Speed cameras, letter bombs and the police.
Where do your sympathies lie?
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Whoever is sending these letter bombs is a idiot and when they catch him or her they can lock them up and throw away the key. On the wider issue I live near a school and mobile speed cameras are very often there. But many times on a quiet Saturday or Sunday. On those days this is nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with revenue generation
If the letter-bomber does turn out to be a "disgruntled motorist", will the ±«Óãtv accept that they bear some responsibility for promoting a culture in which motorists believe that they have an inalienable right to drive irresponsibly? The continuation of the Top Gear programme shows clearly which side the ±«Óãtv's bread is buttered.
Sadly, the selfish belief amongst motorists that they are entitled to drive fast and ignore red traffic lights is not confined to the stereotypical "boy-racer", go for a walk through town and you'll see a broad cross-section of "respectable" citizens jumping red lights with complete impunity.
More speed cameras, cameras on traffic lights and lifetime driving bans for offenders will make our roads safer.
My sympathies lie with:
- the communities who have been plagued by dangerous and anti-social driver behaviour
- the innocent individuals who have been injured, apparently by the actions of a grudge driven maniac
- the police who get the flack, no matter what happens
and, last, but not least,
- the families and the surviving victims of the actions of irresponsible drivers.
Speed cameras, if they help to positively modify driver behaviour, are probably a good thing. Bad driving is potentially lethal. Cars are capable of taking human life and causing great physical injury in the hands of bad drivers.
There is no excuse for violence, however disgruntled someone may be. It doesn't matter whether these bombs are meant to injure or 'simply' scare, it is idiotic and there must be more constructive ways to make a protest.
There's obviously no justification for extremist action, but you can understand drivers' infuriation at excessively cautious speed limits. Time and time again we see councils reduce speed limits when the problems are caused by a few drivers who disregard speed limits anyway. This is just collective punishment, or a reflex reaction because "something must be done". Most speed limits are fixed 24x365; road conditions vary all the time. We need variable speed limits near schools and in busy shopping streets carrying through traffic.
Please do not link violence with the cause the murderer wishes to raise.
This gives the murderer exactly what they want, and encourages others that violence pays.
Issues such as speed cameras, road taxes, animal rights, religions can and shoud all be debated by reasonable rational people with no reference to violence.
Violent acts should simply be described for the crimes they are, with no reference to the cause.
A violent criminal should never be given a suffix, e.g. Calling a criminal an Islamic extremest creates distrust of people who don't understand with all muslims, yet no true muslim believer would ever commit a crime of violence.
Why should people with genuine anger at issues such as animal rights have their views undermined by criminals?
Why should law abiding drivers who are fed up with criminals making the roads dangerous by speeding have to suffer this issue raised as a result of bombs instead of having a reasoned debate by law abiding citizens.
As a mature and very experienced driver, with no previous convictions -
- I was recently "done" for doing 64 mph in a 50 limit on the M4 between the new Severn Crossing and the Toll Plaza. This is apparently a 50 mph limit - but I certainly didn't see the signs, and since 2 cataract ops in the past 2 years, I have excellent driving vision without specs! The fact that I was doing 64 is indicative of the fact that I never drive at more than 65 on motorways!
As a result I am now a "criminal" with three points on my licence! I feel very sore about this, and whilst I would never cause any harm to anyone, would be probably be "in the frame" for today's activities!
Why aren't the police out there catching REAL criminals!
Best wishes - Maureen White
Speed is a function in all accidents, lets face it if they weren't moveing no accidents would happen, but I feel that it is only inapropriate speed that is significant as a cause, cameras can't detect this.
If they are serious about reducing speeding and want to have fixed penalties instead of useing a fine which is more like a tax they should ban drivers for a month for the first offence, 3 months for the second, 6 months for the 3rd and perhaps a year for the 4th offence.
I don't think Gordon Brown would approve.
Having been caught on an Oxford camera at 36 mph to my surprise I was offered a Speed Awareness course instead of the points .
The instructor quite openly said that at 35 you wouldn't have triggerred the camera at 37 you would have got the points .
He wished they really DID trigger at 30 as part of the course clearly showed that force of impact increases exponentially from 30 to 35 - the difference between life and death perhaps .
