FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

I'm willing to change my mind

Jump to newest
 

By *ingmaster OP   Man
over a year ago

nottingham

Our local paper has today listed 12 loctions where mobile police speed traps will be stationed to catch speeding motorists . now , i know and understand the tragedy of losing a loved one in a road accident , ive lost a close friend in this way myself and i,ll never forget it .

however , since the invention of these static and mobile speed cameras , Home office statistics show that the number of road deaths has remained unchanged , and in certain years there has even been an increase .

Why cant we as a society accept that accidents will occur , driver fatigue , lapses in concentration, modern car technology making 55 feel more like 35 etc .

This week im sure a lot of people saw the reports of the 94 yr old lady mugged and beaten in her own home by an intruder . My question is this , would we rather see valuable police time being used on these mobile speed patrols or would we prefer our police employed to hunt down these scum bags that actively go out to harm the helpless and vulnerable people in society ?

I'm genuinely willing to have my mind changed if anyone can post a convicing view as why these speed patrols are so vital .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Its an education tool and I don't know about you but if I am in a strange town I will drive wit extra caution as I don't know where the speed traps are. Is it a bad thing for me to slow down? Well if I do hit someone god forbid I will do less harm and may even stop at lower speeds. I really can't see that being a bad thing however I look at it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

no, i agree with you.

speeders will speed

drugies will drug

wankers will wank

and nothing will detere them from their path.

the only intervention is the good old boys in blue, and if they are busy holding laser guns, pretending to be captain phaser, then they are not, in my mind, doing proper police work.

legislation is in place for static cameras at accident black spots, although locally, we have had one taken down ecause it jsut doesnt make money anymore (rather its not financially viale to run).

anyway, with the way petrol prices are going, and the economy, only the super rich will soon be able to speed, so wont care about fines and points.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire


"Its an education tool and I don't know about you but if I am in a strange town I will drive wit extra caution as I don't know where the speed traps are. Is it a bad thing for me to slow down? Well if I do hit someone god forbid I will do less harm and may even stop at lower speeds. I really can't see that being a bad thing however I look at it. "

when i na strange place i automatically drive slower as i dont know whats around, let alone speed cameras. ut then, i generally dont speed anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kyblue2681Woman
over a year ago

manchester

People just need to not speed. I don't under stand why people need to rush to get to places. Shame there isn't a car designed to stop people speeding then police would do what's needed with more important crime solving

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

all the accidents on the roads i have seen have not involed excessive speed... im sure as we all know that speed does contribute to the death toll but the actual accident statistics don't change much...i would much rather the police were pulling people over more for dangerous driving than speeding... but you can't do that from behind a bush around a corner at the bottom of a hill... you can do that by being out on the road and keeping your eyes open for more than speed... but speeding makes them alot of money... dangerous driving doesnt...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why not? If your not speeding it shouldn't bother you if mobile/static cams are there!

The police have diff depts for diff crimes. Road/traffic are there to deal with accidents, stop speeders, recover/stop stolen vehicles, and more!

There is a school along the road from me and its adjacent to a dual carriageway, i personally welcome the van that parks there with their laser gun as it stops the boy racers zipping along thinking they are lewis hamilton!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People just need to not speed. I don't under stand why people need to rush to get to places. Shame there isn't a car designed to stop people speeding then police would do what's needed with more important crime solving "

yeah there is.. its called an Austin Mini 998cc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire


"Why not? If your not speeding it shouldn't bother you if mobile/static cams are there!

The police have diff depts for diff crimes. Road/traffic are there to deal with accidents, stop speeders, recover/stop stolen vehicles, and more!

There is a school along the road from me and its adjacent to a dual carriageway, i personally welcome the van that parks there with their laser gun as it stops the boy racers zipping along thinking they are lewis hamilton! "

personally, thats the only places i would have sanctioned them.

outside schools and shops, both places where people dont always look when they step into the road.

furthermore, speed doesnt kill, otherwise everytime you go fast, someone would die. inappropriate speed for the conditions kills (and when i say conditions, i dont just mean weather and roads, i mean for the drivers skill levels also)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mm_n_ZedCouple
over a year ago

Fareham

Depends where they're situated. I was 'zapped' doing 33mph in a 30 limit, in broad daylight on a wide, rarely used back-road where there has never been an accident. Yes, I know, I was speeding but it was hardly dangerous driving.

