Which are worst?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
From: North Herts
Which are worst?
Saw a new red mondeo (I think) estate on the Herts stretch of the A1M yesterday, just two blue lights in its rear window. Had pulled some guy over and was giving him the full treatment from the look of it. Which are worst? At least cameras are visible and in known locations.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,672
Likes: 0
From: The Middle of Nowhere
Cameras definatley worse for road safety
Unmarked cars will see and deal with a wide range of bad driving, whereas cameras only deal with speed
So you can change lanes like a maniac, tail gate the car in front, undertake and drive with your fog lights on, no tax, no insurance in a non roadworthy car, but as long as you stick to the speed limits, you are A OK with a camera
Unmarked cars will see and deal with a wide range of bad driving, whereas cameras only deal with speed
So you can change lanes like a maniac, tail gate the car in front, undertake and drive with your fog lights on, no tax, no insurance in a non roadworthy car, but as long as you stick to the speed limits, you are A OK with a camera
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
From: Surrey twilight zone
Originally Posted by C7BLE,Feb 12 2006, 11:50 AM
Cameras definatley worse for road safety
Unmarked cars will see and deal with a wide range of bad driving, whereas cameras only deal with speed
So you can change lanes like a maniac, tail gate the car in front, undertake and drive with your fog lights on, no tax, no insurance in a non roadworthy car, but as long as you stick to the speed limits, you are A OK with a camera
Unmarked cars will see and deal with a wide range of bad driving, whereas cameras only deal with speed
So you can change lanes like a maniac, tail gate the car in front, undertake and drive with your fog lights on, no tax, no insurance in a non roadworthy car, but as long as you stick to the speed limits, you are A OK with a camera
totally agree. There should be more police cars out & about, marked & unmarked. Drivers seem to think the law only applies when there is a camera.(Believe it will also start to increasingly apply to people where there is CCTV in towns etc. Need more visible police presence)
Banned
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 17,824
Likes: 0
From: West Coast
Originally Posted by C7BLE,Feb 12 2006, 11:50 AM
Cameras definatley worse for road safety
Unmarked cars will see and deal with a wide range of bad driving, whereas cameras only deal with speed
So you can change lanes like a maniac, tail gate the car in front, undertake and drive with your fog lights on, no tax, no insurance in a non roadworthy car, but as long as you stick to the speed limits, you are A OK with a camera
Unmarked cars will see and deal with a wide range of bad driving, whereas cameras only deal with speed
So you can change lanes like a maniac, tail gate the car in front, undertake and drive with your fog lights on, no tax, no insurance in a non roadworthy car, but as long as you stick to the speed limits, you are A OK with a camera
Unfortunately, all I see them doing at the moment is pulling people over for speeding. But the logic is sound.
We need to see some commitment from the police to acknowledge that the biggest cause of accidents is poor driving and not speed.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,138
Likes: 0
From: Lothians
I think the police know that accidents are caused by a lot more than excessive speed, but the only way to deal with that is to have more resources, which we will have to pay more in tax to provide.
There is a good argument that keeping speeds down reduces the severity of accidents, but that only works with specs and unmarked vans, not fixed cameras.
The other option, which needn't cost the government a penny, is to make advanced driving tests obligatory to for every driver to pass on an annual basis - the driver pays, so no tax burden. Accidents would drop by a huge margin, as would the burden on the NHS.
Sadly, only about 25% of drivers on the road would actually be able to pass one of these IMHO, so it would have a disastrous effect on the economy.
There is a good argument that keeping speeds down reduces the severity of accidents, but that only works with specs and unmarked vans, not fixed cameras.
The other option, which needn't cost the government a penny, is to make advanced driving tests obligatory to for every driver to pass on an annual basis - the driver pays, so no tax burden. Accidents would drop by a huge margin, as would the burden on the NHS.
Sadly, only about 25% of drivers on the road would actually be able to pass one of these IMHO, so it would have a disastrous effect on the economy.
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,672
Likes: 0
From: The Middle of Nowhere
Originally Posted by euan,Feb 12 2006, 12:30 PM
I think the police know that accidents are caused by a lot more than excessive speed, but the only way to deal with that is to have more resources, which we will have to pay more in tax to provide.
There is a good argument that keeping speeds down reduces the severity of accidents, but that only works with specs and unmarked vans, not fixed cameras.
The other option, which needn't cost the government a penny, is to make advanced driving tests obligatory to for every driver to pass on an annual basis - the driver pays, so no tax burden. Accidents would drop by a huge margin, as would the burden on the NHS.
Sadly, only about 25% of drivers on the road would actually be able to pass one of these IMHO, so it would have a disastrous effect on the economy.
There is a good argument that keeping speeds down reduces the severity of accidents, but that only works with specs and unmarked vans, not fixed cameras.
The other option, which needn't cost the government a penny, is to make advanced driving tests obligatory to for every driver to pass on an annual basis - the driver pays, so no tax burden. Accidents would drop by a huge margin, as would the burden on the NHS.
Sadly, only about 25% of drivers on the road would actually be able to pass one of these IMHO, so it would have a disastrous effect on the economy.
They usually come from some really boring job like accountancy and feel the need to make up for it by driving an overpowered motorbike and then telling everyone who much of a better driver it makes you, being on a bike and how it should be compulsory for road users to take their bike tests
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Does anyone end up looking out for these unmarked police cars?
Reason I say this is that a lot of them seem to drive Vectra's or Omega's. When I see an Omega cruising on the M1 in the slow or middle lane I can't help but think that maybe its an unmarked police car! Or maybe I'm just getting paranoid
Reason I say this is that a lot of them seem to drive Vectra's or Omega's. When I see an Omega cruising on the M1 in the slow or middle lane I can't help but think that maybe its an unmarked police car! Or maybe I'm just getting paranoid
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: Creepy Crawley
Originally Posted by Ratpack,Feb 12 2006, 04:46 AM
Does anyone end up looking out for these unmarked police cars?
Reason I say this is that a lot of them seem to drive Vectra's or Omega's. When I see an Omega cruising on the M1 in the slow or middle lane I can't help but think that maybe its an unmarked police car! Or maybe I'm just getting paranoid
Reason I say this is that a lot of them seem to drive Vectra's or Omega's. When I see an Omega cruising on the M1 in the slow or middle lane I can't help but think that maybe its an unmarked police car! Or maybe I'm just getting paranoid
I posted a sighting of a Evo8, Silver on the M23 the other day so they are don't just choose boring boxes now. Hampshire seem to line BMW's and Kent has a Mercedes unmarked
.Like you I'm paranoid !
