Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
With respect to mike, I was wondering if anyone has yet noticed any mobile camera locations that you may otherwise describe as being out of place yet. If this change in policy was anything to go by I thought I might have seen something by now!
Maybye MaFt has recieved some unusual mobile placements.
EDIT: 65mph little deer???? _________________ Dom
HERE LIES PND May it rest in peace.
Navigon 7310/iPhone Navigon&Copilot
Last edited by mostdom on Tue May 22, 2007 8:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:15 am Post subject: Re: new speed camera law
klystron_generator wrote:
he could make me look really silly or at best give others participating in this thread food for thought
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 20th December 2005
The road rage lobby couldn’t have been more wrong. Organisations like the Association of British Drivers and “Safe Speed” – the boy racers’ club masquerading as a road safety campaign – have spent years claiming that speeding doesn’t cause accidents. Safe Speed, with the help of some of the most convoluted arguments I’ve ever read, even seeks to prove that speed cameras “make our roads more dangerous”(1). Other groups, such as Motorists Against Detection (officially known as MAD) have been toppling, burning and blowing up the hated cameras(2). Speed limits, speed traps and the government’s “war on the motorist”, these and about a thousand such campaigns maintain, are shakedown operations, whose sole purpose is to extract as much money as possible from the poor oppressed driver.
Well last week the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras(3). It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected. The number of deaths fell by over 100 a year. The people blowing up speed cameras have blood on their hands. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
If I told you another little fact about my driving I would make you look really silly
i'm still waiting to be made to look really silly, looks like i might have a long wait
all quiet on the Dorset front
Kira Cochrane
Published 07 May 2007
Two very personal reasons as to why you shouldn't speed
Some decisions are probably best slept on. It seems fair to say, for instance, that it was a dodgy decision by Richard Brunstrom - the chief constable of North Wales Police - to show graphic images of people killed while speeding, without first asking permission from relatives of the deceased.
Late last month it was reported that Brunstrom and colleagues had shown a gathering of journalists and local authority representatives photographs of a dead motorcyclist - one of his decapitated head lying on a grass verge, another of his torso embedded in a car. The motorcyclist had been travelling at 95mph in a 60mph zone, and details were given of a distinctive T-shirt he had been wearing at the time, also mentioned at his inquest, which made him identifiable to any of the journalists who remembered the case or cared to investigate. (The slogan read: "Hello officer . . . Yes my number plate is legal, Yes my tyres have tread, Now And catch some REAL criminals.")
It was insensitive to use these photos without asking relatives, especially as the dead man was identifiable. Still, beyond the issue of per mis sion, I can completely understand why Brun strom wanted to use such pictures. It is, after all, the police who have to attend these accidents and who regularly see such avoidable horror, close up. To get some idea of just how regularly, you've only to consider the statistics. In 2005 (the last year for which there are comprehensive figures), 3,201 people died on the roads and 271,017 people were injured. Each of us over a lifetime has a one-in-17 chance of being killed or seriously injured in a road crash - perilous odds.
For those who haven't heard of Brunstrom - a controversial figure in many ways - his enthusiasm for speed cameras has made him notorious among the UK's self-appointed road warriors, who have dubbed him the "Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban". The attitudes towards him underline the continuing mass hatred of speed cameras, although they have reduced deaths and injuries by 42 per cent on the roads where they've been erected. For years now, the same arguments against the devices have persisted: that they are revenue-builders for the government, tools of a profit-hungry nanny state, a blight on the law-abiding middle classes.
Point out that speeding is a clear breach of law, and that there seems no reason why law-breakers, regardless of class, should escape punishment, and those who argue this case will usually just repeat their contentions. Point out the sheer destruction that speeding causes and, yep, they'll probably continue. Quote the statistics that a pedestrian hit at 20mph has a 95 per cent chance of survival, while one hit at 40mph has just a 10 per cent chance, and they are still likely to defend their right to speed in 30mph zones. We live in a culture where speeding has come to be seen as a right, rather than a crime - whatever the law and common sense dictate. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
No lives would be saved because speeding does not kill anyone.
I drive according to the road conditions rather than what a number in a red circle tells me, and am still alive, and never had an accident that was due to speeding.
Most accidents happen at low speeds, and are due to driver error, usually due to poor observation of road conditions and distractions within the vehichle they are driving, such as tuning the radio.
It is because of muppets like this that people disagree so much with those that may have a reasonable argument.
How can anyone with one iota of a brain cell say "speeding doesn't kill anyone?"
Read todays Daily Telegraph for yet MORE proof.
(for those that can't....a young woman has killed someone after losing control whilst speeding) _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Come on then please have a stab at presenting a post on why cameras are such an effective tool in road safety.
