Swindon To Scrap Speed Cameras?
- Thread starter Spymaster
- Start date
Perhaps more needs to be done in terms of the carrot rather than the stick. I think mostly of the fact that, beyond about 35mph, the faster a vehicle is going the greater its fuel usage for a set distance. This is increased further by rapid acceleration and decelleration. I don't know how well known these things are, but I would like to think mass education through advertising and new driver's tests would cause some kind of alteration from agressive driving styles, when the fundamental reasoning is distilled to financial.
denniseagle
ding dong the witch is dead
Average family car can exceed 100mph quite easily, my car which is a diesel has a manufactures listed top speed of 130 mph.
It is quite easy to state only a small number of drivers would exceed the new 90-100 mph speed limit highly unlikely to be a reality in practise.
I travelled on the M5 today (saturday) at was overtaken by countless vehicles far exceeeding the speed limit even when I exceeded 70 mph during overtaking .
If the 70 mph law is unenforcable why would a greater speed limit be recognised and adhered to?
I note how you ignored my point concerning the differential in speeds between LGV's and cars with your 'new' speed limit.
If people would feel safe in the context of modern vehicles, contemporary traffic conditions and contemporary motorway layout, etc. driving at 130mph, why don't they do that now?
People, for the most part, would drive at an appropriate speed for the context given no arbitrary speed limits. I suggest the motorways would not look much different to today if you took the limit away. i.e. relatively few above 90-100mph.
And I fail to see the relevance of your speed differential point. Are you saying we should reduce the limit to 10mph on ordinary roads so as to ensure there is no differential between cars and bicycles?
What about the contemporary need to reduce fuel consumption?
An entirely different reason altogether.
If you wish to base a speed limit on fuel efficiency then there is at least a logic to the decision and, presumably, some science behind it. It also applies pretty much the same in all conditions and so the "blunt instrument" aspect of the current limits is irrelevant.
But you would have to ensure that the law would be enforceable, otherwise it would again just fall into disrepute.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
Except that a fine is not a tax, because you only get one if you break the law.
More generally, an interesting notion - the amount of tax associated with a particular activity should determine how a violation of the laws governing that activity should be punished; offences relating to driving and alcohol thus deserve the lowest fines, those relating to VAT-exempt food items, children's shoes and so on, the hightest.
Good idea?
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
Except this is all bollocks. Because we don't just see mass disregard for speed limits where those limits are arguably too low (straight dual carriageways and the like), but also on residential streets and twisty country lanes where the limits are probably, if anything, too high.
The reason that the laws on soft drugs have lost their credibility is that we realise that such substances have no direct effect upon anyone other than the user. This is not true of driving too fast.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
still haven't looked up 'arbitrary' in the dictionary, DB?
Funny how on the one hand you're suggesting speed limits are unenforceable, but on the other you're casting doubt over the role of speed cameras, which are one of the obvious ways of enforcing speed limits
denniseagle
ding dong the witch is dead
If people would feel safe in the context of modern vehicles, contemporary traffic conditions and contemporary motorway layout, etc. driving at 130mph, why don't they do that now?
People, for the most part, would drive at an appropriate speed for the context given no arbitrary speed limits. I suggest the motorways would not look much different to today if you took the limit away. i.e. relatively few above 90-100mph.
And I fail to see the relevance of your speed differential point. Are you saying we should reduce the limit to 10mph on ordinary roads so as to ensure there is no differential between cars and bicycles?
People drive on motorways somewhat lemming like.
If they see cars exceeding the speed limit or, more importantly, feel pressurised by cars travelling 2' away from their bumper, they speed up.
Increasing the 'basic' speed limit to 100mph would not change driving habits one jot.
And if you seriously believe that a speed limit of 100mph would not be flouted as much as the 70mph limit is then you must live in a different world and drive on different motorways to me.
My differential point is quite valid if you actually think about it, or more importantly actually had experience of driving LGV's on motorways in this country
Lorries travelling at 55mph would be a major hazard to vehicles travelling at twice their speed.
Lorries would be in effect restricted to the inside lane ,as they would be unable to pull out to overtake simply due to the speed of other vehicles in the 2 outside lanes.
Entrance to, and exit from, motorways would become even more hazardous than it all ready is now.
Expect you to mention that German autobahns don't seem to suffer with this problem but then again the standard of driving in Germany is far greater than that of the UK. Plus of course not all autobahns are de restricted a fact always left out when people talk about speed limits and motorways.
