Re: Gatso camera case
 

Yeah but the message doesn't seem to be getting through because there have been far more posts whinging about the siting of cameras.
__________________

Er, but when people get caught breaking a law do they perpetually whinge about it like speeding motorists do. And, if anything, your argument makes the case for speed cameras; they are a low cost (indeed profit generating) way of enforcing the law without the need for costly police manpower and expertise. Of course I would argue that speed cameras should be complemented by higher profile trafiic policing to target those that hog middle lanes, fail to indicate, lack concentration, drive under the influence or are engaged in motor related crime.

As for more serious offences. To me as a parent, idiot drivers are by far my biggest fear in relation to the safety of me and my family.

These arguments and others have comprehensively been exhausted on this and other threads, and I'm aware I'm therefore repeating myself. I may well tactfully withdraw from this debate (but then again...... ;) )

Re: Gatso camera case
 

We apparently live in a democracy. I wonder how, if it were put to a referendum, the issue of speed cameras would fare? How much of the population would want them only outside schools, hospitals, homes for the elderly etc.? How many would want them taken out altogether? How many think they do a good job? And how many people think they are just a cash generator? But it appears are not so much a democracy as we would be told...

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Democracy is not that simple. Parliament has to represents the interest of all people, not just a majority with a voracious appetite for right wing media led agendas. If it came to a referendums, we'd be hanging people left right and centre - probably without fair trial! - islam would be outlawed and there wouldn't be a black face to be seen in the country. People need protecting from the significant number of drivers who drive recklessly fast because, in their high opinion of themselves, they think they are safe doing so. Until they hit somebody...

The more obvious question is why speed cameras are so high on the agenda when there are so many pressing issues which the media could focus on like child poverty, rising TB, rising racially motivated crime etc, etc.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

OK, let's think about this. If there were cameras outside every pub, watching for people who threw away cigarette butts (litter louts?), there would be uproar. If every park had cameras looking for dog owners who allowed their dogs to foul the path there would be uproar. The emphasis is the way in which motorists are policed compared to other "criminals".

You also made an interesting point about idiot drivers. But let's clarify that GATSOs do not catch idiot drivers, or drunk drivers, they catch people who could be driving at 33mph on an empty road at 3am in the mid-week. But a drunk driver at 30mph would not be stopped by a GATSO. An idiot driver would get past one as well, if he were driving at 30mph. And as far as I know, there is no GATSO in the land that can identify a banned driver at 30mph.

Police checks are a good thing, in my opinion; the current use of GATSOs is not.
__________________

Surely that's a contradiction in terms Andy? If democracy doesn't represent the majority, it must represent a minority, as there is rarely a situation where ALL people agree on an issue?

People need protecting from a lot of things; drivers could well feature low down on the list. But it is not just the "recklessly fast" motorists who are punished; it is also those who exceed the limit by 3mph when most people would deem it perfectly safe to do so.

I agree about other things being more important. But how much GATSO revenue goes towards the things you mention? If the revenue goes to the police, we should expect to see falling crime rates, greater police presence etc. But I think that's not the case. Would you agree?

Or maybe the £20k cost of a GATSO could be spent on the salary of one nurse? Now THAT could be said to be helping save lives.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Damn, I'm back ;) Litter louts and fouling dogs do not threaten the lives of others. It's a crucial difference. As I said before GATSOs are an extremely effective - not least in cost terms - method of dealing with this offence (and light jumpers etc). I agree, as I said, that other motoring offences should be targeted but GATSOs are extremely effective at dealing with this widespread, life threatening issue.
__________________

Democracy has to represent the overall interests of all the people.

Yes, I agree that more of the revenue generated by GATSOs should go back into road safety. No argument there. But don't confuse an annual salary with a one-ff capital cost for a piece of kit that will pay for itself many times over unless drivers alter their habits (dealth with this on another thread which is why I'm losing interest).

Anyway. It's Friday. It's 6.15. It's the pub! :) :)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver is a criminal offence.

Section 21(2)(a) of the 1991 Act.

The get out is:

(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

Standard of proof (as I understand it) is 'no reasonable doubt' as to the failure to provide the information, but the wording of the getout is clearly designed to place the onus on you to demonstrate that you could not with reasonable diligince have found out who it was. And obviously the magistrate (was it a District Judge?) decided that you could have found out with reasonable diligence - whether that's justified, I know not ;)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I don't want them outside schools either.

What's the point people slowing to 30 outside schools? All it does is minimise the damage if you hit someone. And why is hitting and killing or maiming a child so much worse than hitting and killing or maiming an adult?

As usual with this country, it's 'blame blame blame'. The solution is NOT more cameras, it's for more parents to give a damn about their wretched kids instead of seeing them as a means to get a free house and tons of cash off the taxpayer.

Parents need to drum it into their kids that you DO NOT GO NEAR roads as they are DANGEROUS. Instead we get this modern crap about them having 'the right to do what they like' even if that means playing on main roads, and then punishing anyone who dares to impinge upon that. Pathetic.

Whether we like it or not, roads have cars on them. Moving cars can kill you. Therefore pedestrians need to stay away from roads unless absolutely necessary, and even then with a due sense of danger and caution.

Bring back the Green Cross Code!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I spoke to my dad, an ex-copper about it. He said that speeding isn't a civil offence, or a criminal offence, it is a motoring offence, which is different from the 2. The more serious motoring offences like driving under the influence, etc are criminal.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

It never went away - it's here!!
Complete with hedgehogs too. ;)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Bah, I remember we had a talking robot back in our day. Kids wouldn't listen to an adult, unless he was wearing a robot costume, but it bloody worked.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Aha - you mean this one! :D Or perhaps not - but probably he appealed more to the boys than the hedgehogs do!

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I meant this fella:

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/imag...greencross.jpg

I don't remember the guy. Although that website said he starred in the ads in 1976, before I was born. The robot was like mid-80s.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Is this post for real? If I'm understanding this a child should have more road sense than an adult behind the wheel of a one tonne speeding heap of metal?

You are not living anywhere near the real world. My kids play out on the side street (we don't have a garden) where I live. It's a 20mph zone with cobbles (not good for your pimped up ride). Yet idiot drivers still drive totally recklessly around here. Why? How much quicker are they going to get anywhere? We're talking seconds. But that's not the point. It's big and its clever. Woo hoo big boys. This is not 'modern crap'; there are a hell of a lot more cars on the road than when I was a kid, and millions more idiot drivers who think they are King of The Road and can handle driving at speed. And my kids have nearly been wiped out by a bloke taking a roundabout too fast and very nearly hitting them on the pavement, where cars are not supposed to. Driving brings with it a big responsibility which many appear unable to realise and/or accept.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

True, but 20 cameras outside a school won't help with any of that, will they? Unless you live next door to the school.

It's a media hysteria type reaction to say 'more cameras outside schools'. Waste of time. Most schools have a crossing patrol at peak times so there'd be little need anyway.

There's certainly driver education needed but this is no substitute for parents actually telling kids to keep the hell away from busy roads. This is not done these days. The attitude seems to be, if you get run over we'll sue and be rich. Abominable. It's always someone else's fault of course.

