Speed Cameras

[Phil.]

Well in my view Speeding Offences should either carry a fine or points but not both - that is a double whammy. A bit like being jailed and fined not one or the other.

If it is not about "revenue raising" then the points tally should be increased - three strikes and you are out ?

When the 70mph limit was introduced cars were far less primitive without the modern safety features found on modern saloons. However there are also far more vehicles on the road today.

Notwithstanding this I believe some sections of Motorway could be increased to 100 MPH - perhaps on an experimental or trial basis. If Germany can have unlimited speed on some roads without a hatful of casualties I don't see why we can't at least try.

I rather think that you're assuming something that is not so or are ill/miss-informed.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/news/article.cfm?c_id=9&objectid=11217190

 

[Domh245]

I think that in the event of speed limits going up on the motorway, there really should be an extension to the driving test to include motorway driving. I found it quite odd that having passed my test, I could have gone home, had a cup of tea, and then gone out onto the motorway with nobody else in the car. Fortunately, I didn't (my first time driving on the motorway was done late-evening whilst nice and quiet, with my dad in the front as well), but I certainly think that Motorway driving ought to form part of the practical test, rather than just a few questions on the theory.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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!

You've made this rather strange allegation that the police and the Government want people to speed several times in this thread. Can you please tell us what evidence you have for it?

 

[Butts]

You've made this rather strange allegation that the police and the Government want people to speed several times in this thread. Can you please tell us what evidence you have for it?

I think what he insinuates is that they are not adverse to profiting from peoples ill advised actions (at least in their view). If only points were given their credibility would be somewhat enhanced.

Similar in ways to Smoking, they pretend they don't want people to smoke but are quite happy to scoop up the most regressive form of revenue available to them.

 

[Antman]

I think that in the event of speed limits going up on the motorway, there really should be an extension to the driving test to include motorway driving. I found it quite odd that having passed my test, I could have gone home, had a cup of tea, and then gone out onto the motorway with nobody else in the car. Fortunately, I didn't (my first time driving on the motorway was done late-evening whilst nice and quiet, with my dad in the front as well), but I certainly think that Motorway driving ought to form part of the practical test, rather than just a few questions on the theory.

Ideally yes but in some parts of the country there are no motorways so it's just not practical

 

[Bletchleyite]

True. Some places also have better practice opportunities than others - for instance the A5 through MK is basically a 2 lane motorway to all intents and purposes, other than the lack of a hard shoulder (also now true of some motorway sections) and that pedestrians and cyclists are technically permitted (but very rarely seen as there are excellent alternatives).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think what he insinuates is that they are not adverse to profiting from peoples ill advised actions (at least in their view). If only points were given their credibility would be somewhat enhanced.

Similar in ways to Smoking, they pretend they don't want people to smoke but are quite happy to scoop up the most regressive form of revenue available to them.

But being not averse to taking the revenue from the fines (or in the case of smoking, the tax) is not even remotely the same as *wanting* people to speed (or to smoke).

A couple of years ago during some gales, the wind blew a couple of tiles off my roof. Because my house insurance company had a system of paying fixed amounts for those kinds of claims, I actually got paid more on insurance than it cost to fix the roof. That doesn't mean that I wanted the tiles blown off. Even with the money, I'd far rather that the gale hadn't happened and that I didn't have to go through the worry and admin of dealing with the problem. Is it so hard to believe it's the same with the Government and the Police? That they don't want people to speed (or to smoke), and they therefore levy fines/taxes to deter them?

 

[Dave1987]

I think what he insinuates is that they are not adverse to profiting from peoples ill advised actions (at least in their view). If only points were given their credibility would be somewhat enhanced.

Similar in ways to Smoking, they pretend they don't want people to smoke but are quite happy to scoop up the most regressive form of revenue available to them.

Precisely!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But being not averse to taking the revenue from the fines (or in the case of smoking, the tax) is not even remotely the same as *wanting* people to speed (or to smoke).

So you are saying you think the Police and Govt would be very happy if they never caught anyone speeding again? Hardly they would instantly lose millions of £'s and would have to think up ways to claw back that revenue.

