imlach

y biggest concern with Speed Cameras is that they in themself are a hazard to driving. People are so worried about getting caught by them and loosing their license that they spend more time looking at the speedo than at the road and become even more of a danger, even if they are travelling at the limit or below.

I've heard this said many a time, but is it really true?

Certainly in my experience, you gain an understanding for knowing what your speed is from driving experience. I can quite easily tell if I'm doing 30 or 40 from a LOT of factors other than looking at the speedo, and keeping my eyes on the road. Choice of gear, engine noise, etc etc

Also, a quick glance at the speedo SHOULD NOT present a hazard as to lose control or have a collision.

imlach

What is perhaps a hazard is that people brake suddenly in front of the cameras, but that is surely more to do with the fact that they were not observing their speed properly in normal non-camera areas....

Also, you always get the smart alecs who like to speed until they reach a known speed camera, slam on the anchors to get down the limit, and then re-accelerate back to their original speed. THEY also do not help traffic flow.

It gets back to my original point. Namely, why do people ASSUME the right to drive at a speed THEY prefer, rather than respect the given limit?

ajm

Because the limits are set too slow.

MATTeL

What is dangerous is some old person sitting in the middle lane doing 25mph peering though a misted up frint window and not having lights on when it is raining.

Thankfully, at the speeds everyone was doing on the M1 on Sunday we all managed to avoid you!

Moronic old person!

scoobynutta555

why do people ASSUME the right to drive at a speed THEY prefer, rather than respect the given limit?

Why do ageing old codgers in their 15 year old volvo estates ASSUME the right to drive at a speed THEY prefer, often way below the posted limits, rather than respect other drivers.

It would be an interesting to find out how many accidents involve directly/indirectly a vehicle driving unnaturally slow in a given circumstance.

All this rhetoric about speeding and yet the biggest cause of accidents is down to careless driving and drink driving. This obsession of speeding being the route of all evil is indeed a very shallow approach and will untimately have little to no effect on accident deaths/injuries. If funds were channeled to other areas, and proper compulsory driving courses were implememnted, this would have a far greater affect.

An example, shock horror I have been caught on an empty motorway 'clear and dry' conditions doing 100 mph.

Yet a 17 year old with no proper driving experience, can legally drive unsupervised on a motorway, despite having zero experience.

As I have mentioned before, I was backended whilst stationary in my 3 month old car by a 17 year old who passed his test 6 days before hand. He wasnt speeding at the time, just not paying attention to the road. "What if" he didnt hit me, but a pedestrian that happened to be in the road or a cyclist?

A doddery pensioner can happily drive about causing mayhem so long as they dont exceed a speed limit.

I see numerous examples of potentially fatal driving techniques, and very few are down to excessive speed.

DRUNKNORGY

Erm is that the slow flow of traffic, or the fast one

The speed cameras which are positioned at sites which just don't justify them, on the grounds of it being an existing accident blackspot (which has been attributed to excessive speed), are a criminal and moral waste of taxpayers money, and also are creating a hazard which previously didn't exist.

There is a legitimate place for this type of enforcement, but the application of them to date has been shown to be wanting. This is the biggest gripe, and one which you have repeatedly avoided to address in your flacid points of reasoning.

Perhaps if the real reason for most of them being in place was for safety and not raising money, you would have a valid argument, but you like the central government, local government and police authorities who directly benefit from their downright devious application would be taken seriously by the public at large. In the mean time, your not going to get many converts to your hommage to Phoney Tony.

Sbradley

I have a simple question which someone in this thread may be able to answer.

Take a piece of road. It is reasonably well maintained, reasonably clear as regards visibility and has no particular hazards. It is posted as being restricted to the National Speed Limit. It is not regarded as being a dangerous road at all. I suspect that all of us, on whichever side of the fence we sit, know a piece of road like this.

Then one day the local authority decide that no, Something Must Be Done about road casualties in their patch. Speed Kills, they say, so they slap a 40mph limit on that piece of road.

Now I'm not saying that breaking the law is right or wrong, and I'm not saying that I am right to ignore that limit.

All I want to know is this.

What's changed to make 60mph safe yesterday but irresponsibly dangerous today?

SB

imlach

Just for everyone's information (as people are making assumptions!), I am not a supporter of Labour, and I anyway, I think the issue of speeding is a non-political one.