On the other hand, I've seen people doing a legal 30mph in a built up area near schools ... not breaking the law at all but driving dangerously nonetheless as the speed, although legal, is too fast for the situation.

I'm with the OP ... not all dangerous driving involves speeding and more attention needs to be paid to that. A prime example that I witnessed recently was someone reversing down an off ramp on a motorway because they obviously took the wrong exit. I was leaving the motorway at the time and was confronted by their reversing lights, much to my shock. The irresponsible individual, a tanker driver in the next lane and myself were all lucky to escape with our lives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

where does the OP get his stats from c1980 fatal accidents were running at around 7000pa in the 90s before speed cameras were introduced it was about 3500 pa in 2010 it was less than 2000 - No one claims that it's all down to speed cameras but they have played their part

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Speed cameras are nothing more than revenue generating machines. If you look at any motorway roadworks you'll see Average Speed Cameras (ASCs) which calculate how fast you have been travelling between two points. If you're over the 50mph limit across those two points you get a fine & 3pts, and it has sod all to do with safety.

There is a legal loophole to beat ASCs though. When the SPECS cameras were introduced (these are the ones used at motorway roadworks and on motorways where there is a 50mph average speed limit) the Home Office rules governing use of the camera equipment meant that prosecutions are only valid if a driver is filmed in the SAME LANE at the start and finish of each section by a linked pair of cameras. For a three-lane carriageway three sets of linked cameras are needed and each linked pair cannot be linked to any other linked set at the same location.

All you have to do beat the ASCs is change lanes between cameras, but the Police have iterated that 'multiple enforcement techniques' are in operation at ASC sites so lane hopping might not be as evasive as motorists think. Sounds like them clutching at straws to me, as police patrols are down 11% in the decade since ASC's were introduced, and I don't see many policemen standing on bridges over motorways firing a laser gun at motorists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't see that there is any argument, really. There is a law in place limiting speeds on our roads. Therefore traveling faster than these speeds is ILLEGAL.

I used to smoke a little cannabis and while I did not think it ought to be illegal I did not feel that one could complain if I got busted......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

All you have to do beat the ASCs is change lanes between cameras, but the Police have iterated that 'multiple enforcement techniques' are in operation at ASC sites so lane hopping might not be as evasive as motorists think."

Alternatively get a motorcycle.. all those cameras are front facing...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

All you have to do beat the ASCs is change lanes between cameras, but the Police have iterated that 'multiple enforcement techniques' are in operation at ASC sites so lane hopping might not be as evasive as motorists think.

Alternatively get a motorcycle.. all those cameras are front facing... "

Can't drink lager on a motorbike though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

All you have to do beat the ASCs is change lanes between cameras, but the Police have iterated that 'multiple enforcement techniques' are in operation at ASC sites so lane hopping might not be as evasive as motorists think.

Alternatively get a motorcycle.. all those cameras are front facing...

Can't drink lager on a motorbike though. "

thats not a bad thing... stops you making 2 mistakes... 1 drinking and driving.. and 2 drinking lager!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have no problem with speed cameras..mainly because I don't speed.

The fact that I knew a young girl who was killed by a motorist who was speeding probably has something to do with that.

So speed cameras just generate revenue? They wouldn't if people didn't speed now would they?

They are there as a deterrent. Good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

All you have to do beat the ASCs is change lanes between cameras, but the Police have iterated that 'multiple enforcement techniques' are in operation at ASC sites so lane hopping might not be as evasive as motorists think.

Alternatively get a motorcycle.. all those cameras are front facing... "

Was going to say that.. of flashback plates..

to be honest I speed.. as I am no way doing 70 all the way on my journeys.. I am yet to get a single ticket. But that is because I am road aware..

funny thing is in a 30 zone I am normally the one getting beeped at for doing 20 as I cant see clear enough past the cars.

So I think that as to be fair its been proven a few times that speed cameras actually cause more accidents than they stop, that they should stop even pretending these are anything more than a way to make money.

