1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

just got the magic letter...another speed camara! F#ck!

Discussion in 'A3/S3 Forum (8L Chassis)' started by aidank1981, Jul 10, 2007.

?

how many points you got??

  1. 12 points!!!!

    4.7%
  2. 9 points!!!

    16.3%
  3. 6 points!!

    4.7%
  4. 3 points!

    74.4%
  1. ChriS3
    Offline

    ChriS3 hud at ye bam

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,234
    Likes Received:
    14
    [Jul 16, 2007]

    Do you realise you're preaching the law to a policeman? Ahhh, the irony.

    To be honest, your general tone has been rather pompus and condescending. Implying that you feel you're better than others. Why else take such a blinkered stance?


    I left it out of my quotation because I thought it was an irrelevant fact if it wasn't you're fault. Seems like you want to justify it. I guess you're a better driver if you haven't had a crash, eh?


    Reason my tone changed. There's no need to be like that.
  2. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Nope, I'm curious at to why my p*ss is always warmer on my feet than the water from the shower! ;) It means I've seen far more sense on a Punto website than here (and they, being of the stereotypically 'boy-racer' age, though not necessarily 'boy-racers', have to contend with more than just speed camera's).

    For a reply to most of the above see my last post. Where is your evidence to prove that being pulled by a copper would have a lasting effect on your driving style? It may for a few hours after but then you can guarentee most people will revert back to 'normal' mode. You are absolutely right about camera's being viewed as insignificant but that's because as you say they are cheaper than a parking ticket. I still think fines issued by camera's and as a result of being pulled by traffic cops should be hugely increased and the offender be placed in a massively inconvient driver 'rehabilitation' programme funded by the increased fines. If any government had the balls to do that this topic of conversation would never arise again... (Christ, I hope it doesn't now! :))

    Oh please what are you basing this on? Where are your facts? Where are your official statistics. Its strange how you only now mention that the bulk of the 2m people caught have ALL been on pedestrian and traffic free dual carriageways/motorways. Its also strange how (where I live at least) there are almost no camera's on dual carriageways/motorways where the 'casual speeder' poses less of a risk even though there is a very, very high volume of traffic. In fact I think there has been a huge removal of speed camera's on the M6 (or at least they were planned but never put up after the measurement lines were marked out on the road) in the interest of safety! (Imagine all those BMW's doing 100 in the BMW lane braking down to 70 in front of you! Mind you, its your own fault if you run into them... you shouldn't haven't been in the BMW lane!) Most people I know who have been caught speeding have been done so in area's where there are pedestrians and other traffic because this is where speeding vehicles pose the most risk, not on your deserted motorway. Before you start assuming things again I am not saying all camera's are situated in places with the safety of pedestrians/other road users in mind.

    Your are trying to confuse the issue by comparing two totally different scenarios. One legal, one not. Are you saying that because you deem one to be unsafe (and I'm not saying it isn't) you should not be penalised for breaking the speed limit? How do the two even compare?

    Like I've said before. Even if you think you are only posing a danger to yourself something can come along to f*ck things up. Imagine your deserted dual carriageway and you're doing 80+. There's nothing on your side and you have a blow-out, before you know it you're over/through the central reservation and into the path of a vehicle now coming the other way. The female driver of the other vehicle is killed instantly. Do you not think you are going to be done for speeding? (You could possibly end up on charges of causing the death of the woman due to the excessive speed? if you weren't excessively speeding you may have been able to control the car. Not sure about this perhaps StaffsS3 can help?)

    Yes, you can have the same accident at 70 (or less) but however regrettable and unfortunate at least your conscious would be clear.
  3. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Only just noticed this:

    :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :salute:
  4. StaffsS3
    Offline

    StaffsS3 Flat Out

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Sorry for the delay shades, I keep nodding off when half way through your posts!!!!!

    I'm an SIO for road deaths and serious road collisions so will try to answer your scenario quickly before I go to the pub.

    Here goes

    1) Every single collision is different.

