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

[etccarmageddon]

Originally Posted by me283

Is there a law that states NIPs must be sent by recorded/registered post?

read that other thread - I think the answer is within it and I think the answer is yes!

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

If speeding is a CIVIL offence then why do the Police enforce it? I'm sure we all know of incidents where the Police have been telephoned but have declined to get involved in a matter, claiming it is a CIVIL matter?

Because:

1) The government wants their money back.
2) Speeding poses a safety risk to others.
3) Speeding could lead to criminal motoring offenses like reckless or dangerous driving. How does a cop know that is being commited, if he doesn't check the speed? It is also used as a good reason to check for license, tax, etc.
4) The job needs responsibility. We know all about the cowboys that parade themselves as clampers and traffic wardens. Imagine if speeding enforcement was left to council officials?

[me283]

Xaccers,

There are some interesting thoughts there about variable speed limits. The sad part is that the maximum is 70mph, even if the road would be safe at, say 80mph. As I posted previously, my extensive driving in Europe has shown me that the benefits of our comparatively lower speed limits are not immediately evident.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

A recent study showed that cameras don't even work at blackspots either and the best way to reduce accidents at dangerous bends, junctions etc is by the use of "active signing". You've probably seen them popping up at bad bends etc. These are signs that light up as you approach them. They immediately grap your attention and you react to them.

I saw an interesting thing in France last summer. In some areas where there had been fatalities, they placed a kind of cutout/dummy by the side of the road, in the shape of a man, woman, or child, as relevant to the fatality. Seeing two "ghosts" by the side of the road did more to make me slow down than seeing a camera. In Greece they often erect a small model church by the side of the road, like a kind of shrine. The difference between these and our country's methods of speed reduction are that theirs say "people have been killed here" whereas ours say "we have found another way of taxing motorists".

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They're normally put on identical cars, that way if a police check is done out on the road, it doesn't throw up a Reliant's numberplate on a Porche
__________________



We're not anti speed cameras, we're pro speed cameras but placed sensibly with safety as a priority not money making ability.
Take the variable speed limit around the M25 near heathrow, or within roadworks, in towns near schools or pedestrian crossings, these are perfect examples of where cameras should be placed.


And why is it if you warn drivers and get them to slow down you're charged with interfering with police business, but if you tackle a robber that the police are chasing, they thank you?


http://zeeb.at/oops/SpeedEnforcement1.jpg

If you didn't speed, you wouldn't get caught and you wouldn't generate revenue for the Treasury. Simple! Of course if you know better than highway planners and the police of what an appropriate, rather than actual, speed limit should be then it's not so simple I'm not saying I agree with all speed limits but I have no sympathy at all for anyone who gets caught speeding and then whines about it, unless the evidence is unreliable or, on occasion, where limits are inadequately signed. It's interesting to note that all the bluster is about cameras (which can catch you) not about the limits themselves.

[me283]

Originally Posted by punky

Because:

1) The government wants their money back.
2) Speeding poses a safety risk to others.
3) Speeding could lead to criminal motoring offenses like reckless or dangerous driving. How does a cop know that is being commited, if he doesn't check the speed? It is also used as a good reason to check for license, tax, etc.
4) The job needs responsibility. We know all about the cowboys that parade themselves as clampers and traffic wardens. Imagine if speeding enforcement was left to council officials?

Point 1 is sadly all too obvious.
Point 2 is a moot point - depends on the driver to a great extent.
Point 3 is a pity - the Police could be doing a lot more important work, in my opinion.
Point 4 I cannot agree with. You could also apply the logic to pub doormen. After all, that is something that could be done by the police?

There is also a point 5 - statistics. Presumably each speeding offence/crime increases the Police performance statistics, thereby showing what a fine job the Force is doing?

[ian@huth]

The trouble in the UK is that by and large speed limits are not adhered to and there is too little enforcement of them. Many accidents and delays are caused by non observance of limits and frustration caused when drivers cannot do the speed they want. Traffic volumes on UK motorways tends to be high these days no matter what time of day or night.