I have not been discussing the locations of speed cameras (be they right or wrong), but more about the morality of deliberate speeding, and the non-acceptance of a "fair cop" (I continually refer to my 3rd post in this long thread! Please read it again!).

imlach

Sbradley - maybe up here in Edinburgh the authorities are too sensible. Certainly within Edinburgh, all the speed cameras that have been put up have NOT had speed limits changed. Some of them are on urban 2x2 lane roads with houses either side (which is sensible), and most are on 30mph zones in urban areas with houses. Most are near or on places I can recall fatal accidents.

In fact, I can think of some streets which have had 40mph changed to 30mph, but have had no cameras placed on them.

Maybe in your part of the world things are different.

Sbradley

No, it is a political issue because it relates to the freedom and rights of the people. It shouldn't be a party political issue, though.

A fine point but as one who has been arguing semantics through this whole thread it is one you should appreciate

Assuming (a dangerous thing, I know) that you were referring to my post above, nowhere did I mention a camera or non-acceptance of it being a "fair cop." I just asked a question which I was hoping someone with an alternative view might be able to answer.

Let me elaborate. I live in Surrey, and I drive and ride a lot in Surrey, Sussex, Kent and the Thames Valley. I see this sort of 'logic' being applied to roads a great deal, and I am trying to understand it. Can you help?

SB

imlach

Sbradley - no, my 2nd point you refer to was unfortunately classed as referring to you - it was not meant to be.

Sbradley

No problem, but I'd still love to hear your comments regarding my question...

S(imon)B

imlach

OK, if get your question (as there were a few?), but I think it was about putting in a speed camera and reducing the existing speed limit at the same time by 20mph?

I would say that was most probably unfair, assuming absolutely no new reasons to lower the limit. In Scotland, this is a local authority decision, nothing to do with national govt, so you'd express your view at the local elections, or make protests to the local councillor. Given the majority on this forum are 'car-nuts', we're not going to see (as has been seen) a lot of contrasting views, but I suspect once a camera is in place, there will also be more than a few who want to keep it there if they live nearby.

However, until one found someone to reverse the decision, there'd be no point trangressing the limit just out of principle. It'd still be a 'fair cop'.

I would say though, that in my experience, I've never seen a road have its limit increased EVER So once it's down, it's down.

Sbradley

Well, I didn't actually mention a camera. Although, of course, our local authorities are just as quick to spot a revenue opportunity as those North of the border...

No, it was more to get an alternative perspective on the process that says "this road is safe at 60mph" on Monday and on Tuesday says "This road is only safe at 40mph and anything else is bordering on criminally irresponsible."

SB

DRUNKNORGY

How about the proliferation of the new generation of 'Mobile Speed Camera Vans' Which are being deployed Here there and everywhere !.

Every road is game, and they are deviously hiding the cameras in Hire vans now. Its only a matter of time until they stick them in wheelie bins as they have done in Holland .

How can they claim to be acting in the interests of SAFETY if people can't see them at the time of the offence and only are aware of their prescence when in receipt of a NIP 2 weeks later ?.

The policies are designed to catch as many Drivers as possible as they realise now, that statistically replacing a Bobby with a Camera will raise revenue, but not make any real difference to SAFETY - Which its all about isn't it

scoobynutta555

Off the top of my head i can think of no less than three roads locally where speed limits have been reduced on major trunk roads.

1. Airport way Luton, dual carriageway, from a 70 to a 30/40 supposedly temporary due to traffic works, but in the months that i have used the road all I ever saw were cones and no machinery or people. Has this been lifted? I recall that a mobile trap was set up and done everybody for a day, the amount of complaints to the local paper was astonishing. This is a road in a non residential area, is a motorway link road and has no pedestrians

2. dual carriageway out of watford (A41?) passing J6 M1 (northbound) and going to m25. This link road had recently been downdraded from national speed limit (70) to a 50, why????? Another motorway link road that is a dual carriageway and no pedestrains.

3. A505 luton, recently dropped by 10 mph, again a major trunk road no pedestrians.

All three of these roads in my 15 years of being on them, on those stretches, have never ever seen an accident. Why have they been downgraded? As said above how can previously higher limits be deemed as unsafe nowadays given the vast reduction in accidents since those limits were introduced?

DRUNKNORGY

The silence is deafening

Leslie

I agree with SBradley's point and Scoobynutta's about reducing speed limits on previously derestricted roads. I did mention that in a previous post on this thread. The answer Steve of course, it is another way of extracting cash! Totally wrong and will only antagonise motorists unnecessarily.