He then said they call them safety cameras but they are not .
There's obviously no justification for extremist action, but you can understand drivers' infuriation at excessively cautious speed limits. Time and time again we see councils reduce speed limits when the problems are caused by a few drivers who disregard speed limits anyway. This is just collective punishment, or a reflex reaction because "something must be done". Most speed limits are fixed 24x365; road conditions vary all the time. We need variable speed limits near schools and in busy shopping streets carrying through traffic
Paul (1):
I completely agree with your first point, but not your second.
The speed limits are fixed, whether the roads are busy or not. Anyone driving faster than the limit is breaking the law, and shouldn't whinge if they are caught.
If anyone wants variable speed limits, or higher ones, the way to do it is to lobby their MP or become one themselves. Not to break the law. That way lies chaos.
I've got to back you up 100%, Big Sis. They idea that it's okay to break the law is ludicrous. I have once had a speeding ticket curtesy of a mobile speed trap on a road less than half a mile from my house. I didn't feel I'd been "picked on" as some motorists seem to see it. I'd taken a chance by breaking the law, so I paid the penalty for getting caught. It's as simple as that. To do a "Clarckson" and ral against this as a "cash cow" for the police ignores a simple fact. If everyone who felt this way decided to drive at the legal limit, then they could "choke off" this extra money.
It's also strange how these people are also the ones who (gross generalisation coming up) generally are the ones who say they want "more bobbies on the beat" and have a string 'em up attitude to those who commit murder. If this money is going into the local Police force, surely that's a good thing!
What, precisely is the evidence that there is a relationship between speeding and accidents? If cameras were effective one would expect to see a decline in accidents as the number of cameras increase. Since this relationship would be an obvious propaganda tool for the 'authorities' its absence is curious. What we get are assertions (cameras reduce accidents) but no evidence. Meanwhile the constabulary coffers groan with booty.
Please do not link violence with the cause the murderer wishes to raise.
This gives the murderer exactly what they want, and encourages others that violence pays.
Issues such as speed cameras, road taxes, animal rights, religions can and shoud all be debated by reasonable rational people with no reference to violence.
Violent acts should simply be described for the crimes they are, with no reference to the cause.
A violent criminal should never be given a suffix, e.g. Calling a criminal an Islamic extremest creates distrust of people who don't understand with all muslims, yet no true muslim believer would ever commit a crime of violence.
Why should people with genuine anger at issues such as animal rights have their views undermined by criminals?
Why should law abiding drivers who are fed up with criminals making the roads dangerous by speeding have to suffer this issue raised as a result of bombs instead of having a reasoned debate by law abiding citizens.
No one can justify an attack on innocent people. However. I am surprised that it has taken so long for direct action (on whatever topic of serious contention) to occur in this country. But not on people.
There is too much justified anger about Blair's Britain.
After all, a few months ago there were demonstrations in France because of too much foreign produce in their supermarkets.
Can you imaginr anyone in the UK taking similar coordinated action for a good reason to protect British interests? I think not.
Mr Mandela was a one off in his brave fight.
Baz
We wallow
Davros (2)
I'm reading "Born to be riled." The column that surprised me was a certain J Clarkson railing against people who speed through villages and built up areas where the limit is 30 for a reason. He himself admits that he lets loose elsewhere...I've never once seen him encourage speeding on a UK speed restricted road.
I've been caught once 15 years ago by a PC who used his discretion. I now stick to the limits in 30 zones. I completely agree with the comments about inappropriately sited cameras catching people doing 71. I have no problem when they are sited at accident blackspots. They are now painted bright yellow and have warning signs so there isn't really an excuse for being caught.
But neither is there an excuse for damaging appropriately sited cameras or causing injury to people sorting the post. Capt Gatso may be proud of the damage he's caused to speed cameras but these cameras are replaced and who pays for them? Likewise the physical injuries caused by the letter bombs are only part of the cost. What about the fear, lack of safety and lack of confidence that they may give rise to in the individuals?
Cameras are only part of the strategy - they don't pick up otherwise inconsiderate or dangerous driving. I really feel for the police. If they enforce the law then drivers have a go, if they are lenient road safety organisations get started...
About 9 years ago, my father was seriously ill and had to travel by ambulance to our local at approximately midnight 30.
