ChatterBank0 min ago
Cash Cow.
Well at long last the police admit it, well the Scottish police do anyway.
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tonyav. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// England’s motorway network is not safe for an 80mph speed limit, according to a new report from the Road Safety Foundation.
The new research shows widespread faults in run-off protection which, according to the Road Safety Foundation, are doubling the rate of death and serious injury where protection is not provided. It also shows shunt crashes rise exponentially with increased traffic flow, yet only a handful of motorway sections have the electronic controls with hazard warning and variable speed limits that are required to manage intense flows of traffic.
Dr Joanne Marden, director of the Road Safety Foundation, says: “The vehicle fleet has become safer in the last decade through better crash protection. At motorway speeds, the car alone cannot protect the human body. The car has to work with the motorway’s protection systems such as safety fencing to absorb high speed crash energies.
“In the next decade the greatest potential for reducing deaths is on higher-speed roads outside built-up areas. This will be delivered through crash avoidance technology and road engineering catching up to complement improved vehicle crash protection.
“Our cars provide 4-star or 5-star crash protection but too many of our motorways rate only 3-star with major weakness in run-off protection. //
http://
Not sure how some report about motorways is relevant to the discussion especially by them?
Our roads are in a state due to underfunding by anti car labour. (Unless you call building special lanes for Mr Blair road funding).
Back to camera's, they should have been a good idea. However due to the misuse of them by councils/police they have become a no go area.
Our roads are in a state due to underfunding by anti car labour. (Unless you call building special lanes for Mr Blair road funding).
Back to camera's, they should have been a good idea. However due to the misuse of them by councils/police they have become a no go area.
speed cameras seem to cause some people to obey the limit when passing the little yellow boxes, they then go like a bat out of hell. On a stretch of the A127 average speed cameras have been installed with a 50mph limit, I am amazed at the number of people that slow to pass the cameras then speed up and then slow for the next one, still if they cannot remember how to work out averages then they deserve any fines they get. Yes I do drive and have done so for many years without picking up one speeding or parking ticket.
-- answer removed --
I really don’t understand why there should be such controversy over the way speeding is detected and prosecuted. If there was a simple way to detect any other offence which had the potential to cause death or serious injury and it was not utilised there would be outrage. Speed cameras are used as cash cows only with the complicity of the speeding motorists. Without them there would be no cash.
The “shooting fish in a barrel” analogy is false. Fish trapped in a barrel and subsequently shot have nowhere to go and nothing to do but wait to be shot. Speeding motorists have a choice: they can obey the speed limits.
The argument that speed limits should be increased because of improvements in vehicle technology misses a valuable point. Vehicle technology may have improved but drivers’ reaction time has not. In fact it could be argued that with the multitude of gadgets not available fifty years ago that people now find it necessary to fart about with whilst they are driving (radios, CD/MP3 players, SatNavs, Phones etc) quite the opposite is true.
“…its likely to be 75 - 85 which on a road with no problems is not going to be any more an issue than doing 70 I would suggest. “
Stopping distance from 70mph: 315 feet
Stopping distance from 85mph: 450 feet
So no, not much more of an issue. That is unless you are a cyclist or a pedestrian unfortunate enough to be in that final 135 feet (at the beginning of which the speeding vehicle will have shed a little over half its speed and will still be travelling at around 35-40mph).
The “shooting fish in a barrel” analogy is false. Fish trapped in a barrel and subsequently shot have nowhere to go and nothing to do but wait to be shot. Speeding motorists have a choice: they can obey the speed limits.
The argument that speed limits should be increased because of improvements in vehicle technology misses a valuable point. Vehicle technology may have improved but drivers’ reaction time has not. In fact it could be argued that with the multitude of gadgets not available fifty years ago that people now find it necessary to fart about with whilst they are driving (radios, CD/MP3 players, SatNavs, Phones etc) quite the opposite is true.
“…its likely to be 75 - 85 which on a road with no problems is not going to be any more an issue than doing 70 I would suggest. “
Stopping distance from 70mph: 315 feet
Stopping distance from 85mph: 450 feet
So no, not much more of an issue. That is unless you are a cyclist or a pedestrian unfortunate enough to be in that final 135 feet (at the beginning of which the speeding vehicle will have shed a little over half its speed and will still be travelling at around 35-40mph).
-- answer removed --
I should have thought the primary reason they are there is to enforce the law, db. Many offences generate cash in the form of fines because that is the way the country has decided to punish miscreants who commit minor (and sometimes not so minor) offences. You might as well say that store detectives and security staff only operate to generate cash (as some traders are beneficiaries of the "civil recovery scheme" that they take part in). But surely the cash is a by-product. I'm sure they'd prefer people did not pilfer their goods in the first place.
But I'll return to my very first point. Whatever the motives are for the placement of speed cameras it is motorists who break the law who are providing this income. All they have to do is to obey the speed limits and no cash would be generated.
But I'll return to my very first point. Whatever the motives are for the placement of speed cameras it is motorists who break the law who are providing this income. All they have to do is to obey the speed limits and no cash would be generated.
-- answer removed --
The main reason (in fact the only reason I can think of) for speed limits is for safety. It follows therefore that any method used to ensure their enforcement must also be for safety reasons. Speed limits are not discretionary which can be ignored when a driver thinks it is safe to do so. They apply everywhere, their enforcement is legitimate anywhere, and the authorities should not have to offer reasons for their enforcement.
Yes, they generate cash (as a punishment for breaking the law) and penalty points (so that persistent offenders can be further punished by way of a ban). I really cannot see the difference between speed cameras (or "safety" cameras as they are properly known) placed to detect and hopefully deter speeding and CCTV cameras placed in town centres to detect and hopefully deter anti-social behaviour and violence.
Yes, they generate cash (as a punishment for breaking the law) and penalty points (so that persistent offenders can be further punished by way of a ban). I really cannot see the difference between speed cameras (or "safety" cameras as they are properly known) placed to detect and hopefully deter speeding and CCTV cameras placed in town centres to detect and hopefully deter anti-social behaviour and violence.
