gaddafi

IF it caused an accident then you should be punished accordingly

If it didn't, what exactly is the problem?

Again, as I said in my case, had I been driving at 90mph in busy traffic in a residential area (how would be a separate issue) then I can see the sense in a slap/points/fine

But 60 in a 50 in a non-res area on a dc with NO other traffic on the road......

The facts are that the initial offence was caught by camera but none of the many humans involved in the process subsequently were willing to show any of this much vaunted discretion

That's the norm with camera related offences and it just seems daft to me

Nick Graves

Indeed.

Plus the reductions on speed limits in some areas on the QT for no other reason than to catch out the unwary proves that the whole thing is corruprion on a NOTW scale.

There has never been any (unfiddled) scientific evidence that speed limits have any effect on accident rates - most people try not to have accidents when they drive, however crap they drive & those that CGAF, CGAF anyway.

There is some evidence that Scameras actually increase accident rates and it's probably true about Kojak with his Kodak, too.

Anyone who gets done for speeding breaks the law. So did a Negro travelling on the wrong bus in 1960s America. There are bad laws.

loftust

Speed cameras are a deterrent against speeding...therefore minimising the chances of an accident occurring. It is common knowledge that the faster you go, the more likely it is that you will have an accident as there will be less time to respond to a developing situation.

We HAVE to prevent accidents from happening...failing to do so is morally unacceptable. You CANNOT reasonably accept that if there are no limits, or methods of getting caught when you exceed these limits, that people will drive safely...it ain't going to happen.

I think the answer to your second quoted point, is that you have increased the chances of having an accident, and therefore causing injury or death to someone else. They have to deter drivers against this...it is not acceptable to hit someone whether that be in a residential area, outside a school, or if they are on a well lit bike, at night, on a country road, and you have hit them on a bend.

LTB

People may believe that, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it knowledge.

The German Autobahn is still unrestricted in a lot of places so you'd expect far more accidents to occur there than on UK motorways for example.
The Autobahn is one of the safest placest to drive in Europe.

Again I'm going to have to lie down as my head is hurting.

loftust

You make a very good point...perhaps I should have added an exception that is the motorways.

One cannot argue that proceeding at 40MPH along a single carriageway with crossings, turnings and pedestrians isn't safer than driving at 60MPH.

arsie

There is a POTENTIAL problem that, in a heightened emotional state, you may not have your normal razor sharp reactions. This would be exascerbated by going fast, thus reducing the time you have in any unexpected situation. Me, in such situations, I try to drive more deliberately and do a commentary on driving, which tends to slow me down and make conscious decisions, which is good - very rarely if any occasion is your presence a few seconds sooner going to improve the outcome for your near/dear one: it just satisfies your own primitive emotional needs. I would bet that, given the choice, most near/dear ones would NOT want you to speed.

All of which has got fk all to do with limits, cameras, yadda yadda.

My point is, slow down if you really care.

Improves your chances of survival.

As near/dear ones want!

S2K-Phil

I have been following this thread with increasing incredulity. Some very sensible comments but also quite a lot of bollocks.

Barring freaks conditions (eg Toyota with a stuck accelerator?) the driver of a car is responsible for the speed the car is being driven.

The speed limit that any given stretch of road is given often does not reflect the safe max speed limit; it’s often decided upon because of other factors (local councillor lives there or they put the street lights the wrong distance apart).

The police often (allegedly ) target easy pickings. To get caught in one of these is unfortunate but not necessarily dangerous driving.

The law should generally be obeyed, even if it is a stupid law, else you face the consequences - your fault, nobody else. This doesn’t make the law morally right, or even sensible, but they [the police, courts etc] are bigger that you so just pay up. If you don’t like the law start lobbying your MP (Loftus, that’s ‘Member of Parliament’ not ‘Military Police’).

TBH I don’t see the problem of driving down a road at 150 mph if it's safe to do so, though I don't recommend it. Occasionally I did this legally before the speed limit came in on motorways (yes I am that old) because the road conditions were acceptable. Since then, I have generally stuck to the speed limit. Oh, and it looks like some roads might get a new max speed of 80mph in the near future as it is deemed that cars are safer than they used to be!

GREGSTERWIZ

Ah, motorways

Yes, statistically the safest roads. Lots of space, free from pedestrians, designed to be straight and a 70 MPH limit (which should be raised IMO)

Don't forget though; when it goes wrong on the motorway it tends to go very wrong

m1bjr

YOU are not a doctor or a paramedic, so you have no need to speed even in this case.

Honestly, talk about contradictions.

m1bjr

You could have been driving faster/slower whatever.

In a different car, or on a different day, or with some rain....

You may have killed the child.

You may have been looking in the rearview at just the wrong time.

Very different consequences, but would you have been to blame then?