[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

Originally Posted by scrotnig

There is no point campaigning about anything in this country.

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

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

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.

Originally Posted by me283

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?

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.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

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

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."

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by Chimaera

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

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

[scrotnig]

Originally Posted by andyl

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)

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

Originally Posted by andyl

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."

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.

Originally Posted by andyl

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."

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.

Originally Posted by scrotnig

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

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by scrotnig

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.

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.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by scrotnig

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

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

I don't agree because I think the police do care - they might be under resourced though.

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?

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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?

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?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by me283

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?

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.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

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?

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

Here lies the body of my son
He died because I was speeding

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Escapee

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.

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.

[Nikko]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

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.

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.