recently my dad was caught speeding and fined...(think it was £60).. im not defending speeding or anything..but surely there has to be a better way to judge offenses.

He was in an area where pedestrians are few and far between, there were no difficult turnings or anything odd...was just a straight road. he was going 38miles per hour. and it was a honest mistake as the road is usually so packed that you cant go above the 30mph speed limit.

after driving for over 35 years with not a single offence... he is now being told about how to be more carefull and not dangerous when driving. this is just silly!!!... the laws and speed limits are outdated and need re-assesing.

fact is he broke law and had to pay fine... as ever though it seems police will pick on the smallest of offenders and not concentrate on bigger problems.

any1 have any petty problems with police in the past?


p.s. im all for speed cameras....more speed cameras but increase speed limits.

The police don't know that you're a good driver with an unblemished record. They see a car breaking the speed limit, it may be someone who thinks speed limits were made for other people to adhere to. The police have to attend and clear up a lot of very unpleasant accidents so their message is don't speed when you shouldn't.

well duh!.

thats why im saying there should be measures that there are different levels of fines or punishments for different circumstances.

They would have to clear up less accidents if they spent more time punishing people that clearly have no regard for the law.

I'm frankly sick to death of all the "Speed Kills" adverts on buses, roundabouts, TV, radio etc.

Speed CAN kill but IMO it is dangerous driving, driving without due care/attention and drink-driving that kills more.

I know its coming up to xmas and the drink-drive campaign will start soon, but for most of the year, all they focus on is the cash cow - SPEED.

People can be far more dangerous at driving when they DON'T speed, its driver ability that is the flaw in many cases. I wish examiners would ensure a person is reasonably confident at driving before passing them on their test as nervous, indecisive, hesitant drivers can be as much of a hazard, if not worse than someone doing 38 in a 30 in a car that can easily stop short of the highway code stopping distance. (based on a 1961 Ford Anglia I believe)

I'm sure you would all have loads of sympathy for any driver who knocked down one of your kids while doing 38 in a 30 mph zone. If the law is 30mph then that's it. You can't have one law for one and one law for another. While cars have advanced tremendously in the past 20 years, unfotunately most drivers observation skills, reaction times, vision etc etc HAVE NOT. The average driver is pretty CRAP, although we all think we are bloody good. Hence speed limits are set with this in mind.

Fact is though that Speed Cameras are just a stealth tax under a different name. The people who drive without insurance, in cars that are dangerous, and often without having passed their test, get away with these fines because they cannot be traced. Yet people like the original posters father get fined £60, 3 points on his license and branded a criminal for sneaking a few miles ph over the limit.

Every so often, I see the little mobile van sat at the top of Halifax Road. They've actually taken to leaving the mobile camera on the side of the road now, whilst they park their van in slip road opposite. This is on a road that should really in whole honesty have a 40mph speed limit and would anywhere else in the city and the country because of its width; houses set well back from the road, wide footpaths with very few pedistrians. Someone please prove to me that putting a camera at this point here is nothing more than a money making venture and for safety reasons. In my many many years of travelling up and down that road, there has been one fatality and this had absolutely nothing to do with speed being a factor.

Yet after I have travelled past their camera, I get to High Green and turn into Wortley Road and play a game of dogems right outside High Green School. Double parked cars, buses climbing on pavements so that they can pass each other....... the list goes on. Do we see the little man with his van here? Nope, because this accident waiting to happen will not have people travelling at 34mph. Buses climbing pavements outside a school is ok because they will only do it at 5mph. Im sure the lollypop lady outside that school must take her life into her own hands everytime she crosses. The pole goes out first, then the prayer, and then she goes!!

And if you think South Yorkshire is bad, West Yorkshire is worse. On the A636 I think it is going into Wakefield, the road changes from 50 mph to 30 mph speed limit. The 30 mph sign is 15 yards before a set of traffic light. 10 yards after the lights is a speed camera. I defy anyone who does not know that road who may be overtaking a lorry with the traffic lights on green to see the road sign and no know that the camera is a 30mph one. One sign then 25 yards later a speed camera.

The South Yorkshire Safety Partnership (or whatever the call it) latest glib is that a poll carried out for them shows that most of us are in favour of speed cameras. Well of course we, when they are in the right places. Duh! What the government and the traffic division of the police have gone and done by introducing this stealth tax so vigorously is alienate Mr Average law abiding citizen and the long term consequences of this in other areas of the Law are not worth contemplating.

Originally posted by Magneteer
The average driver is pretty CRAP, although we all think we are bloody good.

Well said, I totally agree.

Originally posted by MTheo
recently my dad was caught speeding and fined...(think it was £60).. im not defending speeding or anything..but surely there has to be a better way to judge offenses.

He was in an area where pedestrians are few and far between, there were no difficult turnings or anything odd...was just a straight road. he was going 38miles per hour. and it was a honest mistake as the road is usually so packed that you cant go above the 30mph speed limit.


Would you care to mention what road this speed trap was on, so other drivers can watch out for it.

cant remember what road it was...near attercliffe i think

if it is not an area where kids are going to be then the speed limit should be higher. i dont know any1 that hasent gone above the speed limit. so nobody can preach about the laws.

put me in a coppers uniform and i could do 100 people for speeding just on my way to work.

my dad was also telling me about the parkway.. he says there is one part that is 50mph and as you cross over the roundabout it changes to 30mph (or sumfing like this...) although the roads are exactly the same but i think one is dual carriagway... madness.

dinp u hit nail on head for me:
``People can be far more dangerous at driving when they DON'T speed, its driver ability that is the flaw in many cases. I wish examiners would ensure a person is reasonably confident at driving before passing them on their test as nervous, indecisive, hesitant drivers can be as much of a hazard, if not worse than someone doing 38 in a 30 in a car that can easily stop short of the highway code stopping distance. ``

maybe the trouble is the level of difficultiy of the driving test ??

The fact that a person decides that a particular street "should have a higher speed limit" is irrelevant. When you pass your driving test, you are supposed to have learnt to drive within the legal speed limit. If you need to get somewhere on time then you should set off early enough to allow time to get there legally. The argument that you think the speed limit on a particular road is wrong is irrelevant and you still deserve a fine if you speed. I suspect that many people who have killed on the road by speeding were convinced that the speed limit should have been higher on the road they were driving along ....

Originally posted by Patchy
The argument that you think the speed limit on a particular road is wrong is irrelevant and you still deserve a fine if you speed.

Still dosent alter the fact that speed limits on some roads are set wrong in the first place.

Originally posted by Magneteer
I'm sure you would all have loads of sympathy for any driver who knocked down one of your kids while doing 38 in a 30 mph zone. If the law is 30mph then that's it. You can't have one law for one and one law for another. While cars have advanced tremendously in the past 20 years, unfotunately most drivers observation skills, reaction times, vision etc etc HAVE NOT. The average driver is pretty CRAP, although we all think we are bloody good. Hence speed limits are set with this in mind.

I don't have kids yet and when I do I will make sure they learn to cross the road safely. Too many pedestrians have the mindset that they own the road when they don't.

If they were to be knocked down on the pavement by a driver, irrespective of the speed I would be annoyed as it would boil down to one of the other options I mentioned in my previous post, probably driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving.

Personally, I don't give a toss if I am walking along the path in a 30 zone and a car whizzes past me at 50 - providing the driver is capable of controlling their vehicle. Too many drivers are nervous and hesitant and I would feel more at risk from being hit by an incapable 'law abider' than a capable offender.

Originally posted by MTheo
p.s. im all for speed cameras....more speed cameras but increase speed limits.
More speed cameras, but tie them into traffic volume/time of day.

Oh, and speed limits are fine. Most of them are based on stopping distances and the opportunity you have to see surprise obstacles in your path. The speed limit is set by your survival chances when travelling very fast towards your windscreen.

I'm all for tolerance and consideration. No, I mean you. Have you any idea how much noise a car makes at speed? At 2am? Through a residential area? Thought not.

Originally posted by dinp

People can be far more dangerous at driving when they DON'T speed, its driver ability that is the flaw in many cases. I wish examiners would ensure a person is reasonably confident at driving before passing them on their test as nervous, indecisive, hesitant drivers can be as much of a hazard, if not worse than someone doing 38 in a 30 in a car that can easily stop short of the highway code stopping distance. (based on a 1961 Ford Anglia I believe)

Well said! What has me completely flabbergasted is that the most dangerous roads in britain are out of bounds to learners, but new drivers with no training or previous experience of having vehicles in all three mirrors at once are permitted to grit their teeth, press their nose against the windscreen and shut their eyes in fear, as they trundle down a motorway.

