Just a heads up to anybody about to go out of Woodseats and up Meadowhead in the Chesterfield Road. There's a Safety Camera box and van set up in the Graves Park entrance at the hill brow.

Obviously, one would never wish to impeded their revenue flow by alerting people to their position, but it's a cold day so anyone travlling by with a Thermos might wish to stop and give the poor Talivan men a nice cup of tea...

Any idea what time they were setup there from today? .. and also what the limit is on that stretch (assuming 30, but could be 40?)

(anxiously waits for a reply..) :|

Cheers.

I wandered by at about 11.35 and spied them. It's obviously a total accident blackspot and, ooh, thousands of people have been mown down there in just the last few days. Especially just over the hill brow, tucked away into that gateway. Unfortunately it's a 30 zone...

LOL - cheers for the info.

Sure I'll be fine as was 8.45am when I zoomed* past anyway (*28mph or thereabouts probably)

Ta.

You'd be lucky to manage 30 on Woodseats, knowing how gridlocked it always is!

Originally posted by Andy C
You'd be lucky to manage 30 on Woodseats, knowing how gridlocked it always is!
Aha, no Andy,
it's way after all that congested bit at woodseats main drag,
it's on the clear bit up meadowhead, higher than the supermarket on the right. That bit has always been a speed trap, there is a tree up there with a white ring painted on it, after the top park entrance, I think this is something to do with a distance measurement they use to check their readings.

I was up there a couple of years ago and warned by a van coming the opposite way that something was amiss. Slowed down and saw the set-up. Whoever you were... huge thanks!! :thumbsup:

I guess the police are a bit low in the revenue department after chasing the apple core in Graves park... (as per previous thread) :hihi:

Actually, it's possible that the apple core was about to come out of hiding in the park. At great speed, obviously.

On the positive side it's good to know the Safety Camera partnership take safety on this part of the Chessie road so seriously (they practically camp up there some weeks). No doubt they'll soon be giving similar attention to the rest of the area, such as down towads Morrisons where dogskids can run off the park, or a bit further up where the schoolkids cross the road. Oh, and the other side of the roundabout where the little daredivils do the same. But oh no, they hide away in the park gate and then move off to the verge down by the hotel south of the roundabout and south of the crossing, where no pedestrians are to be seen but strangely people are accellerating a bit because it's the edge of open countryside.

It's the semantic abuse that really bugs me. Safety cameras, perish the thought, should be about promoting safety. But I see precious little evidence that this is the case in SCP practice. If any representatives of this august body are users of this forum please feel free to explain its siting policy to the rest of us.

Originally posted by joyphil
But oh no, they hide away in the park gate and then move off to the verge down by the hotel south of the roundabout and south of the crossing, where no pedestrians are to be seen but strangely people are accellerating a bit because it's the edge of open countryside.


If there are no pedestrians about do you bother stopping at red lights or taking notice of any of the other rules ?

Originally posted by nick2
If there are no pedestrians about do you bother stopping at red lights or taking notice of any of the other rules ?

So you'd rather the police hid behind hedges and fences in more desolated areas to make money out of drivers. Than be clear and visible in the more built up and proven accident areas, making the roads a safer place?

Originally posted by Briano
So you'd rather the police hid behind hedges and fences in more desolated areas to make money out of drivers. Than be clear and visible in the more built up and proven accident areas, making the roads a safer place?

They arn't doing it to make money, they are doing it to catch people speeding, and then fining them, they arn't tricking you into speeding, you're doing that yourself.

SCPs advertise themselves by their very titles as safety enhancement bodies. Let them go out and make the world a better place. Whether or not drivers speed the dishonesty of these agencies sucks. The rational British public, myself included, loathes increasingly societal governance by dissembling. While we all know that it is general and rife we still have the right to expect better of the powers that be. While stopping at red lights, obviously,

So if someone lies to you Nick, do you think it's just fine and dandy?

I would imagine that they are in the park entrance as that is one of the few places on that section of road where they can park safely without inpeding the traffic flow and not be driving up onto the grass verge. It's no great secret though as the speed traps have been on that section of road [both ways] for a long long time.
The section of Dual carriageway past the roundabout does not have a lot of pedestrians on it apart from at school kicking out time I've noticed, then loads of kids attempting to get onto LowEdges run over the road obviously to idle to walk a few extra yards to the subway or pelican. Though the pelican isn't always the safest of places I've had a couple of narrow squeaks there with car drivers who just don't seem to see the lights changing.

Originally posted by joyphil
SCPs advertise themselves by their very titles as safety enhancement bodies. Let them go out and make the world a better place. Whether or not drivers speed the dishonesty of these agencies sucks. The rational British public, myself included, loathes increasingly societal governance by dissembling. While we all know that it is general and rife we still have the right to expect better of the powers that be. While stopping at red lights, obviously,

So if someone lies to you Nick, do you think it's just fine and dandy?

How are they lying ? I don't get it, they are catching people going over the speed limit thats all.

If they were in plain view everyone would just slow down until they were out of sight, then speed-up again so it wouldn't work as a deterent, if you don't know where they are you might think "I'll stay within the speed limit because there might be a speed cemera hidden somewhere".

I'd imagine you're right about the parking. SCPs have had enough bad press about parking illegally/dangerously in the past.

Talking about narrow squeaks, have had numerous bad uns on Abbeydale/London Road, which seems to have become some kind of urban raceway in recent years. Probably a better place for our safety-enhancing friends to pass a quiet morning, I'd say.

Originally posted by nick2
How are they lying ? I don't get it, they are catching people going over the speed limit thats all.


Then perhaps they should emblazon their van with "speed limit enforcement partnership", or "we nick fast drivers"

Which would be telling the truth.

Originally posted by joyphil
Then perhaps they should emblazon their van with "speed limit enforcement partnership", or "we nick fast drivers"

Which would be telling the truth.

So if they did that you would be happy ?

To be honest, yes. I am not railing against speed enforcement but speciousness, in this case deployed in the area of speed enforcement.

Your call.

But you would be happy with the hiding behind bushes as long as they didin't "pretend" to be doing it for safety reasons but just admitted they were doing it to catch people braking the law.

Yup. And if the authorities dropped the ludicrous "speed kills" mantra that has spawned all this gloss. Speed doesn't kill (unless you take too much at once and give yerself a heart-attack, that is). Driving at an inappropriate speed for the vehicle you are in and the prevailing conditions is what results in road fatalities and casualties. Which implies that perhaps the slogan "ignorance kills" could be a little more apt. And that maybe educating drivers beyond a simplistic set of tests at the very beginning of what is often a potentially 65 year-plus driving career might prove rather more effective than sitting in a mis-marked van nicking motorists where a wide road starts to run downhill.

Yes! Because then we would have proof that the police are not using their time and money effectively, but are tying it up catching the 'lesser' 'criminals'.

I completely agree that the drivers that are speeding and are caught have themselves to blame. Very few people drive under the limit all the time, and of these an even smaller number actually drive dangerously enough to cause an accident!
It would be far better, cheaper and I believe more effective to stick huge signs hanging over the road flashing up whenever a car goes past above the speed limit.

nick2, since you are taking this stance that the police are acting in a correct manner. Do you also feel that the story recently of £10,000 being spent to convict a woman driver of eating an apple at the wheel of her car was spent effectively?
Do you honestly feel that every time someone is caught with a kitkat/apple in their hands whilst driving that a police plane and helicopter should be launched to prove this?

Does any one know what the fine is for 40 in a 30 zone, sneaky pigs caught some one I know who was trying to keep momentum as she travelled up chesterfield road.

Any ideas?

Originally posted by Briano
nick2, since you are taking this stance that the police are acting in a correct manner.

Do you think his name could hold the clue to why he feels that its ok to trap innocent speeders?

Every one knows what a **** that part of chessy road is for keeping momentum and the pure physics of keeping your 2 ton going up that hill tends to make people put the foot down a tad.

Cops are sneeky *****, and will do any thing to earn thier quota , that is except walk the beat, they wont do that because they are fat and lazy.

And possibly scared of getting to close to real criminals.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Do you think his name could hold the clue to why he feels that its ok to trap innocent speeders?

Every one knows what a **** that part of chessy road is for keeping momentum and the pure physics of keeping your 2 ton going up that hill tends to make people put the foot down a tad.

Cops are sneeky *****, and will do any thing to earn thier quota , that is except walk the beat, they wont do that because they are fat and lazy.

And possibly scared of getting to close to real criminals.

People who go above the speed limit are real criminals, thats why they get fined or even taken to court, they might not be murderers but because you don't think it's serious doesn't change the fact that it against the law.

Do you dissregard any other laws you don't agree with ?

Originally posted by jonsastar
Does any one know what the fine is for 40 in a 30 zone, sneaky pigs caught some one I know who was trying to keep momentum as she travelled up chesterfield road.

Any ideas?

Don't quote me on this, but I _think_ it's a £60 fine and 3 points on the license .. ouch.

Goodness, that's a tad harsh! God knows what the chief Const. was doing letting the apple core case go to court, but he/she has just had a rude lesson in bad PR-garnering that we can only hope they learn from. Still, the rozzers generally make the place a little better and they're not all fat, lazy pie-eaters. Will happily tell you a tale of low-fat dougnut CHP fatties one day, but right now let me say this. The fault lies in central government's refusal to address the education of drivers as a fundamental cause of road casualties. As long as it persists in sticking a plaster marked "speed kills" over the problem our dogs, cats, partners and children will continue to die. And in part because the Talivan bods have their vans parked up in speed hotspots rather than accident blackspots.

Originally posted by nick2
People who go above the speed limit are real criminals, thats why they get fined or even taken to court, they might not be murderers but because you don't think it's serious doesn't change the fact that it against the law.

Do you dissregard any other laws you don't agree with ?

So, according to your theory. A policeman stops a car for speeding and starts taking down the drivers particulars. Suddenly, across the road a gunshot rings out and a masked man runs out of the bank with a bag. However, since both these people have done something illegal and the policeman has already stopped the speeding driver he will carry on taking the particulars.... after all, you couldn't expect him to be able to do 2 jobs at once. And of course, they are both breaking the law...

Originally posted by Briano
So, according to your theory. A policeman stops a car for speeding and starts taking down the drivers particulars. Suddenly, across the road a gunshot rings out and a masked man runs out of the bank with a bag. However, since both these people have done something illegal and the policeman has already stopped the speeding driver he will carry on taking the particulars.... after all, you couldn't expect him to be able to do 2 jobs at once. And of course, they are both breaking the law...