I followed in my car and was stopped about a quarter of a mile from the hospital by a police officer with a speed gun.
He asked me if I had has any alcohol that evening. I replied'No but I am tired', explaining
where and why I was heading in that direction.
It seemed that the ambulance had taken a different route as the officer had not seen one.
However he accepted my reason and sent me on my way. as I prepared to pull away I asked him how fast I had been travelling '32 mph' came the answer. I knew it was a 30 zone but felt as it was late at night and very little traffic about, he was being a little unreasonable to pull me over. Was he bored doing the night shift or on a mission to 'nab' someone?
I am all for preventing speeding and congestion
but not with letter bombs. Come on Government 'where's the age of reason'. The motorist is always the first to be targeted.
There are speed cameras near my house on a dual carriageway where the limit is 30 and if you don't drive at 40+ someone will be driving right up your bumper.
As they are the only cameras along around 3 miles of dual carriageway, people just slow down for a few seconds then speed up again for the whole of the rest of the road.
Cameras on the M6 claim to be able to calculate average speed - I have no idea whether this is true or a bluff, but it does seem to work, and seems fairer to me.
LEWES EAST SUSSEX RECENTLY HAD ITS PARKING METERS DESTROYED BY SOME KIND OF EXPOSIVE DEVICE.
NOW THE LEWES PARKING MACHINES HAVE SIGNS ON ASKING THE PUBLIC TO BE CAREFUL OF THE MACHINES, AND TO REPORT ANYONE PUTTING PYROGENETICS INTO THEM.
HOWEVER THIS TYPE OF MANIC BEHAVIOUR MAY WELL BE MADE WORSE BY THE ARROGANCE AND GREED OF THE AUTHORITIES OPERATING THE MACHINES.
Good evening Mr Mair,
It appears these days that there are no limits to the politicians' war against motorists.
Each of the main parties now advocates the imposition of green taxes, on top of Chancellor Gordon Brown's labyrinth of stealth taxes such as the fuel duty escalator, in response to various reports on climate change. No one disputes that green taxes will leave drivers significantly out of pocket; the only question that remains unanswered is by how much?
Yet, the potentially limitless nature of these charges is now compounded by the prospect of the speed camera network being dramatically expanded.
These devices have clearly improved safety at accident blackspots. This was borne out by a report which revealed that 42 per cent fewer people were killed, or injured, in crashes at those sites which had fixed speed cameras. This is a statistic which cannot be ignored.
However, it should not automatically provide transport ministers with the green light to further relax the criteria that is used to determine whether specific roads are suitable for speed cameras. Such a move I think will only perpetuate the belief that Ministers regard cameras as both a licence to print money for the Treasury, and also a substitute for the traffic police.
There is considerable evidence to back up this assertion. First, a significant portion of the money generated by speeding fines is used to prop up Labour's public spending programme, and not road safety improvements.
And, second, there has been a reduction in police traffic patrols as reliance on speed cameras has grown. The consequence is that fewer breathalyser tests have been carried out, even though drink-drivers account for more than 560 road fatalities every year.
Furthermore, the absence of police patrols offers no disincentive to those who drive under the influence of drugs or while talking on a mobile phone, offences which also contribute significantly to the annual death toll on Britain's roads. In my view it is a reality that the Government must recognise before they venture even further down the road of even more speed cameras.
There appears to be one extreme or another in views about speed cameras. True, they are needed to prevent irresponsible speeders and light jumpers. However, the way that they are administered treats the driver in general as the enemy. It is possible to make a mistake, for example where a change of speed limit is missed. This can sometimes be because the speed change or general speed limit is not signed clearly enough. Traffic lights can create a sense of frustration when there are a number of them in a row which are red for the motorist travelling at the correct speed. Many other elements of the system do not proactively help the motorist to drive within the law. Surely a system that encourages good driving as well as the punative system we have will help make our roads safer.
Speed cameras do reduce speed-related accidents.
I speak from experience of living on a Red Route with a terrible accident record. It now has a lower speed limit and regular visits from the Safety Camera van -- since when, no more deaths thank goodness.
Vehicles are lethal weapons and people are far too casual about them. Enforcement is the only way to change driver behaviour, and policemen can't be everywhere.