    2) For your example to be honest I doubt that 80 mph would be picked up from the scene that was left. There are some very scientific calculations based on skid marks and striations etc. They may point to excessive speed, they may not

    3) In a case like this it would be probably attributed to a mechanical defect.

    4) Unless of course there were other witnesses that confirmed suspicions that excessive speed and driver error were to blame.

    I haven't really got the time to answer things now (I hear a cold beer calling)!!

    If I can help anyone with legal type topics on this site in the future I will, I'm on your side remember. That's why I'm on here. But mostly to talk about Audi S3's!!!

    :salute:
  5. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Yeah... Yeah... I've heard it all before! :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:

    Thanks StaffsS3 for being the only one who's been able to talk about this with some kind of authority. There probably isn't many other people armed with the kind of information you have (myself, AndyMac and ChriS3 included) yet you have stepped in only when necessary... All hail the AS.net referee!! I can see why its probably so amusing (and possibly saddening for you)! :)

    Have a cold one for me!
  6. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Preaching? How? First off I made an absolute statement of fact. No matter how you have been caught breaking the law you were still breaking the law. Secondly... Preaching? how?

    Perhaps my tone has become pompus but only because a few people have misinterpreted some of my original posts and now I'm fed up having to defend myself time and time again from the sh*t certain people are making up in their heads!

    Irrelevent? Have you not read the entire thread? It is highly relevent to earlier posts (when someone was on about charging down country lanes to evade a points/fine, if you had of been paying attention you would have known what it was a reference to). What do I exactly need to justify? It was an incident I was involved in. How or what am I even supposed to justify?
    How many times do I have to say this?.... At no point have I said having no points or not having a crash makes you a BETTER driver than anyone else nor do I believe myself to be a better driver or personally better than anyone else. Please drop this one now because its getting f*cking boring!

    Oh come on, did you not notice the smiley? I wasn't being deadly serious! There's also a certain level of sarcasm in there too... Could there be other reasons why you're jumping to the defence of a lady?? ;) :) ChriS3 - The Hero! :)
  7. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    "Oh please what are you basing this on? Where are your facts? Where are your official statistics."

    The 2m fines issued last year is in the public domain.
    The level of serious injury/death on the road has not decreased since the early 90's, in fact it's been pretty flat (slightly rising) since the introduction of speed camera's.
    Speed camera's are supposed to be placed at accident blackspots
    Given that the accidents have remained constant or even risen during this time then it's not a huge mental leap to conclude that most camera's/mobile traps are sited where people regularly speed and not where there are accidents, i.e. dual carriageways and motorways (thus the majority of the 2m speeders caught last year were casual speeders).
    Or are you seriously suggesting the accidents have all moved to non speed camera locations (unlikely), or that the accidents at the speed camera locations are still happening at the same rate as before?
    Either way it proves again & again & again that the obsession with speeding and the hamfisted strategy to enforce it is totally flawed (as if we needed more proof).
    As I've said before I don't actually have a problem with speed camera's, but I do have a problem with the speeding obsession & brain washing to the detriment of all other motoring offences.

    Don't you think it rather convenient that the one element of motoring the authorities have honed in on, just happens to be the one that is the most easily detected & punished using fairly simple technology?
    That was a stroke of luck don't you think?
    Forget unregistered vehicles, people on their mobiles, tailgating, undertaking, unroadworthiness, plain stupidity etc etc - they just happen to be a bit too labour intensive to police. So let's design our whole strategy around safer roads, on the basis of something we can do something about.
    And when everyone's speed is controlled by satellites so speeding is eradicated and the accident rate is still going up then maybe we'll have a look at the other 93% of causes of serious accident that TRRL told us about 10 years ago.
    Doubt it, £120m a year is a lot of money.
  8. ForestHills
    Offline

    ForestHills New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Cracking thread:laugh: I dont agree with Speed cameras as they do not catch bad drivers just drivers going faster than the speed limit.

    As I live up North in the Highlands I see so many bad overtaking manouvers its unbelievable - there is no cameras designed to catch these and I would wager they cause more accidents than anything else! Nutters overtaking on blind bends or without the power or speed to pass safely.