Your getting hysterical and silly now, breath into a brown paper bag for 5 minutes.

Originally posted by nick2
People who go above the speed limit are real criminals, thats why they get fined or even taken to court, they might not be murderers but because you don't think it's serious doesn't change the fact that it against the law.

Do you dissregard any other laws you don't agree with ?

I gotta laugh at you mate, if you havent noticed yet most of the fat lazy coppers disregard your "real crime" does this make them criminals or is it ok for the police to disregard laws they try to impose on others.

News in

Read all about it

Fat lazy copper gets off with speeding yet again.

Originally posted by nick2
Your getting hysterical and silly now, breath into a brown paper bag for 5 minutes.

Whereas you, sir, are getting all New Labour and pettifogging. Go polish your halo and keep the curtains shut. heavens forfend that you might have to view the world that lies outside the four walls of your simplistic demesne.

Originally posted by jonsastar
I gotta laugh at you mate

You've got to laugh at me ?

I'm not the one sulking because the nasty police are "tricking" me into breaking the law, then fining me, and it's soooo not fair because they can drive realy fast but I can't.

Originally posted by nick2
You've got to laugh at me ?

I'm not the one sulking because the nasty police are "tricking" me into breaking the law, then fining me, and it's soooo not fair because they can drive realy fast but I can't.

I gotta say , that the fat oiks probably still speed when they are sat in there civvy cars, and winge like the stuck porkers they are when they get caught out.

Please , let me off as Im a fellow porker.

Originally posted by jonsastar
I gotta say , that the fat oiks probably still speed when they are sat in there civvy cars, and winge like the stuck porkers they are when they get caught out.

Please , let me off as Im a fellow porker.

You have some serious police issues, did you once get caught breaking the law perhaps ?

Originally posted by nick2
You've got to laugh at me ?

I'm not the one sulking because the nasty police are "tricking" me into breaking the law, then fining me, and it's soooo not fair because they can drive realy fast but I can't.


:hihi: Lol, you really are hilarious.

However, I really would value your opinion on the question I asked you earlier regarding the £10,000 spent on 'gathering evidence' on the apple eating at the wheel... or are you so far into the clouds you think it's all been made up!? :loopy:

Originally posted by Briano
:hihi: Lol, you really are hilarious.

However, I really would value your opinion on the question I asked you earlier regarding the £10,000 spent on 'gathering evidence' on the apple eating at the wheel... or are you so far into the clouds you think it's all been made up!? :loopy:

My opinion is that it's silly.

But I'm not quite sure how that relates to speed cameras ?

Originally posted by Briano
Yes! Because then we would have proof that the police are not using their time and money effectively, but are tying it up catching the 'lesser' 'criminals'.

"Lesser criminals".... can't really apply to speeders though can it? I'll explain why...

Speed limits are there for safety. Go above them and you risk someone elses and your own safety. Kill someone with your car as a direct result of your speeding and your "lesser criminal" philosophy doesn't really wash now does it? Why? Because you're a killer, all be it an accidental killer. OR NOT? You speeded on purpose didn't you - you knew the risks?

This isn't really a complex issue people, just don't speed. It's unnecessary and dangerous.

You know I think its just the actual Traffic Cops who are porka's. Their main job is to nail drivers, so they will do it no matter how genuoine your case. I have known people to get off because they were desperate to go for a slash, but again by the usual panda patrols. The traffic cops in their volvos et al would more likely let you slash on their back seat while taking your details.... next time I will aim for their Thermos ;) lol

Originally posted by nick2
You have some serious police issues, did you once get caught breaking the law perhaps ?

My only problems with police is they have one rule for them selves and one rule for the people they are paid to protect.

Originally posted by jonsastar
My only problems with police is they have one rule for them selves and one rule for the people they are paid to protect.

OK...... that's quite a bold statement..... you're going to have to back it up with some evidence now.....

Originally posted by nick2
My opinion is that it's silly.

But I'm not quite sure how that relates to speed cameras ?

Right, now we're getting somewhere. :gag:

So you think it's silly that the police pursued someone who broke the law (by eating an apple while driving), yet you think I'm being ridiculous by saying it's silly that the police are pursuing people who break the law (by driving a few mph above the speed limit).
Well, where's the line? :confused:

I have clearly over simplified this situation, however I feel my point is entirely valid. You seem to have your own definition of what is right and wrong!
I am not against the police doing their jobs of catching criminals, I am against the way in which they do this and the way in which they decide to use their resources... i.e my taxes.

Originally posted by jonsastar
My only problems with police is they have one rule for them selves and one rule for the people they are paid to protect.

If you mean the fast driving thing, I would imagine the police are allowed to drive fast to catch criminals, however they must be trained to drive fast and only do it if they have to, not just because they want to.

Originally posted by Briano
Right, now we're getting somewhere. :gag:

So you think it's silly that the police pursued someone who broke the law (by eating an apple while driving), yet you think I'm being ridiculous by saying it's silly that the police are pursuing people who break the law (by driving a few mph above the speed limit).
Well, where's the line? :confused:

I have clearly over simplified this situation, however I feel my point is entirely valid. You seem to have your own definition of what is right and wrong!
I am not against the police doing their jobs of catching criminals, I am against the way in which they do this and the way in which they decide to use their resources... i.e my taxes.

I don't think they were "silly" but perhaps a little over zealous. The law and the way its enforced isn't really debatable though is it, otherwise it wouldn't be law. In essence, the line is the law.

ugh i went through a trap in barnsley on saturday, not heard anything yet but i can't be sure i was doing 30, does anyone know at what speed they get you? think i was doing about 32 (my needle was nearer the 30 than the 35). im sorry but they are just doing it for the money otherwise they would be happy with the criminal conviction and the 3 points.

luckily i got £60 birthday money the next morning so im ready for them lol yes i know it isn't funny.

me and my friend were once taken home by the police after an incident (we were involved but not involved if you know what i mean) when i pointed out to the police man (being cocky, i was 18) that the speed limit was 30 he said "im allowed to speed i'm a police man", charming!!

Originally posted by JonJParr
"Lesser criminals".... can't really apply to speeders though can it? I'll explain why...

Speed limits are there for safety. Go above them and you risk someone elses and your own safety. Kill someone with your car as a direct result of your speeding and your "lesser criminal" philosophy doesn't really wash now does it? Why? Because you're a killer, all be it an accidental killer. OR NOT? You speeded on purpose didn't you - you knew the risks?

This isn't really a complex issue people, just don't speed. It's unnecessary and dangerous.

I don't have an issue with speeding, I agree it's illegal and shouldn't be done... I disagree with the way in which the police chose to catch these criminals!

Originally posted by Briano
So you think it's silly that the police pursued someone who broke the law (by eating an apple while driving), yet you think I'm being ridiculous by saying it's silly that the police are pursuing people who break the law (by driving a few mph above the speed limit).
Well, where's the line? :confused:


I don't decide what is legal and what is not, the police do, even if I think arresting someone for eating an apple is silly it doesn't matter because it's not up to me, thats my point, what you or I think doesn't matter the law is the law.

Originally posted by JonJParr
OK...... that's quite a bold statement..... you're going to have to back it up with some evidence now.....

Ive been passed by many a police car doing excessive speeds.

There are other times I have seen a big police boot stamp on the head of a drunk while six other coppers where sat on his back.

But that is off topic.

Originally posted by Briano
I don't have an issue with speeding, I agree it's illegal and shouldn't be done... I disagree with the way in which the police chose to catch these criminals!

Why? If you don't speed and don't have an "issue" with speeding then why should it bother you in the slightest? Please clarify.

Oh and there is the welsh transport chief cop what ever his name is, who parks his car on the pavement leaving no room for pedestrians.

Originally posted by JonJParr
I don't think they were "silly" but perhaps a little over zealous. The law and the way its enforced isn't really debatable though is it, otherwise it wouldn't be law. In essence, the line is the law.

The law is most definitely debatable! The people run this country through the government (or that's how it's supposed to be!), therefore if the majority disagree with a law it should be debated, researched and possibly changed. Why do you think laws are constantly changed and updated! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by JonJParr
This isn't really a complex issue people, just don't speed. It's unnecessary and dangerous.

Erm, it really is a complex issue. Speed limits are arbitrary and a decent guideline for the sort of speed a certain area requires you to travel at. Based, usually, on hazards such as proximate housing, schools, old folks' homes. They are a simple and partial solution.

The complexity derives from the wide variety of vehicle masses we tool around in, huge variations in braking capacity, in our own differing reaction times etc. To drive with optimum safety given this ever-varying set of conditions requires much more than adherence to speed limits. It requires a highly complex set of abilities on the part of drivers, to evaluate what's going on and negotiate the tricky terrain without mishap. These are not abilities we are born with.

And the only way we will get the great British public to do this is by regularly-reviewed and updated education. Which will be deeply expensive. Which is why successive governments have ignored the issue and preferred the diversion of speed limit enforcement. Which actually makes money rather than costing it, yet looks as though something is being done.

If all the speeding revenue garnered, instead of propping up local authorities and the Treasury, were given to a body such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists for the creation of a blanket and continuing national driver education system then the country would be a better and safer place.

But my friend, it's a far from simple problem.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Why? If you don't speed and don't have an "issue" with speeding then why should it bother you in the slightest? Please clarify.

Because my money pays for the services provided by the police. I want to see the police out in force, on the streets and clearly visible. Acting in more of a deterrent role than hiding behind hedges and making money out of it.

Originally posted by joyphil
Erm, it really is a complex issue. Speed limits are arbitrary and a decent guideline for the sort of speed a certain area requires you to travel at. Based, usually, on hazards such as proximate housing, schools, old folks' homes. They are a simple and partial solution.

The complexity derives from the wide variety of vehicle masses we tool around in, huge variations in braking capacity, in our own differing reaction times etc. To drive with optimum safety given this ever-varying set of conditions requires much more than adherence to speed limits. It requires a highly complex set of abilities on the part of drivers, to evaluate what's going on and negotiate the tricky terrain without mishap. These are not abilities we are born with.

And the only way we will get the great British public to do this is by regularly-reviewed and updated education. Which will be deeply expensive. Which is why successive governments have ignored the issue and preferred the diversion of speed limit enforcement. Which actually makes money rather than costing it, yet looks as though something is being done.