AND...Why do driving instructions and the highway code concentrate on what you're doing. Being a safe driver is about what they're doing...

Originally posted by Strix

Have you any idea how much noise a car makes at speed? At 2am? Through a residential area? Thought not.

Having lived in Fitzalan Square last year (student halls) I can safely say that slow travelling buses and taxis made FAR more noise braking and changing down gear for the corner than faster travelling cars do in a residential area. I feel sorry for those people living on roads with speed humps, the noise from cars braking, labouring and changing down gear must be hell!

Less speed cameras.

More traffic police.

= More criminals and joyriders caught, less good people caught out.

Originally posted by mega_monty
Still dosent alter the fact that speed limits on some roads are set wrong in the first place.

Penistone Road being an example - a four lane dual carriage-way set at 30mph! :loopy:

AND it has a speed camera.

I've seen other similar roads in sheffield set to 40 or 50mph. Allegedly that road is 30mph because the council forgot to apply for a derestriction order when they built it.

Originally posted by Ravenger
Infirmary Road being an example - a four lane dual carriage-way set at 30mph! :loopy:

AND it has a speed camera.


Penistone Road, surely?

Having lived just off Infirmary Road, I can quite agree with the low limit there having seen various accidents at the points where roads cross (especially near Safeways/Windsors).

Can't understand the low limit on Penistone Road though, certainly not between Leppings Lane and Netherthorpe Road. The area in front of the park/ Wednesday ground may be OK because there are a lot of people crossing there.

Originally posted by spiffymonkey
Penistone Road, surely?


Oops. :blush: Now corrected.

There is often a hidden Police Van parked just off the side of the road about 100-200 yards from the junction of the A57 and Rivelin Valley Road. The A57 is not limited and often cars come hurling along at 65-70 or more and turn left onto Rivelin Valley Road, and of course before they have had time to reduce speed down to 40 which is the limit on that road, the Police have nabbed them at 55 or higher. See it all the time, and they radio ahead to get the car flagged down about 600 metres yards further on. Very nearly caught me so many times as you really dont slow down to 40 before entering Rivelin Valley road, its not a sharp turn but more of a road split and before you can even see the 40 MPH sign the cops have nabbed you......neat little earner.

Beware of that junction, they are often there at weekends and at random times of the day.....

Originally posted by dinp

If they were to be knocked down on the pavement by a driver, irrespective of the speed I would be annoyed as it would boil down to one of the other options I mentioned in my previous post, probably driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving.


Annoyed ?
If some one drove onto the curb and killed your kids ?

The reason the speed limit in towns is so low is to increase the chances of a person surviving being hit by the car.

If you can't drive by the rules perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all ?

Don't get mad, get even:

www.iam.org.uk/groups/sheffield/
www.safespeed.org

Happy motoring.

Speed cameras are not there to catch you out, they are there to deter you from speeding. South Yorkshire Police publish a list of their active cameras on their website and also in the Star. So, all you drivers should accept some personal responsibilty for your actions. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!!

I would love a speed camera outside my house- I live on a busy road (30 mph limit), on a bend. I have to park my car across the road (single yellow lines outside my house). I have two young children, one of whom is autistic- I have to carry him kicking and screaming to the car, while I hold the other ones hand. This is hard enough but I reckon most most drivers are doing about 40 and a good 1 in 10 is probably doing over 50. These people probably don't consider it a problem as it's not a heavily residential stretch of road- and sadly the only way I can see to stop this is to hit them where it hurts, ie fine them.

I've just been "snapped" doing 37mph on a long straight road.
There's no point whinging as I was breaking the limit. The fact that the punishment would have been the same if I'd ben doing 57mph is an issue as is the fact that 30mph is far too fast in some situations.
I think operational cameras should be installed on ALL roads across the city and particulary on every set of traffic lights (to catch the colour blind.)

Originally posted by Ned Ludd

I think operational cameras should be installed on ALL roads across the city and particulary on every set of traffic lights (to catch the colour blind.)

Hear hear! Traffice light dodgers are the cause of a great deal of scrapes and near misses. I used to work near Brightside roundabout, and I lost count of the number of times someone came flying through the red light (not even just as it changed, a good second or two later) narrowly missing traffic and undoubtedly breaking the speed limit.

The unfortunate feeling amongst responsible motorists is that they are more likely to get caught than the blatant boy racers who apparently have no regard for their own or other's safety.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Speed cameras are not there to catch you out, they are there to deter you from speeding. South Yorkshire Police publish a list of their active cameras on their website and also in the Star. So, all you drivers should accept some personal responsibilty for your actions. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!!

Actually there is a large body of evidence to suggest that *some* cameras are there just to catch you out and make money. And remember that the provision and servicing of a lot of the cameras is carried out by a private company who is no doubt doing there utmost to get as many sold as possible.

The fact has not been ignored by either opposition party as they have promised to review the positioning of all speed cameras and to remove any that are not obviously saving lives.

Originally posted by kilauea
Actually there is a large body of evidence to suggest that *some* cameras are there just to catch you out and make money. And remember that the provision and servicing of a lot of the cameras is carried out by a private company who is no doubt doing there utmost to get as many sold as possible.

Very true two times last week there was a mobile camera (black box) on the A616/Stocksbridge bypass. The camera was hidden behind a cafe sign.

This was most definitely a money making exercise, as they are already specs cameras along this stretch of road.

Originally posted by kilauea
Actually there is a large body of evidence to suggest that *some* cameras are there just to catch you out and make money. And remember that the provision and servicing of a lot of the cameras is carried out by a private company who is no doubt doing there utmost to get as many sold as possible.

The fact has not been ignored by either opposition party as they have promised to review the positioning of all speed cameras and to remove any that are not obviously saving lives.

But drivers wouldn't get caught out if they were sticking to the speed limit in the first place. It really get's me angry when motorists claim they have been unfairly snapped by one of these hidden cameras and then claim to be the victim. If you feel it's unfair to pay this standard fine (or stealth tax) then obey the speed limits set on the nations roads. Hardly rocket science is it!!!!

I too get annoyed when I hear about people complaining that they have been caught by a speed camera. At the end of the day, you had to be speeding to be caught, so there is no reason to complain, everyone is aware of the speed limits, and they apply to everyone. I too have been caught speeding, so I am well aware just how easy it is to 'slip' over the speed limit but that is no excuse, the limits are there to protect you and other pedestrians, it doesnt matter how good a driver someone thinks they are, if you hit someone at 34 miles an hour (the speed I was caught at) you would couse considerably more damage, or even kill someone than if you were traveling 30. So really there is no excude.

Originally posted by nick2
Annoyed ?
If some one drove onto the curb and killed your kids ?

The reason the speed limit in towns is so low is to increase the chances of a person surviving being hit by the car.

If you can't drive by the rules perhaps you shouldn't be driving at all ?

Annoyed amongst other things of course.

Back where I come from, a woman died after a collision with a car in a 20mph zone (with speed humps). They can keep lowering the limit and bring back people walking in front of cars with warning flags, but accidents will happen no matter what.

I'm probably giving off the wrong impression about how I drive, I live in a residential street, a 30 zone, but I would never travel that fast as there are cars parked both sides, the road is narrow and the surface leaves a LOT to be desired.

Now take another 30 road, double yellows or a clearway zone, wide and a good surface. If I thought it was safe to do so, I might travel over the limit.

When was the last time a speed limit was ever raised in this country?

About 2 years ago - the road linking Orgreave to Catcliffe past the old opencast. Went from 30 to 40.

A bit longer ago - road linking Kimberworth to bottom of Shiregreen/Wincobank - went from 30 to 40.

Originally posted by Saxon
About 2 years ago - the road linking Orgreave to Catcliffe past the old opencast. Went from 30 to 40.

A bit longer ago - road linking Kimberworth to bottom of Shiregreen/Wincobank - went from 30 to 40.

I AM impressed :)

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
But drivers wouldn't get caught out if they were sticking to the speed limit in the first place. It really get's me angry when motorists claim they have been unfairly snapped by one of these hidden cameras and then claim to be the victim. If you feel it's unfair to pay this standard fine (or stealth tax) then obey the speed limits set on the nations roads. Hardly rocket science is it!!!!

Obviously not a driver. If you did, you would understand where the problems lies.

