Speeding offence

Iceweasel

kwmlondon wrote: »

I thought that this government had cut funding for the cameras and that it cost local authorities a lot of money to keep them going, which they did because it kept deaths down. But then I don't tend to drive over the speed limit so I don't worry about it too much.

I don't tend to drive under the influence of alcohol - but I still know how much tax the government make from a bottle of whisky/wine/beer etc.

We the tax-payers are funding the cameras and the fines go direct to the UK Treasury.

Here's what they say about it in my local area:

NESCAMP - NE Scotland Safety Camera Partnership.

"The Partnership is funded by a grant from the Scottish Safety Camera Programme and the revenue from fines goes directly to HM Treasury."

I have seen no recent evidence of reduced accidents and/or fatalities on what has been branded by some as Scotlands most dangerous road - the A947 whom most folks have never even heard of. Indeed the opposite might be true.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/uncategorized/25996/north-east-road-deaths-highest-in-all-scotland/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?es_sm=122&q=A947+deaths&oq=A947+deaths&gs_l=serp.12...9793.10421.0.13739.5.5.0.0.0.0.150.633.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.52.serp..2.3.367.200yrxMhIJM

And that is despite there being some 23 mobile camera locations along the 46 mile stretch.

On any given day there could be 3 or 4 camera vans in operation on the A947.

Of course there are those who would argue that if the cameras had not proliferated in the last few years the road deaths would has escalated to horrendous numbers.

In my opinion what is most effective in reducing speeds to within the limits and reducing the number of fatalities is more marked police patrol cars.

The average cost to the country of a fatal accident is reported to be £1.8 million.

With an average death rate of 'only' 25 or so that means that Aberdeenshire deaths alone cost nearly £50million - the mind boggles.

With a fraction of that money we could have several extra highly visible police cars whose presence would go a long way to making the roads safer for all.

AdrianC

Bantex wrote: »

The limit is not about appropriate, it is a limit.

Yes, it is a limit. A limit to the maximum legal speed a driver can travel at. It is no more than that, and has no inherent relation to safety.

If you think 17 year old Kevin in his Halfords special Corsa with his mates in the back is capable of deciding what an appropriate speed is, then good luck.

So you believe every single speed limit in the country defines an appropriate speed? Even for conditions with zero traffic and ideal weather?

kwmlondon

AdrianC wrote: »

If the cyclist - or any other road user - takes the time to decide if there's any appreciable increase in risk by doing so, then that's a very different situation from just tonking on regardless of whether there's cross traffic - or even pedestrians - in their way.

Personally, I don't much care what form of vehicle somebody's using, just so long as they take steps to minimise the risk they present to others. I just don't see an arbitrary number-on-a-stick that was defined 80 years ago (or even "just" 40-50) as the most important factor at play.

I tend to see it in a wider way than that. It really does annoy drivers when cyclist go through red lights, even if they can see that it's totally safe. Me? I'd rather hang back and not wind up people in cars.

Sure, you may be pragmatic and "no skin of my nose" but many people resent when others break the rules and get really angry. Like, dangerous, angry.

I could ride on the pavement, but it's disorientating for pedestrians so I don't.

Sometimes it's about more than just what we can get away with, but all toeing the line. I guess that's why I try to stick to the speed limit when I'm on the motorbike.

I mean, it's so easy. I can get to 60mph in about 3 seconds. I prefer to treat the road like a game - how well can I anticipate other drivers, how smooth can I be, do I know what's going on all around me? Can I spot the pedestrian on their phone and beep my horn before they step into my path! Can I see the gap in the traffic that's hiding a car emerging into the bus lane I'm using?

Speeding just makes it that tiny bit harder to react in time and I daren't risk it. It's dangerous out there.

kwmlondon

Iceweasel wrote: »

I don't tend to drive under the influence of alcohol - but I still know how much tax the government make from a bottle of whisky/wine/beer etc.

We the tax-payers are funding the cameras and the fines go direct to the UK Treasury.

Here's what they say about it in my local area:

NESCAMP - NE Scotland Safety Camera Partnership.

"The Partnership is funded by a grant from the Scottish Safety Camera Programme and the revenue from fines goes directly to HM Treasury."