If all the speeding revenue garnered, instead of propping up local authorities and the Treasury, were given to a body such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists for the creation of a blanket and continuing national driver education system then the country would be a better and safer place.

But my friend, it's a far from simple problem.

In a nutshell, wonderfully put.. :clap:

Originally posted by JonJParr
OK...... that's quite a bold statement..... you're going to have to back it up with some evidence now.....

Police chief merdwyd hughes was caught speeding twice, once in sheffield and once in wales.

This Police chief is at the forefront of combating speeding on Britains roads, and is one form of evidence proving a top cop enforcing law with one hand and disregarding law with the other.

Is that ok for you.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Police chief merdwyd hughes was caught speeding twice, once in sheffield and once in wales.

This Police chief is at the forefront of combating speeding on Britains roads, and is one form of evidence proving a top cop enforcing law with one hand and disregarding law with the other.

Is that ok for you.

By what you're saying you imply that the police have to be infallible?

Originally posted by joyphil
Erm, it really is a complex issue. Speed limits are arbitrary and a decent guideline for the sort of speed a certain area requires you to travel at. Based, usually, on hazards such as proximate housing, schools, old folks' homes. They are a simple and partial solution.

The complexity derives from the wide variety of vehicle masses we tool around in, huge variations in braking capacity, in our own differing reaction times etc. To drive with optimum safety given this ever-varying set of conditions requires much more than adherence to speed limits. It requires a highly complex set of abilities on the part of drivers, to evaluate what's going on and negotiate the tricky terrain without mishap. These are not abilities we are born with.

And the only way we will get the great British public to do this is by regularly-reviewed and updated education. Which will be deeply expensive. Which is why successive governments have ignored the issue and preferred the diversion of speed limit enforcement. Which actually makes money rather than costing it, yet looks as though something is being done.

If all the speeding revenue garnered, instead of propping up local authorities and the Treasury, were given to a body such as the Institute of Advanced Motorists for the creation of a blanket and continuing national driver education system then the country would be a better and safer place.

But my friend, it's a far from simple problem.

Terribly put and completely far of the mark. Speed limits are designed to be the maximum speed we should travel on a road at. It's not feasible to continuously test the British public for their driving ability - that's why the highest speed any of us should be travelling on a British road is 70mph. Those who are allowed to travel faster, ie. the Police, have been trained on how to drive at these speeds.
Speeding fines whilst providing a source of income for the Government are spent on far more than "propping up local authorities and the Treasury". The money is spent on Education, Healthcare (for those hit by speeding cars) and Safety (ie. the Police you so despise).

If you insist on speeding, and thus break the law expect to be caught, fined and penalised whether by a camera or a hidden cop. There's such a simple solution to this not happening - just don't speed. And no, I don't think that's a complex issue to comprehend.

Originally posted by meersbrook
Don't quote me on this, but I _think_ it's a £60 fine and 3 points on the license .. ouch.

This is quite correct! Just filled in my "CONDITIONAL OFFER OF FIXED PENALTY" and wrote out my cheque. :sad:

Originally posted by leddi
ugh i went through a trap in barnsley on saturday, not heard anything yet but i can't be sure i was doing 30, does anyone know at what speed they get you? think i was doing about 32 (my needle was nearer the 30 than the 35).

Certainly gets you over 35 as I know to my cost in the last two weeks:(

Originally posted by Briano
Because my money pays for the services provided by the police. I want to see the police out in force, on the streets and clearly visible. Acting in more of a deterrent role than hiding behind hedges and making money out of it.

Wise words Briano:clap::clap::clap:

Rather get my collar felt by a rozzer anyday, than zapped by a box which aint never gonna catch no granny mugger.
DAG NABBIT! :rant:

So a section of Chesterfield road, which is already well endowed with pedestrian crossings, is subject to Talivans. What's new.

Motorists are cash cows and we are being milked left, right and centre, be it through congestion charging, fuel duty, tax, insurance and/or speeding fines.

I speed regularly, that means im breaking the law, but when i'm on the motorway for example, doing 72mph in my 1.1, I am possibly the slowest car on that road.

Now I deem some lorry drivers, who drive within the limits, to be more dangerous than those motorists topping 80/90 on the outer lane. Why? Because they don't bloody look where they're going, or how their manoevure will affect traffic flow.

Speed is not the only issue and I absolutely detest this 'speed kills' campaign that the govt is trying to brainwash us with.

Of course speed can kill, but so can drink driving, driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving, daft pedestrians and so on... The yellow boxes and Talivans don't catch them though, do they?

The way this country is going with motorists, it wont be long before people are employed to walk in front of cars with red flags again. They could do that now in Sheffield City Centre, and it would probably improve traffic flow!!

If a talivan is illegally parked, please somebody get a picture and report them for it. How can these hypocrites nab others for breaking the law when they are themselves??

I can't see a problem, and again and again this topic comes down to that simple thing that lots of people have mentioned - keep to the speed limit and you have nothing to worry about.

As regards this location and 'catching out' motorists.
1. It's the entrance to a park. Doesn't that hint at something?
2. No need to advertise the location as the police do that themselves on their website every week.
3. It IS a road where people drive too fast.

Originally posted by Tony

2. No need to advertise the location as the police do that themselves on their website every week.


Here:

http://www.safetycamera.org/default2.aspx?CF=where

Yup.. there it is! My, that's not very sneaky at all is it! ;)

Week commencing Monday 24th January 2005:
Barnsley B6411 Houghton Road, Thurnscoe
Barnsley Pogmoor Road, Barnsley
Doncaster A638 Great North Road / York Road, Doncaster
Doncaster Broomhouse Lane / Springwell Lane, Edlington / Warmsworth
Rotherham A6022 Swinton
Rotherham A629 Wortley Road / Upper Wortley Road
Rotherham A630 Centenary Way, Rotherham
Rotherham A630 Doncaster Road, Dalton / Thrybergh
Rotherham A631 Bawtry Road / Rotherham Road, Hellaby / Maltby
Rotherham B6059 Kiveton / Wales
Sheffield A61 Chesterfield Road / Chesterfield Road South
Sheffield A6101 Rivelin Valley Road, Sheffield

Originally posted by Tony
Yup.. there it is! My, that's not very sneaky at all is it! ;)

Week commencing Monday 24th January 2005:

Sheffield A6101 Rivelin Valley Road, Sheffield

That is a road with very few pedestrians but it still has a large number of accidents, so their watching that road for the drivers own safety.

Originally posted by nick2
That is a road with very few pedestrians but it still has a large number of accidents, so their watching that road for the drivers own safety.

Yes, but most of them are boy racers crashing their cars into trees in the middle of the night. No mobile cameras around at that time though. No police of any kind around at that time come to think of it.

Originally posted by Cols
Yes, but most of them are boy racers crashing their cars into trees in the middle of the night. No mobile cameras around at that time though. No police of any kind around at that time come to think of it.
Oh come on now, we had a whole other thread complaining that someone had been caught at 06:30, and how unfair it was, lets have a little consistancy people.

This stretch of road has a park on it, with paddling pools for toddlers, not to mention the fire station (you know, vehicles pulling out in a hurry). It is *not* a suitable place to speed.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Oh come on now, we had a whole other thread complaining that someone had been caught at 06:30, and how unfair it was, lets have a little consistancy people.



But that 6.30 thread was not on a road such as Rivelin Valley where ANYONE will tell you the accidents do happen after dark. And ususally by someone who has just taken their test taking their first car out for a spin in Derbyshire because it is their first taste of speed.

On a slightly separate issue about renaming the SPC cameras to Speeding Motorists Fine Unit, I heard a story the other day that all Accident Ivestigations Units are having to be renamed following a case in South Wales whereby a driver who caused a serious accident and was quite rightly prosecuded. He got off because the initial investigation and, more importantly, the subsequent follow up by carried out by the AIU. The guys solicitor argued and won that once the AIU established that it wasnt, effectively, an accident, but caused by dangerous driving, they should not have continued with the follow up but handed it over to a criminal investigation team. The fact that the Inspector in court had Accident Investigation Officer in his job title lost the case!!

Originally posted by JonJParr
It's not feasible to continuously test the British public for their driving ability - that's why the highest speed any of us should be travelling on a British road is 70mph. Those who are allowed to travel faster, ie. the Police, have been trained on how to drive at these speeds.
Speeding fines whilst providing a source of income for the Government are spent on far more than "propping up local authorities and the Treasury". The money is spent on Education, Healthcare (for those hit by speeding cars) and Safety (ie. the Police you so despise).

If you insist on speeding, and thus break the law expect to be caught, fined and penalised whether by a camera or a hidden cop. There's such a simple solution to this not happening - just don't speed. And no, I don't think that's a complex issue to comprehend.

So enlighten me, clear thinker: just why isn't it feasible to test the British motorist once every five years or so? The very first hour of assessment for my Advanced test helped strip back 14 years of bad habits, and the lessons learnt last. We can successfully subject every British schoolkid to a set of exams and get rather a lot of the adult population to vote in Big Brother, so what's different about drivers going for an hour or two of tuition once every few years?

And if we did spend the speeding fines on doing this we wouldn't have to spend them on repairing those hit by cars being driven at speeds too high for the prevailing parameters. Or, in fact, lots of cameras.

As to your assumptions: I do not personally despise Police. I think earlier posts of mine make this clear. I am no fan of current, over-simplistic transport policy. Nor of over-simplistic assumptions. Yours included. Simply not speeding does not gloss over crap driving, insufficient signalling, bad observation, late braking...

Oh, and neither do I insist on speeding. But it's still my right to object to trite sloganising on behalf of policy-makers in order to avoid them having to put thought and money into solving what remains, despite your attitude, a complex problem.

Originally posted by joyphil
So enlighten me, clear thinker: just why isn't it feasible to test the British motorist once every five years or so? The very first hour of assessment for my Advanced test helped strip back 14 years of bad habits, and the lessons learnt last. We can successfully subject every British schoolkid to a set of exams and get rather a lot of the adult population to vote in Big Brother, so what's different about drivers going for an hour or two of tuition once every few years?

And if we did spend the speeding fines on doing this we wouldn't have to spend them on repairing those hit by cars being driven at speeds too high for the prevailing parameters. Or, in fact, lots of cameras.

