Jenn
Part of things
Posts: 929
|
|
May 25, 2006 23:03:55 GMT
|
I wish this had been a topic when I was writing essays for General Studies at A level; people make so many good points, just reinforces that we aren't Barries on here. I think it's the same old story- we need more man power and the government would rather curse word us over than sort out the country, profit is all they're concerned with.
More police presence would make a big difference to the rate of many crimes nowadays but they're tied up in paperwork and barely see the streets. Joe public finds it hard to keep faith in the long arm of the law when it's represented by a computer churning out tickets. The country needs a police force that it can respect, not loathe.
The point about don't do the crime is always the same, everyone is human, I doubt anyone could honestly say they're never sped, your speedo is never guaranteed spot on anyway so you could speed without knowing. Speed cameras are tricky, used for their supposed purpose they are effective- especially the new average speed ones, they do help lower speed as you can't do anything else but slow down. But the nation has gone camera crazy, cameras are put on new roads now purely because it is likely that a brand new road without a curse word, potholed surface will encourage speeding.
My RE teacher, not that I really have fond memories of her but, she had a good saying- 'you'll fight for your priviledges but what about your responsibilities?' before we curse word too much about what the government is doing we have to look at ourselves- has our cavalier attitude to the law given Big Brother no choice but to employ the computers to keep us in track, maybe government is just taking the only route they can afford to without implementing forced Police service, conscription style.
Speed limits are there for a reason, to protect. Whether you are on an empty road or a busy motorway limits are there to minimise the risk of an accident, whether to yourself or another person. They are as much there to prevent you hurting yourself as to stop you ploughing into anyone else. There are too many other variables which cannot be controlled, speed however can. Basically if we weren't a nation of speeders, this situation with cameras couldn't have happened.
Fair do's it's a bit of overkill a lot of the time, tickets for the sake of it. But if as a nation we could have show we could drive safely at the speed limits set to us maybe the gorvernment would've had a sensible rethink in light of new technologies and sensibles proposals to lift limits could've been made. As is we're trying to get things our own way by showing we can't even stick to the laws we already have. Naughty children don't get rewarded.
While some may be naughtier than others it still contributes to a nation of potentially dangerous drivers. You may think you can handle 85mph on the motorway, but what about the drivers around you, perhaps they can't react as quickly as you feel you can, perhaps you aren't psychic and can't tell that the driver to your left is about to pull out and that 15mph over the limit you can't slow down enough to give him room.
Laws are there for a reason, while I don't think the way the problems have been tackled is right, we need to show some respect, because until we do we'll never be shown any.
The whole system needs a shake up and a lot of that is down to the government but we need to do our bit too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 23:14:05 GMT
|
Hard shoulder running.... WHAT? I did notice the four overhead signs for three lanes (+HS), with the left hand one showing the red X... didn't click at the time. How dangerous is that? You're driving along in the second lane, doing your 60mph as instructed, when you have a blowout. Luckily you keep control and carefully guide your car onto the hard shoulder OH MY GOD THERE'S A 44 TONNE TRUCK -splat- -death-. There is an awful lot of CCTV keeping tabs on it but heck... one minimum-wage chimp watching 24 cameras does not a safe motorway make. As for the gatsos.... a good hint i was given is that as you approach a gantry, if the one on the opposite carriageway has cameras then there will be ones on the back of your gantry. however i spent so long looking both at the opposite side of the road, and in my mirrors to check the theory, that i nearly caused a pileup on quite a few occasions! my advice: just stick to the bloody limit if it matters; the theory appears to be correct
|
|
Never trust a man Who names himself Trevor. Or one day you might find He's not a real drug dealer.
