their driving skills. The risk factor is to high.

See, this is where I start to have problems. I have issues with punishing people before they've been proven to be irresponsible.

Who's definition of risk? What level? It's already been proven to be an arbitrary decision (given the raising of the speed limit in the US by 10 mph in the 80s). If the risk is so great, why increase these chances?

What's risky for one is not for another.

See, this is where I start to have problems. I have issues with punishing people before they've been proven to be irresponsible.

Who's definition of risk? What level? It's already been proven to be an arbitrary decision (given the raising of the speed limit in the US by 10 mph in the 80s). If the risk is so great, why increase these chances?

What's risky for one is not for another.

Ugh, reletivism

The decision has been made. Fiddiling the decsion because "I dont like it" is not an excuse. The law is there for a reason. They have been irrisponsable becuase had a child run out across the road from them and they were driving at that speed then they would have killed them. To those who say "you should only punish them WHEN they hit a child" this is what we call a preventive measure, the law being pro-active instead of re-active. The idea being that you prevent it happening.

speed cameras are a good idea if they actually do catch the people who are speeding. so often where i live they have speed cameras at the start of a stretch of road and at the end, and people go up to 60mph in the 30 zone between cameras. which is ridiculous because its a residential area. and yet they dont get caught.

cameras are fine as long as they actually catch the people who go WAY over the limit and not just the people who only go a little over. but the fast drivers always manage to evade being caught. :mad:

Exactly. If someone hits another with a car, punish them. If they drive faster than you, but never hit anything....why punish them for being an exemplary driver?

Because they aren't being exemplary drivers. Lets say that 10% of drivers are, and can get away with speeding. The defence for the 60-70% who aren't, who couldn't avoid a situation in the event that it arose is that the first 10% are allowed to speed, so why can't they? Same standards for all is part of what the law is about. And it isn't practical to check everyone's driving ability before setting a personal speed limit, so we have to work with a fixed speed limit which may be too slow for some people, but leads to greater safety for all. Herd protection above saving the individual 5-10mins.

Ugh, reletivism

The decision has been made. Fiddiling the decsion because "I dont like it" is not an excuse. The law is there for a reason. They have been irrisponsable becuase had a child run out across the road from them and they were driving at that speed then they would have killed them. To those who say "you should only punish them WHEN they hit a child" this is what we call a preventive measure, the law being pro-active instead of re-active. The idea being that you prevent it happening.

<sigh> I can't believe how many buy into this trap. I don't trust the government--it's not there for my best interests--nor any other individual's. The law is there because you accept it. You buy into it. They say the goverhment is there for the betterment of society. Those in the government are actually there to keep themselves in some modicum of power.

Pre-emptive punishment is not legal. So, yes, until the child is hit (I love how all the control people continually use the emotion-laden, "think of the children" slogan), you can't punish anyone. Why was that child not monitored by a parent or guardian? Who allowed them to run into the road? That is where the responsibility lies.

This isn't because, "I don't like it". It's because I am a free person, not beholden to a nanny state. I'm not a child. I am an adult--I can make decisions for myself. The government is not my ruler--they're supposed to be there to administer the actual legal departments outlined by the constitution, not rule the citizenry. At least, not in the US--Britain on the other hand, I don't know.

Because they aren't being exemplary drivers. Lets say that 10% of drivers are, and can get away with speeding. The defence for the 60-70% who aren't, who couldn't avoid a situation in the event that it arose is that the first 10% are allowed to speed, so why can't they? Same standards for all is part of what the law is about. And it isn't practical to check everyone's driving ability before setting a personal speed limit, so we have to work with a fixed speed limit which may be too slow for some people, but leads to greater safety for all. Herd protection above saving the individual 5-10mins.

See, when you start comparing people to herd animals, the argument is lost. You've already determined that people are too stupid to manage themselves. You have to put "fences" up before the stupid animals hurt themselves or break something.

Giving control of the "herd" to someone. Taking control away from that person's life. Enslaving them to a power and taking away their freedoms.

In other words, you want to control others when you have no right to do so.

You have some very good points. I do have a car but very rarely use it in town. But I need it when I go to visit my parents or go to cottage etc. (public transporatation doesn't cover rural areas)

But A friend of mine has actually got a ticket for speeding -driving a bicycle...he was driving 54km/h in 40km/h zone. He was just as amazed as the police who stopped him...

But he's a pro.


woo respectful. my top speed is about 35 down a big hill. so thats basically falling quickly.

Pre-emptive punishment is not legal. So, yes, until the child is hit (I love how all the control people continually use the emotion-laden, "think of the children" slogan), you can't punish anyone. Why was that child not monitored by a parent or guardian? Who allowed them to run into the road? That is where the responsibility lies.

How about this situation. Someone (not nessecarly a child) walks into the road perfectly legitamtely because there is no cars on that road. Suddenly a car comes round a bend at 35MPH and sees the person there and begins to try to stop. Had they been driving at 30MPH they would have missed the person and stoped. Since they were at 35MPH their stopping distance doubled and they hit the person. The person was in the road completely legimately, they were in the process of crossing.