As to your assumptions: I do not personally despise Police. I think earlier posts of mine make this clear. I am no fan of current, over-simplistic transport policy. Nor of over-simplistic assumptions. Yours included. Simply not speeding does not gloss over crap driving, insufficient signalling, bad observation, late braking...

Oh, and neither do I insist on speeding. But it's still my right to object to trite sloganising on behalf of policy-makers in order to avoid them having to put thought and money into solving what remains, despite your attitude, a complex problem.

So you want all the British public to be constantly assessed for their driving skills and safety on the road throughout their lives (which would take a lot long than voting in Big Brother I might add) and then get rid of speed cameras and traffic cops?

That's ludicrous! It would be the same as examining children and then expecting them to get 100% on all issues in the exam thereafter.

In my whole family the only person caught and fined for speeding was my father who agreed he was at fault and paid the fine. I don't speed - I don't feel the need to, I'd rather get somewhere 2.5 mins later than taking a trip via the hospital. Another reason I don't speed is because I can't imagine having an accident and killing a passenger, another driver or a pedestrian because of my reckless actions. So how can I avoid all that hassle of constantly thinking.... "Am I going to get caught this time? Are they going to jump out from behind a hedge?" Answer: I don't speed. So let 'em jump out - I'm not breaking the law.

Well bully for you Mr/Ms Parr. Actually it's encouraging to note that somebody else takes their responsibility as a motorist seriously. But yes, I do in all seriousness expect every British motorist to get an hour or two with an assessor/tutor (note both assessment and teaching envisaged here) every five years or so. Getting rid of cameras and traffic police? Nope, making them redundant is my aim. And despite your bluster you simply haven't answered my initial question: why is this so impossible to achieve?

Frankly, if we can spunk several billion on blowing up Iraquis in pursuit of non-existent chemical weapons and an all-too-existent American agenda then it's highly likely that we could find the dosh to make British motorists (currently rather more deadly than Mr Hussein, I might add) the best in the world. In fact this would actually represent an investment in something concrete, because an accident that doesn't happen is rather a lot of cash saved for those emergency services and hospitals. Even in Cloud-cuckooland simply not speeding isn't going to stop accidents, erm, dead in their tracks.

This site has long been a spot for law enforcement i was caught overtaking going up the hill were it narrows into one lane in 1993 and i got 3 points and £40 fine and i deserved it.

Originally posted by joyphil
Well bully for you Mr/Ms Parr. Actually it's encouraging to note that somebody else takes their responsibility as a motorist seriously. But yes, I do in all seriousness expect every British motorist to get an hour or two with an assessor/tutor (note both assessment and teaching envisaged here) every five years or so. Getting rid of cameras and traffic police? Nope, making them redundant is my aim. And despite your bluster you simply haven't answered my initial question: why is this so impossible to achieve?

Q: Why is it so impossible to achieve?
A: Two things: Money - there isn't enough of it and Apathy: there's too much of it.

It's much cheaper to have speed cameras and traffic cops than continually assess and teach drivers. We'd probably end up being charged for these tests (and then you'd probably complain about the unfairness of that). Either that or something else would have to go to pay for them.... education? healthcare? defence? I'd rather take my chances not speeding.

And finally, apathy- how many people could actually be bothered to repeatedly take tests / be taught how to drive throughout their lives?

And it's Mr Parr to you sir.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Q: Why is it so impossible to achieve?
A: Two things: Money - there isn't enough of it and Apathy: there's too much of it.

It's much cheaper to have speed cameras and traffic cops than continually assess and teach drivers. We'd probably end up being charged for these tests (and then you'd probably complain about the unfairness of that). Either that or something else would have to go to pay for them.... education? healthcare? defence? I'd rather take my chances not speeding.

And finally, apathy- how many people could actually be bothered to repeatedly take tests / be taught how to drive throughout their lives?

And it's Mr Parr.

Hmm... money... well, despite your laudible law-abiding methodology it looks as though you'll be paying for the last war in higher taxes and decreased public spending. There is enough money for this, and as I have said the vastly decreased healthcare cost would do quite a bit to contribute to the cause. Besides, you'd probably pay a small fee towards quite happily. You pay nowadays for new licences as it is, and nobody's been declared bankrupt yet.

As to apathy, if your licence's continuation was dependent upon turning up for the test, you'd damn well turn up for it.

Ah, Mr Parr... forgive me. One can never be too sure what lurks behind Internet aliases nowadays. I myself am a forty-stone hermaphrodite alchoholic ballerina currently resident in Wisconsin. Perhaps.

Originally posted by JonJParr
And finally, apathy- how many people could actually be bothered to repeatedly take tests / be taught how to drive throughout their lives?


And what happens to all the pople who fail their 5 yearly test, are they banned from driving until they do pass ?

Originally posted by joyphil
Hmm... money... well, despite your laudible law-abiding methodology it looks as though you'll be paying for the last war in higher taxes and decreased public spending. There is enough money for this, and as I have said the vastly decreased healthcare cost would do quite a bit to contribute to the cause. Besides, you'd probably pay a small fee towards quite happily. You pay nowadays for new licences as it is, and nobody's been declared bankrupt yet.

As to apathy, if your licence's continuation was dependent upon turning up for the test, you'd damn well turn up for it.

Ah, Mr Parr... forgive me. One can never be too sure what lurks behind Internet aliases nowadays. I myself am a forty-stone hermaphrodite alchoholic ballerina currently resident in Wisconsin. Perhaps.

Yeah but paying for a new piece of plastic with your photo on and name requires a lot less time and manhours than teaching and assessment. The price would have to be substantially higher.

Originally posted by nick2
And what happens to all the pople who fail their 5 yearly test, are they banned from driving until they do pass ?

Is that question directed to me? BTW I'm not warranting the use of such continuous assessment - I think it's absurd!

Originally posted by JonJParr
Is that question directed to me? BTW I'm not warranting the use of such continuous assessment - I think it's absurd!

No, sorry, to whoever suggested the 5 yearly training classes.

Originally posted by nick2
And what happens to all the pople who fail their 5 yearly test, are they banned from driving until they do pass ?

Nope, they're asked to go away and watch a video/check out a website/have a driving lesson and come back a week later to be re-assessed. If they fail a simple ongoing assessment enough times then it's bye bye rubbish driver, please go back to school on a provisional licence and start all over again.

Offensive? Maybe, but driving in today's road environment isn't a right. It's a full-bore privelige and the place demands a certain degree of proficiency. They don't simply train up the operator of a nuclear facility then leave them to learn lazy habits for 60 years,, do they? In almost all industries ongoing assessment is a logical norm, so quite why operating the machinery that is a car is so different to this escapes me.

Originally posted by nick2
No, sorry, to whoever suggested the 5 yearly training classes.

I'll pass that one to the forty-stone alcoholic hermaphrodite ballerina in Wisconsin then...

Originally posted by joyphil
Nope, they're asked to go away and watch a video/check out a website/have a driving lesson and come back a week later to be re-assessed. If they fail a simple ongoing assessment enough times then it's bye bye rubbish driver, please go back to school on a provisional licence and start all over again.

Offensive? Maybe, but driving in today's road environment isn't a right. It's a full-bore privelige and the place demands a certain degree of proficiency. They don't simply train up the operator of a nuclear facility then leave them to learn lazy habits for 60 years,, do they? In almost all industries ongoing assessment is a logical norm, so quite why operating the machinery that is a car is so different to this escapes me.

And all this instead of a speed camera or a man with a radar gun? And more to the point, all this instead of just not speeding? Blimey - you must really like to speed huh?

Originally posted by JonJParr
Yeah but paying for a new piece of plastic with your photo on and name requires a lot less time and manhours than teaching and assessment. The price would have to be substantially higher.

Trust me, it isn't going to bankrupt Britain. Any more than a war is.

Originally posted by joyphil
Trust me, it isn't going to bankrupt Britain. Any more than a war is.

Stop bringing the Iraq war into this - it isn't going to qualify any of your points and is of no relevance at all. Just substantiate "WHY YOU WANT TO SPEED".

eg. I don't think we should use metric instead of imperial. Why? Because of the Iraq War. (see, no relevance)

Originally posted by JonJParr
And all this instead of a speed camera or a man with a radar gun? And more to the point, all this instead of just not speeding? Blimey - you must really like to speed huh?

Did you actually read the previous postings? I quote myself:

"Oh, and neither do I insist on speeding. But it's still my right to object to trite sloganising on behalf of policy-makers in order to avoid them having to put thought and money into solving what remains, despite your attitude, a complex problem."

And you still miss the rather obvious point that not speeding is no way to stop accidents to a satisfactory degree. Bad driving is about rather more than speeding.

Are you going to go round and round again?

Originally posted by joyphil
Trust me, it isn't going to bankrupt Britain. Any more than a war is.

And more to the point, why should I "trust you". Do you work in the Treasury? If you don't it would surely suggest you don't have sufficient knowledge of the country's finances to make such a bold statement... so I won't be trusting you.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Stop bringing the Iraq war into this - it isn't going to qualify any of your points and is of no relevance at all. Just substantiate "WHY YOU WANT TO SPEED".

eg. I don't think we should use metric instead of imperial. Why? Because of the Iraq War. (see, no relevance)

I'll bring in any example of a large governmental outlay I wish to illustrate my point. And I've answered several times over that I really don't want to speed. It's not a major habit of mine. Please substantiate "WHY YOU CANNOT READ A FULL POST BEFORE JERKING THAT KNEE".

Originally posted by joyphil
Did you actually read the previous postings? I quote myself:

"Oh, and neither do I insist on speeding. But it's still my right to object to trite sloganising on behalf of policy-makers in order to avoid them having to put thought and money into solving what remains, despite your attitude, a complex problem."

And you still miss the rather obvious point that not speeding is no way to stop accidents to a satisfactory degree. Bad driving is about rather more than speeding.

Are you going to go round and round again?

I read them but what I'm trying to understand is why you are consistently against speed testing and the only answer that seems blatantly apparent is you don't want to have to pay a fine. And why would you have to pay a fine? Because you've been speeding. And that's the crux of it. To simply say, I don't speed but I hate speed cameras and traffic cops is a tad strange- especially if you claim to have no axe to grind with them. See what I'm saying?

Originally posted by JonJParr
And more to the point, why should I "trust you". Do you work in the Treasury? If you don't it would surely suggest you don't have sufficient knowledge of the country's finances to make such a bold statement... so I won't be trusting you.

It's not more to the point, Mr Parr. It's tediously pedantic.

