Speed Cameras

[EM2]

Wow how very self righteous of you. I drive at 70 because that is the speed limit..

The issue is that if the only way you could avoid hitting someone was to take last-second avoiding action, then you were doing *something* wrong, whether that was going too fast for the conditions, or not paying attention, or something else.

 

[AM9]

Speeding drivers kill. Drunk drivers kill. Dangerous drivers kill. Diesel drivers kill far more.....

By your reckoning, ALL forms of transport kill by virtue of CO2 emissions. Petrol cars kill more by CO2, not just locally but all over the world. Diesel engine emissions (NOx & PM10s) are mainly a localised health issue. Speeding and drinking* (whilst driving) is something that can be fixed easier than the global issues of engine emissions and the incompetance/psychological unsuitability of many drivers.
*Thinking again about those who drink and drive, - maybe that is just another psychological incompatibility with driving.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Hmmm you've clearly never driven on the A12 or A46 near Warwick. If you did that you would cause a mega mega pile up coming off some slip roads. You simply cannot "check the carriageway before you accelerate".

I've driven on the A1 north of Newcastle, where you pull on to a dual carriageway from a T-junction; no sliproads here. I've also driven on the A41 where some of the slip roads go round a blind bend before joining the carriageway.

You shouldn't be accelerating if you cannot see the carriageway. You shouldn't be accelerating without checking to see if the carriageway is clear. Anything else is dangerous driving.

However I still get irritated by the 'the speed limit isn't a target' ****s. It is good practice to drive at the limit where it is safe to do so. When I'm heading to work on a Sunday morning I do not need to spend 10 miles on a road with few safe opportunities to overtake following someone doing 40 in a 60 (with the odd inevitable spell of 40 in a 30!!!) because they're not in a hurry in their own little world. If you can't 'make progress' appropriately as they say in your practical driving test these days without delaying other motorists you shouldn't be on the road.

I think there are two different things here.

The speed limit is not a target. Round here most country roads have a 60mph speed limit, even through some hamlets, but if you tried to drive at 60mph you'd be in a ditch within 400 yards. You should be driving at a safe speed for the road, or the speed limit, whichever is lower (and don't get me started on councils reducing speed limits on wide open roads for revenue safety).

But I agree about the old men- and it is always old men- who are driving at 42mph on a trunk road. They do 42 mph on the trunk road, they do 42mph on the dual carriageway, they do 42 mph on the twisty bit and they do 42 mph through the village. They're a menace. The ones who really really annoy me though are the ones who think the national speed limit on a single carriageway road is 50mph, stamping on the brakes every time they see a speed camera. They need beating to death with the Highway Code.

But if someone runs into the back of them, or starts a dangerous overtaking move because of frustration, then that's not their fault. Extremely slow moving vehicles- tractors, horse-drawn carriages, etc- are allowed on trunk roads. The speed limit for HGVs on a single carriageway road is 40mph. It's an occupational hazard of using single carriageway trunk roads.

 

[LowLevel]

The speed limit for HGVs on a single carriageway was raised to 50 mph a little while ago.

 

[90019]

Only in England and Wales. It's still 40 in Scotland apart from the majority of A9, but hopefully they'll change it everywhere soon enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But I agree about the old men- and it is always old men- who are driving at 42mph on a trunk road.

I encountered one of them last month on a single carriageway section of the A1, bumbling along at 27mph.
When you're being overtaken by HGVs at every opportunity, I think it's safe to say that you're driving too slowly.

 

[muz379]

Wow how very self righteous of you. I drive at 70 because that is the speed limit. I have only ever been involved in one accident and that was because someone hit me. I'm clearly doing something right so please don't call me an idiot. And again this thread is about speed cameras revenue. But I'm sure you are the model perfect driver.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


.

Nothing self righteous I drive at 70 all the time . When it is safe to do so and when I can see to a distance that I would be able to stop in . You get people who think that because the speed limit is that , they must travel at that speed regardless of anything else .The kind of idiots who come racing past at 70mph on the motorway when there is low visibility and standing water .