    One thing I have to disagree with is that Cameras dont work - they do - I used to drive like a nutter but between getting older and getting points I slowed down.

    Here is the government stats that back up they do work
    Its not really rocket science - you have a bad junction where people speed and crashes happens - you stick a camera and reduce the limit and most drivers will slow right down.

    If they wanted to really reduce congestion and really make the roads safer they would make compulsary re-testing say every 10 years. Lots would fail but I dont think I could handle the test these days so would have to get the bike out!!!

    Anyway thats my first post on here - maybe I will go and introduce myself in that forum and leave you lot to it:haudrauf::happy:
  9. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Yet again you provide no real proof or evidence. I want real figures. I want real stats. Have you ever bothered to read the EXACT requirements for the situating of a speed camera? I have! Fixed camera's do not only have to be at accident black spots they can be in locations where a high percentage of the traffic is known, through accurate data collection, to be exceeding the speed limit. Camera's are not about eliminating traffic incidents, they are about reducing the speed of such incidents to reduce the severity and reduce the risk posed to the pedestrian. You can take a look and learn something too... http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=82990&Rendition=Web

    I've had this one before. Is a camera better served on a quite country accident blackspot where 7 people may have been killed in the last 3 years or on a busy dual carriageway in a highly populated area where the potential of loss of life from speeding vehicles is greater. I know its a touch descision but to have unregulated traffic in a populated area poses more potential risk so the speed camera must go in the higher risk area.
  10. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 16, 2007]
    Source: Dept of Transport - would that be the same dept of transport that commissioned the 6,000 camera's in the UK in the first place? And you're saying their stats back up the use of a traffic policy they defined and that they make £20m per year from? Are you for real?
    It's naive in the extreme to believe these stats, they don't even tally with the figures from hospital admissions and the police forces UK wide. This has been widely publicised and not refuted by the DfT.
    They also include traffic light camera's which aren't under debate.
    They are also only looking at fatalities at camera sites, and are heavily skewed by the siting of a few camera's in real accident blackspots which again we are all agreed is a good thing. To get those same results you could have deployed a few hundred safety camera's, not the 6000 we currently have. The other 5,500 camera's are doing nothing more than generating revenue. Fine if this revenue is going to be invested in the police, or to road layout changes to make black spots safer, or even as compensation to the families of the deceased. But not to fund more camera's or just sit in the Treasury's coffers. The law of diminishing returns plays a big part in all this.
    Take the road that's responsible for the most deaths & injury in the UK, site one camera there, cut the death toll by half and then use this data to justify 6000 more camera's is just a nonsense.

    Shades, "Camera's are not about eliminating traffic incidents, they are about reducing the speed of such incidents to reduce the severity and reduce the risk posed to the pedestrian"
    2 things glaringly wrong with your logic (yet again).
    1. Safety camera's are supposed to be about reducing traffic incidents (as well as reducing the severity) - nothing can eliminate traffic incidents.
    2. As said time & time again I'm not talking about camera's sited correctly in built up areas. I'm talking about dual carriageways & motorways.
    You're so quick to criticise people for not reading what you said correctly, I'm surprised you missed that one.

    You say the camera must be sited where the "potential" risk is greater, not where the real risk is undisputably proven. Well I think you've knocked the whole argument on the head right there.
    Are you sure you're a DJ and not a Health & Safety Officer?
    That sort of logic is about as rational as ignoring the hazard of paedophile living next door to a day nursery, and concentrating on the "do not eat" warning labels on light bulbs as more people come into contact with light bulbs than attend the nursery. The lightbulbs present the greater potential risk. Do you actually understand the concept of common sense?
    The DfT should be concentrating on reducing the number of accidents not just reducing the severity of them. Next they'll proudly publicise that camera's have reduced deaths on the roads by x amount and these deaths have been downgraded to serious injury requiring life support. When the patient eventually dies the cause of death will be "heart failure" and not the less paletable "hit by a twat in an HGV while on his mobile phone losing control as he braked suddenly for a speed camera".
    But as long as the data can be twisted to suit the DfT's needs and there are enough idiots out there to believe it then everyone's happy.
  11. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Of course they don't tally the DfT statistics are based on accidents at camera sites, the Police and hospital admissions figures are based on ALL accidents, no matter where they happened. From the start of 2005 all road traffic accidents had their contributory factors recorded by the police. This allowed the DfT for the first time to compile comprehensive data on the causes of accidents. The results show that 5% of all accidents are attributed to exceeding the speed limit. Could this low figure of 5% be attributed to the fact that the camera's are effective and most people are finally getting the message about speeding and therefore slowing down in general?

