View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Andy_P Pocket GPS Moderator
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
|
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: Speed Cameras in Bradford |
|
|
MaFt wrote: | the 'its ok to creep over the speed limit' argument is as wrong as the 'its ok to steal just a few penny sweets'. |
Not when I'm in charge, it won't! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
grantp Occasional Visitor
Joined: Aug 08, 2006 Posts: 9
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How many people spotted the reason for the HGV (and now creeping down the weight scale) 40mph limit?
In conjunction with the loss of any overtaking ability (or experience) observed from most drivers, the density of traffic and designed in road hazards, the net effect is to reduce all speeds to around 35 mph most of the time unless you are on a motorway.
Now, given that most cars are still geared to be most efficient at around the mid 50s mph and considering the price of fuel these days, it seems to me that there should be some obligation on the 'authorities' to deliver a service that allows me to waste less of my time and money when travelling from A to B. Instead everything seems to work the other way and all on the name of 'safety'. In that I include shutting a road for hours and hours after an incident in order to take measurements and so on. It never used to be like that - does it really need to happen now given how much time is then lost be so many people and businesses?
But I digress .....
I live in the Midlands a couple of miles from an M1 junction. We have family in Surrey a mile or so off the A3. The total journey length is about 132 miles door to door all but the first last mile of that is dual carriageway or motorway.
Back in the 80s and into the early 90s a good run at a weekend took about 1hr 50mins, an average run about 2hrs. A slow run due to roadworks about 2hrs 30mins and a really bad run due to accident(s) somewhat longer. However I don't recall too many really horrific journeys at weekends.
Now, despite the general expansion of much of the M1 and M25, a fast journey takes about 2hrs 30mins and much longer journeys are not uncommon.
So much for progress.
It's getting to the point where, irrespective of the cost factors we are currently being assailed by, family day visits (often the result of modern social mobility) will not be feasible on a time basis alone. Driving 4 hours each way for a lunch with relatives was a pain when I was a kid and doesn't look any more attractive now as a way to fill a day. The more so because it really should not be necessary.
(As an aside one also wonders if the pothole repair strategy, such as it is, is accepted since it too is likely to keep speeds down and generate tax revenue from inefficient use of fuel and the cost of repairs ....)
When it comes down to it I can't think of a single government around the world that does not see the motorist as a cash cow and an opportunity to apply controls as part of efforts directed at social conditioning. I suppose we might consider ourselves lucky that at least with out roads there is some opportunity to pass slow traffic in between 'pedestrian refuges'. It seems to me that, for example, France and Holland are hell bent on making all non 'motorway' traffic single file using barriers. Still, at least In Holland they mostly keep the cyclists separate from the rest of the traffic rather than allocating mostly stupidly designed 'cycle lanes'.
Some years ago I did a lot of analysis using the official (not very consistent) KSI accident databases for about 13 years of data. The speed camera era up to that point. So far as I could find there was nothing in the data that suggested any evident benefit from cameras at all. But then there were so many other potential variables that to come to any conclusion using that information would have to be more by speculation than a basis in fact. I don't suppose anything has changed for the better in the last 4 or 5 years but as far as I know policy decision are still based on that data capture. Or so we are led to believe.
If cameras are being financed by 'Speed Awareness' courses there is a huge incentive to find ways to increase the numbers of people 'caught'. Since currently, as far as I know, only one attendance at a course is allowed that also means that to maintain cash flow requires 'catching' ever more first time 'offenders'. It will be interesting to see what strategies they come up with to achieve that and what the reaction of the the insurance companies will be to an opportunity to extract extra cash for extended periods of insurance cover based on the increasing number of new 'lawbreakers'.
Meanwhile, with the prisons crowded to bursting point (we are told) the solution to that problem is to close 3 of them and hand out lesser sentences to keep real criminals out in the community, creating real victims whilst motorists are targeted for thousands of victimless 'crimes' in order to extract cash for a self perpetuating yet seemingly pointless system. (No pun intended.)
We live in strange times. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pcaouolte Frequent Visitor
Joined: Dec 27, 2006 Posts: 998 Location: South Lincs, UK.
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I notice today that the number of speed cameras in Lincolnshire has been reduced (by one). The camera at 52.79256, -0.12637 seems to have overheated during the night. What remains is a bit too sooty to be working. _________________ Paul |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmp1951 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject: Linclnshire - No Major Roads? |
|
|
Some one needs a lesson in geography!
I name a few!
A1 - one of the few major roads still with cross roads on 70mph sections (near Grantham), but preotected by (for once) safetly related cameras.