As by law you have to know where they are.. and all decent sat navs will flash you up a warning in plenty of time to slow down. ( one of these days I may invest in one)

To be honest its about time national speed limits on motorways were abolished in some parts... or made that its variable ie bad weather limit it.. and during rush hours etc.. but rest of the time let people drive as they wish..

Cali

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

furthermore, speed doesnt kill, otherwise everytime you go fast, someone would die. inappropriate speed for the conditions kills (and when i say conditions, i dont just mean weather and roads, i mean for the drivers skill levels also)"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

furthermore, speed doesnt kill, otherwise everytime you go fast, someone would die. inappropriate speed for the conditions kills (and when i say conditions, i dont just mean weather and roads, i mean for the drivers skill levels also) "

That is absolute bunkum..... The faster you travel the less time you have to react if anything goes wrong and the more damage you do when you suddenly stop doing 80 mph (when, say, you hit a pedestrian).

I have worked in traffic management and you are sadly mistaken if you think that speed does not contribute to the severity of road traffic incidents (they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

Roads are designed with specific speed limits in mind. The camber of the road way, the curve of any bends, the sightlines at junctions are all set according to rigourously researched information. If it was just you at risk when you travel beyond the speed limit I doubt anyone would have a problem, but you endanger other road users with your stupidity.

Besides which, it is illegal to drive faster than the specified speed limit.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

(they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

"

1.

a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.

b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.

c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.

2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.

3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

None of those say anything about blame... blame is something assigned by lawyers to cash in on accidents....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

(they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

1.

a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.

b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.

c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.

2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.

3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

None of those say anything about blame... blame is something assigned by lawyers to cash in on accidents.... "
If you drive a car you are in control of around a tonne of materials. you are responsible for it's control.

You mention driving in icy conditions.... If you can't control your vehicle in those conditions and you bump into something or someone, you are responsible and so therefore you are to blame. It is not an accident as there is a direct causal link between the your actions and the outcome, namely your inability to control your vehicle.

If you don't like the word blame, substitute responsibility.....either way I can think of very few occasions where the driver of a vehicle is not directly responsible for the things that happen to them (a tree being blown over, for example, is pretty unavoidable, but drive a little slower and you could swerve to avoid or stop in time in many cases)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire


"

furthermore, speed doesnt kill, otherwise everytime you go fast, someone would die. inappropriate speed for the conditions kills (and when i say conditions, i dont just mean weather and roads, i mean for the drivers skill levels also)

That is absolute bunkum..... The faster you travel the less time you have to react if anything goes wrong and the more damage you do when you suddenly stop doing 80 mph (when, say, you hit a pedestrian).

I have worked in traffic management and you are sadly mistaken if you think that speed does not contribute to the severity of road traffic incidents (they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

Roads are designed with specific speed limits in mind. The camber of the road way, the curve of any bends, the sightlines at junctions are all set according to rigourously researched information. If it was just you at risk when you travel beyond the speed limit I doubt anyone would have a problem, but you endanger other road users with your stupidity.

Besides which, it is illegal to drive faster than the specified speed limit....."

for once, i can catagorically say you are taling rubbish.

doing 80 where there are pedestrians? is that speeding, or is that INNAPROPRIATE SPEEDING??? which is what i said in the first place.

if you sit at a 40 mph limit, going through a busy town centre, by rights you are NOT speeding, but you are going too fast for the conditions

you do 40 mph on a motorway YOU ARE NOT SPEEDING yet you are more likely to cause a pileup than if you were doing 80 or 90mph, yet, in your words, the latter is more wrong

so, tell me again, how i have this wrong?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

furthermore, speed doesnt kill, otherwise everytime you go fast, someone would die. inappropriate speed for the conditions kills (and when i say conditions, i dont just mean weather and roads, i mean for the drivers skill levels also)

That is absolute bunkum..... The faster you travel the less time you have to react if anything goes wrong and the more damage you do when you suddenly stop doing 80 mph (when, say, you hit a pedestrian).

I have worked in traffic management and you are sadly mistaken if you think that speed does not contribute to the severity of road traffic incidents (they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

Roads are designed with specific speed limits in mind. The camber of the road way, the curve of any bends, the sightlines at junctions are all set according to rigourously researched information. If it was just you at risk when you travel beyond the speed limit I doubt anyone would have a problem, but you endanger other road users with your stupidity.

