Scamera poll

skull wrote: livvy you wrote "This is not new to us. People have actually been prosecuted in this country for speeding for over 100 years" ?????? you gotta be kidding me here.

There was a 20mph speed limit put in force in Bournemouth in 1904. People were prosecuted using a the traditional distance over time method, using a measured distance & a calibrated stopwatch.

i get all my evidence from as many places as possible before i put them on here. you it seems to me are just too set in your view to see the bigger picture, no insult intended.

I am not set in my view point at all. I am open to persuasion & I have an open mind, but I will not accept that breaking the law is acceptable, just because that particular law doesn't fit in with your lifestyle. We live in a society under the rule of law & we have to adhere to that or expect societies punishments if we don't.

I think I am seeing the bigger picture & looking at the concerns of all the population not just (as many here appear to) to a far smaller group of drivers who enjoy a spirited drive on a bit of road and come from a single common pre-disposed outlook. If you surround yourself with people who think like you, then you'll begin to think that everyone thinks like you. Seek out others who don't think the same & will challenge your thoughts & processes. You may find it liberating & enlightening. There is a big world out there, it is diverse & they don't all think like you.

I am still waiting for somebody to explain to me why I am misjudging it with my original post, about how can it be about money when the government & Police do the things I listed.

my driving has been overseen by many people more qualified to judge it that the bloody government are. i have always driven to conditions and always do. this is never to a speed limit , ime not saying i speed or dont speed but there is a time and place for everything in life regarless of what anyone says.

Who qualified to do so, examined you driving on our roads driving in excess of the speed limit & certified you as safe & competent to do such. What margin & level did they certify you to ? Were you certified to having no need to observe limits at all & always drive at what you thought was safe for the circumstances or did they just give you a speed limit +20mph classification ? Unless you can answer that I will suspect that you have only been tested (on public roads) to make an asssessment on what is a safe speed up to & not beyond the limit.

speed is not the be all and end all of our problems.

No it isn't, it is one of many. But it is the one that because of it's nature, if it is limited, it can have a positive impact on the severity of the outcome that other problems pose.

and my statment when i said about who is safer nigel doing 80 on a motorway etc etc was a for instance not a fact but you can and did not see this and then do not understand.

You asked a question
"Who is more dangerous....." you said.

You then stated that your personal preferrence, but I can't say it would be mine with no evidence or information to help me with that assessment.

The point I am making is that you can't make such statements & they have any worth because they don't apply to anything real or concrete.

It would be like me saying that 100mph is always dangerous on a motorway. Of course it may or may not be & it would dependent on a whole host of factors.

If it was because of a set of circumstances I had in my mind & I didn't articulate them or apply them to a scenario of reality, then nobody could make any judgement on whether it was or wasn't safe.

That it is why I can't say whether Nigel would have been safer or not. There is not enough information & your "for instance" therefore is pointless to my reality & perspective, so I can't answer your question meaningfully.


Edited by livvy

Livvy, I'm sorry, but you DO seem very set in your opinions. Speed is NOT the major causal factor in accidents, it's just one that is very easy to police automatically.

By supporting the spin that reducing speed makes everything better, you are decreasing support for better, more thorough improvements in people's driving. You could argue that if cars were restricted to an arbitrary speed like 5MPH, accidents would decline dramatically, and fatalities would practically go away. But then who would be able to use their cars for anything useful?

And to underscore what you said about my driving: I am impatient. I don't deny it. I do factor in other people's driving and leave as much of a window as possible for my journeys. But the raw fact of the matter is that I cannot take forever, and other people's rudeness is never penalised by the things that silently watch our roads.

I wonder too about your claims of support. I saw today, Mrs Joanna Average, in her Renault Megane Scenic, kids in the read, baby on board sticker. Probably one of the people the government could count on as a supporter of enforcement against reckless speeding and more cameras. In the middle lane of a largely empty motorway, at 65 MPH.

I took an exit, and coincidentally, so did she. Although I was far ahead of her at the exit, when we got to the built up 30MPH zone, she was very quick to catch me and then sat so close that I couldn't see her number plate. You could see I was holding her up, yet my speedo was reading 30MPH.

I personally believe that a vast number of people pay so little attention to their driving that they don't even know all the things they are doing wrong.

(And when I talk about engineering, I mean banking, or re-laying out corners, or cod help me, better signage. Not speed bumps.)

spokey wrote: Livvy, I'm sorry, but you DO seem very set in your opinions. Speed is NOT the major causal factor in accidents, it's just one that is very easy to police automatically.

Could I not say that you appear very set in your view point ?

I keep agreeing that speed is NOT the major cause in all colisions, but it is a contributory cause. If everybody drove at a speed that they could stop within the distance they can see to be clear at all times, only up to & not beyond limits, they would hit far less. But they don't. They are therefore travelling too quickly for their field of vision or level of concentration they are applying. As I said speak to the people who investigate collisions they are some of the best placed to judge on how much speed is a factor.

Give me some argument that can convince me. I'll respond best to evidence. But if you are not concentrating fully you need to adjust your speed to match your level of concentration if you don't speed becomes a factor.