A15 - Notorious for fatal accidents between Lincoln and M180, but only three cameras, one of which is nowhere near the blackspots, and the other two at one site. Should have been dual carriageway for 25 years
A16 - Lethal in parts
A17 - Lethal
A18 - Lethal in parts
A160 - Single and dual from A180 to Immingham Docks - UK's foremost (by tonnage at least) port complex with yet more development currently
A180 - So boring most accidents are caused by sleepy heads!
M180 - See A 180!
M181 - Leeds from M180 to Scunthorpe. No comment needed!
A52 - |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Speed Cameras in Bradford |
|
|
Andy_P wrote: | MaFt wrote: | the 'its ok to creep over the speed limit' argument is as wrong as the 'its ok to steal just a few penny sweets'. |
Not when I'm in charge, it won't! |
I hope you don't ever get voted in. I gave my grandson's pal a right talking to for nicking one of my bottles of pop out of the back of the van (then I told him it wasn't orangeade ). _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmp1951 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: Speed Cameras in Bradford |
|
|
MaFt wrote: | shornoff wrote: | Lincolnshire may be able to keep its few speed cameras, and, God knows on their dangerous roads, they need them but the City of Bradford, a small city, is just introducing 26 more, on top of the God knows how many they already have!
I might add, I am all in favour. I love speed cameras. Anything that saves a life is good with me. |
i'm not aware of any serious accidents and/or deaths at the places they have added the cameras - which is apparently their criteria. there are, however, a lot of people that speed on those roads which does make you wonder about their motives, doesn't it?
at the end of the day though, if you are speeding then you *are* breaking the law...
MaFt |
Typical example of the crap we have to put up with:-
Fatal accident in 60 mph section of A1077, caused by up drunken the morning after his session, killing innocent driver of oncoming vehcile.
Supposedly this justifies the installation of "safety" camera, so site established where?
1.5 miles to the west, a few yards inside a 30 mph limit, with no recent history of accidents.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmp1951 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just in case the censored parts aren't understood, read inebriated and illegitimate.
I think most on this site would agree the censored words were entirely appropriate. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DennisN Tired Old Man
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cmp1951 wrote: | Just in case the censored parts aren't understood, read inebriated and illegitimate.
I think most on this site would agree the censored words were entirely appropriate. |
Well count me in the minority - I believe the English language has sufficient proper vocabulary to express emotions without resorting to offensive crudities. _________________ Dennis
If it tastes good - it's fattening.
Two of them are obesiting!! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cmp1951 Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DennisN wrote: | cmp1951 wrote: | Just in case the censored parts aren't understood, read inebriated and illegitimate.
I think most on this site would agree the censored words were entirely appropriate. |
Well count me in the minority - I believe the English language has sufficient proper vocabulary to express emotions without resorting to offensive crudities. |
Yet you consider cockup acceptable in your signature? So strange! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
cmp1951 wrote: | Just in case the censored parts aren't understood, read inebriated and illegitimate.
I think most on this site would agree the censored words were entirely appropriate. | No, they are not appropriate and I think that you will find that on this forum people generally refrain from their use. Your alternatives show that you have an excelent grasp of the English language, so why use generally accepted crudities?
I dont think that cockup, when used as an alternative for mistake, would be objected to by the majority. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigPerk Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Easy to make too much of it though - we all do it sometimes (though I just find the censored symbol boring anyway). Sometimes strong situations or events call up strong language - no one feels lightly these days about drunken drivers causing deaths because they couldn't care less. _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BigPerk wrote: | Sometimes strong situations or events call up strong language. | They may do in private, and I probably curse more than most, but surely totally unnecessary on a public forum . |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigPerk Frequent Visitor
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree to a large extent, though I'd rather see the symbol than some of the disgruntled rantings & (semi) personal abuse that occasionally decorate this site. If I feel strongly about anything (not too often these days) I just put the symbol in directly anyway, and leave people to make up what I didn't say! _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BigPerk wrote: | I just put the symbol in directly anyway, and leave people to make up what I didn't say! | He He |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JimmyTheHand Frequent Visitor
Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386
|
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: Re: Speed Cameras in Bradford |
|
|
MaFt wrote: | to be awkward (for once!) the 'its ok to creep over the speed limit' argument is as wrong as the 'its ok to steal just a few penny sweets'. No matter how 'small' the misdemeanour, it's still wrong. |
Suffragettes comes to mind.
The primary reason for speed limits is safety, i.e. reducing the risk of accidents and reducing the implications of any that are caused - if speed limit is set such as it increases the risks then is breaking it wrong? _________________ J. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|