Kids need the green cross code...as I said. It was great, it was drummed into you, and it worked.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Little need anyway because of the lollipop lady? Where do you live? We're surrounded by busy roads. And where's this 20 cameras thing come from? If you can't keep to urban speed limits (no substitute for driver training?!!) you shouldn't be allowed to drive. but you are.... so more cameras please.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Plenty of cameras already. More police catching burglars first please.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

we had a Lollipop Lady killed by a van, here, it was given a verdict of accidental death due to the driver being blinded by the direct low sunlight, - people still run the red light at that crossing........

kids don't understand that a tonne of metal will hurt them - and they should.

but I agree that drivers should drive according to the conditions - which may involve going below the speed limit in an urban setting or exeeding it on an empty dry motorway ;)

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I usually pick my 5 year old grandson up from school. The school is on a hill and 75 yards aove the school they have just erected new traffic lights. There are flashing school warning lights at the times when children are going to and from school and a lollipop lady is usually there but not always. I have seen many near misses when traffic has just kept on going when the lollipop lady in her flourescent yellow coat has been walking to the centre of the road and the driver has been speeding along at way over the speed limit. This has got worse since the traffic lights were switched on as drivers go even faster to catch the lights at green. I am sure that some drivers have the attitude that beating the lollipop lady is a game that they must win and that nobody has the right to slow their progress on the road. On a couple of occasions there has been the squeel of locking wheels as a driver has suddenly realised he cannot make it and jammed on the brakes. One of these days a driver will lose control when doing this and may wipe out a few kids on the pavement who know and are practising the green cross code.
__________________

Not enough cameras, although they would not be needed if everyone stuck to the speed limits. I would sooner have a burgler get away with it than have a child, or anyone, killed by a speeding motorist.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Cookie, My gripe here is that "reasonable doubt" is a
n issue. I tried, but the bench decided I didn't try hard enough. I have more than "reasonable doubt as to their fairness.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

This again is based on the incorrect assumption that burglars don't kill or injure people.

They do, and frequently.

Besides, I don't really care what anyone says on this subject, burgling a house *is* more serious than doing 33mph in a 30 zone. Period.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

What I would be nclined to do is review all speed limits. There will always be bad drivers, and there will always be people speeding... no amount of cameras will ever change that. What I would like to see is:

1) If people cause an accident and speed is a factor, throw the book at them
2) If people drive whilst drunk and/or banned, ban them for life and/or imprison them
3) If people cause a death from reckless diving or speeding, charge them with murder.

Deterrents need to be more than a £60 fine. That is no punishment, just as driving at 3mph above the limit is no crime. The problem in this country is that a driver caught at 35mph is treated as harshly, or more so, than people guilty of much worse offences. The punishment may not be the same, but the resources used to catch them is disproportionate to the severity of the crime. AT the end of the day we motorists are a soft target, and the police have targets to reach. That, my friends, is the WRONG approach to policing.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

You might want to do a wee bit of statistical analysis on the old burglar/speeder death ratio.

Can't argue with your second point though because as you say, you don't care what anyone says on this subject. Although..... 30 is the limit, that is the highest possible speed you can go at, legally, so the caution should be on the side of the driver. Besides do you actually no anyone who has been done for doing 33 in a 30?
__________________

Offences such as? 3 points and a £60 fine is a tough penalty for a potentially life threatening illegal action? Er, OK.
__________________

And we've had the resources debate. Thanks to cameras GATSO's turn a profit. £20m to the Treasury after expenses - annually. The resources argument is a non-starter.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

OK, capital cost is one thing. But there was a case in this week's news which detailed a highly "successful" GATSO. Successful because it earned huge revenue, but also successful because it caused drivers to slow down. Once this happened, the revenue stream eased off. There were then gripes that it was costing too much for the Police to run it!

Here is a fact: GATSOs will not stop speeding motorists from killing people. What they will do is make sure that the Police/Government earn money from it. Litter louts and fouling dogs don't ruin lives, neither does someone exceeding the limit by 3mph necessarily. Burglars and rapists DO ruin lives, and the Police resources used in operating mobile "Talivans" could easily be redployed to work on this "real" crime. Interesting statistic out today: the number of reported rapes leading to conviction is at an all time low. Yet still we are spending more money on GATSOs.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Andyl,

That is a VERY poor argument. Sorry to have to point this out, but driving at 20mph is a "potentially life threatening action", although not necessarily illegal. Does that make it any better? No, because speed DOES NOT KILL. Not on it's own. Now, I don't want to rake up an old debate, but how badly was Brendon Fearon treated in his multiple misdemeanours prior to the Tony Martin case? Did the Police set up cameras to make sure he wasn't burgling?

As for resources, do GATSOs mean we are seeing more Police presence? Actually no, it's decreasing. I can only assume that you have never (or at least not recently) had reason to call the Police.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

"There was a case in the news this week...." Nuff said. Selective facts, selective reporting. We have £20m of surplus revenues annually due to Gatsos (well convicted speeders). Granted that is not being funnelled directly into policing, but the net gain to the state I would imagine - and I concede don't have a Treasury statistical model to work with - will exceed the neglible cost of what? Not putting a film in a Gatso. In one camera? Identified by the media?

And for the record, killing someone while speeding is a crime.
__________________

....and can we merge the RTA and Gatso threads? They seem to be one and the same.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Andyl,

I suggest you check some statistics. There are NO proven statistics to show that GATSOs have reduced deaths on the roads. But hey, they've "earned" "...20m of surplus revenues annually...". So I guess that justifies it then?

Sure, killing someone while speeding is a crime, but so is speeding WITHOUT killing someone. Why not focus on the former?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Ignoring the loud VERY. How strong do you really think an argument is that says hitting somebody at 20 can kill so speed doesn't kill? Ask yourself, is that is really watertight?

You clearly think speed limits are arbitarily dreamt up by cunning politicians who want to raise revenue. That's not really true is it? So, a camera to my mind can be placed anywhere where it is needed to keep drivers to the limit (for reference, that being the maximum) deemed safe by the highway authorities. Break the speed limit (reminder, the maximum, you can drive slower) and you might get done.




Besides, what's the hurry?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Proven statistics? Yes there are. I've posted a link on another thread and I'm not about to dig it out again. Independent report says 100 lives saved due to introduction of Gatsos.

point 2. So what is your argument about resources? Gatsos take resources away from policing (NB, they're paid for by local authorities)? Or Gatsos are unjustified because they generate revenue? Whar goes, you decide.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

We live in a land that has laws. Whatever we think of the laws is irrelevant. If we don't like them we use our democratic right to vote for people who we think may help to change the laws. Until a law is changed we have to abide by it or face the consequences. A gatso camera could be there for any number of reasons, as a road safety measure or as a fund raiser. It doesn't matter at all what the reason for it being there is and if it raises funds then we should be thankful that it is paying for itself.

The situation is quite simple. The law states that driving at a speed greater than the speed limit on the road is an offence. If you commit that offence then you cannot object to the punishment that the offence carries. If you stay within the speed limit you abide by the law and are not punished. It doesn't matter how many gatsos are on the roads or the reason they were put there because you are not affected by them if you stay within the law.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

What is watertight is that 30mph is not the waterline at which people get killed. If I drove at 1000mph and missed you, it wouldn't kill you. My point is that speed ALONE doesn't kill, yet that is all that GATSOs detect. And no life has ever been saved by the driver of a car being photographed.