 

[EM2]

So you are saying you think the Police and Govt would be very happy if they never caught anyone speeding again? Hardly they would instantly lose millions of £'s and would have to think up ways to claw back that revenue.

They would be over the moon.
Less bureaucracy needed to administrate offences including endorsing licences and collecting fines, fewer police needed to enforce speeding (because it wouldn't be happening), court services could be streamlined as they would be dealing with substantially fewer cases, no need to spend time and money on speed awareness courses, less money needed to be spent on the NHS as there would be fewer accidents due to excessive speed, no need for the installation, operation and maintenance of the cameras.
And that's just off the top of my head.

 

[Busaholic]

I think that in the event of speed limits going up on the motorway, there really should be an extension to the driving test to include motorway driving. I found it quite odd that having passed my test, I could have gone home, had a cup of tea, and then gone out onto the motorway with nobody else in the car. Fortunately, I didn't (my first time driving on the motorway was done late-evening whilst nice and quiet, with my dad in the front as well), but I certainly think that Motorway driving ought to form part of the practical test, rather than just a few questions on the theory.

Having passed my driving test (at the third attempt, which recent research shows makes for the safest drivers) my instructor took me from the Test Centre to the nearest motorway, a mere ten minutes away, and gave me my last ever paid-for driving lesson,one which I found both instructive and enjoyable. I knew that within days of passing my test I would be having to drive on my own on this motorway on a daily basis, and the preparation it gave me made me confident (but not overly so) that I'd be OK, which I was.

 

[455driver]

If you increase the speed for all the cars (I assume you are being a typical, selfish car driver) on the motorway what about the trucks and coaches, if you don't increase their maximum speed by the same amount then the closing speeds would be much higher leading to more accidents because the average car driver cant see anything more than 10ft in front of their bonnet.

I think that in the event of speed limits going up on the motorway, there really should be an extension to the driving test to include motorway driving.

What about people who live in Cornwall?
The nearest motorway is the M5 at Exeter which takes about 2 and a half hours to get to from Penzance!
Realistically the test would need to be about 6 hours long just to do the motorway bit!

 

[Minilad]

What about people who live in Cornwall?
The nearest motorway is the M5 at Exeter which takes about 2 and a half hours to get to from Penzance!
Realistically the test would need to be about 6 hours long just to do the motorway bit!

Another idea that sounds good on paper but is unworkable in practise. A bit like using 442s on..............

 

[DarloRich]

What about people who live in Cornwall?
The nearest motorway is the M5 at Exeter which takes about 2 and a half hours to get to from Penzance!
Realistically the test would need to be about 6 hours long just to do the motorway bit!

Or Norfolk where it would take about 50 years to reach a motorway
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True. Some places also have better practice opportunities than others - for instance the A5 through MK is basically a 2 lane motorway to all intents and purposes, other than the lack of a hard shoulder (also now true of some motorway sections) and that pedestrians and cyclists are technically permitted (but very rarely seen as there are excellent alternatives).

You would be suicidal to talk or cycle down that road! The nimrods use it as a race track!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So you are saying you think the Police and Govt would be very happy if they never caught anyone speeding again? Hardly they would instantly lose millions of £'s and would have to think up ways to claw back that revenue.

Gosh, what a cynical view you must have of your fellow human beings! Do you always look for the worst possible motive for the decisions of organizations like the Government and the Police, and assume the worst possible conceivable motive must be what's going on in people's heads? Can you not conceive of the possibility that organizations such as the Police are composed of individual human beings who, in all probability, are mainly concerned with getting their jobs done to the best of their ability, and who are motivated by a desire to - for example - get the crime rate down and to see fewer needless deaths caused on the road.