I too have had points on my licence, twice, for being a few mph over 30. It makes me more aware of speed limits and I try very hard to stick to them.
Stop whingeing. Stop speeding.
(What a miseryguts I sound!)
Fifi ;o)
Maureen told us "I was recently "done" for doing 64 mph in a 50 limit on the M4 between the new Severn Crossing and the Toll Plaza."
I know several people who've got caught out by that one: the speed limit signs seem to be extremely difficult to spot. I actually looked for them last time I was there, and if I had been paying attention to the other traffic on the road, I would have missed them. It looks like a motorway with a 70mph speedlimit...
One thing I have noticed a lot over the past two years is that speed limit areas expand. The villages on the route from my home to my elderly father's home have always had a 30mph limit, and quite right too, but the edges of these limits seem to get further and further from the village itself, out beyond all the houses and into the countryside around, where I have never seen anyone on foot or bicycle. This is on good A roads, not wiggly little lanes, and I have a feeling that sooner or later those 30mph areas will meet in the middle of nowhere and for no particular reason that I can see.
It is rather frustrating to have what used to be a two-hour journey keeping to the legal speed-limits turned into what is becoming a two-and-a-half hour journey.
I do feel that if speed-limits look completely reasonless, it's a lot harder to feel "oh I was naughty and I got caught so I deserved it" and far more likely that one will think "The b*st*rds TRICKED ME! It's NOT FAIR!!" and feel very cross indeed.
Not that this is an excuse for sending letter-bombs to anyone, but ...
For ±«Óãtv PM and Fellow Bloggers or Froggers: I was a victim [with my wife] of anti social driving. Nov. 2006: We were at a red light and were hit from behind by a school bus. We had seat belts fastened. The Bus Driver was using his mobile phone when communicating. There should be an ASBO in Florida. Cheers from Miami. Roberto
hmm. It appears my comments didn't warrant posting on the blog. Why?
If anyone thinks that speeding is an infringment of their rights, let me disabuse you. I was knocked over by a speeding motorist 5 years ago. I am still suffering the effects and these include some brain damage. My injuries have cost the NHS a fortune as well as limiting my ability to work and live a full life.
So, next time someone talks about cash cows or human rights, remember that speedings has consequences that affect lives. If I bombed the driver who hit me, I would be imprisoned and rightly so.
I was a truck driver until last november, when my licence was taken away because of an excess of points for speeding.
Until four years ago I had a completely clean licence.
As the points accrued, I tried as hard as a professional driver can to avoid getting more points - for obvious reasons.
It is disingenuous and insulting to say that cameras are purely for safety: they exist to suppress driving, since the govt.'s policy to reduce traffic by 10% failed.
The country, anecdotally, is short of 25,000 truck drivers, which are necessary for the economy to work.
I used to be a driver, and I was a Labour supporter.
I have notified my MP, Shona McIsaac, of my views.
I may be quoted edited or otherwise, and can be contacted for further information.
Thanks - it's an important issue.
still seems my views are unimportant. what a surprise.
Name and licence fee to be withheld
Baz, re There is too much justified anger about Blair's Britain. Eh? Do you mean "unjusitified"? How can anger be too much if it is justified? I'm confused by your whole post to be honest.
As for speed cameras, whether their purpose is to generate revenue or not, they only catch you if they break the law: Don't speed, don't get fined. Simple really.
I can't believe anyone who listen to PM and/or contributes to this blog would take the likes of Jeremy Clarkson seriously, so it would be a waste of time and blog space to say any more about him.
It always strikes me that the people who complain most about 'speed' cameras are probably the same people who would be first to complain if they had suffered some criminal act in a public place and then found that there were no CCTV pictures to help catch the criminal. If we accept that we need CCTV then surely the 'speed' camera is just an extension of that policy: the law has been agreed and the law specifies a speed limit and if you break the speed limit you break the law. Would theft or kidnapping a child somehow be OK if there were no CCTV cameras to spot the act? Of course not.
Which ever way you look at it, letter bombs are just acts of terror, and therefore totally unforgiveable.
I don't understand why speed cameras are controversial at all. There is no other law where people whinge if they get caught breaking it. Why should motorists (I am one, driving hundreds of miles a week) feel that they can choose whther or not to follow the law?
