blonde poker forum

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/noavspeedcameras/sign

Anyone interested in signing, log on to the above

The government is monitoring who logs on and will have you assassinated, or at least have you library card cancelled

I'm all in favour of speed cameras.

And I got a 6 month ban for speeding 3 years ago - caught by the Cameras.

If you don't wanna be caught speeding, don't speed. 

see, that would never have happened if you were using other forms of conveyance!

Have you ever thought about using public transport?

 

I had no choice when I got Banned! Not easy, losing your licence when living in rural England, let me tell you. But it sure hits the spot.

they thought they were doing you a favour cos they'd heard you liked rambling  ;marks;

I still think you should look into the prospect of using public transport more often, like a bus or a ferry or something, even take it up as a hobbie?

Boooo Speed Camera's.

Speed cameras are fine - but why the point-to-point ones that mean you drive with your eyes transfixed to the speedo rather than taking in the hazards that are around you?  Usually these average speed checks are on motorways where they are doing roadworks and there are workmen close to where you're driving.  Ideally, you'd be focusing on what's happening around you, rather than taking your eyes off the road.

Why not just use a number of gatso or truvelo cameras along the stretch of road, instead of these ridiculous specs?

Cruise control FTW

try sticking to the limit all the time. you'll soon get used to it and not have to stare at your speedo.

Correct.

Correct again.

The first time you kill a kid by speeding you'll regret it the rest of your life.

Driving too fast is not big, & it's not funny. It's what adolescents do.

Speed Cameras rock. And I'm on 9 points, by the way.

your turning a good old fashioned bash the government thread into a downer! can you stop it please

I told my mate where to vote in an election once when he couldn't find the polling station, he'd already asked someone about polling day and they wound him up and he spent the day in Soho,anyway that gives me the right to ruin the government and you're spoiling it with your existentialistic transgressions, isn't it mandatory that you have a retest soon anyway?

does a "existentialistic transgression" really mean you shagged an alien

I heard some rumours

So how do you know how fast you're going if you don't look at your speedo?

It's not just you, you have to think about what others are doing.  I've had someone go into the back of me in a stretch of roadworks with these point-to-point cameras.  The other driver hadn't seen the traffic in front of him slow up - as he was trying to maintain his 50mph.

This fascination with speed is ludicrous. 

Drink-driving, dangerous driving, driving without a license or insurance, driving in a car that's not roadworthy are all more dangerous than speeding on a motorway.

Can't stop these with speed cameras though.

They are most irritating but thankfully i run good so get away with it as they never have film in them!

Boshi, gonna have to pull you up there ... speeding/drink driving within the speed limit ... both equally as bad, and both liable to cause death.

I realise 70 on a motorway is a fkin drag at silly o'clock when there is no traffic about, and its different to driving at 45 in a 30 zone ... but both are criminal offences.

Bad laws are treated with the contempt they deserve, the motorway speed limit is a joke and is universally  ignored.


Speed cameras are just another tax, there are no speed cameras outside my child's school but the local dual carriage way is blanketed with them.

And that is the problem. I have 2 schools by me, load of d**k heads who drive up and down the road at easily speeds of 60+, no cameras.. From Runcorn into Liverpool all dual or motorway, 3 cameras, a total of 5 miles. ?? Thats the problem, they are used as + tax, instead of the speed controll that they should be used.

BTW, Av speed cameras rock.. !! You dont mess with them after being caught once  ;grr;, ok it was double the av speed and probably deserved, but never speed throught them again, lesson learned and all that, ok, i must admit that Alex Fergusons solicitor is worth every penny, and he even got my costs back   ;yippee; ;yippee;.. but I still wont speed through the av speed ones again.

Kev, that's nonsense. 

There's speed, and there's inappropriate speed.  Going 30mph near a school is far more dangerous than going 85mph on a clear motorway in dry weather - FACT.

Drink-driving is far more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit on a motorway (conditions permitting).  With all these people speeding on motorways, how come they are by far the safest places to drive a car?

If drink-driving and speeding were both as bad as each other, then why are people sent to prison for it, whereas someone exceeding the speed limit is given a £60 fine and 3 points?

I think there should be far MORE cameras and speed checks in residential areas, where far more people are killed and injured by inappropriate speed.  I also think there should be far more patrols and stops to test people for drink-driving, driving without insurance, etc. 

From the Department for Transport's published figures, the top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

But let's concentrate on 'speeding' as public enemy no.1 .  Also, although the figures for drink-driving and exceeding speed limit are both at 5%, three times as many fatalities are due to accidents involving drink-drivers compared to those involving speeding.

Also notice that 12% of the accidents were attributed to 'going too fast for the conditions' - not speeding.  Going 85pmh on a clear, dry motorway is far safer than going 65mph on the same motorway in torrential rain.  But as it's below the speed limit, it must be OK...

They're not really though are they?

Speed cameras cost hardly anything and take very little manpower or maintenance - they are going to hardly any effort at all to catch people breaking the law - why shouldn't they?

However 'unimportant' the crime, if there is an easy way of catching people breaking it what possible reason could they have for not implementing it?

It is illegal to put empty milk bottles on your doorstep. It is an "Unimportant" crime. There is an easy way of catching people breaking this law. Do you think it should be implemented?

I'll go and dig out the amount the government has spent on speeding campaigns, how many police patrols have been removed from our roads (as cameras can do their job, obviously), and how they don't actually make the roads safer unless they are in the right locations.

I'm not against speed cameras per se, I'm all for them if they help reduce accidents and resources can then be used to catch drink-drivers, uninsured drivers, etc.  Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Petition signed. I do love the good old argument of the law is the law. Being oh so compliant is really what makes this country great. Allows authorities to implement what the f*** they like after sighting the worse case scenario with it gaining mass support and only receiving limited challenge.  

Kin, I agree with much of what you wrote but re: speed cameras in residential areas why would a council put them there, people won't be happy with a big FO gatso sitting understand their house. Let alone it wouldn't generate half the money of existing main road cameras.

Gatso is reading this thread.  How apt.

Let's go round again!!!

Gatso isn't that bad.  I'd rather have him sitting at my poker table than in front of my house though.

I get what you're saying about cameras in residential areas.  That gets me on to another bugbear of mine - speed bumps.  Too many, and there are better traffic-calming measures that don't have the downsides.

  


ill have one outside my house, it might even save my life new mind any of this children from the 2 schools by me.

If the money the government make from speed cameras was ploughed back into making roads safer, improving roads, drink driving scemes, more traffis police etc, then i'm sure people would be more tolerant to them, simple as that...

I think that revenue raising plays a large part.  When I travelled down to Newcastle a few weeks ago, there was a camera sited at the end of a 30mph stretch just when the national speed limit sign came into view i.e. to catch anyone accelerating b4 the change.  The road down to prestwick from glasgow was 60mph and covered by average speed cameras, they have reduced this to 50 without any notices saying there was a change (presumably they weren't catching enough).

Fuck statistics, when you have lost someone close to you, and the cause of death is put down to the actions of a dick speeding in a car, you dont need any figures to convince you that its wrong.

I hope you never have to experience that.

I understand what you're saying, but was it due to speeding (as in exceeding the speed limit), or someone going at an inappropriate speed for the road and conditions?

There is a difference.

Why should society be defined by the worst case scenario. Should we all dress up in cotton wool and never go outside our houses in fear of something bad happening to us. Then again don't most accidents happen in the home. F***, what is a person meant to do.

Statistics are of value in respect that they can help us identitfy and define what the real issues are. It is indeed a tragedy when a person losses their life to the actions of a reckless, speeding driver but does that mean the benefits of speed cameras surpass there negatives???.

Looking at all these reasons, they have one common denominator -- Human Error

If you don't agree with the law then shouldn't the petition be to change the speeding laws?

Cameras are just the tool used - what's the problem with making money with them as well as upholding the law, or is it only morally right to uphold the law if it costs a huge amount of money?

Also I've never in my life advocated following a law just because it is the law - what I'd argue is:

(a) Don't get caught
(b) Don't complain about ways they try to catch you - that's 'their' job.
(c) Don't complain if you do get caught.

I have neither the need or desire to respond to your somewhat silly a,b,c comments other than if I wish to complain about a system then that is my right. Didn't realise you are the guardian of informing people what their rights are. As for "their job", it really depends on what you see as their projected "job" being opposed to what you may believe their real motive are. Of course, what with good old British apathy it seems to allow hinden agendas to be seeked in though the back door  supported by certain members of society with their "oh so superior moral attitudes". That and your silly "don't" complain stance.

i got caught by a camera the other week heading to the casino

the only time i had been early to casino (45 minutes) in months

no one else to blame but myself

i think we need more not less cameras

I feel the need to pont out that in the UK Speed cameras only make around £30 million in profit per year, Thats a miniscule amount of money in the grand scheme of the nations coffers.  Infact, Simon Cowel pays more than £30 million in a year on income tax alone.

When some have made the point "its all about money" I simply dont agree, its not exactly a great ROI is it?