If no motorist ever speeded in the UK again, then the roads would become safer, the numbers of deaths would reduce. The numbers of families torn apart and lives ruined by losing a child, or a father or a mother because of a vehicle going too fast would drop. The police and the Government would have one thing less to worry about, and could therefore focus slightly more attention on the zillions of other problems they are expected to solve. As far as politicians whom I know personally are concerned (one MP and about a dozen local councillors, so not a huge group I admit), I can't think of a single one who wouldn't (so far as I can tell from knowing the kind of people they are) be delighted if that happened.

But no, for some reason, you have chosen to make up this silly, ludicrous, story that Government and the Police (and therefore, by implication, the human beings who make up those organizations) actually want people to speed so they can get revenue from it. And you then keep repeating this story despite your not having been able to produce a shred of evidence for it.

 

[Busaholic]

What about people who live in Cornwall?
The nearest motorway is the M5 at Exeter which takes about 2 and a half hours to get to from Penzance!

Not in my experience!:

 

[Butts]

What about people who live in Cornwall?
The nearest motorway is the M5 at Exeter which takes about 2 and a half hours to get to from Penzance!
Realistically the test would need to be about 6 hours long just to do the motorway bit!

That's a short hop compared to Lerwick in The Shetlands

 

[tony_mac]

Authorities can be pretty cynical; when considering any new scheme the financial implications are considered.
The Dft, for example, were recommending against 'green wave' traffic light systems because smoothing traffic flow would save fuel which would reduce tax revenue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998182.stm
There have been cases come to light where councils seemingly don't want to improve road layouts as these would reduce income from fines.

 

[miami]

Not in my experience!:

The A30 is a mostly grade selerated dual carriageway multi lane road, plenty of scope for tests

Even ignoring islands (not just Scotland - the Isle of Wight for example), places like Wick are hours from a dual carriageway, let alone motorway. North wales get the a55, Norfolk I assume has access to some form of decent dual carriageway, but northern Scotland and Aberystwyth are stuck.

But driving tests do vary, driving in London is far different to northern urban areas which are far different to ritual areas.

Penzance to the M5 is 90 minutes. Penzance to manchester is 3h58.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Well in my view Speeding Offences should either carry a fine or points but not both - that is a double whammy. A bit like being jailed and fined not one or the other.

But you can be jailed and fined. You can even be jailed, fined, and given points on your driving licence all in the same sentence.

I think that in the event of speed limits going up on the motorway, there really should be an extension to the driving test to include motorway driving. I found it quite odd that having passed my test, I could have gone home, had a cup of tea, and then gone out onto the motorway with nobody else in the car. Fortunately, I didn't (my first time driving on the motorway was done late-evening whilst nice and quiet, with my dad in the front as well), but I certainly think that Motorway driving ought to form part of the practical test, rather than just a few questions on the theory.

I'd guess though that you were taught and/or examined on a high speed dual carriageway, which is basically the same thing?

What about people who live in Cornwall?
The nearest motorway is the M5 at Exeter which takes about 2 and a half hours to get to from Penzance!
Realistically the test would need to be about 6 hours long just to do the motorway bit!

Someone taking a driving test at Penzance could be taken down the A30, so instructors in the area will be teaching their students how to drive on that road and roads like it. Driving on the motorway is similar enough to driving on roads like that there wouldn't be very much point in teaching people specifically how to drive on motorways.

I suppose someone learning to drive in Thurso probably won't have practiced on a dual carriageway at all, but realistically how often are people there going to drive on any DCs or motorways?

You would be suicidal to talk or cycle down that road! The nimrods use it as a race track!

I have a (very unrealistic) dream of doing it on horseback one day

 

[EM2]

I'd guess though that you were taught and/or examined on a high speed dual carriageway, which is basically the same thing?

I wasn't, and I took lessons in Maidstone, and also Slough after I moved.

 

[Domh245]

I'd guess though that you were taught and/or examined on a high speed dual carriageway, which is basically the same thing?