    As of 2005 (they were the latest figures I could find from the National Office of Statistics) there were roughly 500 billion kilometers travelled that year. This is an increase of roughly 75 billion kilometers since the introduction of speed camera's in 1991 (roughly 425 billion kilometers). Following the trend the figure of total kilometers will have very slightly increased in 2006. There has been a reduction of incidents at camera sites even with the increased throughput of vehicles while this makes little difference when were talking about a human life lost it does mean that incidents haven't exponentially increased with the higher rate of traffic... therefore camera sites are safer than ever!

    I find it hard to believe that, as you say, the majority of 2m motorists that are caught speeding every year are doing so in totally 'safe' conditions on dual carriageways/motorways. Logic (and the DfT's own guidelines on where camera's should be place) dictates that camera's are placed in area's of greater risk so it can be assumed that there are far more camera's in area's of greater population where speeding is a problem than there is in area's where the risk is less (motorways etc). So quite how come to the conclusion that the majority of speeders are caught in their safe environments of the dual carriageway/motorway I will never know. I cannot say I have seen many inappropriately sited camera's with the possible exception of a few that I can think of off hand between Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford on the A34 and a few on the expressways around/near Runcorn. However as I generally don't drive above the speed limit I can't say I'm on the look-out for 'inappropriate' camera's anyway.

    Are you seriously saying that 5,500 camera's are providing absolutely no service what-so-ever? Are you saying the every single one of those 5,500 camera's have not contributed to the reduction of speed of some 36 million drivers that weren't snapped by camera's last year and not saved a single life? I love it when the camera's are the ones accused of generating revenue when it is those that continue to speed who are providing the revenue. You have no choice whether you pay income tax or national insurance but you do have a choice of whether to speed or not. If you don't like the government recieving so much money then don't speed.

    I agree with the first few bits but if a fatality is directly attributable to an individual then it should be the individual that pays compensation. (Although certain exceptions have to be provisioned for where the individual who caused the accident has little or no assets or has died themselves.) If the 'Law of Diminishing Returns' applies to revenue generated by camera's then you are basically admitting that camera's do work and as a result the government would need more camera's to sustain the levels of revenue generated.

    That's absolutely fine by me even if that one camera saves one life, I'm sure the extra 6000 will no-doubt contribute to saving lives too someday (or does the figures for the reduction of incidents at camera sites mean nothing?). Anyway, I don't (generally) care about the additional camera's as I (generally) don't speed.

    So I made an slight error in the formatting of the sentence. I do apologise but the basic principle remains the same even though I put the word 'speed' in the wrong place.

    So what your saying is cameras best serve in a undisputably proven area where it would save only a few lives a year rather than in a greater 'potential' risk area. I do believe that motorways could be classed as undisputably proven area's also, people die on the motorway all the time yet you continue to moan about there being speed camera's on motorways! You can't have it both ways!

    That's one crazy analogy you got going on there and makes very little sense itself. Paedophiles? Lightbulbs? WTF? Were talking about a single article, a camera, and where it should and shouldn't be placed not two totally unrelated area's of concern? Although I'm not too concerned about people eating lightbulbs... apparently they don't taste very nice!

    The DfT have been reducing the number of accidents. The amount of accidents/fatalities, as mentioned earlier somewhere, has been quite steady for a number of years now despite the fact that more cars join the roads every year and the total usage (kilometers driven) increases every year. Effectively accidents/fatalities have reduced as they haven't risen with the increased vehicles on our roads or their usage.

