Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[Berberis 10]

There are other methods, but they do not generate huge amounts of cash for the government, so are disregarded.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7045178.stm

 

Excessive speed should ALWAYS be punished with a hefty fine and or other forms of punishment, but this exercise of moving the limits further and further down, just criminalises more and more people. Why not have sliding scales of fines and points? Your first offence, a fine, your second, a fine and points, 3rd more points and the fine doubled etc? This would deter but would not effect people insurance premiums etc for their first offence.

 

This of hit this way, if I am driving 33mpg in a 30 zone I am fined and receive the same punishment as a person who is driving at 59mph is the same area! Why?

[mifsit 10]

I'm not against the idea of a 20mph speed limit but I'd imagine there will be an increase in convictions for driving without due care and attention:

officer: what were you doing at the time of the accident?

driver: looking at my speedometer!

3 points and £60 fine for trying to be good

[jeremyjh1 10]

Ah, now we're getting to the reason for your hatred of cameras - you were caught twice!

 

There is no 'buffer zone' between speed zones. The change of zone is signified by a sign which should be visible well before the zone begins, that's where you reduce your speed accordingly. If the sign isn't visible then you can dispute the penalty. But if it is, then I'm afraid it's down to your poor driving skills.

 

Incidentally, I just caught the thread about your ticket for parking in a taxi bay. Seems you aren't having much luck on the roads.

 

Please, do not trivialize matters. I dislike 'mobile' speed camera's that are strategically placed so as not to be seen until AFTER the picture has been taken.

 

Each time I have been caught has been by a mobile camera that was not visible.

 

On each occasion, whilst driving in or just entering a 30 mph zone, I was 'caught' driving at 34 mph, 36 mph and 35 mph.

 

Now, if that is irresponsible or dangerous, put me in prison and throw away the key - but I will reel off countless instances of plain bloody mindless driving that I have witnessed in the last 15 years doing the job I do, which requires me to drive up and down the country (clocking an average 40 to 50 thousand miles a year).

 

Like, someone doing a U turn on the M1 (between the drop down parts of the barriers designed for the use of emergency vehicles).

 

Or undertaking at speed (greater than 70 mph) on various motorways.

 

Or driving at over 70 mph whilst reading a map.

 

And so on.

 

Not one of them, to the best of my knowlede, was ever 'caught' and each of those instances I regard as being far more dangerous than me driving 4, 5 or 6 mph over the speed limit.

 

Now, if you wish to sit in your ivory and make supercillious, glib comments while completely failing to understand any of my reasons, then you will forever be incorrect and ignorant.

 

It's about fairness, it's about justice being dished out where it is fair and to whom it needs to be.

 

If you take average mileage to be 8 to 12 thousand miles per year, then in the last 15 or so years I have driven the equivalent of between 63.5 and 93.75 years worth of driving in that time - and in all that time I have been caught speeding 3 times (between 4 and 6 mph over the legal limit) and I have had three minor accidents - none of which were caused by speeding).

 

When you have driven for the same equivalent period and have an equal or better driving record than I do, then you can look down your nose at me and I will accept your condemnation and condescending attitude.

 

If you are to pass comment, please try to understand my viewpoint or you will simply make yourself look a fool.

[jeremyjh1 10]

alchresearch,

 

Further comments on your post.

 

So, as far your concerned, the law is absolute and there are no grey areas? Murder is murder - no 'self defence', no 'accidental' - If you kill someone, it's murder - plain and simple.

 

For your information, there was a sign, but I did not notice it until I had almost passed it. The road was wet and there was a vehicle directly behind me (I knew this because I like to be aware of everything going on around me on the road - though, not always the signs by the side of the road as they can distract you, even for a second). I was photographed about 20 or 30 yards inside the 30 zone - I know this because the photographic evidence clearly shows the 40 mph sign in the background [behind the 40 mph, for vehicles coming in the opposite direction, is the 30 mph zone).

 

Now, I could have employed you absolute policy of 'no buffer zone' and slammed on my brakes to slow down immediately.

 

However, being responsible and being aware of the vehicle following closely behind me and assuming that, perhaps, that driver may not be 100% concentrating and might not react to my sudden slowing quickly enough, I took the sensible course of action to slow down gradually.

 

Otherwise, I may have put my vehicle in to a skid; I may have caused the driver behind to run in to the back of me (sure, it would be his fault, but I thought I'd rather not have the hassle of going through my insurance and having my car off the road for any period of time).

 

So, acting responsibly, I slowed down gradually, but not enough to prevent being photographed by the camera van that was stationed just on the bend of the road (sufficiently far enough around the bend not to be seen until the last possible moment).

 

Next time, I will slam on my brakes and stuff the people driving behind me. If the smash in to my car from behind, and are either seriously injured or, worse, at least I'll not get fined for speeding and you'll be satisfied that I have taken the law to the letter.

 

As for the parking offence - well, the matter gets muddier and muddier. From the unobtrusive sign, as you look at it, to the right is disabled parking and to the left is taxi parking. There is nothing on the road to indicate where one exemption begins and the other exemption ends, just a sign.

 

Neither are there any markings to suggest how many parking bays or places there are.

 

Taking your 'no buffer rule', if a vehicle was parked so that either the front or the rear of the vehicle was a few cms either side of the position of the sign (assuming that is border between the two exemptions) then a ticket must be issued.