No I don't think that about speed limits. I think that many need to be reviewed, and I also think that too much focus is placed upon the enforcement of speed limits. I shall re-iterate, cameras do not enforce the speed limit, they merely generate revenue. If speed kills, why don't we have a nationwide blanket speed limit of 10mph? And maybe inhibit vehicles so that they cannot exceed that limit? Or do you not think that would save lives?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I have also read "statistics" that suggest otherwise.

My argument about resources actually focuses more on the fact that (as previously posted) the Police seem to think it's a great idea to set up mobile camera vans within a couple of hundred metres of GATSOs, since "people slow down for the cameras, but this way they get caught anyway". Local authorities don't pay for trained Policemen to sit in vans taking pictures.
__________________

Ian,

Not denying anything that you have said. I am griping (if that's the word) about the way that certain laws (eg speeding) is more vigorously enforced and followed up than other "more serious" crimes (eg rape, burglary).

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Who pays for policing then? Police Authorities raise revenue to fund the operation of their police forces by levying a precept on Council Tax Collection Authorities which is added to local people's Council Tax bills. Police Authorities include nine Councillors from relevant Local Authorities, three local Magistrates and five independent co-opted members. To me that means that the local authorities control police funding to an extent and can influence policing matters in their areas.
__________________



Where are the statistics to back up that claim? Speeding is a far more common offence than rape and burglary and therefore will result in far more convictions making it appear to be more vigorously enforced. The percentage of drivers prosecuted for speeding is a very, very small percentage of those that commit the offence. Lets face it, we have all been guilty of speeding at one time or another, probably every day that we are on the road. So the success rate for catching speeders will be a very much smaller percentage than those for catching burglers or rapists. Also to be taken into account is the fact that catching a person speeding is far easier than catching a burgler or rapist. You can catch thousands of speeding motorists with a gatso camera with little strain on police time which they can better spend on the more serious crimes.

The biggest drain on police time is actually paperwork. Policing would be much more effective if that was reduced.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Ian,

Speeding happens every day, but (one would assume) rarely destroys a life. In very rare cases people may be injured; in a tiny minority of cases someone is killed. In those instances a life can be destroyed; but it is not necessarily the case that speed was the main factor. People are killed by cars travelling below the speed limit too.

Rape is a crime that invariably destroys at least one life. Burglary is a less devastating offence, but probably more so than speeding.

The fact that it is easier to catch a speeding motorist should not deem it justifiable to spend more time on that area of crime than those where it is harder to secure a conviction. People don't join the Police because the work is easy.

Here is a question: Has a life ever been saved by a GATSO? it's impossible to prove. But the fact that people drive past them at speed means that their presence will do nothing to save a life. They don't guarantee that a driver will slow down; they only guarantee that if he does speed then the relevant authority will earn some revenue.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Have a read of http://slower-speeds.org.uk/sk1.htm and see if that changes your views.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

A couple of years back there was a tragic incident in my locality. In the middle of the town centre an elderly gentlemen stepped in front of a vehicle and was knocked over. It happened at some traffic lights which seconds before had changed to green. The driver was completely exonerated by witnesses and the law. The gentleman died almost instantly. From memory the speed estimated that the vehicle was travelling at no more than 10mph. What does this prove:

1) It's not just speed that kills
2) It's not just bad driving that causes road deaths
3) GATSOs are not a surefir way to prevent accidents
4) SOMETIMES we have to look at the "human error" element of road accidents

Another point: Many years ago a friend was stopped by the Police for speeding after being followed past a pub. The Police officer pointed out that someone could have driven out of the pub after having a few drinks and pulled in front of him, so he should have been more careful! Amazing that the speeder was considered dangerous to the drink driver!

I agree that speeding in many circumstances can be dangerous, and should be handled. I just think that the GATSO approach doesn't resolve it, and serves as a cash cow. Surely it would be better to deal swiftly and harshly with those who break the law with tragic results, than to try and benefit from everyone who transgresses even slightly? As an example, when we hear of banned drivers going to court because of their umpteenth offence, instead of giving them a slap on the wrist, the prospect of an immediate jail term might just make them think twice before stepping into a car in the first place. These are the people who should be targetted, and these are the people least affected by GATSOs.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

It seems it could soon be a camera on every corner,
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/searc...arch&archive=0

(Qoute)
Police chiefs are to be given more flexibility to put speed cameras by roads, even if statistics do not indicate they are dangerous.

The Department for Transport is considering relaxing the rules over where the devices can be installed, after police chiefs said many fatal crashes would be prevented if they had more of a say over the location of cameras.

Under current rules, a fixed camera can be installed only if at least four collisions per kilometre involving death or injury have happened in the past three years. For mobile cameras, it is two collisions. Police must also prove that at least 20 per cent of drivers are breaking the limit.

The news has attracted a mixed reaction in Norfolk, where last year former Chief Constable Andy Hayman and the county council commissioned a report into the cameras following claims they were not all necessary. The report vindicated their existence, despite claims they were merely money-making machines for the police.

Mark Veljovic, chairman of the Norfolk Casualty Reduction Partnership, said today: "We welcome the Department for Transport reviewing the current climate. We want to make sure all our resources, not just speed cameras, are deployed in the areas where we can reduce casualties."

A spokeswoman for road safety charity Brake said: "We would be in favour of a relaxation in the rules. At present you cannot have speed cameras outside schools, unless all the criteria are met. In dangerous areas we would like to see the speed limit enforced."

But Captain Gatso, spokesman for anti-camera group Motorists Against Detection, said: "It's all to do with the money. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a multi-million-pound clear profit from speed revenues.

"We are not opposed to speed cameras as such, when they are placed outside schools, in high streets and pedestrian areas, but we are when they are on trunk and main roads."

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "The police have had 10 years to get road deaths down with their infernal speed cameras. It hasn't worked †� more than two million fines per year; traffic speeds are largely unchanged and road deaths are rising. Now they want to fiddle around with the placement rules and install more speed cameras.

"Speed cameras don't make the roads safer †� quite the opposite †� and the last thing we need is more.

"The loss of confidence in the police and in official road safety messages is critical. The only way to restore confidence is to scrap the cameras and, while we're at it, let's scrap those responsible as well."

There are currently 18 fixed camera sites and 72 mobile sites in Norfolk.

Police have limited discretion to deploy cameras in areas pinpointed as danger spots by the public, which do not meet all the criteria. But these sites can only be covered for 15 per cent of the total time cameras are used.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "The review will look at all the criteria for camera sites, including the number of cars exceeding the limit, the distance over which the casualties happen and the level and severity of injuries. Some they might want to leave unchanged and some they might want to change."

Any changes would come into force in April next year.
(Qoute)

Re: Gatso camera case
 

no I think the point the copper was making was that he was going to fast to be able to be cope with the possibility that something might happen for example a drunken ass driving out of the pub. you adjust your speed cos you know there are idiots out there.

you drive based on the road condition... weather etc plus other factors such as a higher probablity of there being someone who has consumed alcohol (even if below the legal limit) if you are passing a pub.

just cos drink driving is illegal doesnt mean I wont look out for drink drivers as a walk across a pub car park!

Re: Gatso camera case
 

How do they prove 20% are speeding?

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about what gatsos do and don't do. No matter what we think about gatsos, their use, placement and reason for being there

Breaking the speed limit is an offence and punishable

People aren't really complaining about gatsos, they are complaining because anything that interferes with their disregard of the law should not exist.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I complain about Gatso's, because for the most part they enforce out of date laws.

