_RIP_

Plenty of 40 limits here were dropped to 30. No lives were ever lost on these roads, simply the fact that LA's can alter speed limits at a whim.

PeteBrant

Slight difference. Preduhice against gay people was just esthablishment views that were completely nonsensical.

Prejudice against speeding is (arguably) based on saving lives.

Again, there isn't the life saving aspect (unless you are in charge of writing signs outside dangerous areas and cannot spell )

_RIP_

Mere semantics. Can I still prejudice those who cant spell?

What about doctors or hundreds of other professions?

PeteBrant

What about them?

_RIP_

Work it out.

PeteBrant

I'm sure i'm being dense, but I'm not seeing the doctors to 30mph speed limit correlation.

_RIP_

It was the spelling correlation

PeteBrant

Ahh! It's more typing too fast for my poor hands than spelling problems

The two are linked. If you aren't going speed, and don't want the limits raised, what possibie reason could you have against speed cameras?


Bear in mind, if people don't speed, then your reasons for not wanting them fall to bits.

They cease to become hypocritical, because they no longer raise revenue.

It is Dave, its just you aren't finding a decent enough argument against speed cameras.
They are set against a national framework, by and large, aren't they? -I mean you can drive in pretty much any area in the country and there will be a similar application of speed limits.

_RIP_

I think we should go back to the man (person these days) weaving a red flag in front of all moving vehicles. It made sense back then and even more so now with our increasingly crowded roads

Lives will be saved (allegedly) and the congestions and increase in fuel costs would make every (looney leftie) one happy. Jobs a good un

Petebrand can be the first paid flag waver. Hoorah for just laws!

Just remember kids. Speed kills

_RIP_

Pete, why do you think there are thousands of miles of B roads without speed cameras?

Mind, these are very narrow twisty, technically demanding roads usually with a 60 mph limit. Clue - the answer is not that there are very few people about to mow down or no accidents involving a death.

Dream Weaver

There are lots of 20mph areas around here.

Whilst I agree with the idea in principal, the way it is done is a nightmare. HUGE speed bumps, millions of wanring signs - its so difficult to use these 20mph roads that I avoid them and use another (residential) shortcut instead.

They should just use the cameras, and then have the limits only at school time or buys periods.

Actually driving at 20mph in a performance car can be quite hard, very hard in my Pug

Had a small chuckle at that one, isn't that your sole purpose on SN Pete?

PeteBrant

Do you not think?

How many accidents are there on the average country road with a NSL, versus, say, an approach to a school?

What I am trying to get at, is that arguing against a 30mph limit is very very dodgy ground. Arguing against a 20mph one for school approaches etc is even more dodgy ground.

If you object to speed cameras in these circumstances, you are effectively arguing against those set limits, or you are arguing that people should be allowed to get away with speeding (in the eyes of supporters).

Dream Weaver

Just to really build on this point and something I thought about last week - I live at the end of the 15 mile stretch of the A682, Britain's most dangerous road. I know it well and have driven it for years.

There isn't a SINGLE speed camera on the whole stretch, and I have never seen a copper on there either even though it claims huge amounts of lives each week.

_RIP_

I'd say to play Devils Advocate you must have a broad understanding of the issues, at the very least

PeteBrant

Why?



Actually no - Most of the time I am actually of the opinion as I indicate on a given subject - It;s just that most of the time, the majority of scoobynet is wrong .



However, on this one I am deliberatley being contrary - Not to troll, just to try and come up with a good argument against cameras.

_RIP_

Give me the stats then. Feel free to trough the interwebby fruitlessly

PeteBrant

Come on, you can do better than that, surely


Play nice, if you don't agree, debate your way out of it

Dream Weaver

Nobody is saying that there should be no limit near schools, people are saying 30mph is fine and that kids should be taught better road safety.

And I answer your first question with 100% fact above. The A682 averages at least one crash pretty much every week, my local school never has any incidents (I live across from it).

Dream Weaver

In a 20mph limit cameras would be much more effective than speed bumps.