Now as for where cameras are situated, A speed camera will only be erected when there have been 3 "incidents"  at that area.  Not a bad Idea IMHO.

Dont get me wrong, I drive fast, I quite often exceed the speed limit, I try to limit my risk to others when i do so atleast.

If a petition is to be started, lets start one to reduce the taxation on fuel or to castrate all paedo's.

Further to my last post it seems the rules have changed since i looked last, I got this info from the speedcameras UK website.

 Speed camera rules change as quick as a flash

A high number of motorists have no idea that the rules regarding the positioning and colour of speed cameras changed in April 2007.

Speed, or "safety" cameras, as the Government calls them, no longer have to be painted yellow, or be visible from 60m (200ft), and no longer have to be sited only where there is a history of road accidents. The regulations were relaxed in April after the Government had announced in December that camera partnerships would no longer be able to keep the money generated by speeding fines to pay for more cameras; instead, they'll get grants from a yearly, central road-safety fund of £110million.

As part of the new autonomy for the local partnerships, the Department for Transport handed over the regulation of the cameras, saying "the Department does not want to be prescriptive about the conditions to be met for the use of safety cameras." It now merely issues guidelines as to how the cameras should be operated. The guidelines still state that cameras should be painted yellow or covered with "retro-reflective" sheeting, and that they should be visible at up to 60m where the speed limit is 40mph or below, and 100m at all other speed limits. They also still recommend siting the cameras where at least three people were killed or seriously injured in the 36 months prior to the camera proposal being submitted, although the guidelines now state: "While the primary objective for camera deployment is to reduce KSIs [collisions where the person was killed or seriously injured] at known collision locations, cameras can also be beneficial where there is community concern - ie the local community requests enforcement at a particular site because traffic speed is causing concern for road safety, or where there are engineering factors that cannot be implemented in the short term and enforcement is being used as an interim measure."

But all the DfT stipulations are guidelines only, and some local partnerships have already said that they find the DfT regulations too restrictive. Meredydd Hughes, head of Roads Policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (who appeared in court this week after being flashed by a speed camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone), told a national newspaper in June that covert speed cameras would help cut road casualties, and when the proposal to deregulate speed cameras was first aired, Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: "If the rules weren't compulsory, we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions." Road safety charities, including Brake, also welcomed the possibility of more covert enforcement.

The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.


Given this new information it does seem to leave the system open to local Profiteering, something to be monitored for sure.

It is, but I think your previous point still stands - there is no actual evidence (so far) that anywhere is using them purely for revenue generation.

..and none that shows that KSIs have been reduced since the widespread introduction of speed cameras.

Diceman,

it would have been much better if you stuck to this:



With regards to the point in hand, in some places the speed limit is too low, and in some places the speed limit is too high... on certain motorways you could very easily raise the speed limit and my hand waving analysis thinks that it would make those roads safer!  Local Councils spend too much time planting trees and renaming roads for local dignitries to care too much about such pithy things as speed limits.

TY for your worthless statement. Some people just can't help themselves  ::)

It would have been much better if you had just said nothing as it contributed FU.

We are having a corking debate here, one which is very interesting, as there are such a wide range of views, & I hope runs a lot further. Let's keep it civil, please.

I suppose if you really do want to avoid the speed cameras, and are unwilling to take the of a fine and or points on your license you always have the option of purchasing a sat nav with the "safety"  cameras location loaded, its costs about the same as 4 speeding tickets and you keep your license with no risk, That is unless you are incapable of taking your foot off the accelerator.

North wales police now use this to catch drivers, a disguised horse box...

Now that is ridiculous.

Agreed.

If the point of these cameras or radar checks is to increase road safety by making drivers slow down, then why are they concealed?  I love the way they call them 'safety cameras'. 

It was the horse that gave it away

(http://www.fancypantsofbattle.co.uk/wp-content/PantoHorseWeb.jpg)

forget the speeding, when did the Welsh start driving on the right?

The car is overtaking a disguised sheep tailer on the other side of the road

I have no problem with speed cameras at all!

I got caught speeding soon after I passed my test (83MPH on dual carriageway), and it has kept me in line since.

The points get put back on my license in September.

NOBODY is exempt from the law so just dont speed, never an excuse especially if you get done for it in a built up area.

That's not the point.  Of course, if you break the law and caught - you pay for your crime.  No one's disputing that (well, I'm not).

I (and I think others are as well) am saying that speed cameras are ineffective ways of improving road safety, and they are obviously useless at catching people who are drunk, uninsured, driving dangerously, etc. 

They are also totally useless at determining if someone is doing an inappropriate speed.  Sometimes 70mph on a motorway is dangerous, but as it's within the arbitrary speed limit, many people think it can't be wrong.  The same people who use their mobile phones whilst driving, and do other things that are far more dangerous than going 85mph on a clear, dry motorway.

Very true but in a few years, if that, they will have cameras that check car tax, insurance and speed im sure.

I'd argue they are a very effective way of controlling speeders because....

when i was travelling up to manchester the night before blondebash there was no way I was speeding on any part of the road upto North Wales and to Manc due to the fact that there could be a speed van around any corner. The same applied for when i went from Manc to Notts the next day, even going through the peak district I couldnt risk it as they could have been anywhere.

Maybe its different for me as I have already been pinged for it but I for one am personally glad they are there because they WILL/DO catch the downright wreckless out. And that applies to the new Horsebox detectors and the disguised vans, I don't quite see why they should have to announce there maybe a speed camera in the area because for me, it's not just about slowing down drivers on the most "dangerous" accident spots, they should slow down everywhere as an accident can happen anywhere even on a dry motorway.

You were speeding on Saturday morning on the way to the football.

only on that industial estate!

plus i said i only slow down when there is a risk of speed camera, not much of a risk up there!

Im by far not an angel when i drive or i wouldnt be getting the new wheels......

well it does hide the sheep well doesnt it...........

Where there were pedestrians.  Far more dangerous than speeding (as in exceeding the speed limit) on a motorway.


Which is why speed cameras fail to prevent KSIs.


Exactly.  I'm thinking of 'downsizing' soon.  You wouldn't believe what I'm looking at possibly getting...

Speed cameras can't catch people who are drunk, uninsured, driving dangerously etc. - but they can catch people who are going over the speed limit.

The risk of being caught will slow some people down who might otherwise speed - some of the time they might speed would be when it was safe to go that fast and some when it wasn't.

Therefore on some occasions some people will drive more safely than they would if the cameras weren't there - so the cameras work.

They don't cost much and they make some difference, if they can be enchanced to catch the other elements described (drunk might be hard, but uninsured should be easy if the money was put into it for example) that would be better - but for the time being anything is better than just ignoring the problem altogether..

They don't make a difference.  They have not reduced KSIs.

Like I've said before, speeding doesn't cause accidents - inappropriate speed does.

PM me if its too embarrassing to say on here. If its another frikking diesel (no matter how clever a diesel engine it is) thenI may have to arrange for a vet to put you down!

Yes, it's a diesel.

;ashamed;

I MAY let you off if its a Honda or Seat diesel.....!

If it's a 1 series BMW diesel I seriously will disown you!

best bet is to buy an overseas registered vehicle, the cameras can get you as often as you want that way and you won't get the fine. don't need to pay road tax either

Kin is downsizing

Is that a suzuki? looks like it from the badge anyway.

Kin does love his jap cars...!

Is she included with the car?

Time trial cameras are much better than the GATSO ones cos at least if you are in a strange area you can just keep the same speed as the rest of the traffic. If I am on a quiet road though then I have to keep looking at my spedo.

If its soundproofed then I say we chuck her out and put ironside in it!

Is it wise to buy a diesel kin?

I've heard it's set to rise a lot higher than petrol...

I've not researched the claims as I don't have a diesel and I'm not intending to change cars in the future.

You'll probably tell me i'm talking rubbish now! :P

Diesel is pricey - it's about the same price as super unleaded (that I have to buy at the moment).  The thing is, I'm unlikely to get 600 miles out of a tank with mine - and that's certainly doable in a diesel.

Also, it's a quick diesel I'm looking to get.

That's true, but if it's 25-50p more expensive than petrol per litre?

A good point.  But 45mpg (combined) versus 32mpg for the petrol version of the car I'm looking at would balance that out I think.

Either way, motoring isn't cheap.  Unless you live in Luxembourg.

Popped home to be greeted by a speeding notice of prosecution. There's obviously a good chance it was me, but on the day in question, I was off work and the time is 10.26 - I'm not usually out and about this early on my days off (I am up though!)

One thing I don't particularly agree with is the process of proceedings here.   I'm not 100% sure it was me.  I've had it before with a parking ticket - my registration number but a totally different make and model of car - something not right so I was let off, not to mention I was about 300 miles away.

The form I have to fill in says am I guilty or not.  If I'm not convinced it was me, but the only way I can get a photo is to take the matter to court, by which time, I'm in a lot deeper and get more penalty if it is me, but I'm being asked to say 100% it was me before I'm certain it is. 