I'd rather be factual than just have a stab if that's ok with you!
Taken from my post earlier, just for you
It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected. The number of deaths fell by over 100 a year. _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:53 am Post subject:
mostdom wrote:
I was wondering if anyone has yet noticed any mobile camera locations that you may otherwise describe as being out of place yet.
There were camera vans crawling out of the woodwork on Friday evening near where I work - all in 'unusual places'
...but the real irony was that the vans I saw (and a host of other vans witnessed by colleagues) were sited where you couldn't even get up to the speed limit, never mind break it!!
One example was in a 60mph limit about 50 yards up from a roundabout, so with hindsight, I guess that maybe they were out to catch those mobile phone users who still haven't caught up with the new law.
I guess this would be an easy exercise when the vans are fitted with video, speed and close-up cameras.
Perhaps we're sometimes jumping to the conclusion that these vans are purely out for speeding motorists, when they're capable of multi-tasking.
DennisN wrote:
On 05/05/05 at 05:05hrs on the M5, a vicious little deer running at 65mph head butted my front offside headlight and spread itself into a go-faster stripe from front to back of the van, reducing the front corner to mangled mayhem and me to a trembling wreck. My insurance company reflected my absolute innocence in this incident by not only requiring me to pay the first £200 of the cost, (plus VAT on the full cost) but also reducing my no claims bonus, thereby increasing my next premium
Perhaps the insurance company realised that the deer was in the correct carriageway and that you were, in fact, driving the wrong direction down the M5 - hence the head butting by the deer and being deemed 'responsible' for the incident.
By the way, if you saw the deer and knew it was doing 65mph, why did you drive into it
Sorry, couldn't resist a little joke _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
because from where i'm sitting it doesn't look like it's me who's in the minority here
When the thugs go out on a Saturday night get totally bladdered and kick some poor innocent person sensless for no other reason than fun, they are in the MINORITY
Do you now believe your quoted comment above means anything to me? _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
I think some of you are getting totally paranoid, as for the "Holier Than Thou" brigade - interesting but not a lot you can say in return, wish i was a "fly on the wall" when they are driving.
classy56 wrote:
Quote:
Could also be translated to read " Far More Considerate Driver Than Thou" brigade. So if someone doesn't agree with speeding they are "Holier Than Thou" are they?
What about drink driving? I am totally against that as well, does that make me "Holier Than Thou" or do you agree with drink driving? or are you like me "Holier Than Thou".
Lets be sensible about it
As always when you reply, you have gone off the subject again which is -
Change in UK Law to Render Mobile Database Useless?
My comment above was a small part of the post and was an observation, mostly of which i stayed on the subject. I can't recollect your name being mentioned even if you regard yourself as fitting the description, and as you seem to prefer stirring up heated arguments completely off the original subject, i refuse to bite, may i suggest you stop preaching and get back on subject.
So because I disagree with speeding I'm not allowed to post? I don't stir up heated arguments I just state my argument.
It is people who think they have a god given right to break the law and speed that can't stand opposing views and stir up the argument.
As far as I am concerned they are defending the indefensible.
They cannot supply one peice of evidence that speeding saves lives, I however can supply plenty of evidence that speeding has taken lives.
And you still think i'm wrong _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:20 am Post subject:
One detrimental affect of speed cameras though is that they have clearly reduced the number of traffic officers on our roads and whilst people breaking the speed limit have their photo taken, other drivers who could possibly (not definitely) be more danger are going undetected.
OK, so it is cheaper to install cameras, but my preference would be to see more traffic officers looking at the overall picture - but it's not an ideal world.
A few years ago, you'd regularly see police cars - but now you can drive from one end of the country to the other without seeing one.
I agree that speed can kill
I agree that speeding is illegal
...but there are factors causing death on our roads, which are not detected purely by speed cameras.
I'm not a habitual speeder and still have a clean licence and would like to attempt an advanced driving test at some stage in the not too distant future _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Joined: Feb 07, 2006 Posts: 616 Location: Midlothian
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:10 am Post subject:
GPS_fan wrote:
One detrimental affect of speed cameras though is that they have clearly reduced the number of traffic officers on our roads and whilst people breaking the speed limit have their photo taken, other drivers who could possibly (not definitely) be more danger are going undetected.
OK, so it is cheaper to install cameras, but my preference would be to see more traffic officers looking at the overall picture - but it's not an ideal world.
I agree. I am not afraid to admit that I am a Traffic Officer and our numbers have been reduced considerably over the last ten years. Speed camera numbers have increased and people are still being killed. There is no getting away with the fact that a visual deterrent (i.e. a marked Police vehicle) will improve driver behaviour, but still our numbers are reduced.