The 20mph areas I use with the bumps are horrendous, you have to slow down to almost standstill in any sort of decent performance car. However those with crap old cars and 4x4's just merrily fly over them without a care in the world.

A working camera system would FORCE every single driver to slow down in these areas and it would be easy to drive them as well without the speed bumps.

I don't know if I support the 20 limits or not though, I would prefer road safety to have more spent on it - pedestrians, including kids need to take responsibility as well.

_RIP_

Why of course But you're painting with a very broad brush. This usually shows a lack of clarity regarding the range of issues involved. Sorry if I cant be more specific, but as someone who's used the roads (vigorously) for over 30 years without killing or maiming anyone, either with fast cars or fast bikes, well I have my views on speeding and the speed kills mantra.

PeteBrant

I'm not changing the argument at all.

What is the appropriate limit? What are the appropriate reasons? It seems that the outlined areas for 20mph limits are pretty well reasoned.

What makes speed cameras hypocritical? Again, if you stick to the limit, then you won't get any trouble - Where does the hypocrisy come into it?

Just to be clear, I absolutely agree where there is no cause for safety concerns, on a stretch of road, that is say designated at 40, when it should clearly be a NSL, it drives me barmy, especially when there is a speed camera there, seemingly with the express purpose of catching the unwary motorist.

But....

I know the limit is what it is on that stretch of road, I know if I go over the limit I am willfully breaking the law, I know if I get caught, then I have no one to blame but myself, not the government, not the police, not the local council - Me.

The limits don't become irrelevant just because I happen not to agree with them.

If I had my way, we would almost have an Isle of man situation, 30mph limits that are rigourously enforced, with higher limits on Motorways and dual carriageways, and a re-assesment of the 40/50 limits.

_RIP_

Well said that man

Martin2005

If I may be pedantic for a minute, you keep saying it's hypocirisy, I'm fairly sure thats not the right word. For it to be hypocritical those that want us to slow down by putting cameras up, would themselves ignore the speed limits. A better word might be disingenuos

Cheers

Martin (the housewives favourite)

PeteBrant

Why? Because I don't agree with you? I reserve the right to do that - Don't like it? Tough


Here what you said about hypocrisy

Now, if people obey the law, then they won't raise any revenue. If people stick to the speed limits then there will be no consuquences. Where is the hypocrisy?

What is it you want? No cameras and people be allowed to speed?

Leslie

Your point about don't speed if you dont want to get caught is entirely logical of course. But people are not always logical and tend to object at being controlled when they can see no need for it. It is just human nature and part of the British attitude to life in general. We are all getting fed up of this culture of complete control over our lives which is being laid in place by your heroes Pete. We do see speedcams on open roads which under the name of "safety cameras" purely as cash generators and also distinctly unbritish. That is what Dave and I are trying to tell you. We do need more traffic cops on the open road for those reasons I mentioned above and let them take care of the speedsters and also the other more dangerous offenders too. As you said yourself, nothing like the experience and often very good advice from a traffic cop to improve relations between the public and the police and to increase real road safety too. This business of fining people and giving them points for a few mph over the limit which can easily happen accidentally is not the best way to deal with it. We tend to appreciate common sense rather than rule by numbers. Those who travel at 3 figure speeds would still get it in the neck as they would so rightly deserve. There has always been room for giving a bit of leeway in non serious cases and that in itself generates a better feeling towards authority. Losing that is a big mistake. Tin pot Hitlers tend to get their comeuppance eventually!

Saving those speedcams for worthy places such as schools etc. where they will do a much better job of slowing people down in an area where they can see the need for it would work far more effectively. If they don't make money it means they are doing the real job in hand effectively. 20 mph limits in areas where they are not needed is plain daft!

Les

PeteBrant

I agree with what you say here entirely,

Like I say, I am playing devils advocate on this one. People need to write to their MPs and local councillors if they want anything changed, but in order to do so, you have to be prepared for the "don't speed, don't get caught out" argument, and so far, no one, myself incuded, has come up with a decent enough argument against that point.

Leslie

Fair enough.

Les