I guess I'll just have to confess, but whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  All I want is a bit of proof.

that's odd Graham.  I had a notice of prosecution a few weeks ago.  I knew it was me driving the car at the time, so easy enough to hold my hands up, but they did offer to show me photographic evidence before I filled in and returned the form if I wanted it.  Are you sure that's not an option for you?  Seems a bit harsh otherwise - give them a call.

Often they give you a web address you can access which shows you the picture. Mine came with a photo attached. You should give them a ring and they might send it to you or wait until Tikay gets on line - he's the expert when it comes to speed cameras.

Just called and was told that I have to submit in writing for the photo.  Not sure I can be arsed tbh, it was probably me, I'm just a little surprised and mildly amused the prosecution process.

Is it 3 points you get?  Any ideas on the fine?

I got 3 points and £60 fine for holding my hands up

bit harsh, what about for the speeding?

 ;marks;

It's (probably) a fair cop, that's not too bad

Thanks

Depends on the speed - I got 3pts and £100 for 50 in a 30 (yes, I know, but it was a blatantly low speed limit for that particular section of road, and the cops obviously knew it, hiding at the bottom of the hill with a laser). The NIP doesn't always say what speed they got you at - may be worth finding out before pleading guilty. 60 in a 30 might get you an insta-ban, for instance.

The absolute number 1 site for road offence advice is www.pepipoo.com (and no, I've no idea why its called that). Visit the FAQ page first, then the forums for detailed advice. Very handy.

The picture they send is useless for identifying the driver, you just get the car.

Sounds like a man with experience of such things...  ;whistle;

Sadly the pic isn't always useless, I got caught going a little too fast (...ahem) and was hoping the picture would be vague, or even not me driving (there was a small chance). Sadly it was clear as a bell and I ended up getting 5 points with a £100 fine, tbh I felt extremely lucky as I should of really had a insta ban.

blimey, what a bunch of crims you all are :D

I was 'only' doing 50 in a 40  limit, it was a dual carraige way though.  LOL at me justifying it.

pretty sure that'll be 3 points and £60 then

Driver of the car irrelevant I thought now? it's the owner of the vehicle that takes the rap nowadays isnt it?

I got off with not being able to identify the driver as the pic was from the back of the car a few years ago but I'm pretty sure that's changed now. 

No.  They just left you off because they thought you were cute.

double points for me then!  Best not question it :D

If it's not you, you have to declare who it was.

Not sure Trace, mine was over two years ago. Then, it was a case of if you could show it wasn't you, and give the details of the actual driver, they got the points instead. If you didn't supply the other drivers details or refused to do so, you got the points yourself.

Yes - i think you're right - what I meant was if you tried to get off by saying you didn't know who was driving at the time you were able to get away with it previously but now.

Old trick used to be a Polish or Romanian visitor who happened to be doing a bit of decorating for you and went down the local Wickes etc. to buy some more paint. Probably been rumbled by now though.

If it was you driving and you know it was, then hold your hands up to that and you'll just get the £60 fine and 3 points for that (I would have thought so anyway).

It is harsh though if you aren't sure who was driving and you are made to feel like you are obstructing the law even though they can't (or more accurately won't) give you any evidence to show that you did commit the said offence.

Flushy the mobile camaras can see you crystal clear.

My view speed does not kill. Theres always somthing else involved.

Regards

M 

Ya this was a fixed camera on the A40 all it showed was the back of my car.

It wouldn't have been anyone else, so it must have been me, I just can't see me travelling down that road at 10.26am on a Thursday, but I did have the day off so it more than likely was.   A bit of help remembering was all I was after but I have to go to court to get it.   Seems a silly system.  I'll be pleading guilty anyway.

poo - it wasn't on the roadworks just inside the M25 was it?

Yup, like some dumbass 4 year old, crossing the road......;)

Sigh......

Yes, a dumbass 4-year old crossing the motorway.  That'll do it.

I blame the parents.

So do I, they should teach their kids to drive more slowly.

Some of them leave you in no doubt

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1722333.ece (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1722333.ece)

LMFAO how could anyone mistake her for a man ... she is the perfect example of femininity ... still laughing.

The latest traffic accident figures are out from the govt.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071 (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain20071)

The most shocking line in the report i read was:

I'm all for more speed cameras and plenty of them along with much stiffer penalties for many driving offences, right up to and including life imprisonment for the most serious offences. The vast majority of road traffic accidents are caused by stupidity or carelessness in one shape or form, many by people who think the road traffic laws don't apply to them.

FYP

...and speed cameras have categorically NOT done anything to reduce the number of accidents that involve serious injury or death.  The reason is that speed is not the cause of the majority of accidents.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

The reasons listed would suggest to me that speed may be a contributory factor to many of those listed, albeit not the main reason attributed to the cause of the accident.

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

Mr Riddles gets it spot-on, in both his Posts.

Argue till you are blue in the face, but excessive speed for the circumstances contributes to almost every accident.

Speed Cameras are a good thing. IMO, of course.

Speed cameras don't do anything about excessive speed for the circumstance though.

Exceeding the speed limit and excessive speed are not the same thing.  Excessive speed is a problem.  Exceeding a speed limit is not inherently dangerous.


Tell us why please.

Guy on the bus today told me that you want to keep a copper penny in the call that was issued pre 1988. (95% copper)

If the rozzers ever pull you over and you're worried you might be over the drink driving limit, you start sucking on the 2p coin, and the copper in your breath contaminates the sample and they can't prove shit.

Hee-haw to do with speeding, but there you go.

Drink-driving is a far bigger crime than exceeding the national speed limit on a motorway.

Wahay!!  Sensible thinking reigns over hysterical nonsense in Swindon!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/7686057.stm

Motorways a relatively minor environment for serious road traffic accidents. If you want a serious RTA, put two cars together from opposite directions (e.g. 'A-Roads').
Agreed that slightly exceeding speed limit might not be 'excessive speed' in some instances but what practical measures do you suggest? Driver behaviour has to be shaped somehow. Put the legal limit at the border of excessive speed, and drivers will go just above that limit. It's pretty safe for most to drive on motorways at 80. The limit's 70, many drive at 80. Put it at 80, the'll drive at 90. 90 is not safe.
Unsure about 'driving over drink limit is more dangerous' argument. Maybe so, but plenty of avoidable serious accidents caused/contributed to by excessive speed. I feel my own driving is safer than most at speed (advanced driving, skid training blah blah) but I never exceed the speed limit cos I know the roads are full of nutters who don't undergo an intelligence test as part of their driving exam. You need to be able to stop in time when they pull out without looking.
And what are you trying to achieve by doing 35 instead of 30 anyway? Gaining 5 exta minutes free time really so important?

Sucking on coppers ( :o ) seemingly doesn't work

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/breath.asp

Love the story of the guy who tried to eat his uderwear to foil the test.

90mph on a clear, dry motorway with good visibility is safer than 65mph on an icy, foggy motorway.  However, 65mph isn't exceeding the speed limit.  Inappropriate speed is dangerous - that I agree with.  Someone going 45mph next to a school in a 30 zone should be locked up.  Same for someone who drives the same road well over the drink-driving limit.


Just going off the figures.  More accidents are caused by drink-drivers than by drivers exceeding the speed limit. 


Excessive speed can cause accidents.  An arbitrary speed limit with some pretty cameras doesn't prevent these accidents.  From what I heard on the news this morning, 13 deaths on Swindon's road in the past 12 months (I think they were the figures), and not one was down to speeding.  In fact the authorities there want to spend the money on policing the roads, rather than on ineffective and unnecessary cameras.


You never go over 70mph on a motorway?


I try not to speed in 30 zones.  Pedestrians, cars pulling out, cyclists, animals, etc., all share the roads with cars in 30 zones. I'm all for 20mph zones near schools and other similar areas.  Placing a speed camera doesn't make the roads safer though.  Neither do speed bumps, but that's a different story altogether.

One time I was doing over 90 on a motorway. I came round the bend and spotted the coppers sitting high in their little station, and slammed on the brakes, drifting past them at about 60. Gut wrenching feeling as they drift out, sharklike, into the stream of traffic behind you. 'What speed were you doing before you spotted us?' His laser caught me at 92mph =30 pound fine and 3 points. I've been told since by an authority on these matters that the immediate braking stood in my favour (I was speeding but alert enough to spot 'a danger'). I got the lecture in the back of their car: 'Do 80, we won't stop you; at 90+, you're just not in control'.
There was something about the incident that hit home, not sure what. Haven't sped since then, so it may have saved me from a serious accident.
Obviously their discretion and impact are not replicated by a Gatso pic and fine.
ps. I was at that time in possession of a radar detector 'to help me identify accident hotspots'  ::)

I agree with what you say about there being greater dangers than speed alone. One of the major causes of road deaths is alcohol: some drink-driving, most drunk-pedestrian. Big difference in survival rates if you're hit at 30mph versus 40. The irony is that if you do get hit, it's better to have drunk a little (some kind of cerebral preservation), but that's a different story.

Paris Hilton can attest to this.