Having learnt to drive in South London, there wasn't a huge amount of opportunity for high speed dual carriageway driving, and I certainly didn't cover any in the practical test. I had done some high speed dual carriageway driving prior to that (down the A3 and along the A21), and whilst to all intents and purposes they are the same, driving on the motorway felt a lot different to driving on the A roads. Perhaps it was somewhat of a placebo effect the first time I did it!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Pretty much every test centre vaguely near a fast dual carriageway has some test routes including that road. If instructors aren't teaching people to cope with that possibility then that's a serious cause for concern and perhaps points to greater regulation needed of the driver training industry

 

[miami]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-35004410

A plan to increase the cost of speed awareness courses has been criticised as a "self-funding merry-go-round".
Avon and Somerset Police wants to raise the cost of the course from £80 to £95 to help pay for its road policing unit.
The Alliance of British Drivers said the police should not be funded by people "who hadn't done much wrong".

Given that the people who should fund the police is everyone, think of it as being paid to drive within the limits.

The cost of these courses (or the fine that comes with the points) is a little regressive though -- why not simply tax 1/265th of your annual gross income that you declare for tax. Someone on the average wage would pay £100, someone on the breadline £40, someone like a CEO will be charged £12,000. Pensioners and the unemployed would simply have their license revoked.

 

[Dave1987]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-35004410


Given that the people who should fund the police is everyone, think of it as being paid to drive within the limits.

The cost of these courses (or the fine that comes with the points) is a little regressive though -- why not simply tax 1/265th of your annual gross income that you declare for tax. Someone on the average wage would pay £100, someone on the breadline £40, someone like a CEO will be charged £12,000. Pensioners and the unemployed would simply have their license revoked.

This is precisely my entire point about speed cameras. Its not about safety but the money they bring in.

 

[Antman]

Pretty much every test centre vaguely near a fast dual carriageway has some test routes including that road. If instructors aren't teaching people to cope with that possibility then that's a serious cause for concern and perhaps points to greater regulation needed of the driver training industry

But how many test centres are anywhere near a fast section of dual carriageway?

Maybe a motorway test on a simulator might be an option worth considering?

 

[miami]

This is precisely my entire point about speed cameras. Its not about safety but the money they bring in.

But fines are a way of discouraging something. Just like charging people to use new carrier bags has led to an 80% reduction.

Surely it's about how to reduce an activity that (at least in some cases) has bad effects. Just like a penalty fare.

 

[EM2]

This is precisely my entire point about speed cameras. Its not about safety but the money they bring in.

And once again, if nobody speeds, there's no need to fund a road policing unit to the same extent.

 

[Dave1987]

And once again, if nobody speeds, there's no need to fund a road policing unit to the same extent.

So you are saying that if there was a huge reduction in speeding they would shrink the road policing unit? Of course they wouldn't. They would just have to find even more creative ways to fund it. There have been repeated examples in this thread proving my point that the police and govt love the revenue they get from speed cameras. It is not about safety at all, just about the money.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So you are saying that if there was a huge reduction in speeding they would shrink the road policing unit? Of course they wouldn't. They would just have to find even more creative ways to fund it. There have been repeated examples in this thread proving my point that the police and govt love the revenue they get from speed cameras. It is not about safety at all, just about the money.

No there haven't. There have been examples showing that the money paid in fines gets put to good use. That is an altogether different thing from saying that they 'love the money' or that speed cameras are 'just about the money'. I notice you now appear to have dropped your absurd claim that the police want people to speed, but you are still basing your posts on unfounded accusations.

Besides, what do you think the Government should do with the money raised in fines? I bet that if the money wasn't being put to good use, you'd instead complain about the money being wasted.

 

[miami]

So you are saying that if there was a huge reduction in speeding they would shrink the road policing unit? Of course they wouldn't. They would just have to find even more creative ways to fund it. There have been repeated examples in this thread proving my point that the police and govt love the revenue they get from speed cameras. It is not about safety at all, just about the money.

So you keep asserting, however the evidence shows that in almost all cases it's about the safety (even if views that lower speed limited are inherently safer -- for instance someone doing below the speed limit down a blind sliproad would be far more dangeorus than someone doing 80 down an empty M5 over Dartmoor).

You can't speed more than 4 times in 3 years, or once every 9 months, without losing your license.

Out of interest, are parking fines just about the money?