Besides which, it is illegal to drive faster than the specified speed limit.....

for once, i can catagorically say you are taling rubbish.

doing 80 where there are pedestrians? is that speeding, or is that INNAPROPRIATE SPEEDING??? which is what i said in the first place.

if you sit at a 40 mph limit, going through a busy town centre, by rights you are NOT speeding, but you are going too fast for the conditions

you do 40 mph on a motorway YOU ARE NOT SPEEDING yet you are more likely to cause a pileup than if you were doing 80 or 90mph, yet, in your words, the latter is more wrong

so, tell me again, how i have this wrong?"
80 mph is 10 mph to fast for the motorway (though I admit to having sped myself).

Most urban roads (ie through town) are 30, not 40. All I can suggest is to quote my old uncle (a road traffic policeman) who said "Any idiot can drive at 100 mph, kiddo, very few people can drive at 100 mph when they have a blow out"

Once again, I return to my central point, there is a law. You must drive according to the speed limit. If you get caught traveling faster than that speed limit, you cannot complain. Either you knew you were traveling too fast, in which case you were knowlingly breaking the law, or you did not know you were traveling too fast, in which case you are driving without due care and attention.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

(they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

1.

a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.

b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.

c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.

2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.

3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

None of those say anything about blame... blame is something assigned by lawyers to cash in on accidents.... If you drive a car you are in control of around a tonne of materials. you are responsible for it's control.

You mention driving in icy conditions.... If you can't control your vehicle in those conditions and you bump into something or someone, you are responsible and so therefore you are to blame. It is not an accident as there is a direct causal link between the your actions and the outcome, namely your inability to control your vehicle.

If you don't like the word blame, substitute responsibility.....either way I can think of very few occasions where the driver of a vehicle is not directly responsible for the things that happen to them (a tree being blown over, for example, is pretty unavoidable, but drive a little slower and you could swerve to avoid or stop in time in many cases)"

... i didn't mention driving in icy conditions that is an example given by the dictionary.... but never the less.. no i would no go around speeding or driving dangerously in icy conditions but thats because i'm a careful driver... and rider ... but some might... yes the accident would be their fault but it doesn't make it not an accident.. they didn't go out with the express intent of causing damage to another person or their vehicle.... that would be an act of criminal damage with intent...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mm_n_ZedCouple
over a year ago

Fareham


"

(they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

1.

a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.

b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.

c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.

2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.

3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.

None of those say anything about blame... blame is something assigned by lawyers to cash in on accidents.... If you drive a car you are in control of around a tonne of materials. you are responsible for it's control.

You mention driving in icy conditions.... If you can't control your vehicle in those conditions and you bump into something or someone, you are responsible and so therefore you are to blame. It is not an accident as there is a direct causal link between the your actions and the outcome, namely your inability to control your vehicle.

If you don't like the word blame, substitute responsibility.....either way I can think of very few occasions where the driver of a vehicle is not directly responsible for the things that happen to them (a tree being blown over, for example, is pretty unavoidable, but drive a little slower and you could swerve to avoid or stop in time in many cases)"

How can you possibly anticipate a tree blowing over? Drive slower and swerve you say - what, 10mph in windy conditions on a tree lined road? 20mph? What if by driving 20mph you inadvertently place your car directly under the falling tree? Wouldn't driving fast have been safer in that situation? It's ridiculous to suggest you can prevent EVERY accident and it's also ridiculous to suggest that no accident is blame free.

Animals darting into your path, black ice, unforeseen mechanical failure ... these things can and do happen and can result in accidents even if the driver is within the speed limit. If we drove to anticipate every single eventuality then we'd crawl along at 5mph ... why not have a bloke walking in front waving a red flag whilst we're at it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

... i didn't mention driving in icy conditions that is an example given by the dictionary.... but never the less.. no i would no go around speeding or driving dangerously in icy conditions but thats because i'm a careful driver... and rider ... but some might... yes the accident would be their fault but it doesn't make it not an accident.. they didn't go out with the express intent of causing damage to another person or their vehicle.... that would be an act of criminal damage with intent... "
When I said 'you mention' you did mention Icy conditions.......in your post.....It wasn't a personal comment.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"where does the OP get his stats from c1980 fatal accidents were running at around 7000pa in the 90s before speed cameras were introduced it was about 3500 pa in 2010 it was less than 2000 - No one claims that it's all down to speed cameras but they have played their part "

They have - but so have major improvements in car design such as ABS and other driver aids. The changes in car technology have not resulted in any review of the outdated speed limits on UK motorways which is long overdue.