The majority of drivers are in favour of speed cameras. Fact.
The majority of drivers approve of 20mph zones where necessary. Fact.

What drivers object to is speed limits being set on roads and cameras then being put in place with the sole intention of fining the driver. Take, for instance, my comment about the A636 in Wakefield where the road lowers from 50mph to 30mph with a speed camera 25 yards after a single sign telling you the new limit is 30mph. This is a dual carriageway and it quite possible that if you were overtaking a lorry, even doing 35mph, you would not see this sign and therefore inadvertently obtain 3pts on your record and a £60 fine. That is what is wrong with the current system. That camera is nothing more than a money making machine. And I reckon it does very well from it. There is, incidenally, another camera less than 250 yards further down the road in the same direction. Is that just incase people didnt see the first sign?

I agree with the cameras on Stocksbridge by-pass, too many accidents on there although mainly caused out of frustration of having to follow lorries for 40 miles at 20mph over the Woodhead. I disagree with a mobile van on Halifax Road on a road that should not have a 30mph speed limit on it, when you see situations like the one I explained outside High Green School.

I, by the way, have a completely clean license and have had for the 15 years I have been driving.

on the A6003 in Rockingham (back where I live) there is a speed camera on the corner at the bottom of the hill entering the village. It is a good idea to have it there, as before it was put in, lorries were overturning regularly causing damage to property and potential death to pedestrians.

Now they've decided to make the camera work both ways - catching traffic leaving the 30 zone and hoping to build speed up for the hill (which is national speed limit). There is no obvious reason for this, other than to milk drivers of their money and points, because I can tell you even before the camera worked both ways, I wasn't able to go any faster than 35 on the hill anyway as it is so steep!

I was almost unable to make it up the hill in second gear when I realised the camera now worked both ways as I had to brake from 35/36, then build up my speed again from 29.

I have contacted the safety camera partnership more than once before and am happy to do so again if it stops pure stupidity like this.

What is it with Halifax Road?

From the top (Grenoside) it is single lane, 30MPH speed limit.

It then changes to 40MPH (just below Chaucer school - Dual Carriageway - housing set back on slip/access roads).

It then drops back to 30MPH at Somerfields (which is quite close to indutrial units/access).


The only problem with this (as I can see) is that the speed limit is 40MPH through the entire shopping area and Parson Cross JI school!


I drive (a lot) all over the country, and I have never had a speeding fine (though I will drive bang on the legal speed limit (if the conditions allow).


I am in favour of more speed cameras in whatever position, at any point.

Also, when you are unable to verify the speed limit on any given road (through the use of repeaters), then you should assume it is 30MPH!

Originally posted by MobileB
Obviously not a driver. If you did, you would understand where the problems lies.

The majority of drivers are in favour of speed cameras. Fact.
The majority of drivers approve of 20mph zones where necessary. Fact.

What drivers object to is speed limits being set on roads and cameras then being put in place with the sole intention of fining the driver.

I think you don't quite understand the point of speed cameras, they are not placed with the sole intention of annoying people, trying to catch people out. In fact the police proactively try to inform drivers where these cameras, and mobile cameras are, as they dont want to catch people the whole point of the camera is try and stop you speeding, not to catch you! Also claiming not to see a speed sign, i think is not a good defence as to why you were speeding, as a driver we should treat ALL roads as 30 mile speed limit unless otherwise notified by a sign.

By the way I am aware that Dick Dastardly is a driver and I do believe he also has a clean license .

Originally posted by Kewpies
I think you don't quite understand the point of speed cameras, they are not placed with the sole intention of annoying people, trying to catch people out. In fact the police proactively try to inform drivers where these cameras, and mobile cameras are, as they dont want to catch people the whole point of the camera is try and stop you speeding, not to catch you! Also claiming not to see a speed sign, i think is not a good defence as to why you were speeding, as a driver we should treat ALL roads as 30 mile speed limit unless otherwise notified by a sign.

By the way I am aware that Dick Dastardly is a driver and I do believe he also has a clean license .

I don't think you understand my point. I agree with speed cameras if placed in the correct position. Even members of the police will tell you that certain mobile units are there for nothing more than catching as many speeding motorists as they can. Why else put a mobile unit that blocks a bus stop on the junction of Netherthorpe Road and Penistone Road? That is not even remotely connected with accident prevention.

I also don't think you understood my point re the signage. There is signage, quite a lot of it, on the A636 into Wakefield telling you the speed limit is 50mph. Then there is one sign saying 30mph and 25 yards later a speed camera. Tell me how that is accident prevention?

Thing is- it's irrelevant where the speed cameras are if you're driving within the limit.

Originally posted by hatter
Thing is- it's irrelevant where the speed cameras are if you're driving within the limit.

Exactly!!!

Originally posted by MobileB
I don't think you understand my point. I agree with speed cameras if placed in the correct position. Even members of the police will tell you that certain mobile units are there for nothing more than catching as many speeding motorists as they can. Why else put a mobile unit that blocks a bus stop on the junction of Netherthorpe Road and Penistone Road? That is not even remotely connected with accident prevention.

I also don't think you understood my point re the signage. There is signage, quite a lot of it, on the A636 into Wakefield telling you the speed limit is 50mph. Then there is one sign saying 30mph and 25 yards later a speed camera. Tell me how that is accident prevention?

Well if you say that members of police have told you this, then thats fair enough, though I find it very hard to believe, as police I have personally spoken to have firmly stated that these cameras are not money making schemes, as, like i stated before, they would not inform you when and where these mobile cameras are located. Surely if the police tell you where the cameras are going to be, and then you choose to drive over the speed limit, how can you say they are money making schemes :loopy: These cameras are not 'hidden' but in bring yellow and red striped vans. At the end of the day we all as drivers should be aware of speed limits (whether they change mid road or not, i feel that is not an excuse) and if you choose to speed then just pay the money.

Surely you can see it is accident prevention, because it is trying to get people to slow down and not speed. If people didnt speed in the first place, there would be no camera, speed humps etc.

Originally posted by Kewpies
Surely if the police tell you where the cameras are going to be, and then you choose to drive over the speed limit, how can you say they are money making schemes :loopy: These cameras are not 'hidden' but in bring yellow and red striped vans.

Don't be so niaeve, of course they tell where they are going to be. But how many of us are actually going to find out before our journey, or even know where to find out the information from. The police rely on the fact that 95% of us won't, and give out the information of the location of speed cameras to make it appear they aren't money making schemes.

Also are you saying the mobile camera (black box) was not hidden behind a black cafe sign on the stocksbridge bypass last week, on a road full of specs. Of course it was, blink and you missed it.

Hardly, if you dont choose to find out where the cameras are, then thats your own fault, the information is there for you if you want it you just have to find out. What do you want to the police to do, post you a letter informing you were the cameras are. Then you'll be complaining about all the tax payers money wasted on this. The end of the day the police are in a no win situation, we all love to hate them, but all they are trying to do is save lives by inposing speed limits, we all (myself included) speed, we know the risks we just choose to think it wont happen to us. Plus the money from these cameras is going back into making the raods safer, therefore benefiting us all.

Originally posted by MobileB
I also don't think you understood my point re the signage. There is signage, quite a lot of it, on the A636 into Wakefield telling you the speed limit is 50mph. Then there is one sign saying 30mph and 25 yards later a speed camera. Tell me how that is accident prevention?

AFAIK, as the default limit is 30mph authorities are not permitted to put up repeater speed limit signs on normal roads. They are permitted one where the speed changes back to 30mph.

In an attempt to reduce accidents, the speed limit was INCREASED from 30 to 40 on the road where I work. The argument was, without repeater signs people were speeding anyway but by putting up 40mph signs they would be more likely to slow down to 40 or less. The jury's out on it's success or otherwise.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Don't be so niaeve, of course they tell where they are going to be. But how many of us are actually going to find out before our journey, or even know where to find out the information from. The police rely on the fact that 95% of us won't, and give out the information of the location of speed cameras to make it appear they aren't money making schemes.

Also are you saying the mobile camera (black box) was not hidden behind a black cafe sign on the stocksbridge bypass last week, on a road full of specs. Of course it was, blink and you missed it.

Again, wouldn't be relevant if you wasn't speeding in the first place. There are plenty of signs on the road informing you of the speed limit and they even provide signs informing you of speed cameras in that area so it's not as if you haven't been warned so even if you don't read the star or the south yorkshire police website there's still enough info at hand.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Again, wouldn't be relevant if you wasn't speeding in the first place.