On the face of it in your story this was not the case as you described the closing speed with a moving obstacle as dramatic clearly a stationary obstacle would have presented you with an issue . Which is why I called you an idiot

Just because you have not had an accident in all of those years does not mean it is down to skill . It could be luck

As for me being a model driver . No far from It I have made mistakes . The difference it seems is I am happy to self evaluate and decide when I have made a mistake and how I will act accordingly in future . You still think it is acceptable to hammer it down a blind slip road into the unknown at 70 not once acknowledging those who have asked what you would do if you faced a stationary obstacle .
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if someone runs into the back of them, or starts a dangerous overtaking move because of frustration, then that's not their fault. Extremely slow moving vehicles- tractors, horse-drawn carriages, etc- are allowed on trunk roads. The speed limit for HGVs on a single carriageway road is 40mph. It's an occupational hazard of using single carriageway trunk roads.

Hear hear . If you want or have to use A roads to make your journey then you need to accept that you will encounter slower traffic on these roads

 

[GB]

Hmmm you've clearly never driven on the A12 or A46 near Warwick. If you did that you would cause a mega mega pile up coming off some slip roads. You simply cannot "check the carriageway before you accelerate".

See this I don't understand. I'm a daily user of the A12 both to get to and from work and during work. I can fully attest that there are many slip roads that are extremely short but surely if you can't see the traffic on the carriage way behind you you wait at the end of the slip road untill you can confirm it is safe rather than just blindly putting your foot down?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I encountered one them last month on a single carriageway section of the A1, bumbling along at 27mph.

Oh I came across one a while back on the A69 doing 18mph, hunched over the steering wheel like Mr Magoo. I had to brake relatively sharply as it caught me out just how slowly someone in a brand new Golf was driving. But if I'd run into him it'd have still been my fault.

That's the trouble with a reliance on speed cameras; other dangerous or incompetent driving doesn't get picked up.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

While I'm not really sure what point you are making, that all sounds a little too perfect. We have to assume that ordinary people are not perfect all of the time.

That is the IPSGA method of driving.

I don't disagree with you but many people ignore matrix signs because the highways agency 'cry wolf' far too often, I'm sure we've all seen warning of some incident ahead only to subsequently find that there is no incident. If drivers see a clear motorway ahead then they are unlikely to take much notice of matrix signs

Then they are dangerous drivers. I feel quite strongly about this, as I and many of my colleagues sometimes have to work on fast roads, and with the advent of smart motorways, there is no 'safe' area to work - the only thing protecting us from other drivers are the red X signs, yet hundreds of drivers routinely ignore these.

 

[tony_mac]

That is the IPSGA method of driving.

I still don't know what point you were trying to make. Are trained drivers somehow impervious to having accidents?

Then they are dangerous drivers.

Just a quick example, this is the very first one I looked at, on the M62 Eastbound.

The Matrix signs say '40, Queue ahead'.
In my experience, such advisory signs are wrong more than 50% of the time (the same is not true of compulsory matrix signs).

 

[muz379]

That is the IPSGA method of driving.


Then they are dangerous drivers. I feel quite strongly about this, as I and many of my colleagues sometimes have to work on fast roads, and with the advent of smart motorways, there is no 'safe' area to work - the only thing protecting us from other drivers are the red X signs, yet hundreds of drivers routinely ignore these.

I can see why people ignore the matrix signs a lot of the time they are set for an incident and then left on for hours . Usually if I see one of these I will drop my speed maybe not as low as the sign says though depending on how busy it is and what time it is .

But driving under a red X is just inexcusable and it winds me up when people do this it is just pure arrogance .

