DabHand Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I will add what to bored train builder says, with I really hope you never kill a child because you were speeding. Long as l can still kill a child without speeding l'm happy. After all that's the only reason l use my car. Roll on Death Race 2000! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lulu Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I presume you are taking the piss. That or he is a complete t***er and I hope they (presuably he) looses his license soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mattsta1964 Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I used to post on the Safespeed forum and was continually amazed that so many people defend the right of the state to rob decent hard working people through such a devious false pretence. Speed cameras haven't saved a single bloody life in this country. It's just another way for the state to help itself pay it's running costs and pay for police pensions. Even worse, local councils have the power now to enforce their own fines, again because they are so short of cash. Now there is so much anger about the hikes in Council Tax, they raise the extra cash with an army of parking wardens and snitches who watch residents and fine them £60 for the heinous crime of putting a couple of junk mail envelopes in the council bin attached to the lamppost outside their house. Most incredible though was the 'Cheezy Wotzit' chucked out of the car window by that lady with the kids having a food fight in the back of her car! LOL LOL! The new Cheezy Wotzit fine! £70 please madam! CER-CHING CER-CHING! That'll do nicely. If this 'black box' in yer car actually happens, I'll be out of this country like a shot. When I think how much of my hard earned cash I actually get to spend on myself after 50% taxes and paying the interest on my mortgage, might as well go and sell icecream on a beach and live in a tent. I'd be better off than I am here is this ratshit country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachman Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Many people (including small children) are alive today because of speed cameras: face it, or wrestle with your conscience. Rubbish, many people are alive today because of improvements in active and passive safety in cars. Most pedestrian accidents are down to kids and adults stepping in the road in front of cars. If you actually spend the money educating people on how to cross the road, then you would save a lot more lives, but that does not generate revenue, does it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mattsta1964 Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPCheese Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) Can we put one myth to bed. Most current GPS sat-nav systems are ONE-WAY. The satellites have no idea where you are or even that you are using them for trilateration. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS A black-box for traffic control would include a data storage device or TWO-WAY transmitter/receiver. Just like Sky TV needs to be connected to a phone line to let you vote in news polls for example. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_tracking Current Sat-nav is not the same as having a black-box tracking your car. Edited May 12, 2006 by HPCheese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Give over. If you killed a child while doing 29mph (in a 30) you would feel no better, and what difference is there between that and doing it at 31mph? To continue in the same emotive vein, let's think about all the children in Iraq lowered into the ground in small wooden boxes. When will Blair be policed with the same zeal as those committing a minor (unintentional in very many cases) act of slightly exceeding a finger-in-the-air arbitrary speed limit? Speeding legislation is the classic case of making something that is easily measured important rather than measuring something important in the first place. A good place to start would be police on patrol looking for erratic drivers and the availability of reliable drug testing kits to catch the huge numbers of people driving under the influence of drugs who are getting away with it through lack of patrols and lack of testing methods. Speeding can have serious consequences but these are trivialised with the extraordinary focus on meaningless enforcement of ridiculous and unnecessary limits. Let's have police outside schools and major routes to those schools. This would have a far greater impact than mindless enforcement robocop style. The children themselves would perhaps behave more safely too. Are children taught anything about road safety anymore or are they brainwashed into thinking the government is there to protect them and that if they get run over it's never their fault? The public information films we all grew up with were quirky and funny, but at least they tried to instill a message of personal responsibility, something that is grossly lacking these days, in drivers and pedestrians, I might add. Don't you 'give over' me and then completely and irrelevantly introduce Iraq. There is copious and abundant research on this subject and selfish drivers should think more thoughtfully before spouting off on internet forums or anywhere else. This is not a philosophical debate like some we have here on HPC, it is about real lives. http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/speed...tsheet_1205.pdf The difference in kinetic energy between a car travelling at either 29mph or 31mph is not as insignificant as you probably think (12.5%) but as I think you understand the line has to be drawn somewhere and above that line enforcement must apply. There is a very, very strong case to reduce the limit to 20mph in urban areas. Like the people who propagate the harmful MMR vaccination myth, you do immense damage which actually does kill people. In this case however the motive appears to be not just ignorance but also a pathetic desire to be one of the lads like Jeremy Clarkson. Shame on you and other similar posters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) ...or