It isn't relevant to me, as I don't speed unless I am on the motorway, even then you get someone up the back of you even if you are doing 70MPH.

I wasn't making a post based on the argument, that speed cameras in general are a bad idea.

I was making a point that the police often use cameras as a money making exercise rather than for safety.

Originally posted by Kewpies
Plus the money from these cameras is going back into making the raods safer, therefore benefiting us all.

Get real! Making the roads safer?

Where are the extra Police taking off the roads the drivers who are uninsured, have no tax or MOT or dangerous vehicles?

Why do Police officers who get caught speeding off duty get let off from paying fines and points on their licences?

What about pedestrians who like to wander along the middle of roads or play chicken at traffic lights, causing extra grief to motorists?

I am in favour of cameras providing other methods of traffic enforcement are in place, i.e. Police on the roads, etc.

Originally posted by KangaREW
Get real! Making the roads safer?

Where are the extra Police taking off the roads the drivers who are uninsured, have no tax or MOT or dangerous vehicles?

Why do Police officers who get caught speeding off duty get let off from paying fines and points on their licences?

What about pedestrians who like to wander along the middle of roads or play chicken at traffic lights, causing extra grief to motorists?

I am in favour of cameras providing other methods of traffic enforcement are in place, i.e. Police on the roads, etc.

That is a serious accusation you are making there so I'm guessing you have strong evidence to back up your claim that police officers are getting let off when they are caught speeding.

Also, just cos you aren't seeing an increased number of police officers on the road doesn't mean that something isn't being done to make the roads a safer place. There is a thing called education and that can be just as effective. I know for a fact that Humberside Police invite drivers caught speeding (within reason) to Speeding Awareness Courses and instead of fining and sticking 3 points on the licence they offer this as an alternative way of getting the message across. Of course, for a £50 fee!!

Originally posted by KangaREW
Where are the extra Police taking off the roads the drivers who are uninsured, have no tax or MOT or dangerous vehicles?

They are doing this. They were @ the bottom of Herries Road earlier this year (with the DVLA) checking safety of vehicles, tax etc

Originally posted by max
AFAIK, as the default limit is 30mph authorities are not permitted to put up repeater speed limit signs on normal roads. They are permitted one where the speed changes back to 30mph.



So the five 30mph signs on Burngreave Road before you hit the speed camera going up are illegal then?

Originally posted by dinp
on the A6003 in Rockingham (back where I live) there is a speed camera on the corner at the bottom of the hill entering the village. It is a good idea to have it there, as before it was put in, lorries were overturning regularly causing damage to property and potential death to pedestrians.

That sounds like Rockingham with the castle on top of the hill, very steep climb up through the village from what I remember, we used to go to car shows held in grounds at Rockingham Castle, was no speed cameras then, but will remember to becareful if im ever going there again in the future.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
I know for a fact that Humberside Police invite drivers caught speeding (within reason) to Speeding Awareness Courses and instead of fining and sticking 3 points on the licence they offer this as an alternative way of getting the message across. Of course, for a £50 fee!!

Thats a far more constructive method in educating drivers about speed and road safety and should be made mandatory, this way drivers can be physically shown the dangers of speed.

Personally I dont think speeding fines alone are that much of a deterrant, you get a fine and points, so what ? its just another bill to pay, but what has it actually taught you appart from the financial consequences; has it actually taught drivers about dangers on the road and road safety.

If speed cameras are doing such a fine job as people think, why is it that in Durham where they have no speed cameras, they have the best ratio of deaths to drivers on the road in the country? And also, where they have more police on the road and proportionally have a greater record for catching MOT dogers and non insured cars than anywhere else in the country?

Is that the county or the city of Durham?

Surely nobody in Durham can work anything more sophisticated than a pony and trap? :heyhey:

Seriously though... how can you draw a parallel between less speed cameras and less accidents? Speed cameras don't create accidents, and you only get caught if you speed. I don't see your logic.

Originally posted by Tony
Speed cameras don't create accidents.....

Unless they fall on you ;-)

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
That is a serious accusation you are making there so I'm guessing you have strong evidence to back up your claim that police officers are getting let off when they are caught speeding.


Strong evidence a few months ago with a high profile news story of Police officers getting off due to a 'technicality' with borders around road signs. I believe this was in the North Yorkshire/Humberside region, I stand corrected if these officer(s) were disciplined by their seniors at a later stage, but as Police Officers, they should know better.

Whilst we are on the subject of poor Police drivers, perhaps I should mention the number of times I have seen very poor, agressive and dangerous driving by Police vehicles, particularly the pursuit vehicles we normally see in the 'Traffic Cops' series and before Dick Dastardly gets on his high horse again, examples I can give are:

Tail-gating slow moving vehicles
Overtaking over double white lines and a blind bend
Poor signalling
Excessive speed through 30 mile zone with no Blues or sirens
Using an empty right hand filter lane to bypass queues of traffic to then barge over into left moving traffic, just to get back to the depot sooner in time for clocking out
Driving with faulty headlights
Using disabled parking spaces in car parks in preference to free spaces a few yards away

Would anyone like to add more?

Originally posted by Tony
Speed cameras don't create accidents,

No, but the siting of speed cameras can cause accidents. Have you never seen all the skid marks around camera sites. Also, there was a case in the news last week where a coroner concluded that the siting of a camera contributed to the death of a pedestrian.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/07/nroad07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/07/ixhome.html

And I quote ....
"His view was supported by the police accident investigator called to the scene. Pc Michael Jeffrey told the inquest: "They do tend to divert drivers' attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed."

Originally posted by mega_monty
Thats a far more constructive method in educating drivers about speed and road safety and should be made mandatory, this way drivers can be physically shown the dangers of speed.

Personally I dont think speeding fines alone are that much of a deterrant, you get a fine and points, so what ? its just another bill to pay, but what has it actually taught you appart from the financial consequences; has it actually taught drivers about dangers on the road and road safety.

Would disagree, getting fined is a deterant, it's made me think about the speed I'm doing, BUT, it's the way it has been done, i.e. sneaky cameras at the side of roads.

The question is, would Dick Dastardly pull me over if he saw me doing 39 in a 30 (the speed which the Stealth Tax camera caught me)? Possibly? And would he book me for this offence? Possibly, depends on the circumstances, if I was lucky, I would get away with a caution. The end result even with a caution would be (for me) more of a shock than a letter through the post.

Originally posted by Cols
No, but the siting of speed cameras can cause accidents. Have you never seen all the skid marks around camera sites. Also, there was a case in the news last week where a coroner concluded that the siting of a camera contributed to the death of a pedestrian.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/07/nroad07.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/07/ixhome.html

And I quote ....
"His view was supported by the police accident investigator called to the scene. Pc Michael Jeffrey told the inquest: "They do tend to divert drivers' attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed."

What about the Cheif Constable in Wales saying that any driver going over the limit, even by 1MPH should be fined. What are we supposed to do, drive with our eyes glued to the speedo? It wouldn't matter then who or what we hit, at least we are driving within the limit.

I can't believe that we're going over all this again. Surely the answer to not getting caught by a speed camera is not to speed? You only get caught if you're speeding. There's nothing sneaky about it!!!

Originally posted by Cols
And I quote ....
"His view was supported by the police accident investigator called to the scene. Pc Michael Jeffrey told the inquest: "They do tend to divert drivers' attention away from other areas and they concentrate solely on their speed."

It'd be an interesting experiment to fit some cars with those eye movement detectors so it can be determined just how much extra time a driver is distracted staring at the speedo.

Even though I am all for the cameras (when sensibly located) I do tend to check the speedo more often when I know there is a camera about because, with the best will in the world, when driving up and down the hills of Sheffield it is very difficult to accurately gauge speed of a vehicle without checking the instruments.

Originally posted by mega_monty
That sounds like Rockingham with the castle on top of the hill, very steep climb up through the village from what I remember, we used to go to car shows held in grounds at Rockingham Castle, was no speed cameras then, but will remember to becareful if im ever going there again in the future.

That's the place! If you have to travel up the hill, you better have a decent car or you might have to resort to the flintstone's method of assistance ;)

Originally posted by Tony
I can't believe that we're going over all this again. Surely the answer to not getting caught by a speed camera is not to speed? You only get caught if you're speeding. There's nothing sneaky about it!!!

Well said Tony. I completely agree.