Scoobynutta, it was a golden age of motoring, drivers were all enthusiasts, most knew how to service and repair their own cars, and speeds were not so high anyway since cars and motorbikes were less powerful. You had enough time to fall off your bike, pick it up, push it to the the side of the road, and check it for damage. All before the next car came along! You quoted part of the "get out clause" as you put it, but omitted the rest of it in typical fashion in order to attempt to justify your argument! I did say at the end of that paragraph that I expected it to be taken out of context. If you are going to quote, then do it fairly or what you say means nothing.

Les

scoobynutta555

speeds were not so high anyway since cars and motorbikes were less powerful.

By the above it seems to me that speed is still the outright concern of yours for accidents.

Speeds were not so high
seem to remember speed restrictions on motorways being passed due to a famous marque test driving their new cars at excessive speeds.



Drum brakes, non abs, no airbags, seat belts not worn, crap tyres and suspension, bad road lighting, poor lighting from cars themselves, no cats eyes, lax drink driving enforcement and tests. Possibly stopping distances were twice then than they are now.

All the above circumstances yet speeds on motorways were set at 70 mph. These days with advances in technology etc it seems a bit strange to 'do' somebody driving in a safe but fast manner (still way below speeds acheived by 'testers' on the M1 decades ago) on a virtually empty road.

Looking at the accident data posted, I feel more comfortable driving safely on the roads today than I would 30 years ago.

Leslie

Scoobynutta,

Of course excessive speed is a factor as far as both the possibility of an accident occurring and also the extent of damage and injury during the accident. That is an undeniable fact and no one can talk around that.

Speeds were not so high generally for the reason I stated. You cannot compare the average car on the road with a one off example. That simply is not an argument. The car you mentioned was an AC Cobra I think with a very large V8 and was of course capable of very high speeds. It was a publicity stunt and I can't remember just how high the three figure speed it reached was, in the early morning with no other traffic on the motorway. It was reported in the press as they wanted and there was such a hue and cry that eventually a blanket speed limit was placed on the motorways. There were hardly any AC Cobras available in the country when it happened. If they had any sense they would have pre-arranged a speed trial as Jaguar did with the XK on the Jabbeke Highway in Belgium and then there would have been no fuss.

There were disk brakes on cars then, Jaguar was the first car firm to fit them to their D types at the Goodwood 9 hour race. I had front discs on my Lotus Cortina Mk 1 which stopped as well as my Scooby does. There are many who like me do not believe that ABS is an advantage for fast driving, especially on icy or loose surfaces. I prefer to use the brakes to their maximum ability myself if necessary. I am well practised in that and can use cadence braking quite successfully. safety belts were available and it was a personal choice if you wished to wear them. Road lighting, well there is more of that on motorways now, but no more out in the country, dont see the point of that one. All the cars I had then had good lighting, mainly better than my Scooby again! Certainly adequate anyway. Airbags! good in some circumstances but not in others they say. Like belts,what is the connection with avoiding accidents? Tyres and suspension were not so bad as you say, depending on the car of course. The family cars were not that good but the sporting cars were a lot better than you think, although there were some glaring exceptions. Dunlop SP Sports or Pirellis, Avons etc helped the cars to handle very well. There were catseyes everywhere! What has the modern driving test done to improve driving skillls over the original one?

Were you driving in those days? if not then I can understand your incorrect assumptions as you stated. Otherwise I am surprised. You should at least be sure of your facts before quoting them.

If you read your post again, your description of the cars then really justifies clamping an overall speed limit on the motorways anyway!

However much you want to argue about improvements in technology, two things stand out. The density of traffic now is just too high for the authorities to relax very much on speed limits since they have to cater for all skill levels. I think there is a case for increasing motorway limits to an extent but they have to remember that many drivers will just drive so much faster than the new limit.

The other thing is that the personal driving skills of drivers won't be any different to what they were in the past. Humans have not evolved that much further yet.

I accept that it is very easy to find yourself driving over the limit without realising it sometimes, we all do it. But it is another thing to go out expressly to break the speed limit up to three figure speeds. It is against the law and cannot be justified.

Les

scoobynutta555

"Road lighting, well there is more of that on motorways now, but no more out in the country, dont see the point of that one.

Who mentioned out in the country? I was quite plainly talking about motorways.