Cameras, cameras everywhere.
Anyone ever read 1984? Brave New World? Fahrenheit 451?
Citizens who are monitored and run by their government are slaves.
Responsible citizens who run their government are free.
Sometimes freedom can be more dangerous than slavery.
But it worth it. :headbang:

How about this situation. Someone (not nessecarly a child) walks into the road perfectly legitamtely because there is no cars on that road. Suddenly a car comes round a bend at 35MPH and sees the person there and begins to try to stop. Had they been driving at 30MPH they would have missed the person and stoped. Since they were at 35MPH their stopping distance doubled and they hit the person. The person was in the road completely legimately, they were in the process of crossing.

Okay, in the US, I know of few roads where you don't have any kind of visual around a corner where people would be walking. Especially at 35MPH. Even so, stopping at 35MPH is a very short distance.

It's a road, not a sidewalk. If they are crossing, the car would have to moving damn fast to catch a person unawares. If the person is just dawdling, to be brutally honest, I think they deserve to get hit. There are suggestions as to how to walk along a road without a sidewalk, too. Against traffic, not in the middle of the damn thing, and using a light or some reflective matierials. It's YOUR responsibility to keep yourself alive--no one else's.

Again, driving at 35MPH has double the stopping distance than at 30MPH.
bullshit

total topping distance at 30mph: 23m
total topping distance at 40mph: 36m

thats in a 1965 Ford Anglia with only (drum) brakes on the front

But A friend of mine has actually got a ticket for speeding -driving a bicycle...he was driving 54km/h in 40km/h zone. He was just as amazed as the police who stopped him...

But he's a pro.In the UK you can't (or at least couldn't) be arrested for speeding on a bike, but you can be charged with Reckless Riding. (Things may have changed in recent years, btu this was the case, at least.) That's of course the same as Dangerous Driving, I suppose., and can be applied according to conditions.

I had to translate those speeds to MPH to make sense to me, I admit, and haven't too much experience of a speed limit of 25MPH (just the occasional 20MPH residential and 30MPH regular limit for built-up).

bullshit

total topping distance at 30mph: 23m
total topping distance at 40mph: 36m

thats in a 1965 Ford Anglia with only (drum) brakes on the frontThis whole argumernt is about limits, and the thing is that people tend to push them. If you think you can stop from in 36m (I'm accepting your figures, but I'm more familiar with the measurements in feet and my mind doesn't seem to want to divide by three at the moment) and you allow barely more than that and you're wrong. Not that I'm saying that most people will, but whether by calculation or instinct, people will set up a limit and some will drive up to it and on one occasion or other may well be wrong. I do it, and on one particular occasion I turned out to be wrong (as I realised the car on the road in front had pulled up and stopped).


Also, there's the maths. Going 5MPH over the limit does not mean that upon reaching the point you would have stopped had you been going on the limit (for identical car, forget about the Ford Anglia) you are instead going at 5MPH... No. Even ignoring the thinking time segment needed for stopping (which increases in proportion to the speed) in constant deceleration the speed you are going decreases linearly with time but not linearly with distance. Your final slowing from 5MPH to zero occurs in a smaller 'chunk' of road than 10MPH to 5MPH, and an extra 5 or 10MPH can mean that a significant amount of the 'post 30MPH stop point' travel is at damaging speed.


And I completely agree that the Anglia isn't relevant, but it's the same as the "everyone goes 100MPH anyway, lets move the limit to that", in that it's a standard that I fear if moved would make the kind of people who currently chance themselves based on "I've got better brakes than that" would adjust their behaviour accordingly if told that they could work with less stopping distance. It's not harming anyone to use the Anglia figures, save for those affected by drivers harping on about how their ABS means they'll not have an accident, push the limit (of speed and/or safety distances) and being wrong.

And I completely agree that the Anglia isn't relevant, but it's the same as the "everyone goes 100MPH anyway, lets move the limit to that", in that it's a standard that I fear if moved would make the kind of people who currently chance themselves based on "I've got better brakes than that" would adjust their behaviour accordingly if told that they could work with less stopping distance. It's not harming anyone to use the Anglia figures, save for those affected by drivers harping on about how their ABS means they'll not have an accident, push the limit (of speed and/or safety distances) and being wrong.
See, what I would like to see is variable speed limits on a motorway. There would be somebody watching conditions (traffic, weather etc) and the speed limit goes up and down to be an appropriate speed limit. There would be signs every couple of hundred metres telling you the current limit.

For example, if there was a clear motorway with light traffic on a sunny day with good visibility the speed limit could go up to 80mph, whereas if it was a horrible day with heavy traffic and pouring rain the limit could be dropped to an appropriate speed.

