Ban speed cameras, the only way to keep your licence safe

balsingh

anewman wrote: »

If you want to enjoy speed, go on a race track for the day.

If you want to drive on Britain's roads, please keep to the speed limits. They're there to stop people getting hurt. If you're late, then you should have set off earlier. Remember travelling slower can actually use less petrol. Most cars reach max MPG at about 55-60mph, do 70 and you get less miles per gallon.

I can understand the argument that speed cameras are just a cashcow, but there's really no reason not to stick to the limits.

I agree with your comment but I think the speed limits need to be more realistic. Remember, they were decided back in the 60s when most cars could barely do 80mph tops. Nowadays, cars are safer, have better brakes, steering, tyres etc. While cars have moved onwards and upwards, the speed limits haven't adapted at all.

pompeyrich

My feeling is that it is better to drive at a SAFE speed, whether that be 5 or 35 M.P.H. but be fully concentrating on the road and any likely dangers, cyclists, pedestrians, children or whatever, rather than driving around at or just under the speed limit, constantly staring at the speedo in case you drift over the set limit and get a ticket.

rdwarr

Why not just ban the police?

Just more petition:spam: :spam: :spam:

p1an0player

I am not against speed limits but I do think some of the 30 zones and 40-limit dual carriageways are almost impossible to stick to consistently.

I manage it by putting the cruise control on, and am usually the slowest car on the road when I do that. I notice how police cars (not on emergency calls) routinely exceed 30 limits.

I have trouble believing these people who make out they never speed - I suspect many such people perceive that they are going slowly but are in fact speeding, eg on a quiet wide road in a 30 zone, they might be travelling at 38.

If all speed limits are realistic and fair, we need to fit cars with speed limiters such that you press a 30 button or a 40 button to limit the speed, or which kicks in automatically based on road sensors.

Yet to do this would have a big effect on the economy, almost all taxis and delivery vans routinely exceed speed limits and to slow them down would make the services they provide more expensive.

Crabman

mattymoo wrote: »

Yeah like that's going to work isn't it.

What happened to the petition on road pricing? The minister is still rabbiting on about trials.

This government don't give a monkeys for the people who elected them. Democracy is nonsense.

anewman

Crabman wrote: »

This government don't give a monkeys for the people who elected them. Democracy is nonsense.

There's no such thing as democracy. Blair is a dictator who states what happens in our country. He's not so different from Saddam, only difference is we elected them, but can elect them out for other people who will simply make choices on our behalf. We never get the opportunity to make choices for ourselves and election promises are always broken. What we really need is e-democracy where people vote on issues and the government actually takes notice and acts on what the people want. All this political ignorance can only last for so long.

Quietgirl

When i pass my driving test i intend to obey the law & stick to the speed limits. The amount of money it costs for driving lessons & tests i shall be treating my license with respect. I believe speed limits are put there for a reason. If everyone obeyed the law there would be no need for speed cams.

alwaysonthego_2

Quietgirl wrote: »

When i pass my driving test i intend to obey the law & stick to the speed limits. The amount of money it costs for driving lessons & tests i shall be treating my license with respect. I believe speed limits are put there for a reason. If everyone obeyed the law there would be no need for speed cams.

especially now if you get 6 or more points it an automatic licence revoke and both theory and practicle test to be taken again

piggeh

I think the point of the original post was that speed cameras do not make the roads safer. IMO they create more danger then they avert as drivers have to carefully monitor their speedos to make sure they don't creep over the limit and get fined for it! This is even more so in an average speed camera zone. If it's not very busy you have to constantly look down to make sure you're in the speed limit. I don't see how that's safe. Speed cameras should be disposed of and we should have more patrols to stop genuinely bad & dangerous driving.

I have got caught speeding by a camera once, when I moved from a 70 into a 50 (and got caught at 59). To avoid getting zapped I would either have to slow down before entering the zone and get shafted up the backside by one of the numerous cars who zoom off down the sliproad just beforehand, or suddenly brake to 50 as I enter it (and get shafted up the backside once again). I don't see how it makes the road safer when there wasn't even the required criteria for a speed camera there in the first place. If there was a patrol car in the area then it would be a lot safer and would stop the speed-slow down-speed up philosophy that we now have.

anewman

piggeh wrote: »

This is even more so in an average speed camera zone.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23370879-details/Drivers+can+avoid+speeding+tickets...by+changing+lanes/article.do

A massive flaw in a new generation of speed cameras means motorists can avoid fines and points on their licence simply by changing lanes.

The Home Office admitted last night that drivers can avoid being caught the by hi-tech 'SPECS' cameras which calculate a car's average speed over a long distance.