I'm a motorist who has managed to avoid being caught by a speed camera with a film in it; not that I make it a habit, but when the speed limit is reduced from the last time I'd taken that route, I was flashed....
However, my feeling is that despite speed cameras, red-light cameras and all the rest, the standard of driving is going down. I've seen blatant shooting of red lights, speeding well over the speed limit, pushing in to the point of hitting the car... It's not just the 4 x 4 owners who feel so safe in their tank and put the rest at risk, either.
So I'm not surprised at the attitude of the likes of Captain Gatso that they should be allowed to speed unpunished.
But as Richard points out, and I also noted, there are often hidden, hard to see the justification for, changes, such as a 40 - 30mph speed limit on a dual carriageway, to trap the law-abiding regulars who know the route. And I agree with the point that lower speed limits seem to be spreading out across the country, so A class dual carriage roads in open country well away from any village even, that were national speed limit are now 50mph.
By the way, newcomers, we're all having problems posting on the PM blog, we've all had our comments rejected; it's nothing personal
As a pedestrian, it seems that some folk don't understand: I have a right to expect traffic to be travelling within the speed limit - and that applies day or night, weekday or weekend, and whether or not I'm near a school, a speed camera, or a policeman.
Are none of those railing against speed limits and enforcement ever pedestrians?
Doesn't these folk realise, the speed limit isn't about you.
I knew a young lad who died in a car crash last year. He was the driver and investigations reckoned he was doing about 60 in a 40 zone. The car he hit was far more robust than his small hatch back. Three of the four passangers in his car died, the other car passengers had cuts and bruises.
We have been told by folk that live on this road it is regularly used as a race track. So its not speed that kills its what you do with it.
Part of the result of this is that the road he died on will soon have speed cameras. It won't necessarily stop the speeders. They will go elsewhere and drive dangerously fast elsewhere.
As a pedestrian, it seems that some folk don't understand: I have a right to expect traffic to be travelling within the speed limit - and that applies day or night, weekday or weekend, and whether or not I'm near a school, a speed camera, or a policeman.
Are none of those railing against speed limits and enforcement ever pedestrians?
Don't these folks realise, the speed limit isn't about you.
Deepthought (32)
Fair comments well made.
The A140 was recently changed from a national limit to a 50mph in the Suffolk section. This is a single carriageway most of the length and links the A14 cross-county dual carriageway to Norwich. In practice 50mph means that the average road speed in clear rural areas is 60mph. Villages are 30/40mph. Before the change, however, the previous national limit applied (60mph but often interpreted as 70mph) and this was in practice 80mph.
It was also interesting to note on the ground... I worked in one of the hospitals that routinely took the trauma patients from the RTAs on the A140. The perception was that the number of patients decreased and the severity of their injuries decreased.
Given that the cameras are big and yellow and shiny why is it not possible to post the current limit applicable on the back of the camera? That was you have fair notice of both the camera and the limit.
Why was Eddie Mair so weak in dealing with Captain Gatso? The law is the law for all of us to obey whether we like it or not. It is not difficult. Who are these men of 40 going on 14 who think they should have some right to drive as fast as they like where and when they like. Mr Mair should have reminded Captain Gatso of the recent French experience where the strict enforcement of existing limits (lots of cameras) has resulted in a huge drop in the number of accidents and fatalities. Either Captain Gatso and his cronies do not accept the statistical evidence or they think that the deaths and injuries they cause are a fair price for their fun.
Either way they are appalling idiots.
Hello friends. Is there a picture of Hugh Sykes around here somewhere? I missed it, so please point it out. Thanks.
My computer is half useable now, hence my unanticipated return...
Welcome back Doc -- long time no hear.
I'm perturbed by the complete lack of coverage of the supporters of road pricing and congestion-charging like me.
All I've heard on the subject is the awful and pathetic whinging from selfish drivers.
By the way, I drive, I live in the country. I need to get to the shops and jobs, in a Transit, which I'm sure you realise, is not the most economical transport in the word (though better than Chelsea Tractors – but that's another story), so fuel costs are relatively high, compared to a small diesel car. Yet, I feel the price of driving is pretty cheap (I speak as a low-ish earner). We are lucky to be able to drive so much. It's not a right.
