Caught Speeding 49 in a 30.

Deastons

Johno100 wrote: »

Another fallacy. Firstly virtually all vehicles are quieter and less polluting than they were a decade ago, so by your logic that should lead to higher limits not lower ones.

Did it occur to you that emissions targets change over time? The goal is for no pollution, not "the same amount of pollution a decade ago".

mcpitman

Deastons wrote: »

I agree with you on every point, but I just think it's sad that speeding isn't more actively discouraged.

The fact that speed cameras are bright yellow with signage warning of speed cameras, mobile camera vans being brightly coloured, technology warning of camera locations etc. and I'm surprised anyone actually gets caught speeding.

And the OP doing 49 in a 30 zone and all they're going to get is a £100 fine. £100! I spend more than that on dinner out. It's no deterrent. And the speed awareness course is seen as a joke.

Unlike drink driving and using a mobile phone, speeding is socially acceptable. In fact, in conversation when I mention that I don't speed, people either don't believe me or mock me for doing so.

Due to the above twaddle, I now have no idea if you are pro or anti speeding. Your posts make little to no sense.


Speed limits are there for a reason, I consciously stick to speed limits, ya know cos that's the law.

Johno100

Deastons wrote: »

Did it occur to you that emissions targets change over time? The goal is for no pollution, not "the same amount of pollution a decade ago".

"No pollution" that's cloud cuckoo land. Vehicles are becoming cleaner as technology moves on and pollution levels will continue to drop, obviously never quick enough for the green and anti-car lobbies. But there will always be pollution from their manufacture and the fuel that they use.

Deastons

Johno100 wrote: »

"No pollution" that's cloud cuckoo land. Vehicles are becoming cleaner as technology moves on and pollution levels will continue to drop, obviously never quick enough for the green and anti-car lobbies. But there will always be pollution from their manufacture and the fuel that they use.

True - but not in city centres.

The goal is zero pollution.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

Another fallacy. Firstly virtually all vehicles are quieter and less polluting than they were a decade ago, so by your logic that should lead to higher limits not lower ones. Secondly if you set up a pollution and noise monitoring station next to the road and I drove past at 30mph and then 60mph I can guarantee the total amount of noise and pollution picked up by your equipment at 30mph would be higher than that at 60mph for the simple reason I'd be in your vicinity for less time.

Vehicles are also safer than in previous decades both for pedestrians and occupants so lets increase vehicle speeds to maintain the injury rate.

The noise of multiple vehicles travelling at 60mph whould be greater than them travelling at 30mph.

Johno100 wrote: »

Vehicles are becoming cleaner as technology moves on and pollution levels will continue to drop, obviously never quick enough for the green and anti-car lobbies.

.... or for people ill or dying from respiratory disease.

System

mcpitman wrote: »

Speed limits are there for a reason,

In many cases they're not. There's a 2 mile stretch of road between two villages near me. Wide single carriage A road, almost perfectly straight, nothing to the sides other than fields and a low hedge. Over a period of 3 years it went from NSL down to 40 then to 50 then back to NSL.

Lorries used to be restricted to 40MPH on single carriageways, 50 MPH on dual carriageways. 3 and a half years ago they upped the limits in England, Wales and NI to 50MPH on single carriageways and 60MPH on dual carriageways pretty much due to the amount of trucks that were already doing that with no increase in the accident rate. Vehicle safety wise nothing had changed over the prior decade and a half to warrant the change as all trucks and trailers had to have ABS from the late 90s and many had changed over to disc brakes already.

As for speed kills, well it does but not as much as you may think given the amount of effort there is put into its enforcement. Causation of accident statistics compiled by the Department of Transport from the Police Force's own accident investigations and released last year concluded that exceeding the speed limit was a contributory factor, not even the only cause, in just 5% of all accidents and 6% of road deaths. Travelling too fast for the conditions which means you were keeping at or below the number on a stick was a contributory factor in 6% proving statistically that speeding is safer than keeping to the number on the stick at the side of the road. Driver error at 69% was by far the largest contributory factor.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras50-contributory-factors

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665194/ras50012.ods

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

My old sat nav actually did warn you about mobile cameras. It was very clever, pulled them from some RSS feed or something, which was in turn pulling them from Waze or some other open framework where people could input them. Had plenty of false positives (mobile camera ahead, no camera actually there) but many times it was absolutely spot on and there would be a camera.

Still, let's just not encourage speeding in a 30 and drive safely

How did it warn you about non camera enforcement? Cop with a gun or vascar.

GothicStirling

Ah, didn't know about the Troll, either that or the Daily Mail Bots have infiltrated MSE.

Uxb

Johno100 wrote: »

And yes there is mob rule by a minority out there. Recently had a road near me reduced from 40 to 30 based on a petition signed by a few hundred people and of course supported by a local councillor due for re-election soon.

I live near to one such example and was one for reducing it to 30 - this is a rural area.
When the limit was 40 people would ignore it and go at 50 and higher.
There are houses along it and trying to get out of some driveways with bad visibility with the nutjobs going past at 50 plus was hair raising.
There was one crash on the road where the police estimate the actual speed was 70 to 80.
Reducing it to 30 will mean that people might actually now do no more than 40!

So the entire reason for the limit being reduced is not because we the locals want 30 but because a significant minority simply will not obey the set limit.
If everyone had done no more than 40 then likely as not the limit would still be 40.

Johno100

Uxb wrote: »

I live near to one such example and was one for reducing it to 30 - this is a rural area.
When the limit was 40 people would ignore it and go at 50 and higher.
There are houses along it and trying to get out of some driveways with bad visibility with the nutjobs going past at 50 plus was hair raising.
There was one crash on the road where the police estimate the actual speed was 70 to 80.
Reducing it to 30 will mean that people might actually now do no more than 40!

So the entire reason for the limit being reduced is not because we the locals want 30 but because a significant minority simply will not obey the set limit.
If everyone had done no more than 40 then likely as not the limit would still be 40.

Sorry but how is reducing the limit from 40 to 30 going to make a blind bit of difference to a nutter doing 70 or 80?