Originally posted by joyphil
It's not a major habit of mine.

Does that mean it's a minor habit?

Originally posted by JonJParr
I read them but what I'm trying to understand is why you are consistently against speed testing and the only answer that seems blatantly apparent is you don't want to have to pay a fine. And why would you have to pay a fine? Because you've been speeding. And that's the crux of it. To simply say, I don't speed but I hate speed cameras and traffic cops is a tad strange- especially if you claim to have no axe to grind with them. See what I'm saying?

At what point have I said that I don't want to pay a fine? Please cut out the quote and enlighten me. Strange as my argument may be, it's my argument and it's not without logic. I despise the dishonesty of speed testing under the guise of safety management, and as a disguise for a real commitment to the serious improvement in general driving standards required in this very congested and motorised country. It doesn't matter one iota if I am a fan of inner-city grands-prix or a consistently attentive driver (implicit in which is attention to speed limits). I'm still allowed to object to the Safety Camera Partnership as panacea.

Originally posted by joyphil
It's not more to the point, Mr Parr. It's tediously pedantic.

To claim to have all the inside knowledge on this subject and for people to "trust you" you must be able to substantiate that claim, agreed?

The phrase "trust me I'm a doctor" is usually used to substantiate why a doctor shouldn't have to explain himself.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Does that mean it's a minor habit?

Is that minor as in 'less' or 'musical key that sounds a bit sad and melancholy'?

No. It's not a habit.

Whether or not you trust me, here's an envelope-back estimate of ballpark cost. Going by the cost of a driving test, which is £42, plus a bit for any extra costs, let's make the assesment/tuition session cost 50 quid.

I'm assuming there are about 30 million full licence holders in this country, and that they should be checked up every five years. I make that an annual cost of £300 million. Hardly a bank-buster, is it? Especially as quite a few of those millions will be saved by not having to patch together crash victims in their thousands or have the rozzers and ambulance crews go mop them up.

Originally posted by joyphil
Whether or not you trust me, here's an envelope-back estimate of ballpark cost. Going by the cost of a driving test, which is £42, plus a bit for any extra costs, let's make the assesment/tuition session cost 50 quid.

I'm assuming there are about 30 million full licence holders in this country, and that they should be checked up every five years. I make that an annual cost of £300 million. Hardly a bank-buster, is it? Especially as quite a few of those millions will be saved by not having to patch together crash victims in their thousands or have the rozzers and ambulance crews go mop them up.

You've failed to factor in the administration that a programme of that magnitude would need to be delivered.

Originally posted by JonJParr
By what you're saying you imply that the police have to be infallible?

How does my saying that police not breaking the laws they enforce mean that they have to be infallable?

Every one burns the toast now and then, buddy.

But as you say the law is the law and the chief of police should have known better than to speed while driving.

Police dont have to be infallible to abide by the law JonJParr, they just have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

Or is it ok for police not to prctice what they preach.

Infallible, paah

Maybe. But as the savings to the nation are fairly incalculable but undeniably exist, does it matter? Sure, I can't give you a cost to the last 99 pence, but I can back up my certainty that it's not impossible to fund such an initiative. The impediment to something this radical would be attitudes, not fiscal considerations.

Originally posted by JonJParr
Just substantiate "WHY YOU WANT TO SPEED".


I'd say almost everyone on this forum who is anti-camera DOES NOT WANT TO SPEED. It's just that if you do drive, at some point you WILL speed and that includes everyone. Good news for the Government that does see it as a cash cow, bad news for the rest of us.
Now you two, could you finish your discussion over a pint as you're both getting a tad excitable.

Instead of sneaky speed cameras, why not spend the money on more signs telling people the speed limit.

There is many a street in sheffield that doesnt have enough road speed signs.

Surely it makes more sense to bombard the drivers with signs reminding them of the speed limit, then there is no excuse for speeding as the speed limit would be there for all to see.

Originally posted by Cols
I'd say almost everyone on this forum who is anti-camera DOES NOT WANT TO SPEED. It's just that if you do drive, at some point you WILL speed and that includes everyone. Good news for the Government that does see it as a cash cow, bad news for the rest of us.
Now you two, could you finish your discussion over a pint as you're both getting a tad excitable.

Sorry, Dad! Actually it's time to go and work now. But not before a nice cup of tea. Thirsty work, this kicking against the ***** lark.

Originally posted by jonsastar
Instead of sneaky speed cameras, why not spend the money on more signs telling people the speed limit

I'm sure that a lot of people who break the limit are perfectly aware what it is- they just don't care, similarly they would probably care enough to pass a test every 5 years but not enough to drive sensibly day to day. I'm not saying this attitude is right, but it's certainly exists. What people do care about is having to pay fines- Yes we know that speed is not the only factor in a crash (I won't say accident) but a crash is less likely to be as severe at lower speeds and more likely to be avoided altogether.

May be the money from fines shouldnt go to the police then, may be it should go into fixing the roads, and getting rid of potholes, that would be money well spent, and would probably stop a few accidents to.

Originally posted by hatter
I'm sure that a lot of people who break the limit are perfectly aware what it is-

I think more signs would be money well spent.

If there is a sign with the speed limit on it, then I think may be it would be hammered home a little more.

One sign every 50 metres would probably do it.

It would make people feel more guilty if it was in there face all the time.

Originally posted by MobileB
But that 6.30 thread was not on a road such as Rivelin Valley where ANYONE will tell you the accidents do happen after dark. And ususally by someone who has just taken their test taking their first car out for a spin in Derbyshire because it is their first taste of speed.

1) I notice you completely ignored my second paragraph about the dangers on this road.

2) People regularly drive WAY TOO FAST on this stretch of road, and yes, in daylight hours.

3) Where does your statement about the types of drivers injured on this road come from ? I merely ask because it has absolutely no foundation in FACT.

4) NUMPTY

Originally posted by jonsastar
Instead of sneaky speed cameras, why not spend the money on more signs telling people the speed limit.

There is many a street in sheffield that doesnt have enough road speed signs.

Surely it makes more sense to bombard the drivers with signs reminding them of the speed limit, then there is no excuse for speeding as the speed limit would be there for all to see.

We've already been there and done that one!!

Lets not go there again

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25316&perpage=15&highlight=speed%20limits&pagenumber=1

Originally posted by foo_fighter
3) Where does your statement about the types of drivers injured on this road come from ? I merely ask because it has absolutely no foundation in FACT.

If you want me to quote you newspaper articles from every accident on there for the last five years it could be a very long list. I will ignore the Numpty comment as I have been called a lot worse on a football pitch before now.

I hope this one will do for starters though. Let me know if you want anymore:

Motorist sped away after tragic smash

A MOTORIST sped off instead of stopping to help a driver fatally injured in a smash following an 80mph 'race' at one of Sheffield's accident blackspots.

Learner driver Christ-opher Hardy, aged 21, was hurtling along Rivelin Valley Road, which has a 40 mph limit, when the tragedy occurred, a Sheffield inquest was told.
Mr Hardy had been 'tailgating' another motorist, Michael Wells in his MG ZT sports car, immediately before losing control of the Ford Granada on a sharp bend.
Mr Wells admitted seeing Christopher's car crash in his rear view mirror but failed to stop and help, claiming to have panicked.
Instead, a man tending a horse in a nearby field raced to help following the crash, on August 2.
The car hit a tree, spun around and came to rest at the other side of the road.
Despite the "Herculean efforts" of his rescuer, Christopher died in hospital days later.
MG driver Mr Wells said: "He had been tail-gating behind me for some time. I increased my speed to get away from him, and at one point he disappeared and I thought it had worked. I was driving fast myself, around 70-80 mph.
"Then, as I was going round a sharp bend I saw him in my rear view mirror accelerating to catch me up, and I realised that he wasn't going to make it round the corner."
Mr Wells witnessed the crash in his mirror, but didn't stop to help the stricken youngster, claiming that he panicked.
In a statement, rescuer Michael Killeen said by the time he had reached the car it was on fire and the doors were jammed shut.
He dragged Christopher, of Hammerton Close, Hillsborough, through the window of the burning vehicle, using what Deputy Coroner Judith Naylor described as "Herculean strength".
The youngster suffered burns to his arms and legs, and died of respiratory failure and septicemia due to the burns on August 13.
Recording a verdict of accidental death, Ms Naylor said: "He was driving a powerful car along a difficult stretch of road and sadly wasn't experienced enough to negotiate it."



14 January 2004

I used this one because I think that last paragraph says everything about what this whole thread is about.

Dear God... And people still think the current and only driving test will suffice?

Originally posted by nick2
They arn't doing it to make money, they are doing it to catch people speeding, and then fining them, they arn't tricking you into speeding, you're doing that yourself.
Finally someone saying it out loud...

Honneslt you you people saying the police is in need of money... Don't speed and you won't get caught ! It's as simple as !

Originally posted by joyphil
Dear God... And people still think the current and only driving test will suffice?

I'm afraid that in most cases, crashes are not caused by a lack of driving ability but by the attitude of the driver (particularly the one quoted above). Drivers (especially young males) think that once they have passed their driving test, they are the best driver ever born and can handle anything. Maybe they are - but if their attitude is wrong, then that makes them dangerous.

I am (naturally:D ) in favour of periodic re-testing (maybe not a full re-test because the system couldn't cope with it) but until people are made to sit up and realise that they are driving a killing machine and that they have responsibilities as a result, nothing will change. Harsher penalties are needed for those involved in crashes involving deaths, and for a start the 'Death by Dangerous Driving' wants replacing with a manslaughter charge.

Originally posted by Captain_Scarlet
Finally someone saying it out loud...

Honneslt you you people saying the police is in need of money... Don't speed and you won't get caught ! It's as simple as !

Here here! Finally someone who agrees with me! I've been trying to hammer that point home on this thread for soooo long.

MobileB,

RE 3) Not everyone killed on that road fits into your easy "blame culture" definition, there HAVE been a number of others, and no I don't need you to trawl the archives and post more single cases which justify your post.

OK, so I'll let you off not going too far into point 4, but what about 1 & 2 ?

The way you use one sensational story to justify a whole argument is interesting, are you a journalist, or a politician ?

Originally posted by Saxon
I'm afraid that in most cases, crashes are not caused by a lack of driving ability but by the attitude of the driver (particularly the one quoted above).
but until people are made to sit up and realise that they are driving a killing machine and that they have responsibilities as a result, nothing will change.