By supporting the spin that reducing speed makes everything better, you are decreasing support for better, more thorough improvements in people's driving. You could argue that if cars were restricted to an arbitrary speed like 5MPH, accidents would decline dramatically, and fatalities would practically go away. But then who would be able to use their cars for anything useful?

Soin comes from both sides. There is plenty of it at ABD etc.

I am not saying that reducing speed always makes better. I am not saying it is the only thing that should be addressed. Equally I am saying though that the benefits it gives shouldn't be ignored just because it doesn't fit in with your lifestyle. Yes if we didn't go out in our cars that would be safest of all, but it is clearly not practical & I have never suggested anything like that should happen. A balance needs to be struck.
Killing 3,500 a year is not to my mind a reasonable & acceptable risk management of our roads. It is unbalanced. We will always have some deaths but that is too high a number along with tens of thopusands of seriously injured. I am not suggesting wholesale reductions in our limits either. What I am saying is that turning a blind eye to people breaking those current limits does nothing to further road safety, enforcing them does.

And to underscore what you said about my driving: I am impatient. I don't deny it. I do factor in other people's driving and leave as much of a window as possible for my journeys. But the raw fact of the matter is that I cannot take forever, and other people's rudeness is never penalised by the things that silently watch our roads.

It is your perception that these other matters are never addressed.
Traffic Officer's around the country may take exception to that view. Look through records of the numbers of other offences that people are prosecuted for, rather than relying on your perception of it.

I personally believe that a vast number of people pay so little attention to their driving that they don't even know all the things they are doing wrong.

Exactly why we must limit their speed, because if we raise it then they will just drive at that new limit. The current limit offers them greater chances to avoid collisions because that gives them more time, rather than the higher speed giving them less to cover their inadequacies.

(And when I talk about engineering, I mean banking, or re-laying out corners, or cod help me, better signage. Not speed bumps.)

These sort things are examined but the public purse is not endless. Where the same benfits can be gained through cheaper methods naturally the governemnt will favour the cheaper, but just as effective at removing danger options. More expensive doesn't always equal better results, a cost & benefit evaluation has to be carried out in each individual case.


Edited by livvy

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: I'll respond best to evidence. Please prove to me that every single speed camera (or even a majority) is sited for actual safety reasons and has caused a long-term improvement in safety (not just a one-year-to-the-next). I'll respond best to evidence.

Camera safety partnerships are public bodies & subject to the freedom of information act. The reasoning & evidence for siting cameras is available for you on request. Feel free to investigate nowe I've pointed you in the right direction.

Clearly you'll never be able to show that every individual camera has produced a reduction in casualties. It is when we look at cameras as a concept have they performed their primary function of reducing speed. The evidence from before & after installation surveys show they in the majority do exactly that. Then has that led to a reduction in the trend of collisions at the site. In the main again the evidence shows that they do.

You can of course (as ABD etc do) hunt out for a single camera or even one area withe them where the number of collisions increase & there will be a few because there are a whole number of factors that have to enter into the equation. But if we look at the cameras wholesale then the evidence (in hard fact figures) shows that the majority see reductions & sustained reductions at the sites.

The dft website will have plenty of reports for you if you want to look.

I still despite repeated requests have seen nothing that responds to all the points in my first post here. You can't all stick your heads in the sand & pretend they don't exist.


Edited by livvy

If it is about revenue & we hate it, why do we supply them with it by speeding ?

Because speeding doesn't feel like a crime.

You can argue about the why's and wherefore's of criminals wishing that crimes were decriminalised, but every motorist runs the risk of becoming a criminal for something trivial, whether it be a momentary lapse or a concious decision. Only a psychopath thinks murder should be legal. I doubt anyone here is advocating unlimited speed in town centres or near schools. Most of us aren't advocating unlimited speed anywhere. What we are saying is that when circumstances are favourable (and it is desperately rare) then 70MPH is a fatuous limit.

What I resent and what gets my back up is the constant harping on and enforcement of a petty and arbitrary rule with no latitude given for circumstances or conditions. I resent the continuous barrage of anti-motorist adverts and the constant fixation on one aspect of motoring.

If there was as much focus on courteous driving as there is on speed, I think the roads would be a better, safer place to be.


Edited by spokey

Tha main point Livvy makes is very valid.

The speed limit is the law, and without driving an emergency vehicle ( within a set of circumstances), you will never be allowed to exceed this.

The fact that we have been ignored exceeding these limits for many years doesn't make it our right to do so.

Just to put Livvy right on one fact, it is my RIGHT to drive on public roads, not a privalage, I have met all standards, and passed relavent tests, the groups on my licence are called entitlements, not privalages.

Now as far as driving today, what are we going to do ?

We can bury our heads in the sand, let the government and do gooders carry on restricting us, which they will in their bid to reduce casualties, or we can come up with alternatives to help reduce casualties.

livvy wrote: spokey wrote: If it is about revenue & we hate it, why do we supply them with it by speeding ? Because speeding doesn't feel like a crime. Hate to break it to you, so prepare yourself...........read the legislation it is.