Got a letter from the Police whilst away offering me a Speed Awareness Course in lew of a fine and penalty points.  The cost ?  £79.99, £20 more in the coffers than if I take the fine and points.  The £20 is worth it to not get the points I guess, but the course is 4 and a half hours long!  I was going 10 mph over the limit down a dual carraige way at a quiet time, they could do the 'awareness' in 10 seconds "SLOW DOWN!"  100mph in a 30 limit and I'd accept that I need teaching.

4.5 hours of I can't image what, going to be so bored.  They'd better provide a nice lunch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7718279.stm

;grr;

Average speed cameras are more dangerous than the normal gatso or truvello cameras.  If your car doesn't have cruise control or a heads-up speedo display it means you have to constantly take your eyes off the road to study your speedo. 

Kinboshi invites people to take their eyes off the road and study his Speedo.

(http://justjared.buzznet.com/headlines/2008/02/justin-timberlake-speedo.jpg)

lolz.

On the motorway I do about 70 then try to avoid accelerating.

The worst on the road are tailgaters, the police should do more to stop them. At least I can control most dangers on the road, like my speed, but I can do little to stop that bastard who's 4cm from my exhaust (apart from getting a bit trigger-happy with the windscreen washer). Granted however, this is FAR worse on the continent.

The problem is that tailgating can't be policed by a camera.  It needs police in cars to spot it and act.  You don't see too many police cars on the motorways or other roads these days. 

Tailgating is an example of excessive speed.  If the car in front has to stop suddenly, you are going too fast to avoid hitting them.  It doesn't matter if you're doing this at 50mph, 70mph or 90mph - if you don't have the adequate distance between you and the car in front you are going too fast and it's dangerous.

I like the system on the autobahn's in Germany. There is no speed limit, instead they have 'distance traps'. They measure the distance between cars relative to the speeds they are doing. Tailgaters get fined.

I don't know the stats, but I'll bet that, per mile of road, there are no more accidents on autobahns than there are on our motorways.

Oh - now that sounds like a sensible system.  If you're going too fast (as in you can't stop in time if the car in front stopped suddenly) you get done - you don't get done for just topping an arbitrary speed limit.


Will have a look now...

Apparently the UK and Germany are amongst the best motorway systems in Europe (lowest number of serious injuries or fatalities).  Still looking for some comprehensive stats though. 

In both the UK and Germany the motorways account for a very small percentage of these serious accidents (less than 5%). 

4.5 hours of bottom spanking till you promise to be a good boy and never do it again,

theyve got a 24 year old russian girl or a 70 year old magistrate judge that carries out the session, luck of the draw who you get

Tailgating IS a crime. At the very least it comes under dangerous driving.

Road hogging is also considered dangerous but I've never heard of anyone being done for it. I hate folk blocking the overtaking lanes too. Not much you can do apart from flash your lights to wake them up. I never over take them on the inside - honest  ;ashamed;

If I'm on the motorway and a car in front stays in the third lane so I can't get by, you sitting up my arse isn't going to get you anywhere any quicker is it?

(and I'm  not sure you have the faster car)

rules on the autobahn are awesome, we should have the same.

I must've driven the entire width of germany either east-west or west-east about 20 times and have seen a grand total of zero accidents, people know how to drive properly at speed

not only do they have the rule where drivers are prosecuted for tailgating (you take your speed in km/h and divide by 2 to get the distance in metres you have to be behind the vehicle in front) drivers are regularly prosecuted for holding up others from overtaking. unlike over here it's legal to flash your lights/sound your horn when coming up behind another driver, if they don't move they can be nicked

if there's a traffic jam no vehicles other than cars use the left hand lane. sometimes you drive for miles at full speed past a long line of stationary trucks, not a single one ever tries to sneak into the fast lane, you'd never see that in the uk

and imo a major contributing factor to road safety over there is the regular service stations with good value good quality food and drink. people actually want to stop at these places for a meal, it's a pleasure to do it so they generally aren't driving around tired, falling asleep and crashing

(and I'm  not sure you have the faster car)

Muppet

rotflmfao

Regards

M

That's the recommended course of action by many advanced driving courses if someone is obstructing a lane and holding up the flow of the traffic.  So I don't think it's illegal at all, and all you're doing is alerting the driver in front to your presence.

Apparently 20% of motorway accidents are caused by drivers falling asleep at the wheel - http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/leaflets/inf159.pdf

Again though, speed cameras can't help with that.  I know that some cars are fitted with a system that monitors the blink-rate of the driver, and if it falls within certain parameters an alarm is sounded that alerts the driver that he's falling asleep.

I do this on purpose when I see someone approaching too fast behind me (always an Audi or BMW), a nice little slow down so that I am going the same speed as a car in the next lane so they cant get passed. Drives them mad, I love it.

Keep your distance and drive at a sensible speed, how difficult is that?

YOU CAN CAUSE ACIDIDENTS AND STRESS.

YOU ARE A POTENTIAL KILLER AND SHOULD BE BANNED

SHAME ON YOU

regards

M

He is of course wrong to do what he does, doesn't make your previous comment any less wrong. Every word of your post above applies equally to those who tailgate. Ask a traffic policeman, no doubt you should get that opportunity soon enough.

I'll see your flashing headlights and raise you a Baby-On-Board sign.

Any way to keep you conscience clear. Otherwise you could try keeping to the speed limit and keeping your distance.

But please keep your distance from me either way as your arrogance is making me feel a little queasy.

I found stats on Wiki.

The death rate for autobahns is way lower than other roads.

I think those stats are similar to UK motorways and other UK roads.  Showing again that speed in itself isn't inherently dangerous.  It's only dangerous if it's excessive speed, which bears no relation to an arbitrary speed limit.

Anyway this discussion is moot cos in a few years we all get cars with autobraking and 360 degree collision detection don't we? Don't we? :)

In a few years the roads will be so congested that the max speed that anyone can do will be 7mph

But we might all have lost our licenses by then...

Your comment tilts me just reading it

.

Sandy

Attachment file to large, here's a speed camera and a half.


http://www.b3ta.com/board/8937514

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7738919.stm

ffs

Utterly bonkers.


Did any journalists ask him how many of these deaths and serious injuries were caused by someone going over 90mph on a motorway? 

;grr;

For Motorways:
Exceeding the speed limit is not recorded as a contributing factor.

Careless, reckless or in a hurry 704 accidents, 18 deaths in 2007
Following too close 1101 accidents, 29 deaths in 2007
Travelling too fast for conditions 781 accidents, 20 deaths in 2007


Source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf

I know that, you know that - but the average person on the street believes what they read and hear on the BBC. 

Also, only 5% of the deaths and serious injuries on UK's roads happened on motorways.  Why the constant media and government focus on speeding on the motorway?

You have a choice what speed you do on the motorway, you know what the possible penalties are if you are caught driving at excessive speeds, but you still have the choice. It seems clear that a lot of people on here think they know better.

A lot of people could drive safely on a motorway in excess of 90mph. FACT
A lot of cars are capable of handling safely and easily achieving these speeds.FACT

Now the but, the laws are in place to protect all road users and just like everything else in life not all drivers are are of the same standard. The current speed restrictions on the motorways take this into consideration and the theory behind them is that if everyone adheres to them our motorways and roads should be a lot safer for everyone. The 70mph limit on the motorway is also retained in the knowledge that half of motorway users will be doing 80mph anyway.

There is something in many posts in this thread that bothers me greatly, a selfish and arrogant attitude that says the law is an ass and I know better. Some of you should spend less time trying to find stats to try to justify your argument and just stick to the laws and live with the penalties if you choose not to, they are there for the greater good.

If you want to look up something why not look up some of the stories behind these statistics, the 57 motorway deaths in 2007 for example. How many of these were avoidable, how many caused by stupid or irresponsible driving?  57 doesn't seem a big number but one needless death is one too many, and each one of these was a personal tragedy to the family and friends they leave behind. Left struggling to cope with the needless and avoidable loss of a loved one. Regardless of motorway, A road, B road, most of the deaths on roads (nearly 3000 last year) are needless and avoidable, many caused by people who think they know better than the law.

Finally, there are probably people who use blonde who have needlessly lost a loved one or friend on our roads, please spare them a thought before posting.

I understand what you're saying, but did you read the FACTS?  There were ZERO serious accidents on motorways last year that were caused by the speed limit being exceeded.  Excessive speed is wrong, it's bad, it's dangerous.  No one is disputing that (well I'm not).  However, exceeding an arbitrary speed limit is not inherently dangerous.  That's the whole point. 

I have friends who have died because of car accidents.  Two close friends were killed by a drunk driver, and another was seriously injured when a car knocked him over when he was on a zebra crossing. 

Could you tell me how many of the 57 people who died on the motorway lost their lives because of dangerous drivers, drivers falling asleep at the wheel, drivers who were drunk?  I bet it's more than zero.  Why isn't the focus on reducing these factors? 

That's not necessarily true, for some of the reasons in my figures drivers may have been exceeding the speed limit, its just the police do not use this as a reason for the accident.