... and the fact they are machines, and have absoulutly zero tolerance for conditions and the reasons for you breaking that limit. I'd happily accept a fine if the Gatso was placed in a densly populated residential area which was limited to 30 and I was caught doing 50. However, getting caught doing 34 would, I expect be dealt with more lightly by a officer, whereas a camera is cut and dry.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'll partially disagree with that - some speeding laws are not out of date. 30 mph limits should IMO be ruthlessly enforced in built-up areas, near schools, parks and around hospitals.

However a 70 mph limit on motorways (especially the open, straight ones) is based on technology which was state of the art when the Ford Anglia was the vehicle-of-choice. We have come on a LONG way in car safety since then.

I'm not saying motorway limits should be scrapped - just that they should suit the location and conditions. If there's a stretch of road which is notorious for low sun or bad crosswinds then the limit should control the traffic accordingly.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Whether the law is out of date or not isn't an issue, the law is still the law and must be obeyed. The fact that you may only be driving 2 or 3 mph over the limit should not be mitigation for getting away from it. Try standing 30 yards from the top of a cliff face and walking 32 yards towards it. It's only a little bit too far but you still fall over. :)

A gatso has zero tolerance for conditions. What conditions justify going over the limit?

A gatso has zero tolerance for the reason you are breaking the limit. What reason could you have for going over the limit? If you think that you have a justifiable reason then you can let a court decide rather than paying the fixed penalty. The court can then look at all the facts and decide what action to take.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I agree that the law is to be obeyed at all times - however I'm still free to criticise it.

A gatso having zero tolerance is an dangerous thing - is it fair that I'd get prosecuted for going 2mph over the limit then a year later Rover makes a statement that all the Rover 620ti vehicles made at the same time as mine have a defect which causes a 20% margain of error on speedometer readings? I could be under the impression that I was obeying the limit yet factors outside my control are discovered after the court case which show I was not at fault.

I don't think that's fair. The current 10% plus 2mph margain of error employed by speed cameras is good enough thanks very much.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

The 70 mph national speed limit may have been introduced at a time when vehicles didn't have the same performance as today in respect of top speed, acceleration and braking. There were also far less vehicles on the road in those days. What hasn't changed though is driver reaction times. The roads are a faster changing scenario today than they were when the 70 mph limit was introduced. Drive on any motorway today and you will see many vehicles driving far too close to the one in front. You also see many drivers thinking that they have the performance and personal ability to drive into gaps in faster moving traffic that are really too short to be able to do it safely. They also think that every other driver has the same superhuman reaction times and abilities as they themselves think they have.
__________________

Everyone is free to criticise the law, nobody is disputing the fact. Some of the reasoning though is rather flawed. Any prosecution for speeding is based on technological measurement of the speed which doesn't take into account the accuracy of your speedometer. Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer accuracy to be in the range of -0->+10% which means that the speedometer can be accurate or can overstate the speed but must never understate it. The 10% + 2 mph margin is not there to allow you to travel at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone which some drivers take it to mean.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Recent events round here have finally proved to me that speed limits are a joke. I live a few miles from the M1 J26, and this junction joins the M1 with the A610. If you come off this juntion and head North, you are on a MAJOR trunk road, dual carridgeway, basically in the middle of the countryside (i.e. not a residential area).

Obviously the national speed limit applies - or at least it did, until last week. The powers that be have now slapped a 40mph limit on this road for a mile, then 50mph for another 1.5 miles, then it reverts to 70mph (there is no change in the road state, type or layout at any of these points).

This is a complete joke - this trunk, dual c/w, now has speed limits slower than most of the single c/w roads round here, many of which are in built up areas.

How long I wonder before they decide to install speed cameras to catch all the "unsafe, lunatic" drivers doing 60mph - a speed slower than the former national limit, which as been perfectly acceptable, and safe, for 35+ years.

Is it any wonder that people ignore speed limits when things like this are done.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'm talking about a defect which the manufacturers did not expect. Why should I penalised for that when I'd be doing everything within my power to stay within the limit?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

And the law will remain the same unless people start complaining... and people aren't going to complain until they are inconvenienced by the law.

That 2/3 mph is hardly going to kill anyone. I assume you drive, and know how easy it is to drift slightly over the limit. In some places a 30mph limit is ridiculously slow... and unless you've got cruise control going above that for even a few seconds takes very little. However, we do need limits... obviously there's got to be a cut off, but the limits need reviewing.. and specific limits that are in place for revenue need scrapping - we get ripped off enough.

Hardly a fair analogy ;).. Considering in 99.9% of cases where you exceed the speed limit by 2/3mph nothing bad will come of it.

OK; Picture a gatso on a long straight dual carriageway. It's 5am in the morning, visibilities great... the road's dry and has been recently resurfaced (As is the case on one close to me). You meet 1 or 2 other cars' on the road, and your trundling along at 90mph in your BMW M5.... A gatso gets you. Fined. Whereas, if this was a copper he'd be able to take into consideration the conditions, and would... in majority of cases tick you off and send you on your way. I'd hope..

Yeah... 'cos the courts are completly unbiased and fair. They're supposed to be, but lets face it.. If the goverment started taking a softer stance on this issue, they'd be doing themselves out of major money. Motorists in the UK are a laughing stock.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Cameras catch speeders and that's how they generate revenue. Stop moaning about bloody cameras. If you disagree with speed limits on certain roads - I have reservations about the 70mph limit on motorways myself - then campaign against them, but don't have a pop at the cameras that catch you while you break the law.

Mobile cameras after a fixed camera? Brilliant idea to catch the idiots who clearly know what the speed limit is but think that if they're not going to get caught its OK to break it. The arrogance is breathtaking, not least if they whinge about it afterwards

Can't prove GATSOs save lives? Well you can do a before and after statistical analysis; when that was done an estimated 100 lives saved based on the historical trend.

Let's face it, those that campaign against speed cameras are precisely those that speed, get caught, get points, get a fine. Well you know what? That's what happens.

Resources? Dealt with. If you don't like the fact that revenue goes to the Treasury and not directly into highway safety or wider policing, campaign for change, but stop whinging about cameras which are highly effective at dealing with this specific offence.

Kids? Yes parents should instil road sense in kids but kids are kids and you can't legislate for their giddyness during play etc. So drivers have a responsibility to be aware of the dangers that children (and others) present and take that into account when determing how they are going to drive. Around here many, many drivers not only flout the limit but swerve, towards the kerb) to avoid speed bumps or drive down the midle of the road to avoid speed bumps (very dangerous for cars turning right from side streets). If a small child chases a ball and is hit by a speeding driver are you trying to say it's the kids fault. Drivers should have more road sense than kids, but often they don't and that arrogant insensitivity has been amply demonstrated here.

Yes other offences - particularly driving without due care etc - need to be targeted and are undoubtedly the cause of many accidents. But that does not mean that cameras are a bad idea because they only catch speeders. If you speed you cannot cope as well with avoiding those driving without due care, kids or any unexpected obstacles. That is surely common sense? And if you don't think speed kills have a word with my paramedic mate who's had to scrape up many a cocky driver who thought he knew better than the authorities what an appropriate speed is.
__________________

Ok, its a limit. To tiresomely repeat the point, that means the maximum which means it should be pretty easy at keeping below it. Of course if you're not paying attention to your speed..... So if speed limits need reviewing, campaign for that reviewe but in the meantime stay within the law or don't whinge when you get caught.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

There is no point campaigning about anything in this country. the government doesn't listen, and in fact if you protest is big enough and controversial enough (eg the Chinese human rights protests) the government will actually have the police stop you from protesting and campaigning.