As it is raising the speed limits will not stop drivers exceeding the speed limit set ,no matter how high the limit is put.
Indeed. Germany's motorways are only not speed restricted where they are not speed restricted. Heavily used sections, urban sections, bad weather conditions, night times etc have speed limits.
It's not that big for motorway traffic anyway, but politically significant, that the City-State of Bremen is considering imposing speed limits generally on the motorways within its territory.
The RECOMMENDED speed limit on the motorway in Germany is 120 kmh (75mph) and if you have an accident above that limit, a percentage of the blame will be accorded to you, even if you are "innocent".
I am capable of differentiating different situations ... as you would know if you actually read my posts instead of just frothing at the mouth....
It is though, in the vast, vast majority of cases. Only people with closed minds argue otherwise. Speed does NOT kill. Inappropriate speed does. And "inappropriate" has only a passing relationship to the arbitrary (and, yes, I do know what it means, thank you ...
) speed limits we have at present.Working beautifully, aren't they?Funny how on the one hand you're suggesting speed limits are unenforceable, but on the other you're casting doubt over the role of speed cameras, which are one of the obvious ways of enforcing speed limits
* Goes to watch traffic travelling nicely at 40mph on the A316 *
The simple fact is that there are three categories of people:
1. Those who are anti-motorist and really believe that "Speed Kills" who insist that every breach of the speed limit should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (or even further).
2. Those are who have an open mind and are willing to discuss extending speed limits, or introducing discretion to enforcement, in some circumstances and reducing speed limits, or introducing more robust enforcement in others.
3. Those "petrolheads" who do not believe in any speed limits at all.
I am in category 2. It would seem the many of other posters here are in category 1. They will never persuade me to close my mind to other approaches. Their attitude is founded on irrational "facts" (which don't actually exist). In any other context they would be called prejudiced bigots.
1. Those who are anti-motorist and really believe that "Speed Kills" who insist that every breach of the speed limit should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (or even further).
2. Those are who have an open mind and are willing to discuss extending speed limits, or introducing discretion to enforcement, in some circumstances and reducing speed limits, or introducing more robust enforcement in others.
3. Those "petrolheads" who do not believe in any speed limits at all.
I am in category 2. It would seem the many of other posters here are in category 1. They will never persuade me to close my mind to other approaches. Their attitude is founded on irrational "facts" (which don't actually exist). In any other context they would be called prejudiced bigots.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
A remark about your ability to determine when to exceed the speed limit and when not to has no relevance to the point I made, which is that motorists in general exceed the speed limit just as much in places where that limit is reasonable as they do in places where it isn't, thus rather 'discrediting' your belief that mass disregard for speed limits is somehow exercised on the grounds of a properly-considered rejection of the reasoning behind them.
It is though, in the vast, vast majority of cases. Only people with closed minds argue otherwise. Speed does NOT kill. Inappropriate speed does. And "inappropriate" has only a passing relationship to the arbitrary (and, yes, I do know what it means, thank you ...
Well if you know the meaning, then its just wilful hyperbole. The fact, as you know and have admitted, is that speed limits are not arbitrary - they are rough, certainly, and if each were made subject to a detailed review, they would probably all change, at least by and MPH or two. But the new limits would roughly mirror the old limits, overall. If current limits were arbitrary, then the new, expertly researched limits would bear absolutely no relation to them - a thought provoking argument if you want to make it, but essentially doomed.
The problem may be that you are a good driver, frustrated at not being treated like a grown-up on the road and allowed to make decisions for himself. Sad reality is that most people, put behind the wheel of a car, need some pretty tight rules to stop themselves being a menace.
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
you know it's near the end when the 'there's only two types of people in this world' type stuff starts coming out...Thanks, you saved me the trouble of reading the rest of your post
Write something about speeding fines being a jealousy tax on fast cars next
subversplat
writer of wrongs
But going fast is funDrivers could say a massive fuck-you to local authorities and central government by not breaking the speed limit, thus helping to fuck up spending plans.
I have admitted no such thing. They are basically arbitrary.
I am afraid I do not subscribe to your view that laws work when they treat people like children ...
And precisely which other categories would you add ...
Congratulations. Your prejudices have been confirmed.Thanks, you saved me the trouble of reading the rest of your post
Write something about speeding fines being a jealousy tax on fast cars next
Similar threads