The new rules don't bother me too much as I don't exceed 90 on a motorway or go faster than 50 in a 40 or 40 in a 30.
90mph allows you to make good progress in reasonably clear motorways but any faster in any kind of reasonable traffic will mean that you are constantly accelerating and breaking. If everyone drives sensibly on a motorway you should almost never need to break.

I am much more concerned with tailgaters and those driving recklessly.

No, the fact still stands - none of the accidents were 'caused' by exceeding the speed limit.  There might have been dangerous driving involved, excessive speed, and other factors - but exceeding the speed limit was not and is not a factor.

My main point is that if we all adhere to the road traffic laws there will be fewer accidents and needless death or injury.

I know the thread has gone away from it's original point about the effectiveness of speed cameras, and I know my posts on it are more about irresponsible driving in general and the effects of it, but we cannot pick and choose the laws we want to adhere to and I stand by what I have said on this thread.

For the record I don't believe speed cameras on motorways are particularly useful, however I am a firm believer that on many other roads there should be more of them and they can be a useful tool in making some roads safer. Nothing will make roads safer though than drivers adhering to the laws.

No one driving at all would make the roads safer.

The law is an ass and I know better.

Again, I understand where you're coming from on this.

I just don't think that cameras are the best way to improve road safety.  More police patrols, more random checks on cars, stronger punishment for those without the necessary certificates (insurance, tax, MOT, license, etc.), clamping down on drunk/drug-drivers, would all help to reduce deaths and accidents on the road.

Near where I live there's a 30mph zone through a residential area (not far from a school) and there are two speed cameras.  I have absolutely no problem with these, and I actually think the road should be made into a 20mph zone - so that it's safer for pedestrians.  Although the cameras do reduce the speed of the drivers at those two points on the road, some drivers drive at excessive speeds elsewhere on the road - and so the road in general isn't necessarily safer for pedestrians and other road users.  Also the cameras certainly don't protect road users from those drivers who are breaking the law in other ways (drunk driving, etc.).

Would work but people don't like paying for it - cameras might not be as effective, but they are cost effective (I know a few places disagree with this but the consensus seems to be that they're value for money).


Would work, would be great, don't know why they don't do it.


The road in general is safer, because if the speed cameras weren't there at all then those drivers would be excessively speeding every where in that area. Nothing could stop those people altogether, but a couple of speed cameras, 2 or 3 speed bumps and a couple of other traffic calming measures would certainly lower the 'average' danger in that area.

Basically I think speed cameras by themselves are of use - but limited use. I think they should be used in addition to other measures, where I think it's going wrong at the moment is that they're just used as an end in themselves.

That one sentence says more & makes more sense, than all the Posts & puff on this Thread.

It does.  So why the focus all the time on speeding (and especially speeding on the motorway)?  Why not on the crimes that actually cause the deaths and serious injuries? 

http://www.nationalschool.gov.uk/policyhub/news_item/driving-tired.asp

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=601

Not "puff" - FACT

There are laws to cover every part of what can cause accidents - the problem is they are not policed enough or not punished strongly enough.

The fact that they aren't and speeding is doesn't make punishing people who speed a bad thing - it only makes not punishing the people who do the other stuff a bad thing.

i.e.
What you want is better than what we have now
but what we have now is better than nothing.

driving slowly on long boring straight roadzzzzz can also be dangerous imo

betcha wouldn't fall asleep if you were doing 120 ;)

(http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/asleep-at-the-wheel.jpg)

I confess to not once, but TWICE falling asleep at the wheel - both times, amazingly, on the M62, both times I rolled the car, & I survived without a scratch both times. My pants never survived though.

I have no idea what speed I was doing, as I was asleep......

It's one of many things in my life, now that I'm a lot older, & maybe a bit wiser, that I look back on with huge embarrassment & regret. But it happens. It's tough to live a whole life without ever deviating off the straight & narrow.

I've also had a 6 month Ban for speeding, which did the trick, & slowed me down.

It's not that speeding being punished is a bad thing - it's that it's become the major focus for the government, media and the law enforcement bodies with regards to road safety, when it quite clearly isn't the main contributing factor in deaths and serious accidents.  

What we have now is fewer police patrols and investment in speed cameras INSTEAD of other forms of policing the roads - policing that would be more effective (i.e. would reduce the number of  deaths and serious injuries).  

I don't think they're choosing between them, I think they're just going for the option which is the cheapest and generates the least paperwork.

If they didn't spend the money on cameras I don't think they'd spend it on the other stuff, they'd just use it as savings.

Fingers crossed this guy wins today

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Manchester-Speed-Camera-Legal-Ruling-Drivers-Challenge-Convictions-Fines-Penalty-Points/Article/200902115216382?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_3&lid=ARTICLE_15216382_Manchester_Speed_Camera_Legal_Ruling_Drivers_Challenge_Convictions_Fines_Penalty_Points

Press release from the Association of British Drivers:

Anti Car Extremists Drive 50 Limit Proposals

Driving Skills to be Destroyed to Suit Eco Agenda

Government plans to reduce all rural single carriageway speed limits to 50mph and enforce them with average speed cameras were condemned today by the Association of British Drivers as a "speed bully" policy which signals the end of driving excellence in Britain.

Environmentalists, and others who belive that driving is "anti social at any speed", have long campaigned for lower limits - in 1995 Friends of the Earth said "speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all the glamour out of motoring".

"This is nothing to do with road safety," said the ABDs Nigel Humphries. "Anyone can see that hazards vary along rural roads, and so speeds must vary with them. A blanket 50 mph speed limit does not recognise that roads vary enormously in character and that a limit as low as 50 is totally unnecessary on many rural roads".

For the last fifteen years, whilst road death numbers have failed to improve, the only road safety policies promoted by the government and their advisors have been those which make life more difficult and unpleasant for drivers. In contrast, investment in driving skills or improvements to dangerous roads have been played down.

The over-emphasis on speed as the sole determinant of road safety statistics was always misleading and such a policy has and always will fail to achieve what is intended.

To enforce this new regime we are expected to put up with intrusive monitoring of our driving. This is yet another step in implementation of a "surveillance society" where your every move is monitored and no individual discretion is allowed. Instead of encouraging intelligent and responsible driving, based on the road conditions and the vehicle being used, we have this dictatorial regime that attempts to monitor and control our minute to minute driving standards. It will, of course, have exactly the opposite effect of suppressing the decisions that drivers need to make in this timeframe.

We are pleased that there will be a proper public consultation on this matter, so that the general public have their say on whether they think it is a wise and a proportional response to the problems of road traffic accidents.

"Speed bully" policies have been rolled out by stealth, one limit or scheme at a time, and so largely ignored by the media. Now it is national and "official", we hope that this policy will be exposed for the ignorance that it demonstrates, and that Britain's electorate will tell the government what they think of it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8035511.stm

Pics or it didn't happen.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090506/tuk-speed-camera-boss-caught-at-100mph-dba1618.html

I found it amusing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-10929488

Oh noes!!  It's the end of the world: "Oxfordshire speeding increase after cameras turned off".

No mention of an increase in accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries though from the 'safety campaigners'.  In fact, no mention of accidents at all.  Maybe that would be an interesting metric to consider, considering safety is what they're interested in?

But how much did they lose?

Switzerland must make a fair bit from speeding fines:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10960230

Lovely car though.

(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48720000/jpg/_48720676_48720679.jpg)

""nothing can justify a speed of 290km/h".

yes, and nothign can justify a fine of a million dollars.

imho of course.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8446545.stm


Based on the previous Swiss record i'd say $1m won't bother this guy too much as he is probably worth $100m minimum.

Sandy

Excess speed is the major/one of the major factors in Road Traffic Accidents. If you're a safety planner it would be reasonable to predict a correlation between increasing vehicle speed in the area and increased number of accidents. Must be a quirk or too low a sample period.

Speed Cameras don't measure excess speed though.

They don't?

No.

Ok then ty

Sigh, I'll guess I'll expand then.

Let's define excess speed. I would say it is travelling faster than is safe. The safe speed to travel is completely separate from the speed limit and varies depending on traffic, conditions, weather etc.

I can think of times when it is safe to travel above the speed limit and times when it's not safe to travel at the speed limit.

Speed cameras detect people who travel faster than the speed limit, which includes people safely travelling above the speed limit but not those travelling dangerously below it.

Ok, gotcha now. I guess you mean 'Speed cameras don't measure excessive speed'.

I do agree with many of the sentiments you express.

[ ] Driving at 30mph in a 30mph zone is safe when it is snowing, there is a lot of traffic, and you are driving past a school at the final bell.

[ ] Driving at 80mph on a stretch of clear motorway in dry weather is much more dangerous than driving there at 70mph.

However, in many instances where an accident occurs, had a driver who was shown to be speeding *not* been speeding, the accident would not have occurred or there would not have been a fatality when there was one.

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5f73EHRhA

Getting people to slow down decreases the numbers of serious RTAs and fatalities. Speed cameras slow people down.