I'm with you there. I assume yourself and other good driving instructors are hammering this home to their students (my wife's certainly is) as you prepare them for the test. Perhaps it might be sobering for them to take a few MIRA crash test videos back home for a watch too. My father was a development engineer on the inertia reel seatbelt project at Kangol in the early 70s (the belts we all have today, that lock when you lunge forwards). The things he saw during crash testing directly honed his driving style. And meant we were the only kids on the block with rear seat belts in every car he ever owned.

His experience also fed directly into the way he taught me to drive, and my own attitude to the activity. Following this we have both taken the Advanced test and found our attitudes vindicated in the Istitute's teachings. Hence my passionate advocacy of a proper, in-depth and responsible governmental approach to road safety instead of this 'speed kills' smokescreen.

Originally posted by joyphil
Hence my passionate advocacy of a proper, in-depth and responsible governmental approach to road safety instead of this 'speed kills' smokescreen.

I think you miss the crux of the Government's 'speed kills' campaign. The current advert is of a girl who appears to come back to life in an almost zombie like manner to illustrate the consequences of driving at 40mph instead of 30mph. The girl explains that had she been hit at 30mph (as opposed to 40mph) there would have been an 80% chance of survival. It would seem to me that the key message to take away from this advert is that you are more likely to kill a pedestrian when driving at 40mph than 30mph.

In this thread many people make comment about the Government's use of speed cameras and inconspicuous traffic cops and instead advocate the use of continuous assessment and teaching throughout their lives. However, if a child runs out into the road without looking, as depicted in the 'speed kills' advert, no amount of extra training will prevent the child from being hit. It's unavoidable. What people fail to see in this campaign is that the Government is saying, "If you travel at 40mph in a 30mph zone you're more likely to kill that child than if you travel at 30mph." This is in response to people arguing that 30mph speed limits are too slow.
The underlying fact is that excessive speed is a contributory factor in over 1,000 deaths and over 38,000 injuries every year. If the Government can "educate" people to drive slower (which isn't that much of an inconvenience after all) maybe, just maybe, we can reduce this figure?

Originally posted by JonJParr
The girl explains that had she been hit at 30mph (as opposed to 40mph) there would have been an 80% chance of survival.

Then why are mobile cameras always on the Parkway, Penistone Rd, Rivelin Rd etc. Why do they not site them in normal roads, outside schools and playgrounds. I've never seen a mobile camera anywhere near a school. The answer is obvious, they are not there because they won't earn the cash. It's not camera use that most people are against, it's the way that they are sited to maximise revenue.

Originally posted by Cols
Then why are mobile cameras always on the Parkway, Penistone Rd, Rivelin Rd etc. Why do they not site them in normal roads, outside schools and playgrounds.
Where they sit on Rivelin Valley Road IS a 30mph zone.

+ it's between the Fire Station, and the Play Ground / Paddling Pools.

That's the point I've been trying to get across previously.

The crashes have generally been nearer the S bends, where the permanent speed cameras are (which is a 40mph limit).

Originally posted by JonJParr
I think you miss the crux of the Government's 'speed kills' campaign. The current advert is of a girl who appears to come back to life in an almost zombie like manner to illustrate the consequences of driving at 40mph instead of 30mph. The girl explains that had she been hit at 30mph (as opposed to 40mph) there would have been an 80% chance of survival. It would seem to me that the key message to take away from this advert is that you are more likely to kill a pedestrian when driving at 40mph than 30mph

Unfortunately the statistics they use are flawed. There is a difference between impact speed and driving speed. If a car is driving at 40mph it's unlikely to be travelling at that speed if it hits a pedestrian. In by far the majority of cases the driver will spot the pedestrian and slam on the brakes, even if it's at the last minute. So the impact speed will be much lower than the driving speed.

In most cases a driver travelling at 40mph will be travelling at under 30mph when an impact occurs.

Originally posted by Cols
Then why are mobile cameras always on the Parkway, Penistone Rd, Rivelin Rd etc. Why do they not site them in normal roads, outside schools and playgrounds. I've never seen a mobile camera anywhere near a school. The answer is obvious, they are not there because they won't earn the cash. It's not camera use that most people are against, it's the way that they are sited to maximise revenue.
They are near schools. When I was a young driver in my early 20s I got caught for speeding 2ce, and felt very hard done to. And both those locations were close to schools. Not right outside the school gates, but on roads where children are likely to cross, to get to their school on the next block. On meadowhead where the subject of this thread is mentioned, there are loads of children crossing every day to go to local schools behind the waggon and horses garage.
Parkway/Rivelin are 2 of the most dangerous roads in sheffield. Every year there are stories about young drivers loosing their grip and smashing themselves up at the chicaine bit. And isn't there a huge paddeling pool, ice cream van, nature trail, fishing pond and playpark along side rivelin valley road.
How more obvious do you need the road to be before it needs lots of speed traps?

I fully indorse the need for driving retests every 5 years for new drivers, and at least 10 years for everyone else. There are lots of older drivers who think they have a god given right to drive how they like, and have no concept of any new rules or laws. And lots of younger male drivers who drive like lunatics after passing.

Originally posted by Ravenger
Unfortunately the statistics they use are flawed. There is a difference between impact speed and driving speed. If a car is driving at 40mph it's unlikely to be travelling at that speed if it hits a pedestrian. In by far the majority of cases the driver will spot the pedestrian and slam on the brakes, even if it's at the last minute. So the impact speed will be much lower than the driving speed.

In most cases a driver travelling at 40mph will be travelling at under 30mph when an impact occurs.
Hmmmm, is that why so many people keep getting killed on Rivelin Valley Road (in the 40 zone), because they can slow down so effectively when the tree jumps out in front of them.

Originally posted by Cols
Then why are mobile cameras always on the Parkway, Penistone Rd, Rivelin Rd etc. Why do they not site them in normal roads, outside schools and playgrounds. I've never seen a mobile camera anywhere near a school. The answer is obvious, they are not there because they won't earn the cash. It's not camera use that most people are against, it's the way that they are sited to maximise revenue.

Sorry, to clarify, I was using the 'speed kills' campaign and child as an example. According to Government statistics car drivers and passengers account for most road deaths not pedestrians. They use a child because it makes the advert emotive (not a bad thing) and because two out of three crashes where people are killed or injured happen on roads where the speed limit is 40mph or less.
However, the fact remains that accidents do occur on roads like Parkway, Penistone and Rivelin. Reducing your speed and observing the speed limit all play a part in reducing the number of deaths on the road regardless of whether you get fined or not. Near most schools they use fixed cameras instead of mobile cameras- but this doesn't mean they're not being monitored. Whilst it may be "obvious" to you that speed cameras are sited to maximise revenue the solution is equally obvious to me - if you observe the speed limit then you're not a source of revenue.

Originally posted by foo_fighter
Where they sit on Rivelin Valley Road IS a 30mph zone.

+ it's between the Fire Station, and the Play Ground / Paddling Pools.

That's the point I've been trying to get across previously.

The crashes have generally been nearer the S bends, where the permanent speed cameras are (which is a 40mph limit).

You won't have seen them at the other end then, where the traffic peels off the A57.

Originally posted by Ravenger
Unfortunately the statistics they use are flawed. There is a difference between impact speed and driving speed. If a car is driving at 40mph it's unlikely to be travelling at that speed if it hits a pedestrian. In by far the majority of cases the driver will spot the pedestrian and slam on the brakes, even if it's at the last minute. So the impact speed will be much lower than the driving speed.

In most cases a driver travelling at 40mph will be travelling at under 30mph when an impact occurs.

The statistics aren't flawed in what they depict however. If your driving speed is higher your impact speed will be higher. Regardless of whether you hit the object at 40mph or 37.5mph the undisputable fact is that you're more likely to kill when your impact speed is higher!

HIGHER DRIVING SPEED = HIGHER IMPACT SPEED

Originally posted by Cols
You won't have seen them at the other end then, where the traffic peels off the A57.
Yes, and they are there to encourage you not to whack into a tree at 60mph, the limit drops to 40 there for a reason.

See my previous post.

Originally posted by JonJParr
In this thread many people make comment about the Government's use of speed cameras and inconspicuous traffic cops and instead advocate the use of continuous assessment and teaching throughout their lives. However, if a child runs out into the road without looking, as depicted in the 'speed kills' advert, no amount of extra training will prevent the child from being hit. It's unavoidable.

Erm, extra training would ensure that, throughout the driver's life, they would have clocked the child from a long distance away and factored a lower speed (possibly even lower than the speed limit) and readiness for sudden movements into their modus operandi. Just looking at the speed limit signs and sailing smugly on in the knowledge that you're not a law-breaker isn't enough. You have to keep in mind the movements of every child, dog, cyclist, motorist and motorcyclist ahead for a good old distance, as well as assessing constantly weather conditions, the road surface, your car's braking/accellerative capacity. On a wet or icy day excessive speed can contribute to an accident at well below a proscribed speed limit. The worse conditions are, the lower the bar is set.

And where did I learn this? Advanced driver training.

But maybe the IAM is barking up the wrong tree, and if we all just obey the speed limits everything will be just fine and dandy.

Originally posted by Cols
You won't have seen them at the other end then, where the traffic peels off the A57.
Is that where there is a nature trail with car park and a post office / tea shoppe and where traffic slips off the A57 from Moscar at very high speed and a crossroads with near blind junctions?

And as for Penistone Road, I agree that there is no danger at all there... well apart from the 3 schools around a 30mph road where the average speed is above 40mph. No danger at all.

Originally posted by Tony
And as for Penistone Road, I agree that there is no danger at all there... well apart from the 3 schools around a 30mph road where the average speed is above 40mph. No danger at all.
I used to go to Hillsborough and Chaucer schools, and all the Chaucer pupils from that area all have to tussle with penistone road to use the busses, so there is every reason for the road to be 30mph, as it is. In addition there are lots of families living in the houses opposite the hillsborough leisure centre, so that's a very good reason for the middle section being 30mph.

Many drivers think that penistone road is a faster road because it looks like the A1, but it is a built up area and is rightly a 30mph road. I do think that there should be more speed signs on there though as it is an unusually large road, and lots of drivers think they can do 40 or 50mph

Originally posted by joyphil
Erm, extra training would ensure that, throughout the driver's life, they would have clocked the child from a long distance away and factored a lower speed (possibly even lower than the speed limit) and readiness for sudden movements into their modus operandi. Just looking at the speed limit signs and sailing smugly on in the knowledge that you're not a law-breaker isn't enough. You have to keep in mind the movements of every child, dog, cyclist, motorist and motorcyclist ahead for a good old distance, as well as assessing constantly weather conditions, the road surface, your car's braking/accellerative capacity. On a wet or icy day excessive speed can contribute to an accident at well below a proscribed speed limit. The worse conditions are, the lower the bar is set.

