Electronic 'Slow down' signs

motorguy

marcais wrote: »

It seems they can't win with some people.

If they put up speed cameras they would be accused of doing it as part of a money-making scheme. If they try something that doesn't raise any revenue then it's a money-and-time-wasting effort.

Yes, you cant win with some people, however the bulk of us believe that those electronic signs are more effective when used in the right way at the right place, than a traffic cop turning up once a week with a speed gun and doing 40 people in the hour hes there.

Plus the query here is on the effectiveness on that stretch of road.

motorguy

Witless wrote: »

I learned the hard way - at one stage I was 3 points away from being 'reduced to pedestrian'; the warning signs don't cost me anything - that's why I prefer the gentle, pain free reminder any time I stray over the limit.

To each their own, I suppose.

Yes, i agree, at one point i had eight points, thus i was one 'bad day' away from losing my licence for nearly two years!

Having said that i religiously drive at 30 in a 30 now - even if that means nearly being dozed off the boucher road by the nut jobs and those who don't know its a 30 as there are no signs up!!

Acehole_2

If people were not in such a rush to be there yesterday we wouldnt need any signs. Most drivers are just plain dumb when it comes to speed limits. Me thinks that they think 30 is the minimun not the maximum. More speed cameras around every corner.

motorguy

Acehole wrote: »

If people were not in such a rush to be there yesterday we wouldnt need any signs. Most drivers are just plain dumb when it comes to speed limits. Me thinks that they think 30 is the minimun not the maximum. More speed cameras around every corner.

Yes, or alternatively maybe the police could address the driving issues that causes the most accidents - not driving with due care and attention, carelessness, etc. Or stamp on the drivers who have no insurance, no tax, car in unroadworthly condition, no mot....

The town in which i live - if you were to drive down through it on a friday afternoon you probably risk at least three potential accidents - people slamming on their brakes, pulling in without indicating, pulling out without looking, changing lanes without looking....

Acehole_2

I agree spped cameras do not pick up people who swerve across lanes, slam brakes on, fail to indicate , no insurance ,etc etc etc. There will never be enough traffic police to stop that. Speed cameras will stop people, As I said ,loads more cameras needed. I dont think its just driving people are in too much of a rush in general, slow down a little

talksalot81

But if we did have a system to pick up all such errors, the public would yap like there was no tomorrow. Would YOU be happy to have a system in your car which monitored speed, acceleration (or de), location on the road, indicator useage... I would but discussions online had demonstrated to me that the vast majority of individuals consider this a breach of their rights (i.e. they shift the focus of the conversation and dont explain why they truly would not want it).

motorguy

talksalot81 wrote: »

But if we did have a system to pick up all such errors, the public would yap like there was no tomorrow. Would YOU be happy to have a system in your car which monitored speed, acceleration (or de), location on the road, indicator useage... I would but discussions online had demonstrated to me that the vast majority of individuals consider this a breach of their rights (i.e. they shift the focus of the conversation and dont explain why they truly would not want it).

I dont think i actually said we should have a system in cars to do that, however i think its much easier for police to pick on people breaking the speed limit, as its a black and white crime, ie there is no grey area. Some old biddy doing 20mph in a 60 is in some circumstances at more risk of causing an accident than maybe someone doing 70 in a 60, yet the police will NEVER stop the person doing 20mph.

Back to my home town scenario, i've never yet seen traffic police stopping someone for careless driving in the town, yet i regularly see them with a speed gun up in the town - usually early mornings or into the evenings.

Does anyone remember back in the 1970s, there used to be TV adverts about how to drive roundabouts, how and where to park your car etc. Maybe we need some money spent on the fundamentals of driving, rather than focusing on speed being 'the root of all evil'....

motorguy

Acehole wrote: »

I agree spped cameras do not pick up people who swerve across lanes, slam brakes on, fail to indicate , no insurance ,etc etc etc. There will never be enough traffic police to stop that. Speed cameras will stop people, As I said ,loads more cameras needed. I dont think its just driving people are in too much of a rush in general, slow down a little

What about more cameras to detect car tax dodgers? or making people display their MOT on their screens, thus cameras could detect if their MOT is valid. Or investing more in insurance fraud detection? None of those ideas 'need' any more traffic police than speed cameras?

Have to agree with you on the 'slow down a little' though. I fully agree with the 30mph limits around towns.

talksalot81

pgilc1 wrote: »

I dont think i actually said we should have a system in cars to do that, however i think its much easier for police to pick on people breaking the speed limit, as its a black and white crime, ie there is no grey area. Some old biddy doing 20mph in a 60 is in some circumstances at more risk of causing an accident than maybe someone doing 70 in a 60, yet the police will NEVER stop the person doing 20mph.

Back to my home town scenario, i've never yet seen traffic police stopping someone for careless driving in the town, yet i regularly see them with a speed gun up in the town - usually early mornings or into the evenings.

Does anyone remember back in the 1970s, there used to be TV adverts about how to drive roundabouts, how and where to park your car etc. Maybe we need some money spent on the fundamentals of driving, rather than focusing on speed being 'the root of all evil'....

But speeding is in many senses the most fundamental law on the road! You many not agree that it should be, but it is effectively the only real controlling factor. Ultimately, it is the law. Whether we like it or not, it is the law - if you speed, you are breaking the law. Since it really is the only road law which is easily mass monitored, why should we happily ignore it? Yes, other behaviours are bad, but they would take a whole lot of money (which neither you or I would happily pay) to police. If the money spent on speeding went on other offences, we would have a very small increase in convictions for other crimes and an absolute drop off the cliff for speeding.

In my view, I would rather we do a simple thing relatively well making some form of impact rather than trying to go for more complex things and being little more than a drop in the ocean.

motorguy

Surely the most fundamental law on the road is 'Driving with due care and attention' of which speeding is an example? And happens to be the easiest one to quantify?

When something like 1 in 10 drivers are uninsured, you're probably at more risk of being in an accident with someone not insured, than someone speeding.....