 

[fowler9]

Antman probably rightly said I made a ridiculous comparison between the railways and the roads. Perhaps I can make another one. Perhaps instead of the idiot tax on people who can't stick to the speed limit they should just get points on their license instead of a fine. Also perhaps people who forget to buy a train ticket can just be charged for the ticket they forgot to buy instead of being charged at a higher rate as they are in many areas currently. Why should they pay more just because they forgot to buy a ticket? It is a tax on the forgetful traveller. Some people can't read a speedometer, others struggle to buy tickets. It is just a way for the TOC's to make money after all.... or is it to try and put people off breaking the law by the only method some people understand?

 

[Antman]

That is the IPSGA method of driving.


Then they are dangerous drivers. I feel quite strongly about this, as I and many of my colleagues sometimes have to work on fast roads, and with the advent of smart motorways, there is no 'safe' area to work - the only thing protecting us from other drivers are the red X signs, yet hundreds of drivers routinely ignore these.

But all the time these signs are left on hours after an incident has finished, and that includes the red X, drivers are inevitably going to take very little notice of them

 

[anme]

It's your comment that is moronic!

If you drove at 30mph in a 50mph zone without good reason on a driving test you would fail for failing to make sufficient progress. It's the person who isn't capable of keeping up with the general flow of traffic that is unsuitable to drive and quite honestly the train driver comparison is even more moronic;

I'm not sure what the driving test has to do with it. Let's be clear - there are very good reasons why someone might drive at 30mph in a 50mph zone (e.g. mechanical problems, slow vehicle, bad weather, bicycle, heavy load, ...), and that reason might not be obvious to you. If you find this so frustrating that it affects your driving (and that's what people mean when they claim that slow drivers are more dangerous than fast drivers), you should not be driving. No-one deserves to die, or suffer life changing injuries, because you are delayed by a couple of minutes (or more likely, just arrive at the next red light a few seconds later).

Why is the train driver comparison "moronic;" (sic)? I expect car drivers and train drivers to take the same level of responsibility for my life.

 

[Antman]

I'm not sure what the driving test has to do with it. Let's be clear - there are very good reasons why someone might drive at 30mph in a 50mph zone (e.g. mechanical problems, slow vehicle, bad weather, bicycle, heavy load, ...), and that reason might not be obvious to you. If you find this so frustrating that it affects your driving (and that's what people mean when they claim that slow drivers are more dangerous than fast drivers), you should not be driving. No-one deserves to die, or suffer life changing injuries, because you are delayed by a couple of minutes (or more likely, just arrive at the next red light a few seconds later).

Why is the train driver comparison "moronic;" (sic)? I expect car drivers and train drivers to take the same level of responsibility for my life.

The point was you would fail a driving test if you drove at 30mph on a 50mph road without good reason.

This is about speeding on roads, railway comparisons are largely irrelevant.

 

[AM9]

The point was you would fail a driving test if you drove at 30mph on a 50mph road without good reason.

This is about speeding on roads, railway comparisons are largely irrelevant.

Would you claim all aspects of your normal driving would be of a standard that would give a pass in a driving test? I doubt that mine would and I'm sure that the majority here and elsewhere would also feel the same.

 

[Antman]

Would you claim all aspects of your normal driving would be of a standard that would give a pass in a driving test? I doubt that mine would and I'm sure that the majority here and elsewhere would also feel the same.

Probably not

 

[LowLevel]

I'm not sure what the driving test has to do with it. Let's be clear - there are very good reasons why someone might drive at 30mph in a 50mph zone (e.g. mechanical problems, slow vehicle, bad weather, bicycle, heavy load, ...), and that reason might not be obvious to you. If you find this so frustrating that it affects your driving (and that's what people mean when they claim that slow drivers are more dangerous than fast drivers), you should not be driving. No-one deserves to die, or suffer life changing injuries, because you are delayed by a couple of minutes (or more likely, just arrive at the next red light a few seconds later).

Why is the train driver comparison "moronic;" (sic)? I expect car drivers and train drivers to take the same level of responsibility for my life.

It's generally a small, slightly aged, perfectly clean silver car, often with a flat cap in evidence. In times gone by it generally would be a Rover, but less likely now. Often to be found screaming along at 20 mph in first gear. Particularly in evidence on Sundays.