That way people would become more adept at judging the speed for the conditions, and if it was applied to dual carriageways as well as major A roads people would quickly be able to judge better for themselves a safe speed.

What i would also like to see would be speed limits in housing estates lowered to 20mph.

Then i would cut the number of speed cameras and increase the number of police patrolling bad driving overall, instead of just focusing on one aspect...an approach which hasnt bought a fall in the number of road deaths.

See, what I would like to see is variable speed limits on a motorway. There would be somebody watching conditions (traffic, weather etc) and the speed limit goes up and down to be an appropriate speed limit. There would be signs every couple of hundred metres telling you the current limit.They've had the central reservation (or occasionally gantry-held) 'small matrix' signs for a while now (big enough for a speed limit number or a 'which lane(s) get closed ahead' display) and they're putting huge ones in along a lot of the network (usually displaying "Don't Drink And Drive" or "Don't Drive Tired", but capable of saying "Delays At Junction ## - For YourTown Leave At Junction %%", as well as fog warnings and limit alterations") and they use both (as available) to give temporary speed restrictions (though it's amazing how people still fail to adhere to them... ;)).

I essentially agree with you on most points (especially 20mph limits imposed on residential areas, despite that probably adding up to a third more time to my own commutes). The one thing I'm ambivalent about (snipped from your message) is making the upper limit 80mph. People do 80mph anyway, when 70mph is the limit, and because I've got no strong feelings about anything else and yet feel that letting people go 80 will (while causing the minimum of additional accidents, though maybe a tad more serious because the speed) 'let' people travel at 90mph through the same reasoning they use now, I've got to argue moderation on this issue (i.e. "they seem to work, don't raise or lower them without good reason)...

I don't say "less cameras, so more police", I say "cameras Ok, more police as well even better". If cameras are there to catch or discourage (and I think the latter is more relevant) the more excessive speeders along given stretches and at the same time an experienced traffic unit or two are covering places where the cameras do not reach (but can still catch those driving past the cameras with no Road Tax, or general dangerous-but-sub-limit driving, etc) then all the better. More police, definitely, and don't let more cameras reduce the willingness to have more officers as well... I think we're as one on that one.

(And, technically, arguments about the speed limits aren't really relevant in a camera/no camera discussion, because whatever cameras you do have get dialled to the speeds you set as the threshold for that road, regardless of what that threshold might be... If you want to tie it to variable speed limits, then retrofit the cameras with remotely-changable thresholds linked into the automated limit displays you install on that stretch of road, which are in turn linked in to suitably calibrated visibility/precipitation sensors if you can't spare a man at a central control-room to twiddle the knobs for you...)

The one thing I'm ambivalent about (snipped from your message) is making the upper limit 80mph. People do 80mph anyway, when 70mph is the limit, and because I've got no strong feelings about anything else and yet feel that letting people go 80 will (while causing the minimum of additional accidents, though maybe a tad more serious because the speed) 'let' people travel at 90mph through the same reasoning they use now, I've got to argue moderation on this issue (i.e. "they seem to work, don't raise or lower them without good reason)...
but the way im looking at it is that people travelling at 80 when the speed limit is 70 will get fined if theres a camera, but if the limit was raised to 80 when it was safe then they wouldnt get fined.

The one thing I'm ambivalent about (snipped from your message) is making the upper limit 80mph. People do 80mph anyway, when 70mph is the limit, and because I've got no strong feelings about anything else and yet feel that letting people go 80 will (while causing the minimum of additional accidents, though maybe a tad more serious because the speed) 'let' people travel at 90mph through the same reasoning they use now, I've got to argue moderation on this issue (i.e. "they seem to work, don't raise or lower them without good reason)...but the way im looking at it is that people travelling at 80 when the speed limit is 70 will get fined if theres a camera, but if the limit was raised to 80 when it was safe then they wouldnt get fined.

I suppoe it depends on whether people who travel at 80 in a 70 limit do so because "it is safe to do so" or do so because "only 10MPH above the limit isn't technicly speeding".

I tend to think that these people (or a representative majority) would travel at 90MPH in an 80 limit for the same "only 10MPH above the limit isn't technically speeding" reason, and very few would go "You know, 80MPH is actually just right for these particular road conditions, but look at all those idiots passing me..."

In fact, those others who currently stick to 70, as it is the limt, would stick to 80, if that were the limit. And some of those would do that regardless (or even contrary to) whatever the road conditions actually were (as happens now with the 70-limit), and whatever 'lower limits' were posted on roadside-matrices (as happens now, with 70, 50, even 30 limits)...

You might allow a minority (who are safe at 80, will stick to 80, who know when 80 is too fast and content themselves with 70, 50, 40, 20 or even stay at home if it's that bad) the advantage of shorter journey times at no extra danger to themselves or other road users, but your average Mr Wheeler the motorist is only going to get time-saving benefits at the very real risk of law or life...

As I said before, I'm not pro- or anti-change on this issue, except that 'if it aint broke don't try to fix it' applies...