I notice you haven't said speed cameras reduce the number of serious RTAs and fatalities ;)

lol, nice spot :D

Maybe they do

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/1338/

Abstract

In 2000, a system was introduced that allowed eight pilot areas to recover the costs of operating speed and red-light cameras (safety cameras) from fines resulting from enforcement. In 2001, legislation was introduced that allowed the system to be extended to other areas. A national programme was then gradually introduced. In February 2003, the Department for Transport (DfT) published a research report 1 that analysed the effectiveness of the system in the eight pilot areas over the first two years (April 2000 to March 2002). This report updates this analysis to the 24 areas that were operating within the programme over the first three years (April 2000 to March 2003). Only areas operating within the programme for at least a year were included in the analysis. High level results are as follows: Vehicle speeds were down – surveys showed that vehicle speeds at speed camera sites had dropped by around 7% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. At fixed sites, there was a 71% reduction and at mobile sites there was a 21% reduction. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively (ie 15mph more than the speed limit) fell by 80% at fixed camera sites, and 28% at mobile camera sites. Both casualties and deaths were down – after allowing for the long-term trend there was a 33% reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs) at sites where cameras were introduced. Overall, this meant that 40% fewer people were killed or seriously injured. At camera sites, there was also a reduction of over 100 fatalities per annum (40% fewer). There were 870 fewer people killed or seriously injured and 4,030 fewer personal injury collisions per annum. There was a clear correlation between reductions in speed and reductions in PICs. There was a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221million compared to enforcement costs of around £54million. The public supported the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement. This was evidenced by public attitude surveys, both locally and at a national level. Overall, this report concludes that safety cameras have reduced collisions, casualties and deaths.

And yet they propose this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10762590

I'm going to say this again (i'm sure i'll have come in before and ranted)

Why don't we actually teach people to drive better instead of just increasing the number of cars on the roads and letting so many epic fails out and about. You call a car a 'deadly weapon' yet let a bunch of imbeciles drive around in them with barely any training?

There are so many bad drivers.

Speed is a factor in accidents, it's a factor to how serious/how quick to be able to react/how quick to stop etc.

However other factors are people pulling out incorrectly, not signalling, driving in the wrong lanes on motorways, pulling out to overtake on motorways too slow, braking for no reason on the motorway because they want to cause a traffic jam (that or they're ignorant bumders) god I could go on.


Speed really isn't the most important factor causing crashes, the human imbecile making tonnes of -carEV decisions let alone optimalCarEV decisions is!



oh god I hate other drivers. that is all.


/rant (for now)




edit and the SLS is a sweeeeeeeet car.

Good post, I really agree with most of this. I think that really people emerge from a passed driving test ill-prepared for life on the roads. I had to do a 'Defensive Driving Course' at the Transport Research Lab and it was mostly designed to help you cope with the presence on the road of the nutters you mention. Why people choose to go around in motorbikes in these conditions is beyond me. 'But I'm a safe and skilled rider!' -'And you control the nutcase who emerges from the junction into your path without looking how?'
You drive fastest on motorways but most of the bad accidents don't happen there, so it's not absolute speed *as such* that kills you, but this is not inconsistent with the finding that where other factors are principal in the cause of the accident happening eg 'failure to judge other motorist's speed', 'not looking properly at junction', the *speed* of the cars was the predominant factor determining the extent of personal injuries or fatalities.
So...you probably *could* reduce the occurrence of accidents by spending mmmeggabux on increased driver education/training, but I'm guessing it would be better spent on just getting everyone's speed down by using blanket measures like speed cameras.

do you have any verifyable facts to back that up, or is it just your opinon,ie a lot of bollocks ?

There is also this:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7931842/Speed-camera-switch-off-sees-fewer-accidents.html

I think it's a bit odd that speed cameras get branded safety cameras and we're told they make us all safer etc and yet it seems that the evidence for this isn't exactly concrete. (even if they do make things safer it doesn't mean there isn't a safer option too etc)

I think Mr Bean has a point too.

If you reduce the speed though, doesn't stop me not paying attention and driving into the side of you, the accident may be less severe but it's still a completely stoppable accident.


It is all just so New labour, we have a specific number target and we like fiddling it so we beat our targets, and hey lets make as much money from speed cameras as possible cos we need money.

The ridic thing, referencing how 'excess' speed is different, is that so many people drive so dangerously by being slow/stupidly cautious that they cause accidents/incidents (and probably drive off without noticing because they are so gormless and bad).


I got banned from driving a few months ago and had such a ridic conversation with the seemingly sensible coppa.

it's 2:30 am on a thursday night, on a dry road, with barely any other traffic (yes yes except the coppa that pulls me over that I passed 4 junctions earlier but that's not the point) though it kind of is. He pulls me for doing 101 and asks if I saw him before pulling over for him?

And i'm like well ofc im good driver who pays atttention, you were in the 2nd lane of 4 coming past leicester forest east I was doing X speed and I didn't slow or change my course because that's how I drive and I believe it to be fine especially in these conditions. He turns round all dead pan and is like X speed is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.  I picarded for how ridiculous the thought of that is.

Have a guess at 'X' speed.


I was really glad to see when I went to court that there was seemingly no sensible reasoning that decided my fate, just an arbitrary figure that I was 1 over. Which is obviously the same offence as doing the same speed on a wet busy day?


morans. winds me up.

Loathed as I am to waste my time replying to someone who chooses to address people in that kind of way, I would say it's pretty much common sense. What's your counterargument (presuming you have one, and that your level of debating skills extends beyond personal insult)?
Someone is driving along at 30mph, another driver emerges 200ft in front of them, from a junction, into their path. They stop in time and avoid a collision.
Someone is driving along at 70mph in the same setup, GOING FASTER YOU HAVE LESS TIME TO REACT AND TO BRING YOUR CAR TO A HALT so you are likely to hit them.
In another instance you do hit them at 30mph. Compare this to hitting them at 70mph. WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK MIGHT MORE LIKELY KILL YOU? The 70mph one or the 30mph one? Do you want me to go get you some nice internet links to back up my bollocks? Or can you think this one out for yourself?

If I see a car doing 70mph only 200ft away from me as I'm about to pull out of a junction, I tend to wait for them to go past.

There are so many cameras near my house that shouldn't be there.


Go through the Wanstead underpass on the A12 eastbound towards the redbridge junction with the A406.


As you crest the hill out of the underpass you are joined by traffic from the left lane, there is a small side turning dead end on the left which needs a slow speed to enter.
Most of the left lane traffic is usually coming across to use the middle to right lanes, half of the traffic coming down the A12 needs to go left to get in lane for the M11 A406southbound.


As the 3 lanes have the line start becoming dashed so you can cross it, there is a speed camera.

So everybody what do we do, CHECK OUR DASHBOARDS FUCK THE 3 LANES OF TRAFFIC TRYING TO SWING INBETWEEN EACH OTHER DONT GET STUNG FOR 60 QUID.


oh that's a good idea isn't it, what a great idea.


same with the speed camera they put at the bottom of the M11, (A MOTORWAY) where the lanes reduce from 3 to 2 to allow for flyover through the marshes, that's a great idea 3 lanes of people doing 70 to suddenly 2 lanes doing 50 and desperately watching their SPEEDOS.


arrrrrrrrgh the one speedo outside a school locally got torched a month or two ago but no sign of that being fixed.....

You didn't see it, it came round a tight bend, that's why they put up a 30mph limit, so you could see cars coming at you at normal speed.

Pretty sure everybody on here (bar Offless maybe lol) would slow down for the bend and wouldn't be doing 70mph then. If they were, that's unsafe driving, which is what everyone's going on about. 70mph on a dual carriageway during the day is probably not unsafe. 70mph round a tight bend probably is.

Your argument seems to be that driving fast with no regard for the conditions is dangerous. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that.

It's all relative and that's the point.

What speed do you reckon is speed X in my posts above, the copper said i'd have been pulled over for that (even if I hadn't got to to 3 figures rotflmfao- fwiw if I had got pulled at X speed I would have been a very bad citizen in terms of section 5.

a simple 'no' would have sufficed.

No, it's not that argument, it's that significantly exceeding the speed limit is itself dangerous. The 'bend' thing was just a counter to the slightly flimsy objection about 'noticing people coming at you at 70mph and therefore holding back'. If it's on a regular straight stretch and you're further off the fact that you're doing 70mph in a 30mph isn't likely to be gauged properly by someone who makes one glance at you before pulling out.

A substantial number of accidents are initiated by actions other than those of the speeder (Distracted Driver, Tired Driver, Alcohol (more commonly drunk pedestrian walking into path of car), child running out in front of car etc). Because you mistakenly thought it was 'safe' to do 40mph in a 30mph zone (fk the law, the imposed limit, and the government that decided what might be safe) it is your *speed* itself that caused the fatality, even though the actions of the other person initiated the accident.

Did you click the video link? Do you dispute those figures? They back up what I was saying about fatalities caused by excessive speed.

I agree with your sentiment, I don't agree with the use of the word 'cause' in the last line.


