Average Speed Cameras to be installed city -A61 - Grenoside

[metalman 21]

I wouldn't have minded if they'd left it at 60 and put average cameras in but they decided to slow everyone down to 50 for no reason.

 

Totally agree with this.

[Agent Orange 11]

I wouldn't have minded if they'd left it at 60 and put average cameras in but they decided to slow everyone down to 50 for no reason. Yes people have died on that road but thats mainly because of idiots doing 60+

 

Quite clearly there is a reason. They haven't just done this on a whim.

[DT Ralge 10]

There are a plethora of other things they could do - changing driving tests, harsher sentences for dangerous driving, lengthier bans and restrictions on drink-driving, prison sentences for repeat offenders. Unfortunately these are all much more difficult to implement than putting up a yellow box

 

I agree but, then, they have already done all that.

Driving tests - is that the context in which, if you break the law (keep moving at a STOP line, don't wear a seatbelt, turn up for test in an unroadworthy vehicle (b/l or h/l missing), don't stop on the amber when you could have quite safely, ignore a "no right turn" sign, park inconveniently, unsafely or illegally, oh, and speed) you fail the test?

So, by making the test hard or harder I.e. Really clamp down on things that are wrong in the eyes of the law and unsafe you can make a difference, can you, if once passed many of the finer details are ignored?

Seems to me, the anti-brigade on here want to pick and choose their way through a menu of the law: that one I like, that one is unnecessary and/or stupid and I know better so I'll ignore that law, sign, light, limit.

 

All the things that we both want come with a bill attached I.e. uniforms on the beat but we aren't going to return to times of old when we had a bobby on every corner (did we?). What we CAN do is not have bad attitude that gives succour and support to the law-breakers on the road in general. The anti-brigade do just that. So with your anti-authority, "wtf did the Council do that", revenue-raising again messages you risk putting yourself in the same team as those who see the Law as not for them.

Edited April 12, 2012 by DT Ralge

[Eater Sundae 12]

They had similar limits to start with i.e. 60. So you seem to be saying that it's terribly unsafe for anybody to proceed at more than 50 mph on any road, because it's pretty difficult to find one on that map that doesn't have a similar accident rate. With the possible exception of the A629 between Wortley and Penistone which, despite being 60 for most of the way and also having plenty of bends, junctions and so on, seems to have remained death-free for a decade.

 

Surely this is the point. This type of road, ie the rural main road, single carriageway, with bends, often tree lined etc stands out as being particularly hazardous, with a high number of accidents, including fatal ones.

 

It is not that it is terribly unsafe to travel at over 50. The point is that there is a clear and measurable correlation between average speeds and accidents/deaths. Reducing average speeds is seen as a cost effective way of reducing the number of deaths. This argument happens to apply to a lot of these types of roads, hence many are being restricted.

[BarryRiley 10]

I agree but, then, they have already done all that.

Driving tests - is that the context in which, if you break the law (keep moving at a STOP line, don't wear a seatbelt, turn up for test in an unroadworthy vehicle (b/l or h/l missing), don't stop on the amber when you could have quite safely, ignore a "no right turn" sign, park inconveniently, unsafely or illegally, oh, and speed) you fail the test?

So, by making the test hard or harder I.e. Really clamp down on things that are wrong in the eyes of the law and unsafe you can make a difference, can you, if once passed many of the finer details are ignored?

Seems to me, the anti-brigade on here want to pick and choose their way through a menu of the law: that one I like, that one is unnecessary and/or stupid and I know better so I'll ignore that law, sign, light, limit.

 

All the things that we both want come with a bill attached I.e. uniforms on the beat but we aren't going to return to times of old when we had a bobby on every corner (did we?). What we CAN do is not have bad attitude that gives succour and support to the law-breakers on the road in general. The anti-brigade do just that. So with your anti-authority, "wtf did the Council do that", revenue-raising again messages you risk putting yourself in the same team as those who see the Law as not for them.

 

But you're using the term law like it's some sort of fixed entity inscribed in stone and the law breakers a group of people who refuse to play by the rules for no reason other then rebellion. It's not that simple. We're talking about laws which change week on week. Something which is perfectly fine one day and heinous crime the next depending on which directive is received from central government and how much money is in the coffers. It's a cheap way to dismiss a valid discussion to refer to people as anti-authority simply because they don't agree with something the council had done on here. This seems to stifle any serious discussion on this forum. Either you agree with what the council do or nothing more than a stinking law breaker and your opinion will not be heard. We really are a nation of people who will really bend over and take whatever our government decide for us.

[metalman 21]

Seems to me, the anti-brigade on here want to pick and choose their way through a menu of the law: that one I like, that one is unnecessary and/or stupid and I know better so I'll ignore that law, sign, light, limit.

 

All the things that we both want come with a bill attached I.e. uniforms on the beat but we aren't going to return to times of old when we had a bobby on every corner (did we?). What we CAN do is not have bad attitude that gives succour and support to the law-breakers on the road in general. The anti-brigade do just that. So with your anti-authority, "wtf did the Council do that", revenue-raising again messages you risk putting yourself in the same team as those who see the Law as not for them.

 

Show me anywhere where I've said I'll be breaking that speed limit now they've imposed it. I don't agree with them imposing it... and evidently according to you I should be thrown into jail for sedition for even going that far.

[frededwards 10]

What the sanctimonious, whiter-than-white do-gooders need to grasp is the fact that speed per se does not kill or injure people, it’s INAPPROPRIATE speed that kills and injures.

If more time and resources were spent getting the morons that cannot judge appropriate speed, rather than on appeasing chattering idiots and fund raising, we’d all be safer.

[Agent Orange 11]

What the sanctimonious, whiter-than-white do-gooders need to grasp is the fact that speed per se does not kill or injure people, it’s INAPPROPRIATE speed that kills and injures.

If more time and resources were spent getting the morons that cannot judge appropriate speed, rather than on appeasing chattering idiots and fund raising, we’d all be safer.

 

So how do you enforce inappropriate speed, if you didn't have speed limits?

[frededwards 10]

By having proper policeman, out on the street, using their judgement and discression.

 

Some of us have enough wit about us to make such decisions without having red and white bits of tin nailed to telegraph poles to inform us.

 

If your special awareness and sense of self-preservation is sufficiently flawed that you need such basic decision made for you, it might be better for us all if you considered ceasing driving.

[Agent Orange 11]

By having proper policeman, out on the street, using their judgement and discression.

 

And how do the police stand a chance of prosecuting anyone with the above?

[frededwards 10]

The same way as they prosecute Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Dangerous Driving etc. The opinion of a trained traffic officer is deemed to have legal weight in court.

 

I would have thought it was pretty obvious.

[Agent Orange 11]

The same way as they prosecute Driving Without Due Care and Attention, Dangerous Driving etc. The opinion of a trained traffic officer is deemed to have legal weight in court.

 

I would have thought it was pretty obvious.

 

Why, when the system that's already in place is perfectly functionable, transparent and easily applied?