The positioning of fixed speed cameras is widely known and with the increased use of sat nav systems which pinpoint the exact locations and give drivers sufficient notice to adjust their speed - the end result is drivers simply slowing to pass them, and then speeding up again? So are they really serving the purpose they were designed for? I doubt it! Many councils have removed them now as they were proving ineffectual in reducing speeding and accidents, and as their position was known - were no longer generating revenue.

Whilst not condoning speeding in any way, the UK system is harsh on those caught exceeding limits by minimal amounts who rely on their car for work or business travel/deliveries. America, Australia and miost European countries have a system of fines rather than invoking penalty points which can potentially be career ending and costly in terms of insurance premiums.

I don't generally like Mr Clarkson - but have to agree with a lot of what he says in relation to UK car policies and how motorists are being constantly forced off the road and taxed to the hilt.

But can't see anything changing on that front anytime soon - if ever!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire


"

furthermore, speed doesnt kill, otherwise everytime you go fast, someone would die. inappropriate speed for the conditions kills (and when i say conditions, i dont just mean weather and roads, i mean for the drivers skill levels also)

That is absolute bunkum..... The faster you travel the less time you have to react if anything goes wrong and the more damage you do when you suddenly stop doing 80 mph (when, say, you hit a pedestrian).

I have worked in traffic management and you are sadly mistaken if you think that speed does not contribute to the severity of road traffic incidents (they aren't accidents, the word accident implies that there is no one to blame).

Roads are designed with specific speed limits in mind. The camber of the road way, the curve of any bends, the sightlines at junctions are all set according to rigourously researched information. If it was just you at risk when you travel beyond the speed limit I doubt anyone would have a problem, but you endanger other road users with your stupidity.

Besides which, it is illegal to drive faster than the specified speed limit.....

for once, i can catagorically say you are taling rubbish.

doing 80 where there are pedestrians? is that speeding, or is that INNAPROPRIATE SPEEDING??? which is what i said in the first place.

if you sit at a 40 mph limit, going through a busy town centre, by rights you are NOT speeding, but you are going too fast for the conditions

you do 40 mph on a motorway YOU ARE NOT SPEEDING yet you are more likely to cause a pileup than if you were doing 80 or 90mph, yet, in your words, the latter is more wrong

so, tell me again, how i have this wrong? 80 mph is 10 mph to fast for the motorway (though I admit to having sped myself).

Most urban roads (ie through town) are 30, not 40. All I can suggest is to quote my old uncle (a road traffic policeman) who said "Any idiot can drive at 100 mph, kiddo, very few people can drive at 100 mph when they have a blow out"

Once again, I return to my central point, there is a law. You must drive according to the speed limit. If you get caught traveling faster than that speed limit, you cannot complain. Either you knew you were traveling too fast, in which case you were knowlingly breaking the law, or you did not know you were traveling too fast, in which case you are driving without due care and attention."

but you STILL avoid the premise in that, going too slow can cause just as many accidents as going too fast IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!

i can drive at 100mph down a motorway and cause less danger then someone doing 40 in the LH lane, because im going with traffic.

its only when someone interrupts the flow of traffic problems begin (the smae place phantom traffic jams come from)

BUT i could be obeying the speed limit and doing 30mph through a built up area, which is very busy, and i would be perfectly fine if i hit someone because i wouldnt be breaking the law yes???

that is bunkum. you drive to the conditions, whether it be road condition, weather, surroundings or your own ability.

i drive at 20/25mph in the same built up area that you do 30, and we see who gets into more trouble when a kid runs out, yet you arent speeding.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How can you possibly anticipate a tree blowing over? Drive slower and swerve you say - what, 10mph in windy conditions on a tree lined road? 20mph? What if by driving 20mph you inadvertently place your car directly under the falling tree? Wouldn't driving fast have been safer in that situation? It's ridiculous to suggest you can prevent EVERY accident and it's also ridiculous to suggest that no accident is blame free.