Hitting someone at 70mph is dangerous, 70mph is a legally allowed speed on a motorway, as per the mandess in the fast lane documentary did the lorry driver 'cause' the accident through physically doing some speed?

Roads have cars on them, they have an inherent danger by the fact they are heavy and move fast and aren't made of water like us.

Is there no responsibility with the pedestrian?


Did anyone see the recent article where a drunken bafoon messing about in the road, takes a lie down in the middle behind a reversing van. He tried to sue the van driver 'for not realising how drunk I was and that I couldn't be safe anywhere so he shouldn't have moved his van or used the roads'. (like wtf natural selection he should reversed over you again [1 for being a drunken idiot, 2 for thinking it's ok to sue people and try and get money for nothing]).

The 'cause' of an accident where a child runs out in the road is the child running out. Factors influencing his injuries are the car speed/amount of braking/weight/bull bars etc

The idea that a vehicle on a road 'causes' all accidents seems wrong.


IMO the world is ridic but we know that, it's taken how many years for a sudden surge of 'corporate responsibility' to come about, when is just general pedestrian/human responsibility going to be considered rather than putting the blame on everyone else.

I've just read the opening page, had a look at some of the stuff.


That really tilts me, here is a small study where we then say 40% here 80% there.  Sample size sample size, if there is a 40% reduction it's because the numbers weren't huge in the first place, I hate this generalised shite, Id like to know the exact numbers for stuff not the statistics that sound best to prove their point.


What happens to ten yards down the road from the camera as everyone gunns it away?

Your argument is fundamentally flawed (aimed at TightPaulFolds)

Breaking the speed limit is NOT inherently dangerous.  Driving at 'excessive speed' IS dangerous.

You have not made one argument, or shown any empirical data that shows that speed cameras reduce the number of accidents in which people are seriously injured or killed.  The reason is that the evidence doesn't exist.  In fact, quite the opposite - and yes there is data to support that and I've posted it on here before.

If you're driving at 70mph in a 70mph zone it doesn't mean you're driving safely.  If you're doing 30mph in a 30 zone, again it doesn't mean it's safe.  The focus on speed neglects the cause of 97% of accidents on UK roads (again that's from studies, and I can dig out and post the links again if you want).  Your argument about the dangerous bend on a 70mph zone reinforces the point against an arbitrary speed limit making that section of road safe.  If it's wet, if you're drunk, if you're putting your make-up on, eating a sandwich, on your mobile (without handsfree), arguing with the missus, etc., you're increasing the danger in driving along that stretch of road.  If you're doing 69mph does that immediately make it safe? 

Oh, and doing 40mph in a 30mph residential area is obviously excessive speed.  Doing 30mph in a residential area if often excessive speed, the speed limit doesn't make it safe.

BOSHI FOR QUEEEN



Link pls, i'm in a ranty arsey mood so would like a read. :)up

As an aside, here's an interesting anecdote. I recently got done for speeding on the way back from Cornwall on the M5 (just before Bristol I think).  I was doing over 85mph on a clear stretch of motorway.  A police car pulled me over, and I got my 3 points and £60 fine because I broke the law. That's fair enough, I did wrong, I know what the law is, and I know the penalty.  Was I driving dangerously, no, I don't think so.  But that's irrelevant.

Anyway, a few weeks later and I'm on the M1 and I see another BMW police car (similar to the one that pulled me over).  That explained why everyone was driving at 69mph, a few feet from the car in front of them - as they didn't want to speed but completely forgot about the idea of driving safely.  I was in the 2nd lane and a flat-bed lorry was in lane 1.  As I got close to him, he decided to pull out on me.  I had to break and then move into the 3rd lane (once I'd seen it was safe to do so) to avoid him.  I swore a little, and the girlfriend pointed out his mirrors were broken, so he simply couldn't see me.  I was still swearing and said something like "I hope that copper pulls him over and does him for that, but as he wasn't speeding I don't think anything will happen."   However, the police had obviously seen what had happened and on came his lights and he pulled the flat-bed over.  I hope they threw the book at him.

My point to that lovely story?  A speed camera wouldn't have been able to do anything about his dangerous driving.  The increase in the number of speed cameras is inversely proportional to the number of police patrols on the road.  This fascination with speed means that other, more dangerous offences are missed where cameras are prevalent.

Tailgating is an example of excessive speed.  You're driving too close to the car in front to stop in time if they had to stop or slow down suddenly.  Your speed in relation to the arbitrary speed limit for that stretch of road is irrelevant.  But again, it's an offence that speed cameras can't pick up on.

I agree that fast moving cars are inherently 'dangerous' and that running out in front of one like those swedish girls did is likely to bring about their deaths. The fact that the girl ran out and the fact that the lorry driver was doing 70mph were both physical contributers to the damage done to her. Is the lorry driver responsible? Of course not.
This is different from the example I used. What I said is that in the majority of cases where you are doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and a child runs in front of your car and you hit the child and kill them, it is your speed that causes the childs death. Speed+car's mass=energy. The energy present in car doing 40mph is much greater than a car doing 30mph. Had you been doing 30mph you are unlikely to kill the child. If you are doing 40mph the child is unlikely to survive.
Should the child run out in front of the car? No.
If the child hadn't run out would there be no accident? Yes.
But this doesn't take away from the fact that it was your speed itself that brought about the fatality. It is reasonable to expect areas with 30mph zones not to have cars doing a lethal 40mph on them.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the swedish girl successfully sue the lorry driver that hit her? Obv not.
If there's a civil lawsuit, could the parent's of the child sue a motorist for their loss? Most likely. The child initiated the accident, but the motorist's choice to do 40mph caused her death.

http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129

Boshi, is there any topic you are not an expert on? :D

I totally accept that the MITFL is different I was just trying to get across my point.

The problem I have with what you say, is you seem to be some governmental stooge with stuff to regurgitate.

How is a child being hit a 30 not either an accident? or something that could cause serious harm?

Are only fatal accidents a problem?


edit again, the last line 'caused her death', trying to claim that 10mph is more important a factor than anything else possible to consider is very tilting.

""
The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%""

How do we relate these factors to the severity of accidents/risk of personal injury/death? If you were charged with decreasing the number of injuries/deaths, how would you tackle the problem, taking into account these figures?

errrrrrrrrr




(poker)


rotflmfao

The focus on 'speeding' as a means of increasing road safety is a pet peeve of mine. 

Another is Gillian McKeith and other pseudoscientists.

There's lots I don't know about, especially if it involves poker :D

I think DR Gillian McKeith is very credible, explain why she is otherwise not please?





























There that should keep you busy for a while :D

If you found that someone was doing 40mph in a 30mph zone (we were talking here about speed cameras, no?) what other element of the whole accident would you seek to address first? Kids will always run out in front of cars, drunks too, people will pull out from junctions, there will be dafties all over the road, education/training will only ever make a small dent in all of this. So what would you change first, that is more important? NB: continuing to live normally welcomed over the death option.

How would I reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road?

Here are some ideas:

• Mandatory tests every 10 years for all drivers.
• Stronger punishment as a deterrent to remove uninsured drivers from the roads (1 in 3 accidents on the roads involves an uninsured driver)
• More drink-driving checks
• Increased speed limits on certain motorways, and reduced speed limits on others.  The removal of a general arbitrary limit means that there is a 'reason' for the road having a certain limit, making the drivers think about the danger and increase their adherence to rules which are there for a reason.
• Variable speed limits on motorways, dual carriageways (weather conditions, traffic conditions, and other reasons mean that the 'normal' speed limit for a road might no longer be appropriate).
• 20 mph speed limit in many residential areas
• Increased number of police patrols, and a reduction in the number of speed cameras

They were just some I could think of quickly, I'll come back with more.

All of those except the last one are driver error.


Improve driving standards ?!!?!

YOU LEARN TO DRIVE AND NEVER EVEN GO ON A MOTORWAY I SAY WTF

I REPEAT WTF

I SAY WUT THE FKING FK



The general public are inept, stupid and incapable. That is fact.

Maybe dont allow so many incompetent buffoons into a car. Would you give a gun to anyone who is 17? (obv not a good point but you see what i'm implying).


Do I have to rehash my red light awareness day story, of a room of 25 people and myself and only the other two youngsters knowing THE ORDER OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS. That's pretty basic no?

I was also the only person in the room to admit to knowingly going through a red light,  everyone else said no even though they were caught on camera doing it.

As I explained at the time, I chose to go through a red light at the last second because i'd rather have done that than get hit by the stupid foreign woman with a car that looked like a bumper car of 30 years as she veered across 2 lanes and tried to come into mine. "The camera' cant see that and there is no basis for explanations or reasoning it's just boolean, camera saw something u get in trouble.

What's more dangerous a woman on the roads driving like a madthing hitting other people all the time and not checking before she moves across lanes even though she may drive less than the speed limit, or someone who knows that they are going through a changing light and who because of that changes his speed such that he isn't on the traffic light area by the time the other lights are green?  I wasn't in my own car and I was delighted with the result of my decision

driving awareness course with arguments with the stupid petty instructor > having an accident on the A1/A406 hendon junction mid evening thanks very much.