I have seen no recent evidence of reduced accidents and/or fatalities on what has been branded by some as Scotlands most dangerous road - the A947 whom most folks have never even heard of. Indeed the opposite might be true.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/uncategorized/25996/north-east-road-deaths-highest-in-all-scotland/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?es_sm=122&q=A947+deaths&oq=A947+deaths&gs_l=serp.12...9793.10421.0.13739.5.5.0.0.0.0.150.633.0j5.5.0....0...1c.1.52.serp..2.3.367.200yrxMhIJM

And that is despite there being some 23 mobile camera locations along the 46 mile stretch.

On any given day there could be 3 or 4 camera vans in operation on the A947.

Of course there are those who would argue that if the cameras had not proliferated in the last few years the road deaths would has escalated to horrendous numbers.

In my opinion what is most effective in reducing speeds to within the limits and reducing the number of fatalities is more marked police patrol cars.

The average cost to the country of a fatal accident is reported to be £1.8 million.

With an average death rate of 'only' 25 or so that means that Aberdeenshire deaths alone cost nearly £50million - the mind boggles.

With a fraction of that money we could have several extra highly visible police cars whose presence would go a long way to making the roads safer for all.

If the cameras are so lucrative couldn't they pay for more traffic cops to cope with the driving transgressions that are not speed-related?

AdrianC

kwmlondon wrote: »

I tend to see it in a wider way than that. It really does annoy drivers when cyclist go through red lights, even if they can see that it's totally safe.

Have a "some" with those drivers, perhaps?

There are even a tiny subset for whom the very existence of cyclists is sufficient to cause annoyance.

Bantex_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, it is a limit. A limit to the maximum legal speed a driver can travel at. It is no more than that, and has no inherent relation to safety.



So you believe every single speed limit in the country defines an appropriate speed? Even for conditions with zero traffic and ideal weather?

No, but I do believe a limit needs to be set and setting below what some think it should be is not really a hardship for anyone, so where is the problem?

AdrianC

Bantex wrote: »

No

So you accept that, yes, the 17yo Corsa-pilot has to be presumed capable and trustworthy of setting that appropriate speed.

Yet you still insist that a default legal limit set in 1936 is the unquestionably correct one, wherever it applies.

Go back to the OP's father.

Was he driving legally? Unquestionably not.
Was he driving sensibly? Unquestionably not - if for no other reasons that the likely consequences to his licence.
Was he driving safely? You say "unquestionably not". I say "I don't know, I wasn't there."

Bantex_2

AdrianC wrote: »

So you accept that, yes, the 17yo Corsa-pilot has to be presumed capable and trustworthy of setting that appropriate speed.

Yet you still insist that a default legal limit set in 1936 is the unquestionably correct one, wherever it applies.

Go back to the OP's father.

Was he driving legally? Unquestionably not.
Was he driving sensibly? Unquestionably not - if for no other reasons that the likely consequences to his licence.
Was he driving safely? You say "unquestionably not". I say "I don't know, I wasn't there."

I have never said that driving within the limit is safe or unsafe. Depends on a thousand different things, many unique to the driver and vehicle rather than the road. I do believe that limits are required in most places though, they will never suit everyone, but adhering to them is not going to increase the risk. So why bother speeding?

kwmlondon

AdrianC wrote: »

Have a "some" with those drivers, perhaps?

There are even a tiny subset for whom the very existence of cyclists is sufficient to cause annoyance.

Sure, "some." I thought that in the context of the rest of what I was saying that was a given.

Anyway, we're in danger of thread-jacking here.

However, I do get it. I'll be going along at the speed limit on a road and get overtaken by someone tanking it and my eyebrow will go up and part of me will think "hope he/she gets busted." Then I catch myself and realise I should just be hoping that they don't have an accident, not getting all petty.

I do go a bit purple when I see cyclists zooming through lights, with no helmet, wearing headphones but then I think "it's okay, natural selection will probably sort that out." Then, again, I feel bad and hope they are okay.

kwmlondon

Bantex wrote: »

I have never said that driving within the limit is safe or unsafe. Depends on a thousand different things, many unique to the driver and vehicle rather than the road. I do believe that limits are required in most places though, they will never suit everyone, but adhering to them is not going to increase the risk. So why bother speeding?

Because it's fun!!!!!!

Taking a motorbike way past the speed limit on a winding road is like sliding down a banister with a pond full of alligators at the side, it's dangerous and stupid and very addictive and takes a lot of self-control not to give into but it's a helluva adrenalin rush!

I had to grow up a lot or get points. I grew up. And got a bicycle!