    I'm not going to bother with the last bit, that's just stupid.
  12. jojo
    Online

    jojo Looking for Boost! Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    26,717
    Likes Received:
    2,019
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    And I thought I was up late lol.
  13. TheSpaceCowboy
    Offline

    TheSpaceCowboy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Messages:
    520
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Or early ;) I thought there was a study commisioned to identify the effectiveness of speed cameras to bolster the governments stance and it was scrapped because it showed speed cameras were useless or did I imagine it? (Very likely).

    *Stands back and fans flames* :readit:
  14. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    I agree that with the total road miles travelled every year it would seem to suggest the use of camera's has decreased the number of serious accidents/deaths on a per mile basis. However what you fail to realise is that before we had camera's road mileage was increasing at the same rate (sometimes more) as it is now, without any increase in fatalities or serious injury. This was due to safer cars, road layouts and more motorway driving than before. So even if we had no camera's the trend would have been the same. So more cars doing more mileage is not actually an excuse to bolster the stats.
    I can't honestly believe you think most camera's are sited in accident black spots? Do you drive around with your eyes shut?
    There are 96 camera's on the M42, on a very short stretch of about 15 miles. When these were swtiched on they were doing 1,000's of motorists per day. Unlike you, I can only think of about a dozen camera's sited correctly and it would be easier to list those than all the others.
    Mobile traps are often set up in front of a fixed camera, to catch speeder approaching the fixed site before they slow down for the camera. This is just revenue generation as the police are on record as stating that the purpose of a camera at an accident blackspot is to slow the traffic, which assumes the traffic was speeding before the blackspot otherwise they wouldn't need to slow.
    "The results show that 5% of all accidents are attributed to exceeding the speed limit." - the TRRL did the same research 10 years ago and they came up with a figure of less than 7% so ultimately the rate has not changed dramatically in 10 years. So wrong again I'm afraid.
    "Are you seriously saying that 5,500 camera's are providing absolutely no service what-so-ever?" - Yes, apart from revenue generation. Why do you find this so hard to believe? Our government fleecing the general public for absolutely no reason? Such a thing is impossible.

    "So what your saying is cameras best serve in a undisputably proven area where it would save only a few lives a year rather than in a greater 'potential' risk area."
    As opposed to not saving any lives but potentially saving an undisclosed amount of lives that were never in danger - well yes!

    "I do believe that motorways could be classed as undisputably proven area's also, people die on the motorway all the time yet you continue to moan about there being speed camera's on motorways! You can't have it both ways!"
    People die on motorways because of one thing and one thing only - HGV's, the very vehicles that will never be caught on a speed camera. Despite this they are still the safest roads in the UK by a large margin.

    "That's one crazy analogy you got going on there and makes very little sense itself" - That was the point! You really aren't very bright are you?
  15. silver75
    Offline

    silver75 Big Ron

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,265
    Likes Received:
    2
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    I have a piss before I get in the shower :cool:
  16. Toxik-Signal
    Offline

    Toxik-Signal Andy

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2006
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    I hate speed cameras - I find myself concentrating too much on my speedo and less on the road which in turn is more likely to make me have an accident imo.

    Less cameras, more MARKED cop cars (don't like them undercover ones that sneak up on you) ;)
  17. Katy_S3
    Offline

    Katy_S3 Goodwood Green Baby

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Your a total arse!


    Shades= :lazy: :lazy: :lazy: :lazy:
  18. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    ... and the winner for most intelligent blonde goes to.... Oh, hang on... there's no such thing!!!!

    After accusing me of hurling abuse, something which I have never done, this is all you can come up with. Oh, I'm hurt! :applaus:

    :moa:
  19. Katy_S3
    Offline

    Katy_S3 Goodwood Green Baby

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Its surprising really how i manage to even type this minor drivel what with my near gnat like IQ..........If only i were like you oozing charisma and substance :o.k:
  20. mad max
    Offline

    mad max sixth gear

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    338
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    quick change knat too gnat or he will think you have a low IQ