I cant believe the idiosy of drivers who whinge about speed cameras and ask for tip offs as to their location. Dont you realise they are there for a reason? Yes they may be a cash cow for the government but if drivers didn't go over the speed limit they wouldn't get any cash from you would they? Its not rocket science boys and girls! Have more care for cyclists and pedestrians please.

the following post was done by me and not LesMcQueen whoever he is! what happened there mods?

I cant believe the idiosy of drivers who whinge about speed cameras and ask for tip offs as to their location. Dont you realise they are there for a reason? Yes they may be a cash cow for the government but if drivers didn't go over the speed limit they wouldn't get any cash from you would they? Its not rocket science boys and girls! Have more care for cyclists and pedestrians please.

Originally posted by Tony
I can't believe that we're going over all this again. Surely the answer to not getting caught by a speed camera is not to speed? You only get caught if you're speeding. There's nothing sneaky about it!!!

Motorists get peeved off so easily because they always seem to bare the brunt of stealth taxes and the budget. Speed cameras aren't as angelic as the government make out, despite more popping their ugly heads up year after year, accidents actually ROSE last year.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, speed CAN kill but too much emphasis is being put on speed alone. Dangerous driving, indecisive driving, drink driving etc are, I believe, greater problems than someone doing 34 in a 30 when conditions are suitable.

Law is law I know and I regularly flout it. It would be interesting to see what the stopping distances are for an average uk car today, then maybe the government would update its archaic claims based on the '61 Ford Anglia.

Originally posted by dinp
It would be interesting to see what the stopping distances are for an average uk car today, then maybe the government would update its archaic claims based on the '61 Ford Anglia.

If you look at the chart in the highway code you will see that Thinking Distance is a sizeable part of the stopping distance especially at 30 and 40 MPH. That will not have changed.

Originally posted by ptigga
If you look at the chart in the highway code you will see that Thinking Distance is a sizeable part of the stopping distance especially at 30 and 40 MPH. That will not have changed.

Maybe, maybe not, but I would put money on any MOT'd car built in the last 15 years being able to beat the overall stopping distance.

On Top Gear, each presenter bought a wreck for under £100 and all three cars easily beat the stopping distance, the cars were E, G and J reg I believe.

That is how out of date the distances are.

Originally posted by dinp
Maybe, maybe not, but I would put money on any MOT'd car built in the last 15 years being able to beat the overall stopping distance.

On Top Gear, each presenter bought a wreck for under £100 and all three cars easily beat the stopping distance, the cars were E, G and J reg I believe.

That is how out of date the distances are.

Well to be honest I'd rather have the margin of error afforded by sticking to the old stopping distances.

Originally posted by ptigga
Well to be honest I'd rather have the margin of error afforded by sticking to the old stopping distances.

You'd rather use false figures then....

Originally posted by dinp
On Top Gear, each presenter bought a wreck for under £100 and all three cars easily beat the stopping distance, the cars were E, G and J reg I believe.

That is how out of date the distances are.
Perhaps any Top Gear presenter can out-perform almost all of us in a driving skills test. Oh and they use a test track, not a busy street full of distractions, and they knew an emergency stop was on the cards.

Originally posted by Tony_BLiar
I cant believe the idiosy of drivers who whinge about speed cameras and ask for tip offs as to their location. Dont you realise they are there for a reason? Yes they may be a cash cow for the government but if drivers didn't go over the speed limit they wouldn't get any cash from you would they? Its not rocket science boys and girls! Have more care for cyclists and pedestrians please.

:clap: :thumbsup: :clap: :thumbsup: :clap:

Originally posted by Strix
Perhaps any Top Gear presenter can out-perform almost all of us in a driving skills test.

Not necessarily - Jeremy Clarkson has been beaten by several of his guests driving the reasonably priced car around the track.

In my opinion, the people who moan about speed cameras should be taking their driving test again. Don't you know that cars can kill people? Cameras are their to catch criminals, and if you don't want to be caught then keep within the legal limit! True, cameras do bring in money and I welcome that, as it is well earned money as the people they are getting money from are criminals. Maybe we should start another whinging thread about how bad the police are for catching burglars, as they get fined in court.

Originally posted by Patchy
In my opinion, the people who moan about speed cameras should be taking their driving test again. Don't you know that cars can kill people? Cameras are their to catch criminals, and if you don't want to be caught then keep within the legal limit! True, cameras do bring in money and I welcome that, as it is well earned money as the people they are getting money from are criminals. Maybe we should start another whinging thread about how bad the police are for catching burglars, as they get fined in court.

I suggest all cars from hereon be fitted with cruise control then as since the growth of speed cameras, people are focusing more on their speedos rather than on the road, which to me is more dangerous than going the odd mile over the limit.

Comparing a 32-in-a-30-zone driver with a burgular is ludicrous.

Originally posted by dinp
I suggest all cars from hereon be fitted with cruise control then as since the growth of speed cameras, people are focusing more on their speedos rather than on the road, which to me is more dangerous than going the odd mile over the limit.

Comparing a 32-in-a-30-zone driver with a burgular is ludicrous.

It isn't ridiculous at all... more people are killed by speeding drivers than by burglars. If you are unable to keep to 30 mph why not aim for 28mph or why not take your test again?

Originally posted by Patchy
It isn't ridiculous at all... more people are killed by speeding drivers than by burglars. If you are unable to keep to 30 mph why not aim for 28mph or why not take you test again?

I never mentioned ME being unable to keep to the limit, but if the speed camera in question is on a downhill stretch, obviously ANY driver will be constantly checking the speedo to make sure they don't stray over the limit, thus focusing their eyes on something other than the road which is potentially very dangerous.

I bet non-speeding drivers kill more people than burglars as well so its a bad comparative really.

Originally posted by dinp
I never mentioned ME being unable to keep to the limit, but if the speed camera in question is on a downhill stretch, obviously ANY driver will be constantly checking the speedo to make sure they don't stray over the limit, thus focusing their eyes on something other than the road which is potentially very dangerous.

I bet non-speeding drivers kill more people than burglars as well so its a bad comparative really.

So we should keep to the speed limit going uphill, but it doesn't matter if we speed and kill people when we are going downhill?

I have been driving for years, and I still manage to keep to the limit going down steep roads and I haven't managed to kill anyone yet! I really do think you should retake your test.

They say speed cameras are there to cut speeding rather than make money. They also say speed humps are there to keep speeds down.

So what if I told you I could guarantee nobody would ever travel over a given limit again without either of these devices? Infact, without any changes to the infrastructure of the highway at all.

The answer is to simply fit all vehicles with variable speed limiters. All you do is have a GPS device in your car (which many people allready do as a guide to navigation). This would tell your car's limiter exactly where you are and hence what the limit is for that particular road. Then it's the job of a simple valve to limit the amount of fuel getting through to the engine to regulate that speed. Coaches and HGVs are already fitted with fixed limiters set to their maximum legal speed. What I'm suggesting is a system which would lower car maximum speed from 70 on a motorway to 30 in a built up area.

Of course, there would be no cash from the cameras anymore. But they tell us they don't do it for that anyway. So let's see our government put their money where their mouth is for a change!

I would like to see the speed limits changed. We should increase the motorway limit to 80 mph, and decrease the limit on other roads to 20 mph, as people say they can't keep to the 30 mph limit as it means looking at their speedometer instead of keeping their eyes on the road.

Originally posted by dinp
Not necessarily - Jeremy Clarkson has been beaten by several of his guests driving the reasonably priced car around the track.
I did say almost all. But I don't fancy your chances against Jody Kidd either :wink:

Originally posted by Saxon
About 2 years ago - the road linking Orgreave to Catcliffe past the old opencast. Went from 30 to 40.



Does anyone know why this road was set to 30mph in the first place?

Originally posted by Patchy
So we should keep to the speed limit going uphill, but it doesn't matter if we speed and kill people when we are going downhill?

I have been driving for years, and I still manage to keep to the limit going down steep roads and I haven't managed to kill anyone yet! I really do think you should retake your test.

This is quite possibly my longest post on this forum and also the last time I will argue this point with you, as we just aren't agreeing on it.

Even if every single driver, be it on a downhill, uphill, or flat approaches a speed camera - irrespective of the speed they are doing (10 or 100mph), most will keep a check on the speedo as they pass the camera (providing they have seen it) as, obviously, they don't wanna incur 3 points and a fine. One slip of the brake pedal or accelerator could leave the driver £60 and 3 points worse off.