And where did I learn this? Advanced driver training.

But maybe the IAM is barking up the wrong tree, and if we all just obey the speed limits everything will be just fine and dandy.

Using the same logic one cannot sail along safe in the knowledge that you've had advanced driver training. The inescapable truth is that you're less likely to kill someone in the event that you do hit them if you're travelling slower- this is cut and dry fact.
The Government won't introduce a new programme of continuous testing purely because of economics. It's cheaper to put in more speed cameras and raise public awareness of the dangers of speeding through advertising. In addition to telling drivers to slow down the Government Speeding Awareness campaign also reminds drivers to "Think". For the Government, telling people to slow down is the single most effective policy they have to date.
Who's to say that if the bar is raised (we're all given Advanced Driver Training) that we won't create a new breed of drivers who are the "bad proportion of advanced drivers"? The success of implementing such a programme would be questionable. Would it actually make people 'better' drivers ready to cope with the unexpected? The Government speeding campaign takes it one stage further saying, "We know accidents happen and they're sometimes not your fault but if you're speeding you could be making the situation worse - so think, and most importantly SLOW DOWN".

I fully endorse further lessons and training for drivers, but I have a few problems with the established "advanced driver's test".
I have a couple of friends of my age who passed their advanced driver's test when they were about 21, nearly 15 years ago. One guy is a credit to drivers, he hardly ever speeds, is courteus and drives like a chauffer at all times. The other drives like a rally driver at all times, has been done for speeding more than once, has written off at least 2 vehicles to my knowledge and his driving is extremely dangerous. Despite this he thinks he is an excellent driver, and regularly says things like "I've never had a crash"...

Also, I am tired of being cut up by inconsiderate drivers who proudly display IAM badges, and old duffers who do dangerous things like reversing into a bus lane while a bus is coming, eventually causing a near fatal accident, and proudly displaying their IAM badge!

Surely giving people, mainly men! a badge or higher qualification boosts there ego so high, that they become a danger to themselves and every other person.
How can it be valid if a 17 year old can pass the test. Surely the art of advanced driving must include at least 5 years of trouble free motoring experience and a clean license.

I think that everyone should pass extra tests and be shown to keep their driving to a minimum standard as a matter of course.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I fully endorse further lessons and training for drivers, but I have a few problems with the established "advanced driver's test".

I think that everyone should pass extra tests and be shown to keep their driving to a minimum standard as a matter of course.

Absolutely. The IAM suffers from the same flaw as the basic driving test - it's a one-stop education point. Albeit with the opportunity to meet up with assessors and voluntarily get a top up of advice whenever you want.

But right now it's pretty much all we have. Sure there are some smug, rubbish drivers out there underservedly sporting an IAM badge. To be honest, those of us who generally fly the IAM flag by driving in a reasonably risk-free fashion don't have a badge/sticker on the car. Actions, I feel, speak louder than three letters.

It would be good to see the great work the IAM has done over the years achieve something far greater - a motoring public with a much better idea than right now of what the driving enviromnent requires of them if they and those around them are to pass along without injury.

Quote Parr:
"Using the same logic one cannot sail along safe in the knowledge that you've had advanced driver training. The inescapable truth is that you're less likely to kill someone in the event that you do hit them if you're travelling slower- this is cut and dry fact."

The whole point of advanced training is that it's supposed to teach you constant vigilance. To lots of stuff including your speed. Sir, until you stop galumphing around repeating your mantra ad nauseum you will add nothing to the sum of human knowledge and nothing to this discussion. You are beating the drum of a limited argument for the sake of being heard, while the rest of us have gone and left you behind.

Originally posted by Saxon
We've already been there and done that one!!

Lets not go there again

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25316&perpage=15&highlight=speed%20limits&pagenumber=1

thanx saxon

but it still makes sense whether its been said before or not.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
I used to go to Hillsborough and Chaucer schools, and all the Chaucer pupils from that area all have to tussle with penistone road to use the busses, so there is every reason for the road to be 30mph, as it is. In addition there are lots of families living in the houses opposite the hillsborough leisure centre, so that's a very good reason for the middle section being 30mph.

Many drivers think that penistone road is a faster road because it looks like the A1, but it is a built up area and is rightly a 30mph road. I do think that there should be more speed signs on there though as it is an unusually large road, and lots of drivers think they can do 40 or 50mph

I have said many times that the speed limits are totally wrong all the way on Halifax and Pensitone Road.

The section from Grenoside lights to Deerlands Avenue should be 40 mph not 30 mph. Either that or they should narrow the road considerably (it would stop the cash cow that is the mobile camera parking there though). The whole layout of this section is very similar to Yew Lane and Ecclesfield Road which both offer 40 mph speed limits (including the section outside Ecclesfield School which ought to have a variable limit down to 20-30 mph during school times).

The section outside Chaucer School - the old Lower School is not used any more (except for community classes) so kids rushing out at 3.15 pm doesnt happen now. And even if they did, they would have to cross a lane, climb a fence and descend a steep bank before they reached the main road so I can't see a problem there.

However, where you hit the bend outside the Aldi should be reduced to 30 mph. There are numerous shops, Parson Cross School and it is a very busy stretch.

It should stop 30mph right through to the Morrisions junction where it could quite easily be raised to 40 mph to Shalesmoor.

I took Saxon's advice and wrote to the Council about this. I still await their response two months later!

You totally miss the point that the road has schools on it in addition to dozens of driveways that directly enter the road.

Why do you find it so difficult to drive at 30 mph?

Yew Lane is completely different to Penistone Road in every single respect.

Originally posted by joyphil
Nope, they're asked to go away and watch a video/check out a website/have a driving lesson and come back a week later to be re-assessed. If they fail a simple ongoing assessment enough times then it's bye bye rubbish driver, please go back to school on a provisional licence and start all over again.

Offensive? Maybe, but driving in today's road environment isn't a right. It's a full-bore privelige and the place demands a certain degree of proficiency. They don't simply train up the operator of a nuclear facility then leave them to learn lazy habits for 60 years,, do they? In almost all industries ongoing assessment is a logical norm, so quite why operating the machinery that is a car is so different to this escapes me.

Seems fair. :nod:
Sort the wheat from the chaff, remove the bad eggs.
Less bad drivers=Less conjested roads=Less reason to break the speed limits of todays hectic society. :clap:

Originally posted by Tony
Yew Lane is completely different to Penistone Road in every single respect.

Agreed. But its very similar to Halifax Road from Greno to Deersland Avenue and the only differences between Halifax Road and Ecclesfield Road is the latter 40mph and goes directly past a school.

I also stated that the part which passes Parson Cross School should be reduced to 30mph and not 40 mph as it is now.

Originally posted by Tony
Yup.. there it is! My, that's not very sneaky at all is it! ;)

Week commencing Monday 24th January 2005:
Barnsley B6411 Houghton Road, Thurnscoe
Barnsley Pogmoor Road, Barnsley
Doncaster A638 Great North Road / York Road, Doncaster
Doncaster Broomhouse Lane / Springwell Lane, Edlington / Warmsworth
Rotherham A6022 Swinton
Rotherham A629 Wortley Road / Upper Wortley Road
Rotherham A630 Centenary Way, Rotherham
Rotherham A630 Doncaster Road, Dalton / Thrybergh
Rotherham A631 Bawtry Road / Rotherham Road, Hellaby / Maltby
Rotherham B6059 Kiveton / Wales
Sheffield A61 Chesterfield Road / Chesterfield Road South
Sheffield A6101 Rivelin Valley Road, Sheffield

I would question just how factual the list on that site actually is and wonder if its just publicity bluff, time after time especially on Saturdays the mobile camera is stalking the Parkway, and yet I never see it listed on here !

Finally as a twice daily driver along Pogmoor Road, Barnsley for the last 3 years I've yet to see a speed camera on that road ! and yet its been listed for the last 3 weeks or so.

Originally posted by MobileB
I have said many times that the speed limits are totally wrong all the way on Halifax and Pensitone Road.

The section outside Chaucer School - the old Lower School is not used any more (except for community classes) so kids rushing out at 3.15 pm doesnt happen now. And even if they did, they would have to cross a lane, climb a fence and descend a steep bank before they reached the main road so I can't see a problem there.
Right, I went to this school and you are wrong. While I was there there were 2 fatalities, pupils getting killed crossing the road. On wolf road there are some local shops, and a chippy, and hundreds of pupils crossed every day at lunch and after school. Look closer at the terrain. The school gates are straight onto the service road, and then straight to main road crossing. No banking or barrier, that's further down the hill where the houses are.
No cars slowing down, because they think it's a motorway. Drive at 30 you selfish person.

Right, to start I have skipped the last few pages so apologies if I am repeating anything here...


The first shock is for once I have to agree with nick2. It doesn't matter how you are caught. If you are speeding, you are breaking the law FULL STOP.

Now I'm no angel. To cut a long story short I got 8 points on my licence before passing my test. This was upped to 11 shortly after passing the test. (Yes I was allowed 12 points in those days). The last 3 points where for speeding. Copper with the laser gun. Did I complain about them not being out catching murderers, No. I said fair cop and got on with it.


A couple of peeps have said that Speed doesn't kill. This is nonsence. I will agree that it is not the only factor or is it the biggest factor. Did you people not have to learn your stopping distances when you passed your test. i.e. The faster you are travelling the further it takes to stop. If that kid thats run out onto the road is further away than your stopping distance he is alive. If due to increased speed / stopping distance he is within the stopping distance there is a chance of death.

In response to the "They should be out catching murderers" brigade. The Speed camera's take very little police time. The mobile ones are manned by overtime. All the fines are dealt with by none "sub contractors". This allowing more police to solve other crimes.

If someone invented a anti mugging camera, would you all be complaining that they are picking on the Honest Mugger, they should be out catching real criminals like speeders.

And why should the cameras be painted yellow. If some pusher was selling your kids drugs you wouldn't want the police turning up in a bright yellow car with "Police Surveillance" plastered down the side.