One point I would like to raise though (this is not directed to you GPS Fan), is the blanket criticism of "The Police" when it comes down to cameras on the increase. I personally have no input as to where and when mobile cameras are used or where new fixed cameras as sited. I feel marginalised as a Police Officer that the Police as a group are being blamed for ruining the life of the motorist. Safety Camera Partnerships choose camera locations and these are associations between a few Police Officers and Local Auuthorities.
I would like nothing better than to reduce the commission of other more serious road traffic offences, but due to out reduced numbers, the number of offenders we are physically able to detect are a mere drop in the ocean to the numbers of offenders out there. _________________ Tommo...
One detrimental affect of speed cameras though is that they have clearly reduced the number of traffic officers on our roads and whilst people breaking the speed limit have their photo taken, other drivers who could possibly (not definitely) be more danger are going undetected.
OK, so it is cheaper to install cameras, but my preference would be to see more traffic officers looking at the overall picture - but it's not an ideal world.
A few years ago, you'd regularly see police cars - but now you can drive from one end of the country to the other without seeing one.
I agree that speed can kill
I agree that speeding is illegal
...but there are factors causing death on our roads, which are not detected purely by speed cameras.
I'm not a habitual speeder and still have a clean licence and would like to attempt an advanced driving test at some stage in the not too distant future
Hi GPS_Fan, I have read your recent earlier posts and believe me I didn't mean to infer thet you were a serial speeder, I don't know if you have noticed but I tend to get a bit defensive at times
People just can't seem to accept my points, ok they may be wrong is one reason, but one thing that I am sure of is the legality of speeding which is the basis for my argument.
You are the first person to say "I agree that speed can kill
I agree that speeding is illegal", now this was the response I was looking and waiting for from the minute the debates start.
Now we can move on and actually debate the why's and wherefores.
Believe it or not my views are not that different from many more regulars on here.
For example I think driving too slow is just as comparible as driving too fast, I think the highway code is clear in that you must not disrupt the flow of traffic, by driving too slow you are obviously doing this.
If my memory is correct, in one period a few years ago the Surrey police force prosecuted MORE motorists for driving too slow than they did too fast in a campaign they had.
The problem we have is that there are drivers who are considerate and capable of driving above the speed limits we have in place, but unfortunatley in my honest opinion there are those that clearly are not, and these are the ones that need targeting.
Yesterday on the M25 a vehicle cut from 3 to 1 then slip road causing two other cars to brake before underpants were ruined, the driver had a fag in his left hand a phone stuck to his head in his right hand, my estimate is he must have been doing at least 90mph, now in my opinion he should be banned for life from our roads, no ifs, no buts, he came within about 3 seconds of causing a major accident, and you know what? he will say EXACTLY the same as a previous poster on this thread, "i've never had an accident through speeding" he may not have, he's caused hundreds, but i'm alright Jack!
On the same road about 5 minutes later 4 lanes, traffic flowing well until this, lane one moving at about 55/65 mph (lorries etc) lane two moving at about 65/70mph, (faster lorries, coaches and slower cars etc), lane three, one jag xj8 doing 45mph the guy was totally oblivious to all around him, flashing lights, horns sounding and he just sat in lane 3 doing 45/50mph. He too in my opinion should be banned for life.
So you can see i'm not prejudiced.
There has to be an answer/solution, we are in the 21st century, we have the technology.
What about for all new drivers their vehicles are limited to 1100cc for 5 years?
What about official courses for motorists for proving they are capable of driving at speeds 20mph above the speed limit (excluding school sites), and they have sensors fitted to their cars?
What about having limiters fitted to all vehicles?
What about having tachos fitted to all cars, so you can be prosecuted at any time you are stopped for whatever reason if you have broken the speed limit at any time in the previous seven days?
I don't agree or disagree with the above ideas, they are just that, ideas.
My favourite is however ( stand back and mind the flames) get rid of the majority of speed cameras and put more police on the road to catch dangerous drivers.
Just my thoughts _________________ Tomtom Go730T
App 8.300
Map v815.2003
Joined: Jan 04, 2007 Posts: 2789 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:44 am Post subject:
classy56 wrote:
My favourite is however ( stand back and mind the flames) get rid of the majority of speed cameras and put more police on the road to catch dangerous drivers.
At last we agree on something
999tommo wrote:
One point I would like to raise though (this is not directed to you GPS Fan), is the blanket criticism of "The Police" when it comes down to cameras on the increase.
It's just a pity that guys like you don't make the decisions to increase officer numbers.
Most drivers used to think "fair cop" if they were caught, but now sadly, it's a case of "where's a policeman when you need one?" _________________ Andy
PocketGPSWorld.com supports Help for Heroes - Read here
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
And catch some REAL criminals.")