I am well practised in that and can use cadence braking quite successfully

Good for you. Now if only everybody else could apply brakes as confidently and adeptly. I suppose its a step backwards for a normal car driven by a normal driver on a motorway to have ABS?

There were disk brakes on cars then, Jaguar was the first car firm to fit them to their D types at the Goodwood 9 hour race. I had front discs on my Lotus Cortina Mk 1

These are examples of average road cars? "You cannot compare the average car on the road with a one off example." makes this comment you made a bit rich

safety belts were available and it was a personal choice if you wished to wear them

It can be assumed then that not many people wore them at all if they were made law. I cant remember anybody wearing them when I was about before the law made them compulsory

All the cars I had then had good lighting, mainly better than my Scooby again!

What cars? And Id like to see some facts of this.And im assuming by the use of 'again' at the end of that comment there is something else that was better than your Impreza at something?

Airbags! good in some circumstances but not in others they say.

A study in America 2000 "Fifteen million airbags have inflated in accident conditions in America, saving about 4,000 lives.
But they are also thought to have caused the deaths of 60 people."

Like belts,what is the connection with avoiding accidents

"All the above circumstances yet speeds on motorways were set at 70 mph." Who said it was all about avoiding accidents? These are simply advances that have been made to safer motoring, therefore reducing casualty rates.

The family cars were not that good but the sporting cars were a lot better than you think

The average car was a sports car then was it? Pointless going on about sports cars when they are far from the average car driven then as well as now.

Were you driving in those days? if not then I can understand your incorrect assumptions as you stated. Otherwise I am surprised. You should at least be sure of your facts before quoting them.

What days were you driving around in? The days when motorways had no central barriers? When motorcyclists didnt have to wear helmets? The days of popular cars like the Austin Princess or the Vauxhall Chevette? What facts have I quoted in the above post?

Why not go and compare an average car from your period with an average car of today, say a Ford Focus. Im assuming that you are on about the late 60's early 70's.

I accept that it is very easy to find yourself driving over the limit without realising it sometimes, we all do it. But it is another thing to go out expressly to break the speed limit up to three figure speeds. It is against the law and cannot be justified.

Doing 100 mph in a 70 is the same % wise over the limit than doing 43 mph in a 30. Sin of sins doing 30 mph on a clear motorway. Yet Id imagine that millions of drivers regularly go above 35-40 (possibly more) in a 30 area even when the roads arent clear and other road hazards present like pedestrians, the same people that might chastise somebody for doing 3 figures on an empty motorway.

You say we all break the speed limits, yet you also say that there is no justification for breaking the law?

If you read your post again, your description of the cars then really justifies clamping an overall speed limit on the motorways anyway!

It does,and the flip side is why arent they raised now. You have to agree the advances that have been made to modern cars. The figures previously posted speak for themselves. If vehicle numbers have gone up and driving skills have stayed the same (according to you) how come there are far greater reductions in casualties?
Notice you deftly dont bother raising the issue of drink driving.

And regarding the point of stopping distances i have raised. Tell me in your IMHO which car is more capable, a modern Ford Focus or a comparable car of its time, say a mk1 cortina, for both stopping distances and road safety wise, comparing typically average cars, not sports cars.

Leslie

Scoobynutta,

You have done your best, unsuccessfully, to pick holes in what I wrote. I really am not going to bother to go through all that again. Just not worth the candle because it proves nothing. You are on the back foot so to speak because you do not really know the facts about driving and cars in the time I was talking about.

You did not notice, or ignored the fact that I said there might be a case for upping the speed limit on motorways with a caveat of course.

Drunk driving was just as severely dealt with at that time, the police were very quick to produce the breathalyser if they stopped anyone.

Your arguments are inaccurate, you are fond of taking statements out of context as I mentioned and your comments just don't fit the facts.

You still have not produced a justification for driving with the intent to deliberately exceed the speed limits, into three figures it seems. That is the whole point behind this discussion. The 70 mph limit is set by the authorities to cover all levels of skill as far as possible. It is the law of the land. Are you saying that you are a special case, you are so skilful and so important that you are above the law? Do you have some special driving ability which others don't have?

As I said, accidental speeding can happen to anyone, but deliberate speeding, especially at the speeds you like to drive at, is inexcusable and extremely selfish. There is a big difference in those instances.