we could just lay in bed all day, and then we would all be safe. I drove from Nottingham to Bedford the other day, average speed about 80mph. You either do 60mph in the inside lane, or 90 mph outside. Those are the options. All speed cameras do is get people to anchor up as they approach a GATSO, and then plant it as the pass the camera. People like me, who have sat-nav with internet-downloaded GATSO co-ordinates, find this no problem. How does this improve safety? I would not however speed past a school or around a city centre. GATSOs are just cash-cows; if the government were serious about road safety they would monitor city-centre traffic intensively, not roads where few pedestrians are killed. Edited May 12, 2006 by tahoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I would not however speed past a school or around a city centre. GATSOs are just cash-cows; if the government were serious about road safety they would monitor city-centre traffic intensively, not roads where few pedestrians are killed. Under current siting guidance practices - due to craven capitulation to Jeremy Clarkson types and the Daily Mail - speed cameras can only be located at places where there have already been multiple fatal accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) ...and? Surely it would be best to have cameras where there have already been accidents? Presuming of course, speed is a factor in all fatacs, which is a flawed assumption. Unfortunately, GATSOS cannot pick up witless driving, poor lane discipline, people driving TOO SLOW for ambient conditions etc. If you hate cars, don't drive. Edited May 12, 2006 by tahoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 ...and? If you hate cars, don't drive. If the only victims were speeding car drivers there would be no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 If the only victims were speeding car drivers there would be no problem. Great! We agree! (apart from that bit in the middle of my post you deleted to distort the context ) GATSOs seem to congregate in areas that are designed to catch speeding motorists, not dangerous motorists. Hence revenue, rather than safety, seems to be the priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Great! We agree! (apart from that bit in the middle of my post you deleted to distort the context ) GATSOs seem to congregate in areas that are designed to catch speeding motorists, not dangerous motorists. Hence revenue, rather than safety, seems to be the priority. 1: Speeding motorists are dangerous motorists 2: Who cares if revenue is generated? I wish other forms of law enforcement generated revenue 3: People already have to have died before speed cameras are erected to reduce further fatalities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 To paraphrase a post of yours from yet another emotive, politised thread: you are not helping. Speeding motorists are dangerous motorists? So are witless motorists, inattentive motorists, short-sighted motorists, arrogant motorists, knight-of-the-road motorists, poor-lane-discipline-motorists, uninsured motorists, motorists-who-think-they-own-the-road-because-they-drive-a-sh*t-old-car-and-are-thus-morally-superior etc etc etc If you don't care if revenue is generated, why fine speeders. Just do it on points/bans. People need to have already have died to erect cameras? What do you prefer? Precognitives? Crystal ball readers? Mystics? Where should cameras be erected then? To observe what? Let's just go back to the horse and cart. But then, people died on those you know. Let's just stay in bed. But then, bed bugs... You can't legislate against the excesses of human behaviour. If you did, governments would never be formed. Oooh! Bit of politics there! Mrs Thatch etc. But then, Ben Elton is just a monied little tw*t now, isn't he? I wonder what he drives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) There is a very, very strong case to reduce the limit to 20mph in urban areas. I get your reasoning, make the trains appear good by making driving even more sh!tier. That's the problem, the alternatives aren't there, trains consume more subsidy that the road network... and they make up 7% of passenger traffic and they're basically running at full capacity. Dragging everything down to the lowest mode is no answer in the longrun. This is not about helping people get to work, it's about putting as many obstacles in the way and then cashing in. Does the political class believe that people actually like sitting in tail backs or cramming onto a train at some godforsaken hour? Most of them have never done an honest days work in their life and are now schofered everywhere, no wonder their outlook is skewed. Edited May 12, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Winners and Losers Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) No speeding = no law breaking = no tickets = no revenue. No idea why this is so difficult for most people. I agree, it has 'become' a revenue raiser from the persepctive of the government. Of course, it is not right to speed, but I believe the goverments have become more concerned with how much money they can raise in revenue, rather than the actual safety issue. In Australia there was much debate about banning young drivers from owning V8's, as it is mostly these drivers that cause accidents and deaths through speeding. Edited May 12, 2006 by Winners and Losers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 I get your reasoning, make the trains appear good by making driving even more sh!tier. That's the problem, the alternatives aren't there, trains consume more subsidy that the road network... and they make up 7% of passenger traffic and they're basically running at full capacity. Dragging everything down to the lowest mode is no answer in the longrun. My opinions on this subject have nothing to do with trains and everything to do with my respect for human life and also for rational, science-based decision making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 My opinions on this subject have nothing to do with trains and everything to do with