Electronic 'Slow down' signs

IvanOpinion

pgilc1 wrote: »

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.

Not quite true ... I embarassingly have to admit that an uncle of mine got pulled over for doing less than 30mph up the M2 motorway. The police told him either to speed up and sat behind him for several miles to make sure he did (although I think the fact he only sped up to 45mph was less than impressive). The real irony was that my uncle was a racing driver ... he built and raced speedboats.

Ivan

IvanOpinion

pgilc1 wrote: »

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.....

Personally I have always believed that anybody driving without insurance should not be able to make a claim of somebody with insurance. ideally I would suggest that we stop all this third party insurance and each individual insures themselves and their families only. If an accident happens then irrespective of fault each person claims of their own insurance .. if they have none tough luck, if they are under insured thenthey gambled and they lost ... any blame and fines will be determined and issued by the courts independently of any insurance claims.

This does however require us all to accept that somedays !!!!!! happens and we all also need to get over this inane desire for revenge.

Ivan

talksalot81

pgilc1 wrote: »

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.....

Of course driving with due care and attention is important, but it is simply not something you can write down a law to cover with ease. It is entirely subjective - the motorist could disagree with the officer - how do you prove who is right? Even if the officer was given power that he was always right, then it can be argued that, in the same instance, another officer considered the situation differently and thus a conviction would be difficult if not nearly impossible. Quite simply it is something which is totally impossible to police on a mass scale - It is entirely pointless to argue that way. We can only police things where there is right and wrong, black and white. Were you above the speed limit - yes or no. Did you indicate before changing lanes - yes or no. Is your blood alcohol level above this limit - yes or no. I do not know what people expect - they will argue that speeding is an easy target but would be entirely unwilling to accept either giving up their right to question the officer or to pay the extra money which would be required to implement a half sensible system capable to covering their complaint.

The insurance situation is of course a right or wrong scenario. There is no good reason that this is not policed beyond there being no real way of knowing if an individual has insurance or not. Save for the police stopping every old beat up car and everyone who looks remotely suspicious (which is incredibly man intensive), I do not know what one would do. Lots more cameras spotting number plates to correlate to a database? That also needs facial recognition to ensure the driver is not covered 3rd party via other insurance - requiring more investment which the population would not cover.

motorguy

IvanOpinion wrote: »

Personally I have always believed that anybody driving without insurance should not be able to make a claim of somebody with insurance. ideally I would suggest that we stop all this third party insurance and each individual insures themselves and their families only. If an accident happens then irrespective of fault each person claims of their own insurance .. if they have none tough luck, if they are under insured thenthey gambled and they lost ... any blame and fines will be determined and issued by the courts independently of any insurance claims.

This does however require us all to accept that somedays !!!!!! happens and we all also need to get over this inane desire for revenge.

Ivan

But if the accident isnt your fault why would you claim off your own insurance?

motorguy

talksalot81 wrote: »

The insurance situation is of course a right or wrong scenario. There is no good reason that this is not policed beyond there being no real way of knowing if an individual has insurance or not. Save for the police stopping every old beat up car and everyone who looks remotely suspicious (which is incredibly man intensive), I do not know what one would do. Lots more cameras spotting number plates to correlate to a database? That also needs facial recognition to ensure the driver is not covered 3rd party via other insurance - requiring more investment which the population would not cover.

Irrespective if the person driving the car is covered by third party insurance, the car must be insured in the first place, otherwise you arent covered either. The problem is that there are too many people driving about with no insurance at all on the car itself.

motorguy

"I do not know what people expect - they will argue that speeding is an easy target but would be entirely unwilling to accept either giving up their right to question the officer or to pay the extra money which would be required to implement a half sensible system capable to covering their complaint."

Given that there are already systems in place for checking tax of a vehicle etc via cameras, would you not agree that the fundamentals such as tax, insurance, mot 'could' be checked for a reasonable cost - given that each static speed camera costs £30,000 to install?

There are proven examples of where police forces place speed cameras where they know they will make the most money.

Also, those cameras that check for tax - a simple cross reference to the MOT database will tell if the car is not MOT'd and therefore should not be being driven.

My point is that there are simple checks that could be put in place in a cost effective way that could make our roads a safer place - weeding out those with no MOT, tax, insurance, etc, rather than just using the technology to pick off speeding motorists (and generate extra revenue too)

Acehole_2

it doesnt matter where they put the cameras money making or not, you dont HAVE to speed !!!! its always someone elses fault, or I didnt see the signs, or didnt see the limit change, open your eyes and slow down.What is up with people ? you break the law (like it or not) so you pay the consequences!! live with it

System

1. Why can't the UK have the same system as the Republic of Ireland and require all car owners to display their insurance/ MOT on the windscreen beside the tax disc.

2. The M1 between Stockmans Lane and Grosvenor Road could do with a lorry load of those "Slow Down - speed indicators" as very few people stick to the 30mph limit there.

3. The number of PSNI officers in Traffic Branch or "Roads Policing" has dropped as members have left and they aren't being replaced so there are fewer on the roads.

Acehole_2

I also think that the punishment should be a lot more severe for all of the above. Its worth the risk of being caught for what the penalties are. Banning people who are already banned ? whats that all about, £500 a year insurance or £200 fine for getting captured.Just more cases of the law abiding people getting stuffed

IvanOpinion

pgilc1 wrote: »

But if the accident isnt your fault why would you claim off your own insurance?

That is why we have insurance ... it is just that the insurance industry has developed into a game of blame and revenge. Insurance companies have found a way of making us spend extra by insuring everybody else including those that do not have insurance.

A friend of mine drove for years with no tax and insurance at one point he got tail ended ... very minor accident ... but one he took full advantage of. He was taken to court and got fines totalling £450 .. he then put in a claim against the person that tailended him (of course while utilising the unnecessary neck brace and crutches). He got several thousand quid out of it. I think (and told him so) that this is totally wrong .. he was uninsured and therefore, in my opinion, should not have been allowed to make any claim against the other driver.

We also know that joy riders take cars, deliberately crash them and then make claims against the owners ... and there are a growing number of cars that deliberately slam the brakes on in front of you in order to make a claim. My BIL following a minor accident had to pay out for multiple whiplash claims even though the only person in the car was a driver (although he learnt fron this ... following a similar incident earlier this year where he tail ended a car he refused to give any details until the police arrived .. as soon as the person heard that he had already phoned the police he decided to take off .. BIL waited for the police)

ivan