They need pulling over by the police and their licence taking away.

Vans, trucks, traction engines etc etc people expect it from.

The old fool who can't accept it's time to quit who does 42 mph as mentioned before, whether it's a 30/40/50/60/70 should be removed from the road with extreme prejudice for gross incompetence.

I do a lot of driving and much of it is on single carriageway roads pootling along behind wagons. Not a problem. Pootling along behind motoring wastes of oxygen who flash their lights at you if you overtake on a 3 mile long downhill straight can't help but frustrate you after a while.

 

[miami]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-34933345

A driver who says he was "deliberately and repeatedly rammed" by a lorry has criticised police for failing to respond to his calls for three hours.
Matthew Stockdale claims he was repeatedly cut up and shunted three times by the other motorist.
He said he made six 999 calls and was connected to three police forces.
Northamptonshire Police, which took the first call, has apologised for the communication failures, saying it plans to interview the lorry driver.

There is clear dangerous driving is that of the lorry driver, who was understandably ****ed off by the careless driving of the car driver, but that doesn't excuse the lorry driver of dangerous driving.

However in addition to the dangerous driving charge against the lorry driver, which should be a given, I'd expect a careless driving charge against the car driver.

The fact the car driver also "runs a dashcam company" suggests that his careless driving may have had an ulterior motive. From the evidence presented by the press release I'd like to see bans for both the lorry driver and car driver, possibly even prison for the car driver if it can be proven what his motives were.

I'm open for dangerous driving charges against both the lorry and the car, but no matter what the car driver is doing the lorry driver had the opportunity to simply slow down and call the police. He didn't, he took the law into his own hands, using a vehicle as a weapon, and was clearly driving dangerously.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There is clear dangerous driving is that of the lorry driver, who was understandably ****ed off by the careless driving of the car driver, but that doesn't excuse the lorry driver of dangerous driving.

The car driver didn't do a great deal wrong, tbh.

Convenient that he runs a dashcam company, otherwise the truckie would get away with it. I hope they give him a couple of years inside for dangerous driving

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If a driver can't deal with a lane hogger calmly, then they shouldn't be on the road.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And this is why signs telling you to slow down on a motorway should be obeyed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34986092

 

[Antman]

If a driver can't deal with a lane hogger calmly, then they shouldn't be on the road.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And this is why signs telling you to slow down on a motorway should be obeyed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34986092

And as I said if the signs were turned off once the problem had cleared then drivers would take a lot more notice of them

 

[Dave1987]

When I was learning to drive my instructor told me that you get a minor against you if you do not make use of the speed limits and hold other motorists up unnecessarily.

I think people are misunderstanding where I am coming on this thread with regards to speed cameras. I have no issue with the idiots who barrel along the motorway completely disregarding the smart motorway speed limits put in place to protect the workforce, getting loads of points on their license and being banned.

What I do have an issue with is the Police and Govt making out like they dont want people to speed and be caught doing so. They want people to speed because it gives them more revenue. All this stuff about safety is complete rubbish!

Prime example is the M1 at the moment with that huge section of 50mph. There is no reason for that to be 50mph as there is no work being done on 90% of it. Yet it is plastered with average speed cameras and no doubt the Police and Govt have loved all the revenue from the speeding fines.

 

[GB]

When I was learning to drive my instructor told me that you get a minor against you if you do not make use of the speed limits and hold other motorists up unnecessarily.

I failed my bike test for exactly that reason...45 in a 60 for about a mile. Didn't make that mistake again on my subsequent bike and car test.

 

[miami]

The car driver didn't do a great deal wrong, tbh.

If he was just your typical middle lane hogger, then yes, 3 points and a fine.

However if he is instead deliberately provoking these situations, and there appears to be evidence he is, that's quite another situation.