Democracy, 'New Labour' style.

I found out to my cost that if you make too much of a fuss about cameras and the police attitude to them, the police will simply have you. I effectively had my take away business shut down by the police who reacted to my complaints against them by stopping my delivery drivers EVERY time they left the shop.

Contrary to established wisdom, the police are the enemies of law abiding citizens everywhere.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

....and a car emerges from a junction, possibly erratically. Your massive, speeding M5 takes it out. Or you get a blow out. Anything unexpected can happen and if you're driving at speed you're less likely to be able to resolve it

And the Gatso? You're speeding, you're caught. Pay the fine and move on.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

My point is, why can we not also say 'You burgled a house, you're caught. Move on'. We can't.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Bit defeatist that but does that mean you are going to stop going on about speed cameras? I mean what's the point? :)

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'm not campaigning here, I'm just airing an opinion.

I'm not being defeatist. What is the point of campaigning against the enforcement of speeding laws? It is a massive revenue generator and the police and treasury make a whopping tax free profit on it. Too many vested interests.

Such a campaign would either be ignored, or if it gained too much momentum, the people behind it would be silenced.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

And I'm accused of having a VERY poor argument?! Love your 100mph and I missed you and then 10mph limit comments - not a particularly intellectual standpoint is it though, taking a logic to a ludicrous extreme?

Of course speed is only one of a number of accident factors and the others should be addressed but speed reduces your ability to deal with the unexpected and, thanks to Gatso technology, speeders can be readily identified and, through their actions (not the camera) in breaking the law, generate revenue. There is a simple way of cutting that revenue stream off but speeding drivers instead decide to complain endlessly that camera siting is unfair (er, when does where you break the law become a defence?) or speed limits to low because they get caught. They are arrogant and/or selfish.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

You've lost me. If a burglar gets caught he gets punished although he probably doesn't spend the rest of his time whinging about the fact that, whilst he is guilty and was caught, he really shouldn't have been punished (perhaps because burglary rates in that part of town are low, the location of where the law was broken apparently being of significance)
__________________

If this happens we'll certainly have a lot more information on accident factors which will be interesting: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4299939.stm

"Black box data recorders could be installed in new cars as standard if a Europe-wide study gives them backing.
Police forces across the continent are looking at whether the aircraft-style technology could improve road safety.

The European Commission will use their research to decide if the devices could help in accident investigations.

They are able to record information, including speed and the rate of braking in cars, in the vital seconds leading up to a crash.

It is hoped accident investigators would be able to use the black box information to get a detailed picture of the circumstances surrounding a collision."

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Green Cross Code!? What about the Tufty Club! (I really AM showing my age now)..... http://www.rospa.com/history/1960s.htm
:D

Re: Gatso camera case
 

But they don't get caught in the first place, that's the whole point. the police couldn't care less.

Come on Andy, don't be naive. The thing about 'to help investigate accidents' is just a cover story. They might start off being used for that, but it will then be a short step before they are used to automatically issue fixed penalty notices for speeding offences. You won't need a court process it'll just deduct the money from your bank account. The government have already indicated they intend to pass laws that will force everyone to disclose their bank details to the government to enable automated collection of these and other penalties, such as the congestion charges.

I mean come on people, are you really happy with all of this? Think carefully of the implications.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

And I'm sure government would bring in a proviso in any law enforcing their installation so allow police to access the stored information any time a driver is stopped. Sounds like a cool way to penalise drives retrospectively using recorded telemetry of your drive habbits for say the last 24 hours. Technology like this is far too open to abuse, to alloy police access unless there has been an accident. But seeing as this would become another money spinner for any government it will prolly be abused by them.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I don't agree because I think the police do care - they might be under resourced though. But whatever, that still doesn't undermine either the logic or need for dealing with other offences in an effective manner.
__________________

I'm not saying I'm happy with the idea. But if you want evidence (cos you don't believe the findings of the independent report into the life saving effectiveness of Gatsos) then these may well give you plenty of detail on the impact of speeding on accident and casualty rates.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

But you can say that to a burgler that's caught.

There is a far higher percentage of burglers caught and convicted than speeding motorists.

Indisputable facts are:

The faster a vehicle is travelling, the greater the damage and injury that will be sustained in any accident.

The faster a vehicle is travelling, the more the atmosphere is being polluted.

Driver reaction times have not altered whereas vehicle performance has.

In 1998 there were 325,212 reported cases of death and injury as a result of accidents involving road vehicles. These figures include 44,255 killed or seriously injured. Not all accident injuries were reported. All of these casualties involved drivers who thought they they were in control of the situation, were driving safely and accidents only happened to other people.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

If they are so under-resourced that they can't catch burglars, how come they can spend time catching people who have already slowed down for a GATSO (presumably at an accident blackspot - hence the GATSO did it's job), but who then picked up speed where it was NOT and accident blackspot? What's more important, protecting homeowners, or persecuting motorists?
__________________

OK, let's assume that it's speed that is the main factor in road deaths. I think it is safe to say that a child could be killed at 20 mph, or even 15mph. So why not reduce the speed limit in the country to 10mph? That way there would be no deaths, or at most an extremely low number. And then we could imprison anyone who exceeded that limit! The question is, if you are happy to harp on about the life-saving merits of speed limits whilst people are still dying in accidents where the speed limit has not been exceeded, what is your argument then?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Actually it's a good way to exemplify the point I'm making. You seem to be suggesting that speeding causes death, and anything over the speed limit is speeding, so presumably 31mph is danger. But it's not. Driving at ANY speed does not kill anyone. Having an accident at NEARLY any speed COULD cause death.

So, at what point does your logic start to become reasonable?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

When we hear about accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles, most people seem to jump to the conclusion that the driver was speeding, even if that wasn't the case.

I jus wish the government would come out with some usefull facts on the subject, like "How many people are injured or killed whilst walking on the pavement" and "How many are injured or killed whilst falling into the road drunk, or simply not taking care when crossing the road"

It's so easy to blame the car driver for every accident on the road with pedestrians, but I feel the car driver is not really at fault as much as they get the blame for it.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

That is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard.

The faster that a vehicle is travelling the greater the risk of serious injury or death to a pedestrian hit by that vehicle, an indisputable fact. The same applies to the driver and occupants of motor vehicles involved in collisions, even your car.

A car travelling at 30 mph takes 75 feet to stop in a well maintained car during the day in good weather conditions with the driver concentrating on driving. At 35 mph that distance increases to 96 feet. That means that there is a 21 foot zone where the 35 mph car could hit and kill or injure a pedestrian but the 30 mph car would have stopped before entering.

What would your view of speeding be if you hit and killed a pedestrian in that 21 foot zone?

Would your view change if your child, partner or parent was killed in that zone?

How about if you hit and killed your own child, partner or parent in that zone? Would you put on their gravestone

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The car driver may not be at fault but the speed that he is driving at is a contributing factor to the severity of injury caused. Does it really matter who is to blame. If the car driver was going slower there may not have even been an accident.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

You may as well state if the other party was not there then the accident would not have occurred, regardless of blame or degree of injury.