Now . . . This letter-bomber is a complete arse, and so are the people destroying cameras. All are criminals. Why, by the way, is the camera-destroyer (a criminal) given airtime? Is this legal?
The criminal camera-destroying brigade have commented that people caught speeding by cameras have been criminalised. What nonsense – they have been caught speeding, and face a civil slap-on-the-wrist by fine: Not criminal. So, the above comment's a bit ripe, isn't it, coming from self-confessed criminals...
Now, last point. I have a lot of sympathy for people who get 'done' for the very minor speeding offences of only a few MPH over a limit. Or those who have had their vehicles impounded for minor infringements. I'd imagine it's this kind of thing that has so riled the bomber. The solution to all this angst is simple: Make the systems fair. Apply common sense (ha!) to to regulations, make them seem to be tough, but fair.
To sum up: The silly nitpicking-ness of punishing tiny infringements creates a HUGE tide of bad-feeling, which unfortunately spills over to the sensible, fair and legitimate traffic-regulating ideas like congestion-charging, road pricing and fuel taxes.
Yours with a lot off his chest,
Guy
If only the police could invent 100% efficient burglary, mugging, etc, cameras and use them with equal vigour
It seems to me the problem is a cultural one. As soon as you pass your test you do the same as every other UK driver has been doing happening for 40+ years. You drive approx 10% over the speed limit.
I have been caught speeding both in the US and the UK. I have no sympathy for myself or other people who get caught breaking the law.
As times changed so should the speed limits on some roads. For instance a strict 80 limit on the motorway is fine. "traffic school" should also be introduced for the first offense per year with a small fine. Get caught a second time or do the speed limit plus 10% then you get the points and a bigger fine.
Finally like most people I do smile when I see the BMW who past me 5 mins ago doing 100 pulled over by the police. If this idiot sending the bombs is a motorist I wonder what car he drives?
Dr. H, 37
I don't recall having seen a photo of H. Sykes, only those by him.
At:
there are photos of a couple of geezers, I fancy that the one without the beard is Hugh S.
Good looking young lad.
Today's strapline:
"Eddie Mair: low fat, crisp delivery"
Mark Annison
In true Lynne Truss style, I hope you carefully inspected the number and placing of any comma.
What are people whinging about, speeding is breaking the law its as simple as that, By and large speed cameras are big yellow things and the law as far as I understand it requires signs to be in place so I really cannot see the reason for getting caught by one of them.
If three points on a persons licence and a fine means that they take more care in future for fear of losing thier licence then how can anyone say that is a bad thing.
As for the money generated, what do people think the Police do with it ? Go Down the pub? I presume that if this source of revenue was not available then they would have to raise revenue in another manner. Personally I am happy for people breaking the law to be paying it rather than have it put on Council Tax.
the message is simple be alert when you are driving and stop speeding then you will have no points or fines to worry about.
I was caught speeding just before Christmas - I shall be attending an Essex Speed Awareness Course in April rather than getting three points.
My point is this. 99% of the time I keep strictly to speed limits. I am constantly tailgated by other drivers trying to push me to go more than 30, 40, 60, 70 etc. and I never see their dangerous driving punished.
I'm even more careful now, it's closer to 99.9% of the time that I adhere strictly to the limits. I wonder how much safer a driver I am now I spend even more time with my eyes off the road and on my speedo.
I know that I was going 38mph in a village 30mph zone, I know how much more dangerous that 38mph is compared to 30mph, and I know I should be fined. But that's why I'm such a stickler for speed limits, and it grates that I am being fined for a 1% lapse, when there are many out there with camera warning systems who break the speed limit regularly, tailgate those who don't, and then slam on their brakes when their little machine beeps a camera warning at them. How many of them get caught?
Laurence McDowall - While I can understand your personal sense of grievance at losing your means of livelihood, you know that only you, by your driving behaviour, are responsible for losing your driving licence. All that has changed in recent years is that technologies have been applied to make it easier for the police to detect speeding motorists.
It's a bitter pill, clearly, for many drivers who habitually exceed the speed limit. But driver behaviour is the key to the safety, or otherwise, of pedestrians and other road users.