TPF, what i'm asking is what's the diff between an accident at 30/40?! other than a governmental campaign on some 'research' they have done. When lets remember they are also the ones telling us to remember the stopping distances in the high way code (those aren't wrong nowadays, surely not?!)


Also education training wont stop anything? The test should stop the morans from being allowed on the road the education should be towards increasing the overall level of driving.




A friend of mine at school passed his test and I was shocked to say the least, he is airy fairy mentally and pretty incapable of hand eye coordination with not great eyesight as is. He even said after his test he had no idea how he passed.

But that's ok because he paid for his test/license stuff and is ready to pay fines if needed.

The fact that the one time I got in his car he managed to drive up his own road (20mph residential, 50 yrds infront of a bend etc), and try and overtake  a car, said car was sitting in the middle of the road signalling right to turn into their driveway, so ermmmm we overtake the car on the right hand side without signalling and just at the point as the car starts turning into their drive. I cant believe my eyes, two seconds later we smash into the right hand side of the car and shunt it parallel with the pavement outside his house and we slide to a halt inbetween the two massive brick pillars on either side of the drive.


Epic fail to say the least. yet he still drives today, never had any more lessons never told he's a idiot except by me. Stupid thing is he isn't probably that bad compared to alot of the people I see going round constantly.

I find the speed limit is like a test.

You go away to out of town places, get on a ridiculously narrow hedge lined windy road and it's a 60 mph limit because no one can be arsed to look. All roads that are kinda small are 60. how does that even work. You can barely do 60 on the roads in good conditions let alone in bad.

60mph country roads are the ones with the highest number of serious and fatal injuries for car drivers and passengers, because of exactly what you said.  Dangerous roads, with a speed limit that if adhered to can often mean you're driving at excessive speeds.  Far more dangerous than being on a clear motorway in dry conditions, travelling at 85mph.

More pedestrians are seriously injured or killed on 30mph roads.  That's going to be pretty obvious, even without looking at the statistics.  So, what's the answer there?  If it's in a residential area, it might be to lower the speed limit to 20mph.  Speed bumps are net to useless (they often move the danger to another road which results in a net increase in serious incidents - and they're also a pain for the emergency services), but other calming measures can work - such as narrowing of roads and one really interesting one is the removal of road markings in these areas.  It sounds counter-intuitive, but without road markings guiding people along the road without much thought, they have to think about what they're doing, think about what others are going to do, and actually make eye contact with other drivers and pedestrians.  Novel idea!

I have been reading this http://www.ukroads.org/ukroadsafety/articlespapers/tomorrowsroadssaferforeveryone.pdf

The government cite research that shows that "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents. This means that each year excessive and inappropriate speed helps kill around 1,200 people and to injure over 100,000 more. This is far more than any other single contributor to casualties on our roads."

This seems very at odds with the 5% figure cited in the link you quoted. Why do you think there is such a big discrepancy?

SPEEDING does not mean SPEED.

SPEEDING (going faster than an arbitrary speed limit), is not the same as EXCESSIVE SPEED (going too fast for the prevailing conditions).

There is no discrepancy.  Of course speed is involved in every accident.  If there was no speed involved, all the cars would be stationary and their momentum would be equal to zero.  It's difficult to hurt someone in an accident if both parties have zero momentum.  We wouldn't get anywhere though.

FWIW I hate poorly placed speed camers, I am in no way against AVERAGE SPEED CAMERAS in areas around schools etc.

There is a discrepancy though. One report says "speed is a major contributory factor in about one-third of all road accidents." Meaning that they were going too fast for the conditions, resulting in an accident (this doesn't mean that there was an accident, and they were moving, it means that the level of speed itself contributed to the accident.'
In the other report (the one you cited) they say 'Exceeding speed limit: 5%'. Now while it is possible (though in my mind unlikely) that the 28% discrepancy consists of those "within the speed limit who were still going too fast for the conditions" It still begs the question.......why does the set of figures you link to make this (Exceeding speed limit) the only mention of going too fast? Where is the 28% discrepancy hidden? 

I read that the higher figure is because they lumped loads of irrelevant ones ('other' if you will) in with the speed ones to inflate their headline figure.

Loads of analysis on the reg (geek news) about this stuff:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/speedcam_numbers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/08/speed_camera_figures/

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Never been any speed cameras here in North Yorkshire, apart from the odd oinker with his gun...

Just a small point but the 5% for exceeding speed limit could have added to it those people who were also exceeding the speed limit but also

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%

Any one of those categories could involve exceeding the speed limit but the accident was categorised into something else because that seemed more accurate or important.

There's basically a million different ways you could present the same figures and draw different conclusions from them

Well you do the ANOVA /MANOVA/MANCOVA then pal cos my SPSS is f*cked ;)

What you are saying is kind of my point. The site from which the stats are quoted has a specific agenda...to show that other factors are more important than speeding and thus it presents this list of figures *contrasting* them with speeding. Oh lookey, we have 'Failed to look properly at 32%' but where is the 'speed' component (ok they list it as speeding, but it leads to that conclusion since they list excess speed nowhere else) ? Oh, it's down there at 5%.
Well they can GTFO. An accident where I 'failed to look properly' may have "been made worse" by the fact that the guy was coming at me at 90mph and I was going the other way doing 90mph, but who would deny that there is a separate, discrete, contributory cause, viz that you were DRIVING TOO *******G FAST! An extreme example, but you can't deny that vehicle speed seems to be severely underrepresented there.
In fact, looking down the list, driving too fast would so severely exacerbate so many of those items, I'm really surprised that it doesn't serve as the single most important contributory factor in an even larger percentage of accidents.

So you're choosing to disregard the evidence because it doesn't fit your viewpoint?

Those figures don't provide enough information to draw any inference from either for or against either side of the argument.

A more complete set of the data it was based on may do, but how it's presented here doesn't.

Well i'd imagine it's possible to drive for 50 years doing decent mileage pretty quickly and not have an accident  or even cause one. Try the same 50 years without ever breaking the speed limit and never looking in your mirror. I'd guess it's impossible to do that without accidents.

Sandy

Nah, just questioning one piece of government 'evidence' because it seems to contradict another piece of government 'evidence'.

You are correct but that isn't what he said.

 ;D It was my point though - I didn't want them mixed up  ;D

LOL. Driving too fast (to drive safely) is VERY different to exceeding the speed limit.

Driving too fast IS dangerous.  If you're tail-gating at 60mph on a motorway, you're driving TOO FAST.  But you aren't exceeding the speed limit.  Yet, it's still dangerous.

I think you know you're wrong and now you're being obtuse in order to save face. 

I got done today, 1st time ever. Up into Harrogate from Leeds road. Going up the hill just exiting a 30 zone into 40 speed limit zone.

Pig with gun said I was doing 41, I said yes I needed the speed to get up the hill and maintain the flow of traffic as i entered the 40 zone. Her response was basically tough shit, she admitted the signs are confusing and I was getting screwed whatever.

Glad I turned on my phone mic when she said that, I said I see her in court where my wife will defend me over the blatantly confusing speed sign designed to trap people trying to get up the hill. 4-5 points I am guessing if people just excepted this crap.

Dan which do you get most pleasure out of ? debating this thread,your mad run good in finding your lass or your even madder run goodaments in winning dtd300 :).I worryingly think it maybe this thread

Haha, this isn't pleasure.  This is a mission.

Find the road on google maps and have a look at the signs. Post the link up. Also check the tro to see if any signs are in the wrong place.

Sandy

LOL,fair play

That list of percentages that you quoted...how would you even go about compiling it accurately. It's based on subjective driver reports and police interpretations of them.
Anyway, I know that you know I'm right now, you're going all defensive again  :P

Doesn't surprise me to be honest, don't think there's a need for them. I'm just back from a few days in North Yorkshire and I thought the general standard of driving and observation of speed limits was the best I have encountered anywhere in the UK.

http://www.driving-news.co.uk/driving-legislation/new-super-asset-speed-cameras/

These make a lot more sense than out and out 'speed' cameras. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/charlie-brooker-80mph-speed-limit

I have a little willy, obviously.

Also, has no one explained to him that as a non-driver he can't have an opinion on driving (the same way as someone who isn't a parent canteen comment on how a child is brought up)?

100% agree.

Wish I had a massive dong though, so I could dawdle everywhere. :(

How do you know I have a little willy?

I've seen the way you drive, and there's no other plausible reason for it.

'Tis true though :(

 rotflmfao

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22809291

Interesting study, and heard a very interesting counter-argument against what the study suggests (based on regression to the mean, illusionary benefits and selective sampling).

Im going to say sample size makes it insignificant

(its nonsense thou)

What about all those drivers who run over someone 10 miles down the road because they're distracted and tilted about being flashed for doing 33 in a 30 zone?

Tongue in cheek yes, but you have to be careful about the conclusions you draw from statistics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-22728917