If the pedestrian is running into the road at 10 mph and collides with a vehicle head on at 28mph, then they stand a far greater risk of being terminally injured, as opposed to just jumping into the path of the car. If they had stayed at home the problem would not have arisen.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Passing the blame doesn't solve anything.

The simple fact is that the driver can control his speed and the lower it is the less chance of an accident or if there is one, the less severe the injuries may be.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

It is quite obviously not a good way of exemplifying the point you are trying to make. This really isn't hard to grapple with. If you are travelling at greater speed you have less time to respond and will cause greater damage if you collide with something or some one. That is undeniably logical. Your argument that you can kill anyone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid. Presumably you also think water is a dangerous toxin because if you drink enough of it, it will kill you.

To address the response time/collision impact scenarios highway planners devise maximum limits at which you may legally travel, based on the local conditions. This is a logical response. Speed limits cannot be arbitrary or they will not be enforceable in law so they are set at, 30, 40, 50 etc according to the risk. Break those limits and you will be prosecuted and, unless the evidence is deficient, you can have nothing to complain about.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'd just like to second that. :clap:

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I was just making the point that speed or the driver of the car are not always at fault, even if a car is speeding the speed alone does not injure or kill a pedestrian but the speed is always the blame, in fact the driver always seems to be blamed. We always get the government statistics stating how many pedestrians are seriously killed or injured each year, but as I said they do not tell the true story. ie: How many of these serious injuries or deaths were caused by drivers running people over whilst they were walking on the pavement, not that many of them I guess.

I have no argument with the facts about faster speeds killing more people, but surely that argument misses the root cause of the problem. ie: the pedestrian walking out in front of the vehicle to start with!

I would hate to be the cause of running someone over and killing them, I never drink and drive and have never had a speeding ticket in my 22 years driving. If however someone walked out in front of my car and got killed, it would not only be my own guilt/feelings that perhaps if I'd stayed at home etc it wouldn't of happened, but you also have to consider that as a driver you are the target to blame by Joe public should such a disaster happen. Summing it up, I think it's hard enough to live with that, without automatically getting the blame from Joe public.

Apart from drink driving and joy riders it's very rare to hear of people being mowed down whilst walking on the pavement.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

and the simple fact is also that a pedestrian can control if they put themselves in front of a moving car.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Sorry but I disagree with this, not all pedestrian related accidents are down to pedestrian walking in front of cars. It often involves red lights being run, overtaking on blind corners, cars running pelican/ zebra crossings when the pedestrian has right of way. Of course there are also cases where Jo Public decides to ignore common sense and walks into traffic but it's not always within the pedestrians control whether they are in front of a moving car.
I'm not even going to try and count the number of times I've gone to cross a road at the appropiate place with the green man lit and the red light against traffic only to have to jump back on the pavement when someone decides that 100 yards just isn't enough distance to react in :dozey:

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Which doesn't alter the undisputable figures of the number of people killed and seriously injured in road traffic accidents. Some are pedestrians others are vehicle occupants.

I cannot see how anyone can justify breaking the law particularly when any accident, for whatever reason, that involves that driver speeding can have more serious consequences than if he was driving within the law. Can anyone give a valid reason why they should be breaking the speed limit?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

Thers a couple of points I'ld like to make.

1) The Speedometer in any car is mass produced and not accurate (i.e. it could say your are going 30mph, but in fact could be +/- 5 mph), if its + 5mph you could get a speeding ticket, bit unfair.

2) on the subject of speed cameras, a work college of mine was sent a speeding ticket. Now he ask to see all infomation an the cameras calibrations dates, and that of the equipment used to calibrate it, it was out of date and the case thrown out of court, had he not bothered he would have been fined. (by the way his car could go the speed they claimed its a heap.:D )

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The argument that you can kill someone at nearly any speed is frankly stupid?
How is that stupid? It's a fact.

Perhaps you should read this which details what should be taken into account when deciding to set speed limits.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ads_505174.pdf

Notice point 9 where it says that the 85th percentile should be taken into account, and that its pointless to set too low a speed limit. (unless of course you want to make money out of a speed camera...)



With regards to pedestrian safety, there does appear to have been a shift of responsibility from the pedestrian to the motorist rather than educating both.
The hedgehog adverts are usually only on in the early hours of the morning (along with the "don't play with matches" ads) when kids aren't likely to be watching TV.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

At 20mph the stopping distance is 40ft.
That means that there is a 35 foot zone where the 30 mph car could hit and kill or injure a pedestrian but the 20 mph car would have stopped before entering.
What would your view of speeding be if you hit and killed a pedestrian in that 35 foot zone?

Would your view change if your child, partner or parent was killed in that zone?

How about if you hit and killed your own child, partner or parent in that zone? Would you put on their gravestone



Speeding does not equal death/injury/accident, bad driving does.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Here is a point to ponder,the Durham county area does not have speed cameras, the Chief Constable is against them. One other little known detail, this same area has the lowest vehicle accident rate per head of population in the country.:)

Re: Gatso camera case
 

It also doesn't boast much in the way of urban conurbations compared to the rest of the country.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

That is why I mentioned the percentage rate, there are areas of the country far less built up than Durham, such as Cornwall, Devon, vast areas of North Yorkshire, Lincolnshire etc, etc.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

No, speeding does not equal death/injury/accident. However, it can mean that injuries (when accidents do occur) are more serious, and possibly life-threatening. It can also increase the impact of minor accidents whatever their cause (e.g. bad driving, or some sort of mechanical failure).

As an example I was nearly hit by a car last week because a car was speeding and overshot a red light by nearly 4 metres (I was crossing a pelican crossing and the green man was showing). I happened to be crossing the road, and the only reason I wasn't hit is I was able to leap onto the island in the middle of the road. Now, you could argue that was bad driving, and you'd be right. However, I heard (and saw) the skid start. I think that had he been obeying the 30 limit on that road, he should have stopped before the lights.


I actually agree, speeding itself is not the problem. It's merely a symptom of bad driving (not that I am saying all people who speed are bad drivers - I have friends who speed whom I consider to be very good drivers), but I think the police are in a no wine situation.

They have to be seen to be doing something, but to have an effect on bad driving, they would need to put far more officers on the road. This would lead to people complaing that the police should be going out to capture murderers and serious criminals, not victimising the motorist. Speeding (and overshooting red lights which is something else some Gatsos monitor) is relatively easy to monitor automatically with little outlay.

But the fact remains that whether or not speeding causes accidents, it can increase the chance of serious injury or death in the event of an accident. After all, you can be the best driver in the world, but if you doing >90 mph on a dual carriageway and some tw*t doing 50 doesn't notice you and enters your lane 40 feet in front of you, you won't have an awful lot of time to react, and assuming you hit him, you will probably cause at least one serious injury.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I understand the point you're making. But Durham et al do not have the concentration of the kind of urban roads upon which most deaths occur that other areas have. The comparison is not like for like even when it's looking at per head of pop.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

But those other areas that are exactly comparable to Durham, large areas of Wales for example do have 'safety' :rolleyes: cameras but have a higher accident rate.

There is little evidence that these cameras actually reduce accidents, they are milch cows for the authorities.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Your last sentence would be so true but you are forgettting that speeding IS bad driving.