It is tempting, nobody would deny, to want to drive faster when the road is apparently clear, no pedestrians around, etc. Perhaps one day it may be possible for technologies to develop which will allow speed limits to vary according to such conditions. Nevertheless, if a driver loses control on a clear road, they risk killing or seriously injuring themselves and any passengers they carry. Without making a huge issue of this, such accidents also carry a cost to the community.
We are all, whether drivers or not, dependent to some extent upon being able to use the road network in this country. We all have a right to travel safely, which brings with it the responsibility for drivers to act in the interests of the wider community. Speeding, use of mobile phones in cars, tailgating, jumping the lights, and all such antisocial behaviours by bad drivers should be heavily penalised in order that we can achieve a safer road environment.
Incidentally, Laurence, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me and others why it is that we keep seeing drivers of buses and lorries using handheld mobile phones in the most dangerous of circumstances. I live near a notorious junction, which drivers of large vehicles have to negotiate with extreme care, and I see lorry drivers taking the corners there while speaking on mobile phones on an almost daily basis. I know many car drivers are also guilty of this behaviour, and I cannot condone that either, but we all know that if a lorry loses control or hits something or someone, the outcomes are even graver.
As a matter of interest, were you offered any alternatives (such as the better driving courses mentioned elsewhere on this thread) after your various infractions?
Can anyone explain why speed cameras which are not in use, for whatever reason, display a sign saying so and are frequently covered up? Surely if the camera is to act as a deterrent, it doesn't matter whether it is working or not. This seems bizarre and is one of life's conundrums.
Standard of Living = Lifetime Mileage.
Lifetime Speed = Lifetime Mileage / Lifetime.
For mortorways they argue higher limits.
It's safer far per mile than on the High Streets,
Swap fast on swings for slow on roundabouts.
A bargain! We'll save time, without a doubt.
Our standard measures mainly speed and distance.
Fly faster, further, frequent. Burn that carbon!
Get what you can, before we all run out.
We'll find another drug, when this one's gone
Relaxed with Weekend Woman's Hour, it ended.
The wider world was desperate, as usual.
Intelli-gents forbidding folk from flying.
Our tools have turned against us, with a vengeance.
I pondered: Are we so intelligent,
To burn the earth and chase our tails to source?
Accumulating airmiles by the billion,
We spend more time in transit than in situ.
There's no place like home
11/02/2004
ed
08/02/2007 at 12:14:21 GMT
Yep, I'm with Fif, Big Sis and Cyberman on this one.
All speed cameras are doing is catching a driver break the law; there's nothing wrong with them. It's not a trick, it's not sneaky; it saves lives!
Many of us are good, 95% of the time and so it may feel really unfair if we get caught the odd time we do slip over the limit or don't realise that it's gone down from 70 to 50 (like I did on the A3 a few months ago and ruined a 20 year old clean driving licence); but it is fair, because we shouldn't have been doing it!
I live on an A road, which will never get speed bumps or other traffic measures as it's a main route from Crystal Palace to Beckenham.
It's an A road but it's also lined with homes and has a 30 mile an hour limit. But boy, do people speed up and down it and my maintaining around 29mph max means I am continuously tailgated and overtaken on it.
I don't think anybody has died on it but countless animals are killed and my cat was run over twice on it, the second time fatally.
It's not just the danger though but it's also the noise - it makes a really difference when cars slow down on the road to the quality of life of all the residents - and as we're mainly converted flats ('city adventurers' is our mosaic category!!!) that means a lot of people's lives are being blighted by those who think they have a right to speed. If it wasn't for the cars speeding up and down it, it would be one of the most beautiful roads in London!
On the subject of being caught at just one or two miles over the speed limit and how that should be OK..well, that just doesn't make sense becasue where do you draw the line? If the limit is 32 but it's Ok to go up to 35 then the de facto limit is 35. I don't see the need for discretion and I think it's that which makes it feel unfair.
I cannot see any reason why it should be OK to go over the speed limit, if you're concerned about going over, then target yourself to 2 miles below. My step sister remarked the other day that she found it hard to actually drive at a steady 30...but all it takes is practice, just like it does to drive through residential zones at 20 mph - practice long enough and it'll be easy!
When I got caught and got my 3 points just before Christmas the only person that I was annoyed with was myself!
Richard (48), Really? I have never seen this. Is it common?