Ahem. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, I said it doesn't feel like a crime. I have a highly developed conscience. If I were to commit a murder or steal something, I would feel guilty. Hell, I've felt guilt for going out with someone that I wasn't committed to.

But somehow I never feel guilty when I catch myself going over the limit unless I haven't been paying attention to the road. Then I feel guilty for not paying attention and either stop for a break or sharpen my attention up. If I have been ruthlessly paying attention to the vehicles around me, the road surface and signage and I'm well within the limits of my car and the circumstance and I just haven't been looking at my speedo, then I couldn't give a tinker's cuss.

The first time I moved from the "I wish I could just go as fast as I like" to "blimey, this does make a difference" was on the Isle of Man. I wasn't driving anywhere NEAR v.max, but I was able to watch the twisty roads, pay attention to vehicles around me and how the car felt without having to apply some arbitrary regulation. Did I feel like I was driving more safely? I certainly did, because my attention was entirely focused on my driving. I wasn't scanning bushes for scamera vans, I was scanning the road for water puddles and other cars.

It may well be that if I had not had that experience, I would be the more callow person I was before, just wishing for higher speed limits so I could drive faster. I certainly would not have prolonged this discussion beyond one or two posts.

But I genuinely believe that the monotheistic focus on speeding is not the most effective way of improving road safety.

spokey wrote: Ahem. I didn't say it wasn't a crime, I said it doesn't feel like a crime. I have a highly developed conscience. If I were to commit a murder or steal something, I would feel guilty. Hell, I've felt guilt for going out with someone that I wasn't committed to. But somehow I never feel guilty when I catch myself going over the limit unless I haven't been paying attention to the road. Then I feel guilty for not paying attention and either stop for a break or sharpen my attention up. If I have been ruthlessly paying attention to the vehicles around me, the road surface and signage and I'm well within the limits of my car and the circumstance and I just haven't been looking at my speedo, then I couldn't give a tinker's cuss.

I doesn't feel like a crime to you because your values are out of sync with societies. That will only lead to conflict unless you resolve that one way or another.

The first time I moved from the "I wish I could just go as fast as I like" to "blimey, this does make a difference" was on the Isle of Man. I wasn't driving anywhere NEAR v.max, but I was able to watch the twisty roads, pay attention to vehicles around me and how the car felt without having to apply some arbitrary regulation. Did I feel like I was driving more safely? I certainly did, because my attention was entirely focused on my driving. I wasn't scanning bushes for scamera vans, I was scanning the road for water puddles and other cars. It may well be that if I had not had that experience, I would be the more callow person I was before, just wishing for higher speed limits so I could drive faster. I certainly would not have prolonged this discussion beyond one or two posts.

There is much to be said for speed actually focusing the mind.
The problem though that to do it effectively for prolonged periods of time like anything requires immense amounts of training & practice. It is very tiring. The general public don't appear to regulate their speed around the level of concentration they are applying & then this becomes dangerous. They are not aware of how human responses & emotions can have a huge efeect on our ability to concentrate. They simply say 100mph was safe for me yesterday in these conditions so it is today.

Most people drive on auto pilot, they don't concentrate on driving, they have the radio on, they are on the phone etc etc. they are not committed to applying all their concentration to driving alone, listening to the engine, feeling the responses of the vehicle instead of reading the map. Remember our limits are common to all & the numbers of apathetic drivers far outweigh the conscientious committed drivers who are a lonely voice in the wilderness.

But I genuinely believe that the monotheistic focus on speeding is not the most effective way of improving road safety.

I say again that is your focus & perception. The reality is very different.
Take the Met Police.
Over 30,000 Police officers. How many of them do speed enforcenment ?
There are about 600 Traffic officers. They work shift patterns, they deal with all fatal & serious injury collisions, which a lot of the time are protracted investigations. They run bikesafe courses which are education courses for motorcyclists which have been successful in reducing the alarming rise in previous years (against other trends) in motorcycle deaths. They have to attend court & post mortems, they have to provide aid at major public order events to ease traffic flow & congestion on a daily basis.

So how many officers are going to be doing dedicated speed enforcement on a daily basis ?

You see one & your perception is that they are all at it, when the reality is they may be one of a couple amongst 7 million people.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: I doesn't feel like a crime to you because your values are out of sync with societies.

It doesn't feel like a crime to me because my values are out of sync with society's?

I'm chastened to hear that from the judge and jury. I'll just scuttle off and hang my head in shame. It must be wonderful to be as perfect as you.

It may well be that my values are different from those of the sandalistas and lentilists in power, but I am a common man. Don't forget livvy, I am a part of the society you say I am out of touch with. I frequent many web forums, and none of them report that my feelings are out of sync with the overwhelming masses on this issue. I have never in the course of casual conversation with anyone I work with or work for had anyone ever say to me that there should be more speed cameras and that they are important to road safety.

If I am out of touch with society's values, then there are a large number of similarly maladjusted, dysfunctional people out there. You may not be as attuned to the values of society as you think you are.


Edited by spokey

we want more speed cams.