I deplore 20mph zones as you cannot cruise smoothly at that speed (well its difficult to cruise ANYWHERE in Sheffield anyway, due to traffic lights, road humps and crap road surfaces),

However...... in many 30 zones, 30 is just not a safe speed to be doing so drivers drive UNDER the limit anyway - my street is a prime example of that. I wouldn't dream of driving at 30 as the roads are narrow, poorly surfaced and cars are parked both sides.

This is where my argument lies - common sense VS the law as it is.

I was driving on the M1 on Thursday evening and got caught in the worst rain storm I have ever witnessed. I was doing 15mph in the middle lane at points, unable to see much futher than a car length. Everyone else reacted the same as me when the heavens opened; they slowed down for the conditions. This is on a road of 70, but obviously 70 wasn't at the forefront of anybody's mind at that precise moment.

Then there's the flipside of the coin. Say the motorway was almost empty and it was a clear, dry day. I would be inclined to put my foot down and do 80 or more (if the car is capable of course!) as the conditions are safe. Just because my speed increases by 10mph doesn't mean the risk of flying cows, snaking lorries and other obscene obstacles increases.

Likewise on the adverts on the TV. Just because someone is doing 35 in a 30 zone doesn't necessarily increase the chance of a child running out. The child could run out at any random speed. The claim "You are twice as likely to kill a child at 40 as at 30" is only true if you add "If you hit them" to the end of the statement. Government propaganda like this ticks me off. They can dress cameras up in pretty colours and broadcast their locations in the sky - people will still hate them if they are in the wrong places.

There are many many dangerous drivers who obey the limits and speed cameras simply aren't tackling this issue. We need to invest more in traffic police, not police cash boxes.

I am a consciencious, safe, observant driver would would feel completely shattered if I hit somebody, no matter what the circumstances. But pedestrians have a duty to be observant as well, it gets on my wick how the emphasis for an accident is almost always on the driver. Drivers are often made out to be ogres by those who do not drive themselves - don't knock it until you've tried it is my advice to those people.

I would dearly love to drive a pollution free vehicle with 12,000 ncap stars for pedestrian safety, but i'm not that wealthy.

So NO, I will NOT take my test again as I, and others who have travelled with me will know that I am a good driver

(Just think, if anyone runs out in front of you in an open road with 2 feet to spare and you are doing 30, just think - if you were doing 35, you wouldn't have hit them, you'd be further down the road :D )

And I say again. Most drivers are in favour of speed cameras. They object to speed cameras when they are placed in areas with the purpose of raising money, by introducing a combination of factors to deliberately deceive the drivers to raise funds, the A636 into Wakefield and the mobile unit on Halifax Road being a prime examples.

To the guy who asked whats it about Halifax Road, can you tell me which is the odd one out:

Halifax Road from the junction of Deerlands Avenue to the traffic lights at Wheel Lane/Salt Box Lane passing no schools.

Yew Lane from the junction at YEWLANDS SCHOOL (Creswick Lane) to the entry to Ecclesfield village

Chapeltown Road/Ecclesfield Road from the junction at Church Street to the entry into Chapeltown (including passing ECCLESFIELD SCHOOL)

Originally posted by MobileB
And I say again. Most drivers are in favour of speed cameras. They object to speed cameras when they are placed in areas with the purpose of raising money, by introducing a combination of factors to deliberately deceive the drivers to raise funds, the A636 into Wakefield and the mobile unit on Halifax Road being a prime examples.

To the guy who asked whats it about Halifax Road, can you tell me which is the odd one out:

Halifax Road from the junction of Deerlands Avenue to the traffic lights at Wheel Lane/Salt Box Lane passing no schools.

Yew Lane from the junction at YEWLANDS SCHOOL (Creswick Lane) to the entry to Ecclesfield village

Chapeltown Road/Ecclesfield Road from the junction at Church Street to the entry into Chapeltown (including passing ECCLESFIELD SCHOOL)

I do not like speed cameras. I would prefer them to speed humps in residential areas, but that is not to say I am in favour of them. I agree they are needed in accident blackspot areas as a last salvage effort to get people to slow down (why the several billion SLOW DOWN signs don't work is beyond me!!), but that isn't always where they are put.

I've kept out of this debate up to now, basically because all that has been said up to now on this thread was aired some time ago

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1527&perpage=15&highlight=speed&pagenumber=1

So NO, I will NOT take my test again as I, and others who have travelled with me will know that I am a good driver

Unfortunately, the majority of drivers think this is the case (and despite using the quote, I am NOT having a go at an individual member here!). Whilst I agree that it is not always necessary to drive how the DSA ask you to drive on the driving test to be safe, the general standard of driving in this country is quite frankly appalling and its generally down to the attitude of the driver.

I challenge anyone on the forum to undertake an asessment drive to see just how far their standards may have fallen since taking their driving test.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, speed CAN kill but too much emphasis is being put on speed alone. Dangerous driving, indecisive driving, drink driving etc are, I believe, greater problems

I agree with this statement. Speed in itself does not kill but INAPPROPRIATE speed does. That is why speed cameras are in place. Love them or loathe them, they are a fact of life and as so many people have said, if you don't speed, you don't get flashed and you don't get points and a fine!

Speed limits are set by local councils so if you don't agree with a particular speed, make a coherent argument and put it to the highways dept of the council and see what they come back with.

AFAIK, as the default limit is 30mph authorities are not permitted to put up repeater speed limit signs on normal roads. They are permitted one where the speed changes back to 30mph.

The first part of this quote is incorrect - its not a case that the authorities are not permitted to put signs up, its just that they don't have to! Have a look at http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 which tells you that if you have street lights, the speed limit is 30 mph unless there has been a major road sign increasing the limit and then regular repeaters. As an example of a 30 mph road with repeaters, take the road out of Hathersage towards Fox House - there are some on there.

Its not difficult to judge your speed without looking down at the speedo (within reason) - just turn the radio down a bit and listen to your engine!

Originally posted by Patchy
I would like to see the speed limits changed.

I agree.

I got caught TWICE by the river police with a radar gun on the Norfolk Broads for exceeding the speed limit of 5mph.

I had to laugh, the young policeman said that if I hadn't been travelling against the tide I would have been doing 7MPH. ;)

I totally agree with the 30mph speed limit for large vehicles and **** french cars with rubbish brakes but if you drive a £70,000 porsche 911 that has the capability to stop in a fraction of the time, then 38mph is perfectly acceptable. The car you drive should be taken into consideration because it is a more exact science than peoples reflexes.

In my opinion, a woman driving a citroen saxo is a lethal weapon at any speed!

Originally posted by Rossmeister
I totally agree with the 30mph speed limit for large vehicles and **** french cars with rubbish brakes but if you drive a £70,000 porsche 911 that has the capability to stop in a fraction of the time, then 38mph is perfectly acceptable. The car you drive should be taken into consideration because it is a more exact science than peoples reflexes.

In my opinion, a woman driving a citroen saxo is a lethal weapon at any speed!
Now if that isn't an argument for people to retake their tests on a regular basis then I don't know. I never fail to be suprised at just how stupid people are. :loopy:

Originally posted by Rossmeister
The car you drive should be taken into consideration because it is a more exact science than peoples reflexes.

Wouldn't matter, as the weakest link in the chain is what is important (peoples reactions).

Originally posted by wibbles
Now if that isn't an argument for people to retake their tests on a regular basis then I don't know. I never fail to be suprised at just how stupid people are. :loopy:

I fail to see the relevance of the first sentence and the second is an uneducated guess at my Intellect. Either way, your post is totally insignificant.

Originally posted by Rossmeister
I fail to see the relevance of the first sentence and the second is an uneducated guess at my Intellect. Either way, your post is totally insignificant.

Your post is even more insignificant.

Originally posted by ptigga
Your post is even more insignificant.

I raised a vaild point and a potential solution to the problem. What have you and Wibbles achieved?

It would be interesting to compare stopping distances of the following cars....

(purely as an example here)

2001 Daewoo Matiz
1999 Citroen Saxo 1.1 Forte
2000 Ford Focus 1.6 Zetec
1999 Vauxhall Vectra 2.0 LS
2002 BMW 318i
2002 Mercedes E320
1997 Land Rover Discovery
2004 Porsche 911 Carrera

against

1961 Ford Anglia

(using a variety of people who get to test each car)

:D

Originally posted by ptigga
Your post is even more insignificant.

Do you drive?

Well we obviously failed in trying to tell you how ridiculous your idea was. The fact you think it was valid only confirms my original point.
Lets all have different speed limits based on what cars you drive...Great Idea :thumbsup: :loopy:
Its the "my cars better than yours so I must be a better driver" mentality that makes it soooo wrong.