    GO GET HIM KATY
  21. shineydave
    Offline

    shineydave Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    4
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    come on Andy, get real, that's like asking me what's 2 plus 2 and saying you can't answer four.
  22. steve123a
    Offline

    steve123a Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    I have had 21 points, but only have 3 now! all from when i was younger and regularly pulled for minor speeding offences...
  23. dantheman1986
    Offline

    dantheman1986 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    ummm some interesting comments maybe we need to put a cap on thios thread as its not really going anywhere, just causing a lot of hatred (sp) between fellow users?

    just my 2 pence worth
  24. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Oh come on now Katy_S3, I'm not being deadly serious (see the little smiley at the bottom of my last reply to you?) but you did start with the name calling and sarcasm! :p Not that it bothers me that much... I don't live my life like some popularity contest (which is probably just as well! ;))

    I apologise if I've offended you at any time... now get back in the kitchen! :slap:
  25. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    "599 Bikers killed on 2006 so by your stats that means there was only 2,400 transplant operations last year. there was 2,502 corneal transplants alone so i'm guessing all the liver, heart, kidney and lung transplants never took place since there wasn't enough doner bikers killed."
    I was obviously speaking metaphorically, the donor analogy wasn't meant to be taken literally. Just a polite way of saying out of the 3,000 people killed every year, bikers represent a disproportionate per centage. i.e. 25% are bikers (if you discount pedestrians), despite representing less than 2% of the traffic.
    "that's not fact but opinion, if it was as dangerous as you make out the M3 would be littered with broken bikes"
    No it's a fact.
    "I see cars undertaking everyday, statistically there's more cars than bikes so by applying risk assessment procedure and your logic cars must be more dangerous"
    I don't deny it, but pretty difficult to kill a driver in a car that's undertaking you, plus undertaking cars are at least in their own lane, not the 3 feet of space between lanes.
    "i think i've shown the only fact you stated is flawed"
    Nope just your flawed interpretation
    "They are the single biggest risk of being seriously injured or killed"
    In context I was talking about road users i.e. the ones targetted by speed cameras. You don't get too many pedestrians flashed by a speed camera (unless they've just been hit by a juganaut)
    "i'm pretty certain bikes are just as vulnerable to gatsos and traffic police"
    But not SPEC's, Truvelo or laser guns i.e. all the technology currently deployed by the DfT and all front facing & ANPR. The Gatso went out with the ark, please try and keep up.
    God this is easy, anymore for anymore?
  26. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    You know perfectly well I was talking about accidents at camera sites. I am fully aware that the figures for incidents in general have been consistantly level, even with the increase in road usage, for quite a few years now due to safer roads, cars etc but at camera sites those figures have dropped.

    I never said that. The criteria for the siting of camera's doesn't even say a camera has to be in an accident blackspot. There are plenty of little villages near to where I live that have lots of camera's and these are not accident black spots. Prior to the installation of the camera's people would fly through these villages quite clearly over the speed limit. Now they generally don't (obviously some still will) and the villages roads, to some degree, have become safer for all. Surely that's not a bad thing?

    Which just goes to show what a blatant disregard many have for the laws which govern us all. If these drivers think themselves above the law then they deserve to be caught.

    So all 'other' camera's are not located correctly even though sited by their own criteria or are they not correctly located as judged by you?

    At last something we agree on! :) However I would like to ask if your opinion on this would be different if it were the Police manning these mobile traps rather than civil servants?

    Okay, so the figure has dropped by only 2%, but 2% is marginally better than 0% percent and certainly better than an increase.

    Again, see my little bit above about the speed camera's in the villages.

    You really do have a thing for HGV's don't you but they are not the only reason people die on the motorway. If I may I would like to ask you what could be a personal question, and you can tell me to mind my own business if you like, but has someone you know/close to you been involved in an incident with a HGV?

    Again a quote out of context because it suits your reply. Trying to be clever makes you no brighter than me!