my respect for human life and also for rational, science-based decision making. Your occupation, the people you work with and the dogma of your industry has everything to do with your opinions whether you realise it or not. Even the cheapest car can out run the fastest train on the network, you haven't progressed at all. Our trains are so slow and expenise people choose to board planes and burn tons of fuel to ascend and instantly descend, this is absolutely absurd. So instead of debating about driving 1mph over the limit we should ask why our rail network is so backwards and where exactly all that money spent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charlie The Tramp Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 People already have to have died before speed cameras are erected to reduce further fatalities In my area there are three speed cameras located where there has never been an accident. One is a new digital camera with no speed camera warning signs erected as required by law. The best one I have come across is on the A13 at Barking it is between two spread out lamposts. The one before has a small 40mph speed disc and the one after has a large 50mph speed disc. Being a three lane very busy dual carriageway guess how many times motorists get caught. I know before they had to paint them bright orange they caused quite a few shunting accidents. A few years ago as I approached an ATS at 50mph within the speed limit the light changed to amber as I was very close to the line. As the junction was monitored by a camera I quickly checked my rear view mirror and slammed on my brakes and came to a halt with my front wheels 6 feet over the line. ( Flash flash ) A couple of weeks later I received a summons, requested photographic evidence, it was refused and a caution then given which I refused to accept as in my opinion I had not committed an offence. The annoying thing was if I had carried on I would have cleared the junction before the light turned red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepwatching Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Ihope no child of yours is knocked down by a speeding motorist and lowered into the ground in a small wooden box. I really do. The vast majority of serious research on this subject is abundantly clear. Many people (including small children) are alive today because of speed cameras: face it, or wrestle with your conscience. If we are to criticise this government over the issue it should be over the way they cravenly back down in the face of populists like you. God....... You are so original. How can you spend time on this site when there are serious road safety issues to be addressed ?????? Ban anybody who drinks then drives (zero alcohol limit)..... Ban and jail twoc joyriders..... Place big f*cking signs with the speed limit on at exactly the site of the camera (accident blackspot only) and restrict every vehicle to 80mph........ That is what i would do....... I really would like to be concentrating on the road ahead rather than my speedometer when there are kids running about near a school though......... Too many people 'think' they can drive and 'think' they know better on how to control the roads..... At the end of the day it is the people who never listen who will never listen with the lenient legal system we have..... Death by speeding or alcohol=murder.......... serious injury by alcohol or speeding= attempted murder....... No pussyfooting about with lawyers getting buIIsh!t sentences....... Jail them too........ Money should not be the gearing for these ideas....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 (edited) Your occupation, the people you work with and the dogma of your industry has everything to do with your opinions whether you realise it or not. Even the cheapest car can out run the fastest train on the network, you haven't progressed at all. Our trains are so slow and expenise people choose to board planes and burn tons of fuel to ascend and instantly descend, this is absolutely absurd. So instead of debating about driving 1mph over the limit we should ask why our rail network is so backwards and where exactly all that money spent. I absolutely agree. I would love to travel by TGV or Bullet Train if I could, but we are limited to trains that are inferior to what was considered cool when I was a kid. When you address why I can travel by 3.2 litre Jag on my own cheaper than going by train, our transport problems will be solved. And no, I don't mean making fuel £6 a litre. Edited May 12, 2006 by tahoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Your occupation, the people you work with and the dogma of your industry has everything to do with your opinions whether you realise it or not. Even the cheapest car can out run the fastest train on the network, you haven't progressed at all. Our trains are so slow and expenise people choose to board planes and burn tons of fuel to ascend and instantly descend, this is absolutely absurd. So instead of debating about driving 1mph over the limit we should ask why our rail network is so backwards and where exactly all that money spent. Don't patronise me. My views on this subject have nothing to do with railways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Don't patronise me. My views on this subject have nothing to do with railways. As usual there is no answer, shall I make the cheque out to the usual names? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahoma Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Don't patronise me. My views on this subject have nothing to do with railways. Don't patronise us either; your views on this subject don't seem to have anything to do with anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Don't patronise us either; your views on this subject don't seem to have anything to do with anything. What do you mean by this? My views on this subject are explicitly clear and to the point of the thread. Which, BuyingBear, is why I don't feel like boring the rest of HPC.co.uk with a defence of the railway system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.