As for this debate, I can only repeat: if you don't speed you won't be fined. Can we have less of the self-centred bleating please?
Speed is frequently implicated in road deaths and other serious crashes, but that's not all. Speeding causes fear, inhibits normal community life, keeps children in like battery hens and causes excessive noise and pollution. Only on days such as this, with heavy snow, are our roads quieter and some sort of peace descends.
The introduction of mandatory Intelligent Speed Adaptation in all vehicles would make it easier for drivers to keep to the posted limits and would obviate the need for traffic calming which is expensive and is blighting our beautiful country. It would also bring an end to joy riding and the subsequent Police chases.
Richard (48) As I understand the situation, there needs to be a justification for the siting of a speed camera. If this justifacation is challenged by a group or individual then a process of "judicial review" is undertaken. During this period it must be shown that the site is not being used as a speed camera.
Appy (51) Common - no. But I have seen it on a number of occasions and (metaphorically) wept.
H.
John(13) -
Actually, the road fataility rate was falling continuously until around 1994 when speed cameras came into widespread usage. Then the fall stopped. The focus on speed alone has been a positive failure.
MotP(20) -
The 42% figure comes from a stastical mistake - speed cameras often go up after a cluster of accidents in a particular place, and it would be expected that you woulf find less deaths even without cameras. Hard evidence that cameras lower road deaths is not available. Indeed, the distraction of forcing motorists to closely watch their speedos, overhead bridges and the side of the road is a serious distraction.
Andrew Dodds:
Whatever arguments anyone may present, the evidence is irrefutable that speed is significant factor in serious and fatal accidents and to try to suggest otherwise is, frankly, irresponsible.
Driving too fast, whether or not in excess of the official speed limit (because, let us remember, that isn't the only factor that should affect driver behaviour) is recognised by all the leading safety authorties as one of the most significant factors contributing towards the 1,100 approx road deaths and 12,000 approx serious injuries resulting from road crashes. At higher speeds, the driver has less time to identify and respond to hazards, pedestrians in the road, etc., stopping distances are longer, impacts more severe, etc. etc.
There is a great deal of evidence out there to support all this. Sadly, as vehicle safety features have improved survival rates for many drivers, so has driver behaviour adapted to take even greater risks.
Your comment about statistical mistakes is, frankly, uninformed and meaningless.
Can anyone answer the question, why, when speed cameras are not in use, the are covered and a sign is placed on them telling everyone that they are not in use. If they are to act as a deterrent, surely it would be better to let everyone think they were active. An inponderable.
There are speed cameras here in China.
In Guangdong province, the Public Security Bureau have decided to make speed cameras visible, instead of hiding them (familiar?) - they say this makes more sense, because they want cameras to be effective as a deterrent, instead of just catching speeding drivers.
In China last year, one hundred thousand people died in motor accidents. If my maths are right, that shocking figure is actually a lower percentage of the total population than the annual British road death toll of around 3,000
Richard - See (53)
Richard (56), see Humph's 53 above.
Why shouldn't we have cameras simply to enforce the law irrespective of deaths and injuries, though in truth, we all know that speed is dangerous, why else are we exhorted to slow down in all adverse weather and road conditions. Why do racing drivers wear fire-proof garments and have ambulances standing by?
Rather than promoting and glamorising speed, motor manufacturers could do more to help. Instead of producing vehicles capable of speeds that nobody can legally use (except on a few stretches of German autobahn)they could concentrate on the real needs of the modern motorist - i.e. head-up speed displays, 30mph/40mph audible in-car speed warnings, black box technology, alco-locks and less polluting, quieter vehicles.
Appy (59) SNAP!
RJD (61)
CRACKLE! POP!!
Appy Snapping - isn't that illegal now?
Val
Appy snapping is perfectly legal if you have training and a permit. It is also fun.
RJD popping however, is both undesirable and unpleasant.
And crackling RJD? Where does that fit in?
RJD popping however, is both undesirable and unpleasant.
On the contrary, I rather enjoyed it.
Val - There are those that would say that RJD has been crackled for some time.
Appy - I did too, but I was commenting on behalf of any possible spectators.
My response to RJD at 67 has not appeared. It was not in the slightest bit offensive. Grrr.