    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    AndyMac. I would just like to say there's nothing personal intended in this discussion infact I would like to thank you for giving me something more interesting and, err, stimulating to do on the internet than just looking at porn! ;) I have to say that while I may (secretly) agree with you about some things I feel were are avoiding the real issue. We both agree to some extent that the current system is flawed and government policy is not working so the real question is... How should it be fixed? (Another can of worms! :) )
  27. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    You're an arrogant sod... Perhaps thats why I like you! I'm not saying you've 'won' (I think we're 'arguing' about something where neither of us would be a winner) but at least you've stood your ground and provided me with some entertainment!
  28. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    That's my specialty!
    Just remember you opened the can
    My fix would be radical (in no particular order):
    1. Caravans - banned (I think we all agree they serve no purpose, are a bloody eyesore and cause accidents every bankholiday weekend - book a cottage you morons!)
    2. Heavy duty MOT when all vehicles get to 10 years old (lets make some room and get the **** off the roads)
    3. Compulsory retesting every 5 years for everyone, and every year at 65+ (lets get the Micra's off the road as well)
    4. Scooters - banned (no explanation needed)
    5. Power/cc limit for 3 years after you pass your first driving test
    6. Anyone involved in a rear end shunt - 6 points and £300 fine for driving without due care, the fine going to the victim for all the shag and hassle of dealing with insurance.
    7. HGV's involved in serious accidents - driver banned for 1 year from commercial driving (that should stop the feckers from overtaking each other on hills)
    8. Motorway limit increased to 85mph
    9. You can turn left on a red light after 9pm (nothing to do with safety, just a bloody good Italian idea)
    10. HGV's have to stay in the inside lane at rush hour (works very well in Germany and stops everyone else having to pack into one lane).
    11. Vehicle recovery - mandatory (how is this not the law already?)
    12. Drivers proven to be the cause of other accidents by virtue of their insurance company = 6 points and £300 fine.

    That should be enough to be going on with.
  29. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    1) Agree totally with the caravans
    2) Not all cars 10 years or older are ****. We'd be losing some classic motors from the road forever!
    3) Agree with the re-testing every 5 years for under 65's but I think it would be better for over 65's to be re-tested say every 2 or 3 years and over 80's every year.
    4) Not sure if I totally agree with the scooters. They are a cheap, cost-effective and environment friendly(ish) way of getting from A to B... Perhaps just stop the kids that ride them from wearing 'racing' jackets and 'growler' helmets. Seriously though perhaps it should be compulsory for all riders (scooter or bike) to wear hi-viz vests (or at the very least have intergrated reflective strips in leathers/jackets etc. Perhaps we could go as far as making it compulsory for the registration of the bike to be on the top/front of the riders helmet!!
    5) Not everyone drives like an idiot after they past their test.
    6) Absolutely!
    7) HGV's again!?!
    8) Raising the speed limit will just mean people in BMW's will go even faster!!
    9) Isn't there some city in some country that removed all traffic lights and signs and things? Didn't the road safety actually improve because drivers had to pay more attention to what they were doing?
    10) Absolutely, totally agree with HGV's having to stay in the inside lane (especially on dual carriageways). Pain in the arse when they try to overtake one another by probably 0.25mph... especially on the way to work this morning! Its also compulsory in France... but then so is having to drive on the motorway with your headlights on... no matter what time of the day or night!
    11) Vehicle recovery mandatory? Why? When my car ended up in that ditch I went back the next day to tow it out... and then drove it home. Testiment to the Audi though... perfectly drivable with no side effects (except mud in the inside of the front wheels make the steering vibrate a little) even though the suspension must have had a shock!!!
    12) Now that IS a bloody good idea!
  30. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    4. My issue with scooters is just purely noise. Noise pollution overrides the environmental benefits and lets face it if they were banned the scooterers would be on mountain bikes anyway as they're not old enough to drive, so far better for everyone.
    2. Anything worthwhile would either pass, or would be worth doing the necessary work to in order to get a pass. I'm talking about clapped out smokey Mondeo's. As part of the test the work would have to be done then and there, none of this handing back the deathtrap so the owner can drive it away.
    Fortunately I haven't had any one I know suffer froman incident with an HGV, it's just they are the bain of my life. I drive a lot on business & I always have the traffic news on, pretty much everyday there's an overturned lorry somewhere in a 50 mile radius. And pretty much all motorway closures are down to HGV's.
    If my car had the stopping distance and propensity to overturn, of a fully laden HGV it would not be allowed on the road.
    You get stuck in traffic next to one and just look at the state of the tyres - it's frightening, the same with old coaches. A lot of them are LHD as well now they are just accidents waiting to happen and always serious.