 

Do you know how impossible and ridiculous that would be?

[jeremyjh1 10]

 

Excessive speed should ALWAYS be punished with a hefty fine and or other forms of punishment, but this exercise of moving the limits further and further down, just criminalises more and more people. Why not have sliding scales of fines and points? Your first offence, a fine, your second, a fine and points, 3rd more points and the fine doubled etc? This would deter but would not effect people insurance premiums etc for their first offence.

 

Ah, now we're stepping in to the area of opinion.

 

What is considered to be excessive?

 

And, conversely, what is not excessive?

 

There are some who have the draconian, totalitarian view that 1 mph over the legal limit is excessive - there is no tolerance (for anything - road conditions, mechanical deficiency etc.,)

 

If so, then whether you drive 1 mph or 50 mph over the limit, it is excessive and therefore the punishment should be standard.

 

The law does not accept levels of tolerance - except when it suits and only when it facilitates an increase in a punishment.

[alchresearch 213]

Now, if that is irresponsible or dangerous, put me in prison and throw away the key - but I will reel off countless instances of plain bloody mindless driving that I have witnessed in the last 15 years doing the job I do, which requires me to drive up and down the country (clocking an average 40 to 50 thousand miles a year).

 

Like, someone doing a U turn on the M1 (between the drop down parts of the barriers designed for the use of emergency vehicles).

 

Or undertaking at speed (greater than 70 mph) on various motorways.

 

If you are to pass comment, please try to understand my viewpoint or you will simply make yourself look a fool.

 

It seems to me that you're just bitter that others are getting away with it but you have been caught. That's life I'm afraid.

 

And as for comparing driving offences with other crimes, such as murder, is laughable. Just because both are laws you cannot compare the two.

 

But, if you feel you have a valid case to question your speeding offence, do it - you have that right.

 

I think the only fool here is the one with the points on his licence and trying to justify speeding.

[alchresearch 213]

For your information, there was a sign, but I did not notice it until I had almost passed it. The road was wet and there was a vehicle directly behind me (I knew this because I like to be aware of everything going on around me on the road - though, not always the signs by the side of the road as they can distract you, even for a second).

 

I rest my case - not paying full attention to the road and very contradictory!

[Berberis 10]

I think the only fool here is the one with the points on his licence and trying to justify speeding.

 

Not I then, I have a clean license that has never had any points. But I do not condone excessive speeding, but I do find the governments and yours for that matter, views on the subject completely unjust. You have ignored many alternative arguments to your view, you have disregarded better solutions because they do not fit with your totalitarian attitudes. You failed to answer my questions about your own driving habits.

 

Blindly agreeing with every law, every change and every pressure groups is nuts and only those incapable of constructive thought would agree with them.

[jeremyjh1 10]

I rest my case - not paying full attention to the road and very contradictory!

 

 

The sign was at the SIDE of the road. I was driving ON the road, paying attention to the road and the vehicle in close priximity behind me.

 

If anything, your comment shows how you have your haughty view and you simply select the sentence or words that suit you.

 

That does not, I'm afraid, make you right.

[jeremyjh1 10]

It seems to me that you're just bitter that others are getting away with it but you have been caught. That's life I'm afraid.

 

And as for comparing driving offences with other crimes, such as murder, is laughable. Just because both are laws you cannot compare the two.

 

But, if you feel you have a valid case to question your speeding offence, do it - you have that right.

 

I think the only fool here is the one with the points on his licence and trying to justify speeding.

 

When trying to emphasis the stupidity of a statement or point of view, one tool is to select an example that is absurd.

 

You said in law there if 'no buffer zone' - implying that if you break the law, there should be no leniency show.

 

I drew the distinction between that standpoint and the treatment of one person taking the life of another - to show that, actually, there are 'buffer zones' already in operation and to take the view you have would make life unworkable and probably make criminals of us all (though, you, being so holy and righteous, would no doubt be exempt from such a fate).

 

However much to try to dress it up or twist the facts to suit your argument, it only proves that you have no idea what the argument actually is.

 

I am not bitter that others get away with far more dangerous and worse driving than I do. It is a question, as I have said all along (if you can be bothered to look back at my previous posts and read EVERYTHING written - not just the bits that suit your ends) of fairness and justice and the application of the law.

 

Do you want the police to spend all their energies catching and fining litter bugs to the detriment of catching and convicting murderers, rapists, child molesters, thieves and so on?

 

I think not - yet you are quite happy for the police to spend their time and effort catching and issuing fines to people driving at 4 or 5 or 6 mph over the speed limit (instead of catching and punishing the driver with no licence, no insurance, drunk or high on drugs).

 

I do not see or even understand why I should be criminalised or tarnished simply because I'm an easy target - I drive - and I contribute to their performance figures and bonus payments (no doubt).

 

Maybe I am bitter that others get away with far worse than I do - does it not bother you or upset you or annoy you that the most hardened criminals the police seem to be able to catch with ease are motorists speeding (in most cases) a few mph over the legal limit?

 

If it doesn't, then I will refrain from wasting my time responding to you. You obviously enjoy living in your own perfect world - so good luck to you.

[ken1 10]

ken livingstone is bringing this in, in london, soon. how long before we get it in sheffield? how can we stop it?

[FlowerdUp89 10]

Ken Livingstone can kiss my______! Before he does it! We should organise a protest outside the City Hall.....