I will repeat my earlier point which you also ignored for your own convenience. If you are in the habit of driving at high speeds well above the speed limit, then you are going to find it more difficult to avoid an accident even if the circumstances were not of your making. The law of averages will produce such a circumstance eventually. If you have that accident, the damage and the risk to life will be that much greater at higher speeds. Even if you get away with it,you may well kill someone else because of your high speed. I am quoting sheer common sense which cannot be denied. Your selfish
behaviour in such a case cannot be justified.

Once again as I said before, the traffic density these days is just too high to take such a risk with other people's lives. Regardless of the technical improvement in cars, the state of the roads which deteriorate more every day and the fact that driver abilities have not evolved over the short time that cars have been in existence mean that your attitude towards driving at high speeds is unfair in the extreme to other road users.

Les

DRUNKNORGY

Leslie - where do you get this idea that brakes have not imprioved in the last 40 years?. The Lockheed Disk brakes on my Brothers Norton Commando (Circa 1973), cannot compare in efficiency to todays bike brakes in any shape or form. They share the same principal in action, but in reality, they were shyte.
Car brakes were comparable to bikes of the time.

I think your seeing those days with Rose tinted glasses

scoobynutta555

I think that your 'arguements' are the ones that are baseless and inaccurate, and thats from a generous point of view.

And your point about unsuccessful attempts to pick holes in your 'case' as you put it, is plainly laughable.

I dont have to justify to anybody speeds at which I feel comfortable with on the roads. If youre quite happy to travel at 70 mph on a motorway then thats up to you. You will of course be in a minotity. Of course its breaking the law, I am fully concious of that fact. I would deem somebody who breaks the limit and who doesnt know that they are doing so , as you have stated, a much greater risk than somebody fully aware of what they are doing, all things considered.

To say driving on an empty motorway at the speed i have quoted, a not very high 100 mph, is " inexcusable and extremely selfish" is a very obtuse and narrowminded response.

To quote the arguement that the law of averages etc will dictate that one day when i will have an accident it will cause more damage the faster i go. Well if thats the case where do you draw the line? Plainly along with 80%+ of other motorway users its felt that the 70 mph is too low. Now if people who bang on about speed kills had their way, what limit would be set, 50 mph on our motorways? Why not 40? why not 30?

Once again as I said before, the traffic density these days is just too high to take such a risk with other people's lives
I have said several times now, the 100 mph was on an EMPTY motorway. And it is a speed Im very very comfortable with, in circumstances that are very favourable to driving.

Now 'Leslie', I shall leave you to wallow in your own misconceptions as I have more pressing matters to hand, and replying on here to you is sadly way down the list.

Dont bother answering the questions that were made before, as it seems you have no answers. Also, I wont be returning to see what other gibberish is posted.

Leslie

Drunkenorgy,

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say there was no improvement in braking over the years, I did accept all the technological advances which have been made. However, the point I made was that my Lotus Cortina could stop as well as my STI and that most of the cars I owned had lighting which was also as good as my STI in standard trim. In common with most owners I have improved both the brakes and lights on my car. As a matter of fact, well designed drum brakes could produce immense stopping power, Disk brakes removed the tendency to brake fade due to drums expanding with heat due to continual use. Alfin drums went a long way toward decreasing that problem. In the first Goodwood nine hour race that Jaguar used disk brakes, they all retired because the heat generated destroyed the bearing oil seals. They fixed the problem of course.

As a biker also, I am well aware of the improvement of disk brakes on bikes. It took a significant amount of time to get enough movement of the brake pistons coupled with enough pressure to get powerful braking by use of a hand brake lever. Even now the fast road bikes need twin front disks to get the required braking performance. I have owned all the Kawasakis from the ZX6R to the ZX12R, as well as a fair number of older bikes.

The fact that I was answering innaccurate accusations about motoring in earlier times does not entitle you to make remarks about rose tinted glasses. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real point I was making was that there is an enormous difference in traffic density then and now, and that roads have not been improved or even correctly maintained for some time now. This combination more than cancels out the advantage of cars and bikes which are designed and built better than they used to be. By the same token, it is unarguable that driving would be a much more enjoyable experience if traffic levels were down to what they were in earlier times. It is obvious that motoring pleasure will continue to decrease as traffic increases and the roads are left as they are.

I was talking from actual experience rather than from theoretical estimates. I have found in life that people's real experience can be invaluable at times and is at least worth listening to.

Scoobynutta has conveniently avoided the comment I made about motorway speed limits of course! Neither can he justify deliberately breaking the law to drive at three figure speeds.



Les