    I think a moderator should lock this thread it's all gone a bit civilised!
  31. Tonya Rosey
    Offline

    Tonya Rosey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Oh my God, I just have not got the time to read all of this thread tonight...what has been going on??

    Points are a bit of a sensitive area for me...already got 9 and then got the dreaded letter last week that I was doing 36MPH in a 30 zone. Does anyone know if I will have to go to court?? I believe that the "totting" up system is if you acquire them within a 3 year period??

    I had 6 in 2003, 3 in 2004, so in theory I can have 6 of them removed from my licence from 2003 as they were all the beginning of the year.

    My car insurance is up for renewal 2nd Aug too...sky high premium!!
    Another reason I am glad that I sold my WRX as I would not be able to afford the insurance with potentially 12 points! Bad enough with the Audi and I have 9 years+ no claims!!
  32. shineydave
    Offline

    shineydave Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    918
    Likes Received:
    4
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    yes, indeed it is
  33. marms
    Offline

    marms Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    It not a ban if you go over 12 points.

    If you reach twelve points for offences within a three year period, the Court has to disqualify you for at least six months, unless you can show that a ban would cause you exceptional hardship.


    But as you say not all of the current 9 are within the last three years so you should be ok. Best to keep a very careful eye on the speedo from now on though.

  34. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 17, 2007]
    Points only count for 3 years, if they were all fixed penalties then they count from the date of the offence, if you got them in court then they count from the court hearing date.
    If you had 6 in 2003 then they are now redundant, so you won't need to go to court.
    If you have 9 points in the last 3 years then get done again, they can't give you the offer of a fixed penalty and 3 more points, it has to go to court. And because it is a potential ban you have to appear in court (you can't plead guilty by post).
    Tonya if you shop around the points will not effect your insurance premium. They only effect it if you've received anything more serious than an SP50.
    Some companies will try it on and increase your premium, which just tells you to move your policy.
    You can keep your licence if you can demonstrate undue hardship at the hearing. This is not hardship to you, but to your dependents. i.e. if you can prove you will lose your job and the effect it will have on your family etc etc.
    However, you are then on 12 points and any further offence will be a hefty ban (12 months!). So sometimes you would be better taking the short 3 month ban and get a clean licence back. Points are wiped if you receive a ban of 56 days or more.
  35. bouncer--daz
    Offline

    bouncer--daz A dog is for life....not just for friday nights!

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 18, 2007]
  36. Shades
    Offline

    Shades Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 18, 2007]
    My bad, sorry! :lmfao:

    No...

    ...See? :)
  37. Tonya Rosey
    Offline

    Tonya Rosey Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 18, 2007]

    Thanks for that. Yes they were all for speeding-SP50 and SP30. I need my licence for my job for the Local Authoritty, as I am an "essential car user". Every single insurance group that I have tried via confused.com and money supermarket have quoted me ridiculous prices!
  38. vrbob
    Offline

    vrbob Thats no Moon, Thats a space station!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,363
    Likes Received:
    158
    [Jul 18, 2007]
    So far i like all your policies what party are you running for as i would happily vote for you over the other monkeys that are running the country at the mo.

    :icon_thumright: :applaus:
  39. AndyMac
    Offline

    AndyMac Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    9,833
    Likes Received:
    32
    [Jul 18, 2007]
    I'm standing for the "Shut the **** up" party, where our policies will be deployed with no interaction with steering committees or consultation with the public, will be politically incorrect and pretty much violate every aspect of the publics human rights. Anyone whingeing or moaning can shut the **** up or get out. (We are not affiliated or related in any way to the Hitler party)
  40. bouncer--daz
    Offline

    bouncer--daz A dog is for life....not just for friday nights!

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jul 18, 2007]
    isnt that the BNP?:faint:

Share This Page