We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Electronic 'Slow down' signs

Options
12346

Comments

  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    You are still in the mindset of playing a blame game and wanting some sort of revenge. In our lives somedays !!!!!! just happens which is why we have insurance. If you ask an insurer why does my 17 year old have to pay £2000 to insure a battered up old Corsa worth £500 then the answer is generaly because he could drive into a Rolls Royce. The majority of people pay extra to cover people and cars that they may never meet.

    Its not about revenge. Some dozeball drives into me, and i say, "sure dont worry about it, i will claim off my insurance." Why should my premiums go up if say three years in a row i am in an accident each year that isnt my fault? Plus it hardly encourages people drive with due care and attention, knowing that its not going to affect their premiums anyway if they have an accident is it?

    Insurance for a 17yo is so expensive because statistically 50% of them have an accident in the first year, even a simple accident these days could result in a claim > £2000. Nothing to do with the possibility of hitting a rolls royce. It would be extremely naive to assume that insurance companies dont cost out insurance premiums based on statistical risk
  • talksalot81
    talksalot81 Posts: 1,227 Forumite
    pgilc1 wrote: »
    Interesting that you see people who don't bother taxing or insuring cars as 'probably not able to afford to, therefore theres no point in actively chasing them for any fines' as opposed to people speeding whom you almost go as far as to say are easy pickings?

    The rest of your post is just summarising what i have said all along on this post, that people speeding are picked on because they are easy targets and are a source of revenue. :rolleyes:

    Yes but you are failing to provide an alternative. I have said that chasing other aspects are somewhere between difficult and impossible with anything like our current budget. Comparatively speeding can be done as we stand. So relatively speaking, that makes speeders easy targets. What would you rather we did? The money saved by not chasing speeders would be insufficient to implement a system to chase up other offences. So all one would achieve is having more lawlessness on the roads.

    I really do not see what your arguements are trying to tell us! Yes, speeders are easy targets. But they are breaking the law and typically have absolutely no good reason to do so - the arguement that there are other crimes just as serious does not alter the fact that speeding is against the law. Furthermore, I suspect it is also the most widespread illegal activity on the roads. So maybe instead of arguing against the poor illegal speeders being targetted, you might see that if the poor illegal speeders did not speed, it would be that much easier to argue for clamping down on other crimes. It is the whole glass house and stones scenario!
    2 + 2 = 4
    except for the general public when it can mean whatever they want it to.
  • Kilty_2
    Kilty_2 Posts: 5,818 Forumite
    They're putting those signs up all over the place here in Scotland too - I've seen one as you go out of a 30 saying "30mph - slow down" :rotfl:
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Kilty wrote: »
    They're putting those signs up all over the place here in Scotland too - I've seen one as you go out of a 30 saying "30mph - slow down" :rotfl:

    You're not wrong there - just back from the highlands and the road back down to stranraer is just speed camera after speed camera..... :eek:
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Yes but you are failing to provide an alternative. I have said that chasing other aspects are somewhere between difficult and impossible with anything like our current budget. Comparatively speeding can be done as we stand. So relatively speaking, that makes speeders easy targets. What would you rather we did? The money saved by not chasing speeders would be insufficient to implement a system to chase up other offences. So all one would achieve is having more lawlessness on the roads.

    I really do not see what your arguements are trying to tell us! Yes, speeders are easy targets. But they are breaking the law and typically have absolutely no good reason to do so - the arguement that there are other crimes just as serious does not alter the fact that speeding is against the law. Furthermore, I suspect it is also the most widespread illegal activity on the roads. So maybe instead of arguing against the poor illegal speeders being targetted, you might see that if the poor illegal speeders did not speed, it would be that much easier to argue for clamping down on other crimes. It is the whole glass house and stones scenario!

    I have proposed an alternative several times now if you actually read my posts - if insurance details had to be put onto the windscreen like the tax does AND it became law that you had to put your MOT on the screen then the cameras that they currently use for checking tax could easily pick this up. The solution is already available its just not being chosen to be used.

    Also i have NOT said dont target speeders, what i have said is

    (a) There is a mindset that speeding = accidents. Not true. Driving without due care and attention = accidents. That may well be an element of speed, but more often than not its stupidity.

    (b) dont blame speeding for ALL accidents on the road therefore it must be irradicated first above all other road crime.

    (c) lets seek out other road crime as fervently as we are those who speed.

    (d) speed cameras are being used as a source of revenue, NOT to prevent accidents.
  • lczola
    lczola Posts: 8 Forumite
    Acehole wrote: »
    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
    I agree, I got one of those electronic speed warning devices fitted to my car at the factory where it was built, it's called a "speedometer" and I look at it regularly, I also watch the road for changes in speed limits notified to me by "roadsigns". I see people pass me chatting on a mobile phone or to their passenger obviously too busy to be concentrating on their correct speed or observe the road signs informing them of the legal limit.
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    lczola wrote: »
    I agree, I got one of those electronic speed warning devices fitted to my car at the factory where it was built, it's called a "speedometer" and I look at it regularly, I also watch the road for changes in speed limits notified to me by "roadsigns". I see people pass me chatting on a mobile phone or to their passenger obviously too busy to be concentrating on their correct speed or observe the road signs informing them of the legal limit.

    Good for you. I'm sure when you get hit by someone who doesnt have "insurance" or "MOT" then you'll be glad they werent "speeding" at the time.
  • IvanOpinion
    IvanOpinion Posts: 22,136 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    pgilc1 wrote: »
    Its not about revenge. Some dozeball drives into me, and i say, "sure dont worry about it, i will claim off my insurance." Why should my premiums go up if say three years in a row i am in an accident each year that isnt my fault? Plus it hardly encourages people drive with due care and attention, knowing that its not going to affect their premiums anyway if they have an accident is it?
    You are still stuck in the blame and claim mindset. When someone breaks into your house you will claim from your household insurance irrespective of the impact on your premiums .. I can further tell you if someone claims in your postcode then your premiums are likely to rise. I would suggest that if you are involved in 3 accidents in 3 years then either you are very unlucky or you are not driving defensively enough .. either way you would be a bad risk and deserve a good premium hoik :)
    Insurance for a 17yo is so expensive because statistically 50% of them have an accident in the first year, even a simple accident these days could result in a claim > £2000. Nothing to do with the possibility of hitting a rolls royce. It would be extremely naive to assume that insurance companies dont cost out insurance premiums based on statistical risk
    Risk will still be part of the calculation of premium, I have never suggested otherwise:confused: The only difference is that insurance becomes totally optional ... if you have it then you are covered .. if you don't then you gambled and lost.

    Ivan
    I don't care about your first world problems; I have enough of my own!
  • motorguy
    motorguy Posts: 22,611 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    "You are still stuck in the blame and claim mindset. When someone breaks into your house you will claim from your household insurance irrespective of the impact on your premiums .. "

    Thats because burglars tend not to hang around long enough for anyone to get their insurance details.

    "I would suggest that if you are involved in 3 accidents in 3 years then either you are very unlucky or you are not driving defensively enough .. either way you would be a bad risk and deserve a good premium hoik"

    It was purely as an example that i was quoting 3 claims in 3 years, but it could viably happen.

    I guess we will have to agree to differ...
  • IvanOpinion
    IvanOpinion Posts: 22,136 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    pgilc1 wrote: »
    I guess we will have to agree to differ...
    I disagree :D

    ivan
    I don't care about your first world problems; I have enough of my own!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.