I did read (admittedly, it was on the internet :D ) that one town (beleive it was in Australia or New Zealand) did a 2 year test. They installed loads of cameras, they even gave rewards to peeps that could come up with the best hiding places. Cameras where installed in wheelie bins (I have seen this on TV in America). They would drill into trees and place the lens into them. They said that for every 5 miles you travelled you would pass 2 to 3 cameras. They ran a no tolerance policy although the more over the limit you went the more the points / fine you received. Within 6 weeks the speeding fines dropped to zero.



/ramble

Quality Posting Slimboy!

I salute you.
Speeding is crime, It's wrong, you're selfish if you do it, and it causes more death and injury than every other crime. That's why the police should be rightly involved with policing it.

I too admit to breaking the law and getting points for speeding. But what I won't admit to is far more worrying. If they'd have had speed cameras back in 1992 then I would have had a much more troubled life. Have you ever been on a race replica motorcycle? Maybe that's why I get no pleasure out of driving fast in a car?

Originally posted by SlimboyFat
A couple of peeps have said that Speed doesn't kill. This is nonsence. I will agree that it is not the only factor or is it the biggest factor. Did you people not have to learn your stopping distances when you passed your test. i.e. The faster you are travelling the further it takes to stop. If that kid thats run out onto the road is further away than your stopping distance he is alive. If due to increased speed / stopping distance he is within the stopping distance there is a chance of death.


Speed CAN Kill, but 'Speed Kills' as a slogan is just pure wrong. If you're doing 3mph over the limit, the daft child might run out behind you, rather than in front of you for example.

The highway code stopping distances are well past their sell by date, we are being told to lean data based on archaic vehicles. My N-reg fiesta 1.1 would outdo them distances, and that's with basic brakes. Imagine that compared to say a new Megane or Mercedes...

Any mobile van violating road traffic laws in order to prosecute others for violating the laws should have their quota binned. We either all sing from the same songsheet, or we dont.

Despite this increase in mobile and fixed cameras year on year, accidents actually rose last year. That says something.

Before I paint a very single-sided view of myself here, I will say that I don't object to cameras.

I'd much prefer them in residential streets instead of speed bumps, which screw everybody's cars up and hinder emergency services.

I also agree with them at accident blackspots, where DSI (deaths and seriously injured) figures are high. They shouldn't be the only deterrent though.

Money raised from cameras should go back into road safety as a whole, not just into cameras and Brucie Bonus's for cops.

I'd also much rather see traffic police on the roads than cameras, traffic police can detect dangerous driving and car defects as well as speeding.

Next time i'm eating an apple on the outside lane of a dual carriageway, chatting on my mobile phone and steering badly with my knees because im drunk, I know i wont be caught, so long as I stick to the limit.

That, IMO, is an extreme fictional situation, but I value the above to be more dangerous than creeping over the limit occasionally.

Originally posted by mega_monty
Finally as a twice daily driver along Pogmoor Road, Barnsley for the last 3 years I've yet to see a speed camera on that road ! and yet its been listed for the last 3 weeks or so.


Its there now, As we speak.. :(

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Right, I went to this school and you are wrong. While I was there there were 2 fatalities, pupils getting killed crossing the road. On wolf road there are some local shops, and a chippy, and hundreds of pupils crossed every day at lunch and after school. Look closer at the terrain. The school gates are straight onto the service road, and then straight to main road crossing. No banking or barrier, that's further down the hill where the houses are.
No cars slowing down, because they think it's a motorway. Drive at 30 you selfish person.

I went there too! Lower School is now closed. They are not even allowed to cross the field to go out of that gate because of the dangerous state of the building. All must now leave out via Wordsworth Avenue.

Ok. But even if they did, then how about some variable speed limits so that the speed is lowered during the times you mention. And the limit on there is 40 mph at the moment by the way.

Originally posted by dinp
Speed CAN Kill, but 'Speed Kills' as a slogan is just pure wrong. If you're doing 3mph over the limit, the daft child might run out behind you, rather than in front of you for example.

The highway code stopping distances are well past their sell by date, we are being told to lean data based on archaic vehicles. My N-reg fiesta 1.1 would outdo them distances, and that's with basic brakes. Imagine that compared to say a new Megane or Mercedes...

Any mobile van violating road traffic laws in order to prosecute others for violating the laws should have their quota binned. We either all sing from the same songsheet, or we dont.

Despite this increase in mobile and fixed cameras year on year, accidents actually rose last year. That says something.

Before I paint a very single-sided view of myself here, I will say that I don't object to cameras.

I'd much prefer them in residential streets instead of speed bumps, which screw everybody's cars up and hinder emergency services.

I also agree with them at accident blackspots, where DSI (deaths and seriously injured) figures are high. They shouldn't be the only deterrent though.

Money raised from cameras should go back into road safety as a whole, not just into cameras and Brucie Bonus's for cops.

I'd also much rather see traffic police on the roads than cameras, traffic police can detect dangerous driving and car defects as well as speeding.

Next time i'm eating an apple on the outside lane of a dual carriageway, chatting on my mobile phone and steering badly with my knees because im drunk, I know i wont be caught, so long as I stick to the limit.

That, IMO, is an extreme fictional situation, but I value the above to be more dangerous than creeping over the limit occasionally.

For once dinp, I agree with you!

Originally posted by SlimboyFat
Its there now, As we speak.. :(

Well I'll stand to be corrected :P

But not suprised its there on a Saturday, doing a nice bit of overtime again I presume, any spare jobs going at South Yorkshire Camera Partnership ?

All I can say I never seen it on that road Mon - Fri 8:00am - 5:00pm

As you put a sad smiley at the end of your message did the camera catch you out as you passed it ?

Originally posted by MobileB
I went there too! Lower School is now closed. They are not even allowed to cross the field to go out of that gate because of the dangerous state of the building. All must now leave out via Wordsworth Avenue.

Ok. But even if they did, then how about some variable speed limits so that the speed is lowered during the times you mention. And the limit on there is 40 mph at the moment by the way.

I'm not surprised it is in a dangerous state. The windows used to fall out when my younger brother was there, and they boarded them all up. I remember the whole place seemed as if it was stuck together with chewing gum.

I see your point about a variable speed limit, but we are talking about a small stretch of road here maybe just 1 mile?
if you drove a mile at 30mph it takes 2 minutes.
if you drove a mile at 40mph it takes 1min 30 seconds.
Is it worth it, to save 30 seconds, which you will lose again, when you slow down and wait at the roundabout or one of the traffic lights further down?

Originally posted by dinp
Speed CAN Kill, but 'Speed Kills' as a slogan is just pure wrong. If you're doing 3mph over the limit, the daft child might run out behind you, rather than in front of you for example.

The highway code stopping distances are well past their sell by date, we are being told to lean data based on archaic vehicles. My N-reg fiesta 1.1 would outdo them distances, and that's with basic brakes. Imagine that compared to say a new Megane or Mercedes...

Any mobile van violating road traffic laws in order to prosecute others for violating the laws should have their quota binned. We either all sing from the same songsheet, or we dont.

Despite this increase in mobile and fixed cameras year on year, accidents actually rose last year. That says something.

Before I paint a very single-sided view of myself here, I will say that I don't object to cameras.



I'd much prefer them in residential streets instead of speed bumps, which screw everybody's cars up and hinder emergency services.

I also agree with them at accident blackspots, where DSI (deaths and seriously injured) figures are high. They shouldn't be the only deterrent though.

Money raised from cameras should go back into road safety as a whole, not just into cameras and Brucie Bonus's for cops.

I'd also much rather see traffic police on the roads than cameras, traffic police can detect dangerous driving and car defects as well as speeding.

Next time i'm eating an apple on the outside lane of a dual carriageway, chatting on my mobile phone and steering badly with my knees because im drunk, I know i wont be caught, so long as I stick to the limit.

That, IMO, is an extreme fictional situation, but I value the above to be more dangerous than creeping over the limit occasionally.

Give this man the medal he deserves and close the thread, no more need be said. :clap::clap::clap:

Originally posted by claycraft
Give this man the medal he deserves and close the thread, no more need be said. :clap::clap::clap:

Cheers, and cheers MobileB too :thumbsup:

Originally posted by dinp


Despite this increase in mobile and fixed cameras year on year, accidents actually rose last year. That says something.



40% rise in S. Yorks according to th BBC programme "Traffic Cops" tonight!:roll:

Originally posted by claycraft
40% rise in S. Yorks according to th BBC programme "Traffic Cops" tonight!:roll:

Was that an up to date programme though, or a repeat?

If it is up to date, this illustrates my point perfectly. Cameras are not saving more life, they're creating more accidents and penalising those who look at the road rather than their speedo.

Unless you know that there has been a 40% increase next to speed cameras it illustrates the point very badly.

However, you could use it as an argument for MORE speed camers ;)

'Here here' Tony.

!this illustrates my point perfectly. Cameras are not saving more life, they're creating more accidents and penalising those who look at the road rather than their speedo

The fact that there has been a rise in accidents has absolutely didley squat to do with speed cameras.:loopy:

Its down to rank bad driving and a bad attitude to other road users.

Originally posted by Saxon
'Here here' Tony.

!

The fact that there has been a rise in accidents has absolutely didley squat to do with speed cameras.:loopy:

Its down to rank bad driving and a bad attitude to other road users.

Which surely says the money generated would be better spent on education and retraining of drivers rather than more speed cameras.

Mobile B - trying to make Saxon even richer! (I'd rather you have it than the government, mate!)

Originally posted by MobileB
Which surely says the money generated would be better spent on education and retraining of drivers rather than more speed cameras.

Mobile B - trying to make Saxon even richer! (I'd rather you have it than the government, mate!)

Couldn't agree more, MobileB!!:thumbsup:

(To both suggestions!)

Originally posted by Tony
Unless you know that there has been a 40% increase next to speed cameras it illustrates the point very badly.

However, you could use it as an argument for MORE speed camers ;)

We have more cameras now than we did a year or two ago and accidents are rising.

As Saxon says "Its down to rank bad driving and a bad attitude to other road users." - not speeding then.

You can drive within the limits and still be a total w****r on the road, so cameras are targeting the wrong people if the govt wants road safety to improve.

They've taken the easy option though. Fine speeding drivers, hail cameras as a good safety tool (til this year) and look, Britain has amongst the safest roads in Europe.

Just like we did BEFORE these Talivans and Cameras reared their ugly heads then....