Viewing Thread:
"Drivers, Speed Cameras and Ignorant Stupidity."

Read something in the news the other day about some people in North Wales tearing down speed cameras, apparently a reaction to the North Wales Police's current policy of targetting speeding drivers in a noble effort to make the roads safer. These people claim to feel 'victimised' and shout about how speed cameras are simply trying to milk yet more money out of the 'driving community'.

They're not the only people to feel that way. A few weeks ago, a hoax e-mail was distributed detailing plans to install a series of digital cameras on the M4 which would automatically read people's licence plates and auto-issue fines to speeding drivers. There was outrage. Not just from random people I know, but from supposed professionals in my office and many others, as a huge e-mail debate raged, citing invasions of civil liberty and other such nonsense.

Can I just ask a question of all the people who feel so infringed by the governments efforts to stop people from speeding: What is your problem?

Now, I don't drive, as I recognise that, for me, it's not an economically or financially viable option for me to do so. I could afford to drive, sure, but why bother given the cost incurred by doing so far outweighs the benefits gained? But anyway, I don't drive, but from my perspective, speed cameras are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to punish drivers who are BREAKING THE LAW. I've put that in big letters for you so it sinks in a little. The drivers punished by speed cameras are punished with good reason, they are driving at excessive speed, and possibly endangering the lives of themselves, and more selfishly (also more importantly), the lives of others. Now, are drivers of the opinion that they should be allowed to break the law and endanger lives with impunity? That's certainly the way their attitude comes across.

The idea that drivers are being 'victimised' for breaking the law is ludicrous. If I had my way, speeding would carry an automatic driving ban and a far more hefty fine than is currenlty in practice. If I had my way, there would cameras on every street of every city and town in the whole country. No, satellite tracking of every vehicle, so that every single infringement is captured, and drivers can gleefully dig their own graves.

Arguing that you should be free to speed at will without cameras to record your indescretion is no different to thugs and rapists demanding the removal of CCTV cameras from street corners so that they can be allowed to hurt, damage and destroy people without having their privacy invaded by police intent on victimising them when they should be cracking down on more serious crimes like... terrorism and such.

Let's be clear here. Speeding is dangerous, it costs lives, which is to say it can kill people, or just take their life away from them. The speed laws are - contrary to popular belief - there for the safety of everyone involved, and not a measure to curb your enjoyment, preventing you from racing down country lanes at 100mph.

And let's be clearer still: Any driver who believes that they are being victimised simply because the police wish to monitor the roads FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY is a complete and irredeemable idiot. I moronic and useless blight on humanity. You people should be hung at dawn with transparent balloon pants so that when the contents of your bowels exit your body,you canbe photographed for the morning papers with all the grace and dignity you deserve. Don't try to tell me "I speed, but safely", because, after all, don't all of you? I doubt many people drive around with the intent of being purposefully dangerous to other motorists/pedestrians. Most accidents due to speeding are exactly that.

Scum. I could write more. I could easily sit here all day venting my rage at you stupid people. But I'm getting too angry to formulate proper sentences.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Cars are safer now, better braking, better control, and better safety features.

And I think it is because of a lot of these new do-hickies that a lot of people have become a little complacent in their driving.

> Germany copes without a speed limit on sections of the autobahn.

The Germans have an excellent system.

No speed limits, but suggestions. Go above them and you wont be prosecuted, but if you have an accident your insurance no longer covers you.

However, they do have limits in the cities. Break those limits and you WILL be prosecuted.

I didn't read all off that IB, just certain key points, but as a driver I feel I have to comment.

The only way speed cameras would work is if there was one covering every single meter of the roads of britain. That is the only way they could be sure people would drive at the correct posted speed. As it is there are only a relative handful of cameras on certain parts of the road. This means people drive at the correct speed past the cameras, then speed up again. Conclusion - Cameras DON'T work, and to make them work would cost the government billions of pounds.

Fines are ridiculous, a person can be banned just driving from one side of preston to the other over the speed limit, and I don't agree with half of the speed limits posted anyway. There is a large dual carriageway near the town with NO pedestrian access, yet it is 30 mph. Why?

What I think people fail to realise is that speed is only one cause for road deaths in this country, the main reason in my view is people driving beyond their limits. More money needs to be put into driver training. The tests need to be made harder, include motorways, driving in bad conditions, the works. You wouldn't let someone fly a Harrier Jumpjet after 10 hours tuition would you? So why should a car be any different? It has the same potential to kill. I watch that programme "Britains worst driver" and well up with rage. People who shouldn't be in control of a shopping trolley have full licenses, crash into other cars, bollards and cardboard cut outs of pedestrians. Then they have a good laugh about it. I don't find it in the slightest bit funny. These people should be banned instantly and forced to complete an advanced driving course.