I have extensive driving experience both on the continent and in the USA. Driving in the USA is generally a more pleasent experience because drivers tend to adhere more to the speed limits and police enforce them more rigorously. A lot of American trunk roads are only two lanes each way and traffic tends to flow freely on these even when busy with the majority all travelling at the same speed. A different story though in built up areas with multi lanes each way and overtaking allowed on both sides. Over taking on both sides does keep you more aware of whats going on around you though. I like the American idea of having service areas in the middle rather than one on each side as we usually have.

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

Point 1 is sadly all too obvious.
Point 2 is a moot point - depends on the driver to a great extent.
Point 3 is a pity - the Police could be doing a lot more important work, in my opinion.
Point 4 I cannot agree with. You could also apply the logic to pub doormen. After all, that is something that could be done by the police?

There is also a point 5 - statistics. Presumably each speeding offence/crime increases the Police performance statistics, thereby showing what a fine job the Force is doing?

Yup. Don't get me wrong though, I really lothe this country's camera policy, as I have long stated. I wish there were 20 cameras outside every school in the country and none on dead straight dual carriage ways that are 40mph, but we all know why they don't do that...

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

It's interesting to note that all the bluster is about cameras (which can catch you) not about the limits themselves.

Andyl, I think there have been quite a few postings about the need to review speed limits in the UK?
__________________

Originally Posted by ian@huth

I have extensive driving experience both on the continent and in the USA. Driving in the USA is generally a more pleasent experience because drivers tend to adhere more to the speed limits and police enforce them more rigorously. A lot of American trunk roads are only two lanes each way and traffic tends to flow freely on these even when busy with the majority all travelling at the same speed. A different story though in built up areas with multi lanes each way and overtaking allowed on both sides. Over taking on both sides does keep you more aware of whats going on around you though. I like the American idea of having service areas in the middle rather than one on each side as we usually have.

Ian, motorways in France are only two lanes in the main part, and the traffic always seems to flow more freely.
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

If you didn't speed, you wouldn't get caught and you wouldn't generate revenue for the Treasury. Simple! Of course if you know better than highway planners and the police of what an appropriate, rather than actual, speed limit should be then it's not so simple I'm not saying I agree with all speed limits but I have no sympathy at all for anyone who gets caught speeding and then whines about it, unless the evidence is unreliable or, on occasion, where limits are inadequately signed. It's interesting to note that all the bluster is about cameras (which can catch you) not about the limits themselves.

I think nearly everyone breaks SOME law at SOME stage. The main gripe seems to be the hounding of motorists, as opposed the comparitively lax pursuance of more serious offenders.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by me283

Ian, motorways in France are only two lanes in the main part, and the traffic always seems to flow more freely.

It all depends on when you were using them.

By and large on foreign holiday routes British motorists tend to adhere more to the speed limits than they do at home. If every vehicle is driving at the speed limit then there will be little congestion and no overtaking.

[me283]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

It all depends on when you were using them.

By and large on foreign holiday routes British motorists tend to adhere more to the speed limits than they do at home. If every vehicle is driving at the speed limit then there will be little congestion and no overtaking.

I wouldn't say that! In the States maybe, but I freely admit that I put my foot down in France, if only because they didn't have our congestion. Lots of other people did the same (no justification I know), and there were NO speed cameras. Guess what? No traffic jams and no accidents either...

Originally Posted by me283

Andyl, I think there have been quite a few postings about the need to review speed limits in the UK?

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

Originally Posted by me283

I think nearly everyone breaks SOME law at SOME stage. The main gripe seems to be the hounding of motorists, as opposed the comparitively lax pursuance of more serious offenders.

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...... )

[me283]

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...

Originally Posted by me283

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...

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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...... )

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

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.

Originally Posted by me283

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.

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

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.

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!