|
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 23:28:18 GMT
|
I think, with respect, you have made assumptions which are not necessarily correct. Of course excessive speed can kill, so can smoking, alcohol and dancing close to the edge of a cliff! Now take that last ridiculous statement. Would you, as a Government, sanction the setting up of barriers and cameras over some cliff faces because 3 cretins per year died while dancing at the edge of them? Of course you wouldnt. You would point out that statistically only a tiny minority of people have died while dancing so how do you justify the expense? Speed, at the last audit, accounted for less than one third of all road traffic accidents and, as i said previously, those figures could be disected further to a point where only a small percentage of said percentage could be down to out and out speeding. Your own example was telling, the analogy of somebody pulling out of their lane into the path of another car. The assumption is that the accident will somehow be, partially, the responsibility of the speeder yet the responsibility would be 100% with the lane changer!! Yes, society cannot be self regulating, we need laws and we need rules, we cannot function without it. The problem is that there is a Government that is using the motorist as a cash cow, it is concentrating on the one third of offenders rather than tackle the two thirds that a Camera (tax evaders etc excepted) cannot hope to deal with. Now more money is being invested into newer technology that sets out to catch people slowing down or speeding up between cameras, why? Traffic Police numbers have been slashed, the deterrent of being clocked by a Jam Sandwich is less than ever. The fear of being caught, i would venture, is actually less than it was, once you know the area you live and travel around you learn to spot where the Cameras are and where and when Mobile Camera units are going to be. Statistics can easily be manipulated but there has been no significant reductions in the UK accident rate, certainly not enough to justify the amount of Cameras on the roads. In terms of significant reductions in casualties it doesnt justify,in terms of revenue it does, big time......................
|
|
If Typhoo put the Tea in Britain who put the c**t in Scunthorpe?
|
|
|
|
May 25, 2006 23:37:46 GMT
|
robmajorca - what you say is true, but by choosing to dance close to the edge of a cliff/drink you're only choosing to put yourself in danger - fair enough if you're willing to take that risk. Dangerous driving (NOT necessarily speed, although it can help) and smoking, you're putting other people in danger too, hence the crackdown on both of them. Can't really arugue with the rest of it mind.
Pillock - don't worry, there'll be 'refuges' at regular intervals along the motorway, so you'll be fine as long as you make sure that you only get a blowout at 500m intervals. Don't worry about getting speed up to get back on to the motorway after you've changed yur wheel either; apparently, rather than use the hard shoulder to gain speed you should use the emergency phone in your refuge to contact motorway control, who will 'advise you on the best way to rejoin the motorway' (strap an emergency rocket to your car for quick acceleration, or possibly fly to a service station). It might be fair to say I'm sceptical about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jenn I'm afraid I have to agree with robmajorca about your lane changer example this just emphasises my earlier point that basicaly the police are clamping down on easy crimes to police such as speeding, yet with the demise of real police on the roads, policing bad and dangerous driving such as pulling out into the path of another vehicles. In those circumstance should the worst happen and there is an accident in which someone dies, the police would do a crash investigation, they would then find that the driver of the car which did not cause the accident was speeding and consequently that driver is likely to be prosecuted for being responsible for the crash, resulting in a death by dangerous driving charge and if found guilty resulting in prison. I fear such a situation very much which subsiquently makes me even more carefull when driving fast (not a bad thing) yet despite the fact that I am concentrating more per mph than many drivers around me I am percieved as a danger to other road users.
While I'm on the subject of concentration while driving, who else finds their concentration (particularly on the motorway) is taken away from the road ahead (and behind for that matter) by looking for white vans on bridges, outlines of lightbars on the tops of cars behind and flecky jackets in dark coloured volvo's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I'm on the subject of concentration while driving, who else finds their concentration (particularly on the motorway) is taken away from the road ahead (and behind for that matter) by looking for white vans on bridges, outlines of lightbars on the tops of cars behind and flecky jackets in dark coloured volvo's? [/quote]
Exactly...................
|
|
If Typhoo put the Tea in Britain who put the c**t in Scunthorpe?
|
|
|
|
|
Spot on, eyes on speedo is bad enough, but being paranoid and checking out the ares is another. eyes on the road is what should be going on really.
Also hard shoulder should not have traffic on it ever! apart from emergency vehicles. which numbnuts enforced and signed that twist on the rules?!
|
|
it doesn't matter if it's a Morris Marina or a Toyota Celica - it's what you do with it that counts
|
|
Shortcut
Posted a lot
I won't be there when you cross the road, so always use the Green Cross Code.
Posts: 3,037
|
|
|
The problem is that there is a Government that is using the motorist as a cash cow
Not necessarily. I don't actually think they are using the cameras as cash cows. The revenue inflow is marginal, certainly not worth the bother.