I've had a few crashes myself, when I was younger, and I put it down solely down to inexperience. This is where money needs to applied, not vindictively squeezing money out of drivers which will then most probably go towards more cameras. Who is skimming the profits off the top though? It's all about profit. And to see a speed camera lying on the floor would bring a smile to my face.

I agree with the sentiment of this post, speeding is breaking the law and is really inexcusable.

I do feel however that higher speed limits on some roads would be a good thing. If I remember rightly, speed limits were introduced as a temporary measure. But that was decades ago. Cars are safer now, better braking, better control, and better safety features.

Germany copes without a speed limit on sections of the autobahn. The USA has higher limits than Britain in most states. It can be done and it can be safe. Bear in mind that it is a speed LIMIT, if you are not comfortable driving at that speed then you don't have too.

But even if the speed limit wasn't changed, some speed cameras have to be repositioned. For instance, on the M74 on the way into Glasgow, limit is 70, you go round a corner and down a hill. Midway down the hill, in a low visibility point is a change to 50. No warning, and a camera just after the sign. Which means if you don't know about the change you will most likely get flashed, even if you are attempting to slow down.

That just smacks of cashing in on the public, to me anyway.

The point is that if your aren't in control of the car and/or driving dangerously - then there's a statutory provision already there regardless of whether you're using a phone or not. In deciding the punishment, the court will take into account the phone usage. The new legislation only has a purpose for people who are driving 100% safely, but happen to be using a phone.

I know there's other factors, but driving while holding a phone (which is all this legislation addresses as the whole being distracted by talking bit still stands) isn't automatically dangerous. This is why people missing limbs can still drive.

Dr Gonzo wrote:
> At present, you can be fined/imprisoned for driving without due care
> and attention. This covers mobile phones, provided the person
> actually does something dangerous

It is easier to get them for not being in full control of their vehicle, because if you are driving and talking on your mobile you end up with no hands on the wheel when changing gear, unless you have the phone cradled between your ear and shoulder. Then I think due care and attention could be used.

You're allowed to press one button on the phone (i.e. to accept a call), but you're not allowed to hold the phone (so you need a cradle and hands free kit, or a hands free kit that can answer the phone). All in all, it's ludicrous. It's a knee jerk reaction to an associated problem, rather than the main problem of driving badly.

At present, you can be fined/imprisoned for driving without due care and attention. This covers mobile phones, provided the person actually does something dangerous - and still stands as it is one of the main offences people will be charged with in any driving accident, including those after Dec 1st that involve mobile phones. Also, mobile phone usage will certainly be taken into account in any civil action. Now there's an added statutory fine for people using a mobile phone, but who actually drive perfectly well. Genius. A fantastic way to waste more police time and divert them from actually catching people who can’t drive.

I like the idea of some of these new camera’s that are being used in various places across the UK. There will be one at a certain point and another at another. The first camera flashes you, (not literally), the second then flashes you again and sees how long it took you to go between the two camera’s.

I can already think of problems with them though.

For instance, you could still speed but not be caught. If you are stopped at every red traffic light, have to stop for someone turning into their driveway and such, you could still speed when actually moving, but, because off all the stop starting, the camera thinks you have gone between the two in a legal time…

My head hurts.

I agree and disagree with speed cameras, there is one on a dual carriageway on the way to edinburgh which is at the bottom of a hill and is hidden behind a bridge. Anyone who drives knows that your full attention isnt always on the speedo, and when you are going down a fairly gentle hill you dont always notice the increase in speed.

Its tricksy.

I do agree with nailing speeders' faces to the insides of crocodile enclosures generally,
but I wish there were a few more speed limit signs in some areas.
You get to a junction and your concentration is on getting through safely, but that could be the last chance to see a speed limit sign for a fair few miles.
Another one a hundred yards or so down the road would be kind of useful sometimes.

Then again, I've not done much driving since passing my test. Maybe it'll come when I don't need to pay so much attention to everything else.
In which case you could argue we need harder tests...

The prohibition of hand held phones would also apply to phones "used with an ear piece whether using a wire or wireless connection. Even though they can be used "hands free" to some extent, these require the user to hold the phone in order to press buttons or read a message on the screen."