A reasonable driver, when encountering a madman with a murdering glint in his eye, will stay the hell back. You can see this in the full video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDXqvoadhsw

Normal drivers see what's going on and slow down (at 0:52)

Someone who thinks that because the roads aren't policed, it's up to them to police them, and thus deliberately escalates situations is another issue entirely.

Footage shows the lorry apparently bashing his car as it passed at about 20:40 GMT, and repeating the action 14 minutes later.

So he kept up with the same lorry for 14 minutes after having such an experience, ignoring Northampton service station, and I believe Newport Pagnall. Dropping a minute back would have been the normal behaviour of a normal person.

Convenient that he runs a dashcam company, otherwise the truckie would get away with it. I hope they give him a couple of years inside for dangerous driving

Plenty of people who don't run a copmany have dashcams. They don't seem to run into half as many problems as Mr Stockdale.

This example is another of Mr Stockdale's poor driving skills:

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/n...miss-on-northamptonshire-roundabout-1-6264093

Mr Stockdale said: “I must be honest, when I observed another motorist avoid a very close scrape a few weeks back, I naturally assumed it was due to driver error, however having come off the roundabout with a HGV to my left, I was staggered to find I had simply run out of road, I literally had nowhere to go. There are no signs that the lane is ending. It just ends.

He ignored the lane merge sign on the road at 17 seconds, and rather than merging by slowing down over the next 5 seconds he kept parity with the lorry driver to create a video he could use to complain about the situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And this is why signs telling you to slow down on a motorway should be obeyed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34986092

That's why you should be able to stop in the distance you can see is clear, signs or the lack of them asking you to go slow are irrelevant.

This lorry driver clearly wasn't keeping an eye on the road in front - even without stopping he could have avoided the situation by moving into the adjacent lane.

(I'm assuming his brakes hadn't just failed, had a heart attack, etc. etc.)

Of course if Dave1987 had been driving down the A12 or A46 near Warwick and encountered this line of traffic he would also have smashed into it, as he is unable or unwilling to look at the traffic on the road before joining it.

 

[EM2]

What I do have an issue with is the Police and Govt making out like they dont want people to speed and be caught doing so. They want people to speed because it gives them more revenue. All this stuff about safety is complete rubbish!

Prime example is the M1 at the moment with that huge section of 50mph. There is no reason for that to be 50mph as there is no work being done on 90% of it. Yet it is plastered with average speed cameras and no doubt the Police and Govt have loved all the revenue from the speeding fines.

Don't speed, then. Then no-one will have to pay fines, the government/council/police can remove all the cameras and the court system will be less clogged up.
Easy, really.

 

[Dave1987]

Don't speed, then. Then no-one will have to pay fines, the government/council/police can remove all the cameras and the court system will be less clogged up.
Easy, really.

I don't speed and have a clean license. If no one ever did then the Police and Govt would lose massive amounts of money. Someone said previously in the thread that Bedfordshire police had admitted they needed the revenue from people speeding.

 

[EM2]

I don't speed and have a clean license. If no one ever did then the Police and Govt would lose massive amounts of money. Someone said previously in the thread that Bedfordshire police had admitted they needed the revenue from people speeding.

So why are you worrying about it? You don't give them any money because you don't speed, so why is it any concern?
The reason Bedfordshire need the money is because the government have slashed their budget: http://www.saveourpolice.org.uk/
If people are going to do it (and they will, despite years and years of anti-speeding campaigns) then you might as well catch as many people that are doing it as you can.

 

[Antman]

Don't speed, then. Then no-one will have to pay fines, the government/council/police can remove all the cameras and the court system will be less clogged up.
Easy, really.

Oh yes nobody on the motorway is going to do more than 70mph, what colour is the sky in your world

 

[EM2]

Oh yes nobody on the motorway is going to do more than 70mph, what colour is the sky in your world

If you think cameras are for raising revenue, don't give them any revenue. If you don't speed, you don't pay any fines.
As I said afterwards:

If people are going to do it (and they will, despite years and years of anti-speeding campaigns) then you might as well catch as many people that are doing it as you can.