Also this taken from the above link

"Any speed limit is arbitrary – it is a figure picked out of thin air. "

Is simply a load of tosh. It is not arbitrary - I did a driving testis with a senior serving police officer and he told me the process that they go though to assertain a speed limit for a road and they don't just go, "hmmm, what signs do we have left over - arrgh yes 40 will be fine"


"A speed limit does not mean a safe speed – would you travel at 70mph on the M4 in thick fog or a snowstorm?"


Whoever wrote this next bit about safe speeds is correct the 70 mph on the M4 is not a 'safe' speed but the MAX speed!!

PS my last 2 posts probably make me sound old and like I shouldn't drive an S - and your probably right. But just want to say that I think the cemeras are wrong. Motorways are the safest form of road in the country and modern cars can cope with a greater limit than 70 although sometimes I wonder about some drivers

 

Rob you're right, 60mph isn't always a safe speed on twisties (chevrons and hazards for example), and 30mph isn't always a safe speed in urban area's.

Your last point is the one I'm trying to make - the cars can take it, just not convinced on the drivers!

I had a nice slow drive up the motorway today, still some guy manages to drift out in front of me without any warning, and the bugger in the TT in the lane next to me obviously didn't see what happened and instead of civilly moving into the next lane to give me space to move over, just stayed put. I know he had no responsibility but it would have been nice, instead causing me to brake heavily and everyone else behind me!

 

Andrew Gilligan

There's an election coming up so let's all vote tactically to get a hung paliament and teach the b*arstards lesson (best we can hope for IMO).

 

I'm with Dreamer. The campaign is against the wrong issue. Speed limits in a wide variety of places are unsuitable and in many cases self defeating.

In some conditions (and not many) it's safe to drive above the 70mph limit on the motorway and this means that people treat the limit with contempt. Unfortunately most people (and I include myself and most other board readers in this) don't have the skills or experience to judge stopping distances, thinking distances or car behaviour at these speeds especially when other traffic gets involved.

Tailgating is a HUGE issue and horrifyingly I see as many drivers cars (such as the S2000) guilty of this as the stereotypical white van man.

If we weren't such inconsiderate and poor drivers the limits could be set more realistically but while we're all morons who want to get where we're going as fast as possible the politicians will feel forced to make us all feel better by lowering the speeds on the roads.

As to the SPECs system? I think it's fantastic. I think it's the best thing that's ever happened to speed enforcement in the UK. It stops the Gatso problem of people slowing for the cameras (sometimes causing more problems) and enforces the 70mph speed limit over long distance.

If the 70mph speed limit is the problem it's that that should be contested, not the manner in which its enforced or the people whose job it is to enforce it.

 

I'd like to see a minimum speed limit imposed on motorways. This seems to work well in other countries.

 

First of all, if money raised from speed cameras was actually used on driver education and funding more traffic police instead of finding new revenue driven camera opportunities we would all become better and more considerate drivers. However NO money is spent on driver education. Careless, dangerous and wreckless driving is the issue NOT SPEED

SPEC's cameras are a joke. I know, I live in an area where ALL main roads near me are becoming governed by SPECS - do they help? Do they f**k! The road near my house (A52 to Grantham) is very wide and can fit 4 cars side by side. The first SPECS camera starts just after a roundabout and ends just before a very busy dangerous junction It covers 2 long stretches of straight road that is used for overtaking trucks etc. It has got one junction in the middle, but the accidents ahve always been caused by a lack of concentration when exiting the junction rather than speed i.e. careless driving.

SPECS are proving a nightmare in my area, all they do is catch the innocent driver who is doing 70ish on a wide clear A road in the middle of the night or day when there are no other cars. In rush hour, the lack of concentration is obvious as everyone sits at exactly 57mph. YES they have slowed the traffic down, but they forget that the drivers concentration is now 100% on their speed and not the road

The SPECS cameras do not work on bikes which are the main culprits of speeding in Notts, and they don't work on ppl turning off at junctions part way through the SPECS zone. They do not work. Revenue generating crap. I look forward to the next 1-3 years when it is clearly proven that the accident rate has gone up NOT down.

 

Well another accident on the M4 today in the "safety zone" - J14 -18

2 Lorries - limited to 56 mph closed the motoway eastbound

... take it they weren't speeding then

 

So why dont they invest more money in training and teaching people to drive correctly in the first place, and in re-sitting the driving test periodically?
I consistently see a number of people on the road that IMO should never have been allowed to have a license.

Oh, and I assume by the "we" you are not referring to the general membership of s2ki, but the country as a whole.

 

Joining dreamer in playing DA here: One thing the ABD seem to forget into all their research in to the causes of accidents, is that higher speeds make accidents worse. Jump off a 5ft wall, and then try the same off a 50ft wall, to see what I mean!!!

Given the widely held view in this thread on the low standards of driving from most people out there, it seems to me that reducing speeds is a pretty good way of reducing casualties on the roads. Stop the numpties from driving too fast.

As I posted in the other thread relating to this, along that 40 mile section of M4, it takes 7 minutes longer to drive it at 70, than it does at 90. (27 mins at 90, 30 mins at 80, and 34 mins at 70). Hardly a bind really.

 

What about all the fatalities caused by lorries crashing? And these lorries can speed up to 20 mph over their limit without ever being caught by a speed camera. It's just not right.

I'm in favour of the protest but I feel like playing a little Devil's Advocate myself...

I wonder, if we would all be as outraged by speed cameras and the like if they just told the truth?
** The set speed limits are the law of the road, for years these laws have been enforced by police officers with radar guns and unmarked police cars and VASCARs etc. Speed cameras are just another tool that help the police enforce the law. They have very little to do with road safety, but it is against the law to speed and the police have a job to do. There has always been fines and penalty points for speeding, why is now (with these new tools available) any different. **

I remember the time when I was a relatively new driver, I was caught by a WPC hiding behind a tree with a radar gun. She jumped in front of me and booked me for doing 36 in a 30 iirc.
I wasn't angry that I had been "trapped" I was just annoyed that I had been caught.

Just playing Devil's Advocate remember.
There's seems to be a lot of s on here today.

Of course the problem is that these cameras can exhibit no discretion. But if they have a tolerance set into them (say 10%) and you are over that speed you deserve a ticket. Or do you?
I am reminded of a trip back from Kendall recently where I pulled out to pass a slower moving van and a couple cars. (60mph nsl A road) I got up to 75-80 to pass them safely and pull back in front, and what did I see just as I was finishing the manoeuvre? A police car parked up on the side of the road looking straight at me. I was waiting for him to follow me and stop me, and I was ready to argue the case that I was only exceeding the speed limit briefly and safely to avoid causing more problems etc. But he never came.
A camera would have just flashed at me.

One last point.
Even if all the BS was true and speed is the major cause of 1/3 of all serious accidents. WTF is the cause of the other 2/3 and why doesn