Perhaps one must pass a basic competency test based on the car they are about to buy then lol ;)

Originally posted by wibbles
Well we obviously failed in trying to tell you how ridiculous your idea was. The fact you think it was valid only confirms my original point.
Lets all have different speed limits based on what cars you drive...Great Idea :thumbsup: :loopy:
Its the "my cars better than yours so I must be a better driver" mentality that makes it soooo wrong.

No, its a 'My car stops quicker than yours mentality'. You totally missed the point. Let me guess, you drive a citroen saxo?

Originally posted by Rossmeister
No, its a 'My car stops quicker than yours mentality'. You totally missed the point. Let me guess, you drive a citroen saxo?
Ok then..say your car stops quicker than some others...now what?? Do you think you have right to drive faster than the speed limit???. I can't see what valid reasonable point your making apart from some cars stop quicker than others. It has sod all to do with speed cameras and speed limits.

The current speed limits were devised in the 1960's and are totally irrelevant today as cars in general perform much better at speed and stop much faster. However, my point is aimed more at the 70mph motorway speed limit rather than in built up areas.

The better the car you buy, the better it performs at speed. And yes, if you buy an expensive sports car then you should have the right to drive it quicker on a motorway than someone in a Citroen - that is common sense surely?

Originally posted by Rossmeister
The current speed limits were devised in the 1960's and are totally irrelevant today as cars in general perform much better at speed and stop much faster. However, my point is aimed more at the 70mph motorway speed limit rather than in built up areas.

The better the car you buy, the better it performs at speed. And yes, if you buy an expensive sports car then you should have the right to drive it quicker on a motorway than someone in a Citroen - that is common sense surely?
But you already have the right. If you really really want to drive so fast then just overtake. The funny thing is unless there is a specific "look at me in my fast car" lane then you'll still get held up by the Citroen Saxo drivers anyway because not everyone drives high performance cars. What is so important that you have to drive faster than everyone else. Is 70mph really not fast enough for you???

Originally posted by Rossmeister


The better the car you buy, the better it performs at speed. And yes, if you buy an expensive sports car then you should have the right to drive it quicker on a motorway than someone in a Citroen - that is common sense surely?

No that's not common sense; it's stupidity. Paying more money for your car does not allow you more privileges. I bet you're one of the misguided idiots who believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they "don't pay road tax".

A better car does not make you a better driver.

Out of interest; what car do you drive and how many speeding tickets have you had?

Originally posted by ptigga
No that's not common sense; it's stupidity. Paying more money for your car does not allow you more privileges. I bet you're one of the misguided idiots who believe that cyclists shouldn't be on the road because they "don't pay road tax".

A better car does not make you a better driver.

Out of interest; what car do you drive and how many speeding tickets have you had?

You must drive a really poor car and because you can't afford a nice car then everybody else must suffer. I am a cyclist as well as a motorist. Paying more for a house gives you the right to live in a better neighbourhood so why does this not apply to cars? I'm trying to use an analogy that you might understand but judging from you last posts all I can expect is 'Your an idiot' or when you decide to mix it up a bit I might expect 'your stupid'. I love intellectual conversations.....

Originally posted by Rossmeister
I'm trying to use an analogy that you might understand but judging from you last posts all I can expect is 'Your an idiot' or when you decide to mix it up a bit I might expect 'your stupid'. I love intellectual conversations.....

Dearie me! What did they teach you at school? If you want to call someone an idiot like that then you have to use an apostrophe. Like this:

You're an idiot. You're stupid.

HTH,

And by the way, I do have a licence, but I don't need a car in Sheffield for day to day things. I do hire them occasionally though.

Originally posted by ptigga
Dearie me! What did they teach you at school? If you want to call someone an idiot like that then you have to use an apostrophe. Like this:

You're an idiot. You're stupid.

HTH,

And by the way, I do have a licence, but I don't need a car in Sheffield for day to day things. I do hire them occasionally though.

I apologise for my bad use of English but if it wasnt for that, you'd have nothing to say.

Oh. When you buy a car, come back and discuss what will be relevant to you then.

Sorry if any of these points have already been said as I havent finished reading the thread but thought I'd Make a couple of points.

the laws and speed limits are outdated and need re-assesing.
So you upgrade the 30mph to 40mph and you will get "I was only doing 48 in the 40 zone)


On the A636 I think it is going into Wakefield, the road changes from 50 mph to 30 mph speed limit. The 30 mph sign is 15 yards before a set of traffic light. 10 yards after the lights is a speed camera. I defy anyone who does not know that road who may be overtaking a lorry with the traffic lights on green to see the road sign and no know that the camera is a 30mph one. One sign then 25 yards later a speed camera.
But doesn't the highway code state no overtaking at traffic lights..

Originally posted by Strix
[B]Well said! What has me completely flabbergasted is that the most dangerous roads in britain are out of bounds to learners, but new drivers with no training or previous experience of having vehicles in all three mirrors at once are permitted to grit their teeth, press their nose against the windscreen and shut their eyes in fear, as they trundle down a motorway.

Motorways are statistically the safest roads in the country. There are much less accidents per vehicle than the standard roads. Admittedly, when an accident does happen its usually more serious.

Originally posted by Rossmeister
The better the car you buy, the better it performs at speed. And yes, if you buy an expensive sports car then you should have the right to drive it quicker on a motorway than someone in a Citroen - that is common sense surely?

Oh dear :loopy: You sound like one of the morons that tailgates in the fastlane just because you think there is an inadequate car in front of you that doesn't deserve to be in the fast lane. Just because a more new car may have better braking than a old car doesn't necessarily mean it is driven by a better driver.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Oh dear :loopy: You sound like one of the morons that tailgates in the fastlane just because you think there is an inadequate car in front of you that doesn't deserve to be in the fast lane. Just because a more new car may have better braking than a old car doesn't necessarily mean it is driven by a better driver.

I drove down to Kettering on Friday. The amount of tailbacks that were caused because of people hogging the centre and right lane was unbelieveable.

One of the biggest problems with driving is once people pass their test they are then allowed on any road, and never shown how to drive on Motorways properly.

After my test I deliberately took three lessons in motorway driving. My lessons to pass my test were just that. These lessons were in how to drive and I think everyone should be made to do this before being allowed anywhere near a motorway.

The latest campaign is right, much congestion could be stopped if people moved left. The signs are bright and clear, people just ignore them!

Originally posted by MobileB
I drove down to Kettering on Friday. The amount of tailbacks that were caused because of people hogging the centre and right lane was unbelieveable.

One of the biggest problems with driving is once people pass their test they are then allowed on any road, and never shown how to drive on Motorways properly.

After my test I deliberately took three lessons in motorway driving. My lessons to pass my test were just that. These lessons were in how to drive and I think everyone should be made to do this before being allowed anywhere near a motorway.

The latest campaign is right, much congestion could be stopped if people moved left. The signs are bright and clear, people just ignore them!

Tailbacks aren't caused by people hogging the centre lane as such. As annoying and stupid as that is, the idiots that tailgate the hoggers then have to dab their brakes every ten seconds contribute just as much because then everyone else has to dab on causing the ripple effect. I know its a pain but just ease off, relax and drive at a good distance away, maintaining a reasonable speed.
I can't remember where I saw or heard it but I'm sure there is a theory that if everyone actually only drove at 50mph but maintained a good distance between cars then journey times and tailbacks would seriously be reduced..but I stand corrected if I have heard wrong.

Originally posted by MobileB
I drove down to Kettering on Friday. The amount of tailbacks that were caused because of people hogging the centre and right lane was unbelieveable.

I wasn't talking about people hogging the lanes, I was talking about cars who are actually 'overtaking' in the fast lane, but because Rossmeister thinks it is an inadequate car and doesn't deserve to be there I get the impression he will tailgate them.

What bothers me big time is that I'm dragged to the magistrate's court for being caught by a speed camera because I can't be given points on my Austrian driving license, yet I'm allowed to drive here.

Does anybody have an idea what kind of punishment I'll be facing if I just plead guilty? West Yorkshire Magistrate's Court.

Did 38 in a 30...

Thanks,

-Armin

Originally posted by armin
What bothers me big time is that I'm dragged to the magistrate's court for being caught by a speed camera because I can't be given points on my Austrian driving license, yet I'm allowed to drive here.

Does anybody have an idea what kind of punishment I'll be facing if I just plead guilty? West Yorkshire Magistrate's Court.