Animals darting into your path, black ice, unforeseen mechanical failure ... these things can and do happen and can result in accidents even if the driver is within the speed limit. If we drove to anticipate every single eventuality then we'd crawl along at 5mph ... why not have a bloke walking in front waving a red flag whilst we're at it."

Please try to read my post. I mentioned a tree blowing over as an example, of an incident which would be beyond the control and anticipation of any driver. I did state that you could take action to avoid the falling tree if you were driving at a reasonable speed, but there would be occasions where you couldn't (as implied by the part (in many cases).

I also stated that there would be many other examples. However, the one thing in your control is the speed you are driving at. The lower the speed that you drive at, the more time you have to react.

No one would suggest that we all drive everywhere at 5 mph, to do so would be foolish (and to take your argument to that extreme is quite fatuous, imho) but how about we anticipate these things by trying to stick to the speed for which the road was designed (i.e. stick to the fucking speed limit)?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

as someone who drove at least 65000 miles a year for the last four years I can honestly say most drivers on the roads today are not road aware.

Most drivers think they are the best driver on the road and blame everyone else for the traffic jams snarl ups and accidents.

Also most people who use the motorways have no idea how to drive on them,as an example,,,,,,

if a car pulls out from the inside lane to overtake another vehicle and the vehicle that they are overtaing is travelling at 65mph invariably they overtake at the same speed or just a few mph more because they do not want to break the speed limit of 70 mph as a consequence of this they are effectively blocking the middle lane !!!! and taking an age to overtake and this then causes cars behind to brake and pull into the outside lane which then in turn causes the outside lane uses to break as well.

This happens all the time and when you are forced to break as the traffic is all bunched up you are left to wonder where the hold up was !!!!

I know most of you will disagree with this but just watch when you are next on the motorway.

Also on the points system is it just me but don't you think the punishment far outways the crime !!!

it is perfectly possibe to acrue 12 points in one day !!! maybe for a tyre that the thread is to low on, or you get caught doing 33 in a 30 zone !!!!

I know all breaking the law but should you really lose your licence, then possibly your job, then possibly your house, then possibly your family !!!!

I am no angel and have regularly broken the speed limit but are road laws are outdated and the point system is unfair.

Just my 2 pence worth !!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It is perfectly possible to accrue 12 points in one day !!! maybe for a tyre that the thread is to low on, or you get caught doing 33 in a 30 zone !!!!

I know all breaking the law but should you really lose your license, then possibly your job, then possibly your house, then possibly your family !!!!

I am no angel and have regularly broken the speed limit but are road laws are outdated and the point system is unfair.

Just my 2 pence worth !!!

"

Yes you should. You know the law and you are aware of the consequences should be caught breaking it; you have made your choice once you commit an illegal act.

The law is the law, there seems to be a great number of people who are quite happy to rationalise their way into breaking the law, be it speeding or some other road related offense...where is the line drawn? You need a little more money so just go out and mug somebody? Rob a bank? Murder someone? If you ignore the law then who decides what else it is reasonable to ignore?

The law is there for a reason and it isn't up to the people to pick and choose which particular law they observe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire

agreed, the law is the law.

i myself drive many thousands of miles a year due to work and guess what, no points on my licence, and furthermore, i am the only driver in the fleet that has also acrued NO infringements either, so please dont tell me i dont know what im talking about.

i know all to well, and not by sitting beind a desk!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *am sampsonMan
over a year ago

cwmbran

It's a fallacy that you can drive at the speed limit and not be breaking the law - it is a speed limit no a command - you can "in the eyes of the law" be fined for speeding at any speed if it's deemed to fast for the prevailing conditions

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

As by law you have to know where they are.. and all decent sat navs will flash you up a warning in plenty of time to slow down. ( one of these days I may invest in one)"

That's an interesting point you raise there. I recall a few years ago that the police wanted to ban certain gadgets that alerted motorists about mobile speed cameras. Surely if the police wanted everyone to slow down then these gadgets would be playing a part in accomplishing that but it seems the police were more worried about being deprived of potential revenue from unsuspecting drivers who travel just a few mph above a given limit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top