When you are driving you have to read the road and anticipate what could happen.

A 30 mph area does not mean that you HAVE to drive at 30 mph or even faster if you think you are the perfect driver who is never going to have an accident or get caught speeding. It means that you are in an area where accidents are more likely to happen and you should be prepared by keeping your speed below the limit.

But the point that some of us are trying to make is that accidents DO happen and the faster you are travelling, the more serious the consequences.

A couple of questions for you.

1 Do you deliberately break the speed limit?

2 If you do, why?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Do you mean any speed limit ? if so then ;

1. Yes

2. Because the limit is plain stupid.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Could you please explain how doing 71mph along a straight empty dual carrigeway equals death/injury/accident but 70mph along the same stretch of road doesn't?

On motorways with the flow of traffic.
It's a fact that the safest form of traffic is that which has a relative speed of zero.

Overtaking when safe on a single carrigeway when there's some dolt who doesn't know what a white disc with a black diaginal line means and insists on doing 40mph (and normally speeds up to 45mph when they hit a 40zone! Or you get someone who sticks at 50mph no matter what the speed limit is, so they're not going slow for safety's sake!)
I'd rather get past them as quickly as possible, even if that means going over 60mph for a few seconds

Re: Gatso camera case
 

So we should all break any laws that we think are stupid? :erm:

Would you still break speed limits if the penalty was more severe, say a months ban for every MPH above the limit?

I would say that most people break the speed limit because the chances of getting caught are slim and the penalty if they do get caught is no deterrent. That is why they are against Gatsos because it increases the chance of them getting caught. That plus the feeling that accidents will never happen to them.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I'm a firm believer that, on certain roads and at certains times of the day/night, there should be a minimum speed limit and that the maximum speed limits should be increased.

For example, motorways/dual-carriageways. Why should I be restricted to 70Mph at 2 O'clock in the morning on a long straight bit of road when there's nobod else about?
Similarly, single carriage-way bypasses. Where I live there are a number of long, open roads. Well-lit and clear of all pedestrians etc. Why should I, in the wee hours of the morning, be forced to sit behind some muppet who doesn't want to travel above 30Mph in a National Speed Limit zone? I can't overtake because the lines down the middle are solid, I can't go any faster because the guy in front says that I can't.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Nobody has made such a claim. For the umpteenth time what is being said is that the faster the speed the more serious the results of any accident may be. You can be the only car on that straight dual carriageway doing 60 mph, 70 mph or 80 mph and can have a blowout. The result of that blowout can mean injuries or death and the severity of those increases with speed.

Quite correct but again if all vehicles are travelling at the same speed and an accident happens for whatever reason then the consequences are more serious the higher the speed.

Have you ever stopped to think that some drivers are going slower than the maximum speed limit for a reason? If the car that you want to overtake is just slightly below the speed limit then there is no real reason to overtake it other than impatience. If it is going a fair bit below the speed limit then by all means overtake it if it is safe and legal to do so which doesn't mean you have to exceed the limit to do so.
__________________

Stopping distances at night are greater than during the day, a fact ascertained by tests on reaction times.

If the lines down the centre are solid then there is a reason for them being so. Have a guess what that reason may be.

Again, why is the driver doing 30 mph a muppet? There may be a valid reason for him doing that speed.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Yes, they are. Similar tests have also shown that a driver's concentration levels increase with a similar increase in speed. Increased concentration levels lead to faster reaction times, thus reducing the total distance required to stop the vehicle quickly.

The lines down the center are solid because this is a busy stretch of road and accidents are often caused by people who overtake - during the day. At night the road is practically empty, oncoming vehicles are more visible because they have their lights on, and the average speed of vehicles travelling on the road actually decreases. People just seem to travel more slowly on that road at night.

Ok, perhaps me referring to him/her as a muppet was unfair. The fact still remains that there are other roads (with lower speed limits) which the other driver could use. The route is not the most direct route and they would almost certainly get to wherever they are going just as quickly (or slowly) if they took another (lower speed limited) road. I don't see why I should be inconvenienced purely because someone else isn't confident enough to, hasn't got a car which is mechanically sound enough to, or simply doesn't have a desire to, go faster.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

However, if they are giving each other a safe amount of space then any accident will not have a knock on effect, and don't bother with blowouts as you are as likely to survive/die from an resulting accident at 70mph as you are at 80mph

A survey by the AA several years ago showed that the majority of drivers have no idea what the national speed limit is for a car on single carrigeways, hence why they tend to also speed through villages, they aren't going so slow along national speed limit areas for safety's sake, it's because they have no idea what the speed limit is!

Rather than pootle past someone, I'll get past them asap thank you very much!

Re: Gatso camera case
 

A drivers concentration should be at its maximum at all times and should have no opportunity to increase. I started working life as a Scientific Officer with the DSIR which had the road research laboratory as one of its subdivisions. I have seen the testing that goes on there which leads me to be rather vociferous on these issues.

Not knowing the road it is hard to comment.

Mechanically sound cars can have punctures which means a wheel change and a slower than normal speed, if the driver has any sense, for cars fitted with emergency space saving spare wheels. There are a fair number of reasons why a mechanically sound car can develop a fault which entails driving the car slowly. Problems with cars can take place without warning anywhere along the route that a driver is following often at very awkward locations.
__________________

You musn't have done much driving if you think that drivers give each other a safe amount of space. :D How many multi vehicle pileups have you seen on motorways often with fatal results. They are a regular feature on the news.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

It could be that they are tired, in which case they should not be driving at all, or it could be they've been down the pub and had a drink, again they should not be driving if their ability is impared.

Spare tyres should be rated to alow travel at atleast 60mph.
If a vehicle is suffering a mechanical problem that is preventing it performing normally, then they should not be on the road even if it happens during a journey.

Caused by people driving dangrously, not specifically by them exceeding the speed limit.
Remember the massive pile up in Wales due to fog? Most of the cars involved were not breaking the speed limit, however they were driving dangerously by travelling at the speed they were, and as such tens of people lost their lives, again showing that driving well under the speed limit can be as fatal as driving over it.

Re: Gatso camera case
 

I agree with those sentiments but saying I don't know the road meant just that. I have never seen the road that you are referring to so can't give my opinion on whether the solid white lines are justified.

Emergency spare wheels are often rated at 50 mph maximum and some even less. They are used on vehicles, mainly sports cars, where there is not sufficient room for a full size spare. One or two cars have different size wheels front and rear and the spare is a compromise and is onle meant to help you to get slowly to a repair station.

Some problems enable you to drive slowly and safely to your destination or to a garage. Imagine you are disabled and your mobile can't pick up a signal on a deserted out of the way road. What do you do, drive slowly to somewhere you can get help or just sit and wait maybe in a freezing cold car for hours.

Travel along any fairly busy motorway and you usually see the nearside lane practically empty, the middle lane with a fair amount of trafic doing around the speed limit and the outside lane virtually nose to tail with hardly a car length gap between the, all doing over the limit. Which of those lanes would you be in?