Did 38 in a 30...

Thanks,

-Armin

You'll be dragged down the high street in stocks so the locals can throw rotten fruit at you.

possibly a £60 fine?

Originally posted by wibbles

I can't remember where I saw or heard it but I'm sure there is a theory that if everyone actually only drove at 50mph but maintained a good distance between cars then journey times and tailbacks would seriously be reduced..but I stand corrected if I have heard wrong.

That's right. There have been some mathematical modelling studies done using models of different types of driver behaviour, and the highest throughput for a particular road net is usually obtained by hitting a 'sweet speed' for that road and good distance between cars.

Sometimes you get weird tailbacks where there appears to be no reason for them - these are a type of compression wave running through the traffic queue, where cars slow down because they're getting close to the guy in front. The ripple effect of braking then flows back until there's no one close enough to see the brake lights in front go on.

I remember about 10 years ago writing a simple model of this process for the heck of it and was gob-smacked when it worked 'according to theory'!

joe

Originally posted by wibbles
You'll be dragged down the high street in stocks so the locals can throw rotten fruit at you.
Oh, aren't you the helpful one. :rolleyes:

A lot of the so-called small tailbacks and queues on motorways aren't really tailbacks/queues as, 9 times out of 10, the slow car in the middle or outside lane is usually doing 70 anyway, so anyone going faster is a naughty naughty driver ;)

It ticks me off when lorries use the outside lane though, especially on dual carriageways, where they DO cause severe tailbacks.

Originally posted by dinp
A lot of the so-called small tailbacks and queues on motorways aren't really tailbacks/queues as, 9 times out of 10, the slow car in the middle or outside lane is usually doing 70 anyway, so anyone going faster is a naughty naughty driver ;)

It ticks me off when lorries use the outside lane though, especially on dual carriageways, where they DO cause severe tailbacks.

Or when you are on a country road and you get an occasional 2 laner stretch so the dumbass lorry driver decides his 41mph is fast enough to overtake the other lorry driver doing 40mph whilst both going uphill so everyone gets stuck behind the overtaking lorry...sorry I go way off topic now!!!

You could be sentenced to having to work down south, with no contact to the forum hotties you so badly chase lol. Being serious, expect a fine between £100 and £150 maybe throw yourself at their mercy and play the dumb foreigner bit, ya never know it might work.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by armin
[B]What bothers me big time is that I'm dragged to the magistrate's court for being caught by a speed camera because I can't be given points on my Austrian driving license, yet I'm allowed to drive here.

Does anybody have an idea what kind of punishment I'll be facing if I just plead guilty? West Yorkshire Magistrate's Court.

Did 38 in a 30...

Originally posted by JoePritchard
That's right. There have been some mathematical modelling studies done using models of different types of driver behaviour, and the highest throughput for a particular road net is usually obtained by hitting a 'sweet speed' for that road and good distance between cars.

Sometimes you get weird tailbacks where there appears to be no reason for them - these are a type of compression wave running through the traffic queue, where cars slow down because they're getting close to the guy in front. The ripple effect of braking then flows back until there's no one close enough to see the brake lights in front go on.

I remember about 10 years ago writing a simple model of this process for the heck of it and was gob-smacked when it worked 'according to theory'!

joe

Yeah I've done some work in to this as well.

wibbles> as soon as you leave a distance between yourself and the car in front, someone nips in front of you. There is no such thing as a stopping distance :huh:

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Oh dear :loopy: You sound like one of the morons that tailgates in the fastlane just because you think there is an inadequate car in front of you that doesn't deserve to be in the fast lane. Just because a more new car may have better braking than a old car doesn't necessarily mean it is driven by a better driver.

Considering you've quoted me, I don't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that I think people in Citroens shouldnt be in the outside lane. As its school holidays, I'll make an assumption that you're a child and let you off. However, Citroens should be allowed to travel at 70mph in which ever lane they choose but if the motorway is clear, certain cars should be able to travel faster - and I'm not talking about 150mph, more like 100mph tops - again - for sports cars only.

Originally posted by Rossmeister
Considering you've quoted me, I don't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that I think people in Citroens shouldnt be in the outside lane. As its school holidays, I'll make an assumption that you're a child and let you off. However, Citroens should be allowed to travel at 70mph in which ever lane they choose but if the motorway is clear, certain cars should be able to travel faster - and I'm not talking about 150mph, more like 100mph tops - again - for sports cars only.

Rossmeister. You're an idiot.

Originally posted by Rossmeister
Considering you've quoted me, I don't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that I think people in Citroens shouldnt be in the outside lane. I came to that conclusion from the impression your post conveyed. Hence me posting 'It sounds......'

Originally posted by Rossmeister
As its school holidays, I'll make an assumption that you're a child and let you off.

I don't see why you feel the need to patronise me. Would you care to explain this?


Originally posted by Rossmeister
However, Citroens should be allowed to travel at 70mph in which ever lane they choose but if the motorway is clear, certain cars should be able to travel faster - and I'm not talking about 150mph, more like 100mph tops - again - for sports cars only.


Okay so let me get this right!

I am travelling in a slowish car (80mph top speed), the motorway is fairly empty. I am doing 70mph, but I am rapidly appproaching a lorry in the middle lane. I look in my rearview/wing mirror, its all clear. Signal then move out into the fast lane. Now because I am only doing 70mph and you were doing 100mph, you appear from nowhere and start to tailgate me. Now in your opinion I shouldn't have had the right to be in the fastlane, because my car is 'inferior'.

Is this what you were trying to say, as I read it that way?

Originally posted by ptigga
Rossmeister. You're an idiot.

Isnt that sweet. Run along little girl.

Originally posted by Rossmeister
Isnt that sweet. Run along little girl.

You do enjoy patronising people, people usually do this because they have an inferiority problem (this statement in no way suggests Rossmeister has one, but merely makes a fact)

Originally posted by Rossmeister
Isnt that sweet. Run along little girl.

I rest my case.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I came to that conclusion from the impression your post conveyed. Hence me posting 'It sounds......'

I don't see why you feel the need to patronise me. Would you care to explain this?

Okay so let me get this right!

I am travelling in a slowish car (80mph top speed), the motorway is fairly empty. I am doing 70mph, but I am rapidly appproaching a lorry in the middle lane. I look in my rearview/wing mirror, its all clear. Signal then move out into the fast lane. Now because I am only doing 70mph and you were doing 100mph, you appear from nowhere and start to tailgate me. Now in your opinion I shouldn't have had the right to be in the fastlane, because my car is 'inferior'.

Is this what you were trying to say, as I read it that way?

I apologise for patronising you but you called me a moron, therefore I felt justified in my action. Why do you people (Wiggles, P...t..gg whatever and yourself) not get the concept? And if the motorway is quiet, why is the lorry in the middle lane? Anyway, you can travel at 70mph in any lane. I said nothing about the right be in that lane and if your car is so underpowered then yes, it is inferior. Do you have a problem with the fact that your car is inferior to a Porsche? It seems to me that this is more an argument about womens rights than motorway rights.

At the minute I drive a fiesta 1.1

Today I test drove a Focus 1.6. It is far superior to the fiesta in terms of braking and handling, as well as safety. If I had to do an emergency stop, I know which vehicle of the two i'd prefer to be driving!

I know the speeding thread has been closed but following the ongoing discussion about Halifax Road I saw the funniest thing this morning!

Came out of High Green onto the A61 and proceeded to follow this little old couple in an R reg Fiesta at 35 - 40 mph all the way towards Grenoside (its national speed limit road).

Needless to say, by the time we reached Grenoside there was a line of traffic some 10-15 very frustrated car drivers behind us.

The speed limit reduces to 30 mph but for whatever reason, our little old couple decided to maintain the speed that they had been doing for the previous 5 miles..... straight through the speed camera at somewhere between 35 and 40 mph.

Needless to say it flashed. Twice. Gotcha.

There is a God!

i shouldn't be pleased, but i am!

hahaha, why was the other thread closed btw? Wouldn't normally care, but mine was the last post!

Over modding as per usual, someday they're gonna kill this forum.

And yes I wanted to reply to that thread, grrrrr

Originally posted by MobileB
There is a God!

Until reading this post, I would have had to disagree.</convert> ;-)

Originally posted by dinp
hahaha, why was the other thread closed btw? Wouldn't normally care, but mine was the last post! Mod: It was closed for a couple of days because people had started name calling, etc. Now that everyone seems to have calmed down it's been reopened and this thread merged into it.