I think that rather, the government uses cameras, and all surveillance laws, as a lazy vote grabbing way of show Mr and Mrs Middle England that they are doing something about the terrible "whatever Mr and Mrs Middle England are concerned about this week" problem.
It is symptomatic of weak and intellectually vacant government (all parties) who are after the quick fix and the easy headline, and of course in the end the vote. Much of the media doesn't help by playing along with the governments agenda.
Factor in a love of technology, all governments desire to control as much as they can, the illusion of chepaer law enforcement in the future and of course that almost totally spurious, but vote winning mantra "terrorism" and pretty soon you have a police state.
On the flip side, it has to be acknowledged that there are vast congestion problems on our roads. However, congestion is just people sitting in cars. They (we) may winge but it's obviously not bad enough to get us onto a train or we wouldn't be in the car. Congestion is not necessarily a bad thing, just something that you have to decide to live with.
|
|
Last Edit: May 26, 2006 9:27:16 GMT by Shortcut
This space available to rent. Reach literally dozens of people. Cheap rates!
|
|
|
|
|
I do find driving with a Road Angel takes away some of the stress of looking for cameras, you still have to keep an eye out for Plod but at least the cameras are covered. It also flashes up the speed limit where the camera which is handy in a strange area.
I have to stress I`m not a compulsive speeder, I am actually a member of the IAM and am training to be one of their observers, but am personally not against a bit of press on motoring where circumstances allow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 10:00:07 GMT
|
Are cameras a symptom of the lack of trust and intolerance pervasive throughout society nowadays? All laws require trust that we are going to heed them, and a bit of tolerance and common sense applied when they are mildly transgressed.
Sadly those qualities are disappearing as I see it. Everyone is seen as a potential child-murderer or terrorist. Then we all suffer by the stronger enforcement of laws which become stricter to deal with what was once a small problem.
Trouble is, those laws become so strong that some people then decide it's too much hassle and just flout them completely. I see this to a lesser extent with increasing legislation in the construction industry I work in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 11:45:58 GMT
|
Even more scary - I just read on the bbc news website that our new transport minister, post cabinet reshuffle, is investigating how to make road pricing work. He's moved past the should we have universal road pricing argument, and has now committed £10 million of our money into finding out how to make it work!
Think of that, cameras tracking everyone on every road all the time... except of course the criminals who don't register their cars or foil the system some other way...
Graham
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 11:48:32 GMT
|
What sort of a name is post cabinet reshuffle? Scary indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 11:59:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 13:03:12 GMT
|
If you think surveillance and automated motoring law is bad (and it is). For god sake, support the Save Parliament campaign. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill will kill any responsibility that the ruling government has to parliament and the people to make sure that it has some kind of restrictions. As well as being able to amend any law, it will be able to amend itself. So after being passed, it will be able to be used, to remove it's own safe guards. Fortunately this bill has been given such a kicking in parliament that it has been massively watered down by the cabinet office, now it affects only the reduction of business legislation. see here for more info: www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1767832,00.html This doesn't affect the fact that such an disgraceful bill was proposed in the first place, which tells anyone all they need to know about democracy in the UK.
|
|
1972 Fiat 130 1985 Talbot Alpine 1974 Lancia Beta Saloon 1975 + 1986 Mazda 929 Koop + Wagon 1982 Fiat Argenta 2.0 iniezione elettronica 1977 Toyota Carina TA14 BEST CAR EVER!!!!!!!! 1979 Datsun B310 Sunny 4-dr 1984 Audi 200 Quattro Turbo 1983 Honda Accord 1.6 DX GONE1989 Alfa 75 2.0 TS Mr T says: TREAT YO MOTHER RIGHT!
|
|
|
|
May 26, 2006 19:09:33 GMT
|
Cheers Fella. I wasn't upto date with the latest changes. But at least I knew it was about, most people's reaction was "Nah, bloody conspiracy theorist, Jesus christ you are right, this country is F*&ked". I hope the option to amend laws retrospectively including itself was amended out though. Otherwise, once the bill is the act, they could just use it to change it from limited to deregulation, to useable on all laws, really quickly.
|
|
|
|