As for the Wales pileup, would you think the casualties would be the same or greater if the traffic had been going 10 mph faster?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Too true, my car, an Alpha Romeo 156, has one of these. It is road legal, but limited in maximum speed, and distance (50miles). It is a get out of trouble card. Knowing how interesting the handling of the car is on it's normal tyres, I'd really not like to experience even 50Mph on one of these thin tyres in the dry, let alone wet or ice. :shocked:

A most unfortunate typo :D

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Firstly, why is it stupid? You constantly make the point that higher speed = greater risk of death/injury. I am pointing out that there are still deaths/injuries when drivers have not broken the speed limits. Therefore, if we as a nation are committed to trying to stop ALL deaths/injuries on the road then why not reduce all speed limits to the point where accidents/injuries don not happen? Why is that stupid? I notica also that you didn't answer...

Second point, is actually wrong to say. Different cars, different drivers, different conditions... all have an impact on stopping distances. You might as well say "that car would have stopped from 30 mph in a much shorter distance if it had ABS brakes. The driver is to blame because he chose a cheaper option on his car". As has been pointed out, why always assume it's the driver's fault?

Last point - very poor. I think it is safe to say that nobody on this board would want anyone to die. But to then heap the blame on just one factor is grossly unfair. How about, for example: HERE LIES THE BODY OF X. HE GOT DRUNK AND WALKED IN FRONT OF A NON-SPEEDING CAR. HOWEVER IF THAT DRIVER HAD BEEN TRAVELLING AT 1MPH LESS HE MIGHT ONLY HAVE MAIMED OR CRIPPLED POOR X".

The facts are that speeding is always pointed at. There are no GATSOs that I know of which can detect a drunk driver, which is far more dangerous in my opinion that having an extra stopping distance of a few feet. However there is a much smaller effort put in by the police to snare drink drivers than there is to catch speeding motorists. Incidentally, drink driving is (I believe) impossible to defend, unlike speeding.

By the way, as opposed to justifying NOT using the Durham example, can you tell me why Durham IS such a comparitively safer place to drive? Perhaps if you look at the positives that Durham can teach, as opposed to pooh-pooh-ing something that puts a spanner in the works of your argument, then you may broaden your views on this subject?

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

OK, my point is obviously a little unclear to you. Let me put it in simple terms:

The higher the speed, the more likely that death or injury will occur (your point).
Death and injury can occur at the current speed limits too (my first point).
If speed limits were LOWERED then death or injury would be LESS likely to occur (continuing my first point).
You argument would suggest that the government, or whoever sets speed limits, cannot care enough about reducing death or injury on the road, if they allow speed limits to remain as they are, instead of reducing them to a much lower level (I am hoping for a response to this point, but not getting one).

Put quite succinctly, the argument that speed limits etc are there to save lives is not accepted on my part. If that were the case, then it isn't working well enough. The reduction of speed limits would suggest that saving lives is higher on the agenda.

Let me just say however, that I certainly do not want speed limits reduced, but I think a complete review of speed limits should take place. Some should be lowered, some should be raised.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The fact that you can kill yourself by drinking too much water is also a fact. Best outlaw the tap now.
__________________


All perfectly, totally sensible. But once a limit has been set if you don't stick to it and get GATSOed then, well, you're bang to rights aren't you. As I've said on countless occasions if you are unhappy with particular speed limits then campaign against them but don't think you can take the law into your own hands and whinge when you get caught by a particularly efficient enforcement method.
__________________


Kids get a lot of road safety information at school. Of course pedestrians have to take responsibility for their actions but drivers need to take more responsibility because they are driving a potentially lethal weapon (when was the last time you saw a pedestrian come out top in a collision?!)
__________________

You want a response to that point. Well Xaccers has posted an excellent link detailing the rules for setting limits, one of which being that they must be realistic to road users. A balance has to be struck. Reducing speed limits will not necessarily produce the results you suggest. But it is apparent that speed limits are there, in the main (reducing congestion may be another factor for example), to protect all road users, including pedestrians. Somehow though, some motorists think that they know better, speed and get caught. End of story.

I agree that speed limits should be open to review but that doesn't mean we can break them in the meantime. We cannot pick and choose which laws we obey or rather, we can pick and choose but have absolutely no right to complain when we get caught doing so,

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I'm sure if the numbers were sufficient, then that might be a course of action that would be considered. However, your argument is flawed for many reasons, including the fact that water is available from many sources of which the tap is only one. That's like saying "road accidents can kill so let's blame drivers...". Oh, that's actually what you've been saying, isn't it?

On another point, my knowledge on this isn't 100% but death by drinking water can be by excessive consumption or possibly by allergic reaction. Just a small point.

Finally, nobody is saying that cars or taps should be "outlawed". One of the points being made is that motorists are persecuted, and the argument that is churned out is that it's all in the name of saving lives. That argument is not believed, much less proven. Nobody is denying that speeding is an offence/crime, that's actually undeniable. But spitting in public is a crime, carrying a knife is a crime, and burgling a house is a crime. There are hundreds of crimes that COULD be punished but aren't, or at least not as severely. The reason is always trumped up as "that won't save lives... we have too few resources" etc. I believe there are other reasons, such as lack of financial gain, too difficult (doesn't benefit statistics enough) etc.
__________________

"A balance has to be struck". Why? And what "balance"?

Re: Gatso camera case
 

Saying that there are other causes for accidents does not make the case for not enforcing speed limits. Your argument on reducing speed limits is stupid and surely you know that in your heart. We do not live in a risk free world. We cannot eliminate risk but we can try to manage it which is why we have differing speed limits for different road conditions.
__________________


Yes but speed limits have to be determined for all, not for individuals and individual circumstance otherwise they are unenforceable. That argument doesn't hold water unless you believe speed limits should be scrapped altogether. Conditions - particularly weather - are taken into account in trials too.
__________________

Of course a drunk driver is a total menace. But there are undoubtedly more speeders than drunk drivers. And if the police do not have to spend as much (time and money) on speeders because GATSOs are assisting their job then they have more time and money to target other offenders (in theory at least ;) )

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

The tap was a throway line _ I'm sure you can see the point that I'm making (or are choosing not to).

So, motorists are persecuted for being prosecuted when they break the law? Ah diddums. They can stop that 'persecution' quite easily. Incidentally a lot of trafic cops were removed from road duties to focus on, I think, burglaries. There was subsequently an uproar. My position is that I'd like those traffic cops on the road and more resources (not reallocation) given to tackling other crimes. I'd like to see GATSO revenues going into highway safety and public transport. I'd like to see motorists shutting up about how unfair it is that they get caught BREAKING THE LAW.
__________________

A balance between daily life going on with managed risk, or daily life being halted by trying to remove all risk by, as you say, reducing speed limits. Taking that logic to its extreme we should have a 0mph limit because then we can guarantee there will be no collisions. The world would stop. So we strike a balance.

Re: Road Traffic Act
 

I think very few motorists complain about breaking the law - personally my gripe is over how the law is broken.

On a clear, dry, open road with no other traffic, I don't see casually drifting over the limit slightly is going to cause a menace and to be realistic, neither do the police. This is why they have powers of discretion.

I was driving home from Oxford one night at 11pm when a car pulled alongside me and the passenger shone a torch at me. It was a police officer alerting me to the fact I was doing 80mph.

There were no other vehicles apart from us on the road, it was dry and well lit. He could have pulled me over and reported me for speeding. However I was not causing any trouble for other road users and as soon as I realised what I was doing I adjusted my speed accordingly.

Could I have been prosecuted for speeding that time? Yes, I was guilty with no complaints.

Should I have been prosecuted? I think that would have been GROSSLY unfair.