One of the funniest things about the current speed camera debate is that the most simple concept is massively overlooked.

The general concensus of the speeding driver is that they know what is a safe speed to do for the conditions, regardless of the legal limit, and they will bloomin well do it because they know better.

Figures show that thousands and thousands of people are caught speeding every year, but its ok to whinge about this because the speed limit isn't a 'real' law. It isn't fair that Mr Y got caught doing 95mph on the motorway because motorways are safe and can handle traffic doing 100mph+. It was also a sunny and dry day so Mr Y was driving totally safely. Mr Y will now moan and moan that he got caught, slag off the camera that got him, and will try every attempt to wiggle out of the punishment. Mr Y now wants revenge. All because he cannot simply understand that he was caught going faster than the speed limit.

Isn't it funny that Mr Y could do something so simple that could jeopardise the future of the speed camera that got him along with the future of the 'safety' partnerships that run them. One oh so simple little thing......

Drive to the speed limit.

Think about it. If all of us motorists started driving to the speed limit for a while there would be nobody caught speeding. This would mean no revenue for the partnerships, therefore no money to run on. The end result, their closure (I hope).

So next time someone gets caught speeding, just think how silly they are. They have just gone and put another 60 in the pocket of the partnership. This will probably pay for the wages of the camera operator for another day or two, and will no doubt result in more revenue. A vicious circle really.

Simple, isn't it!

Disclaimer: I don't agree with the term 'safety camera partnership' because their main role isn't safety. We all know that they ignore bad driving, drink and drug driving etc etc. They should be re-labelled 'speed camera partnership' because that is all they are capable of monitoring and enforcing.

>>> Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 14th April 12:23

james_j said:

The whole point is, is that drivers would prefer to drive at a speed which is safest for them. A speed at which they are most alert. This does not always coincide with the revenue-generating low(ered) speed limits we have now. The chance of losing 60 and gaining points comes secondary to safety. The casualty figures were falling steadily before the advent of speed cameras. It's a shame that there are those lacking a bit of properly-functioning grey matter who fail to understand this simple concept.

Just like the extremely simple concept of a speed limit??

funkyrobot said:

james_j said: The whole point is, is that drivers would prefer to drive at a speed which is safest for them. A speed at which they are most alert. This does not always coincide with the revenue-generating low(ered) speed limits we have now. The chance of losing 60 and gaining points comes secondary to safety. The casualty figures were falling steadily before the advent of speed cameras. It's a shame that there are those lacking a bit of properly-functioning grey matter who fail to understand this simple concept. Just like the extremely simple concept of a speed limit??

Just read what I said!

james_j said:

funkyrobot said: james_j said: The whole point is, is that drivers would prefer to drive at a speed which is safest for them. A speed at which they are most alert. This does not always coincide with the revenue-generating low(ered) speed limits we have now. The chance of losing 60 and gaining points comes secondary to safety. The casualty figures were falling steadily before the advent of speed cameras. It's a shame that there are those lacking a bit of properly-functioning grey matter who fail to understand this simple concept. Just like the extremely simple concept of a speed limit?? Just read what I said!

I have and I don't like the comment about 'safest for them'!

What about thinking of other, more vulnerable, road users. How about driving at a speed which is safe for them too when you meet them on the road?

jacobyte said:

FunkyRobot You miss the main point: If drivers were to stick to the limits as per your theory, the extreme minority pressure groups will simply say "look, nobody wants to go fast, and ever more people are being killed - we must reduce the limits even more". This will happen ad nauseam until cars are eventually banned, as they are of no use to anybody bacause of the 10mph max limit on a motorway. What's needed is common sense and motoring policies run by peple who actually drive cars, not self-appointed misinformed theorists.

How do you know that this is what will definitely happen?

For all we know it might result in less KSI's.

If the limit is proven to work well then it shouldn't be touched. I for one wouldn't want to see a reduction below 70mph on motorways, and I don't think that the motoring public would allow this.

The main point that you are missing is that speed is a very soft target for enforcement bods. Much easier to catch a speeder than a rapist or dodgy illegal immigrant driver with no tax etc. So why play into their hands??

funkyrobot said:

How do you know that this is what will definitely happen?

Because it already IS happening. Loads of 60 zones are becoming 40 zones with cameras and KSIs are increasing.

funkyrobot said:

For all we know it might result in less KSI's.

Evidently not.

funkyrobot said:

The main point that you are missing is that speed is a very soft target for enforcement bods. Much easier to catch a speeder than a rapist or dodgy illegal immigrant driver with no tax etc. So why play into their hands??

Very true. I don't look at my speedo, I look at the hedges. My advice is simple: don't get caught

You are ignoring that fact that there is no evidence to suggest that an arbitrary number that was selected by someone according to their 'opinion' over 40 years ago is still applicable as a 'speed limit' on modern roads in Britain.

You would appear to be completely averse to accepting that there is potential for a complete overhaul of speed limits (up and down) for everyones benefit.

Using your logic, there would be no point in reducing the limit from 30mph to 20mph outside schools, for example, since the urban 30mph limit introduced years ago is still relevant today...

The mindless enforcement of outdated speed limits (whilst casualty rates increase year on year) is the reason that there are so many 'speeding motorists' - not because they 'have no brain'.

Most motorists drive at a comfortable speed relative to their surroundings and therefore drive in complete safety - the fact that they are exceeding an arbitrary number is almost irrelevant (unless you benefit from the revenue collection...).

Andy

stig said:

funkyrobot said: What about thinking of other, more vulnerable, road users. How about driving at a speed which is safe for them too when you meet them on the road? Such as? Cyclists? Horses? Pedestrians? So what constitutes a 'safe' speed then?

Depends on the scenario because each has their own separate hazards.

A safe speed is one that allows you to pass the horse/cyclist/pedestrian in good time and give them as much room as possible. Things to be taken into consideration would be horses being spooked easily and cyclists wobbling or avoiding pot holes and drains.

Just check this link for advice on safely passing vulnerable road users:

www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm

tim.tonal said:

I do not consider a law that was created as a knee-jerk reaction to pileups on the motorway in fog by a non-driver (Barbara Castle) to be realistic or just. My experience of driving a very high mileage in absolute safety on motorways and trunk roads for a good many years reinforces this belief. Camera partnerships are now abusing this law in the name of 'road safety' which just so happens to be a good earner. A few years ago I had the misfortune to get done for speeding a couple of times and slowed down as my job depended on a driving license. All of a sudden I found an increase in being in incidents through being in close proximity to other vehicles, overtaking with too low a speed differential, being boxed in, etc. What was concentration before was replace by boredom and fatigue. I had to increase the number of breaks in my journey, which over a trip of 300 or 400 miles adds a lot to the journey time. I felt so unsafe doing this that I decided to speed up to a reasonable level again on these roads and learn from my experience. It is a case of 'know the enemy' and now the points have expired (2001) and there have been several years of safe accident and penalty free driving. An average of 85mph on a motorway in good visibility is a what I aim for, now. Most of our European neighbours have speed limits that allow these sorts of speeds without fear of prosecution from the parasites in the local camera partnership. A bad law overzealously enforced. We need it sorting.

Should you be on the road if you cannot drive to the speed limit without getting into incidents??

Surely a good driver can accommodate driving at the posted speed limit.

'Close proximity to other vehicles' - tailgating.

'Overtaking with too low a speed differential' - bad choice of place to overtake without leaving yourself enough time.

'Bordeom and fatigue' - read lack of concentration and awareness because you have to drive slower.

How can someone who sounds like a danger at the speed limit campaign for it to be increased???

funkyrobot said:

stig said: funkyrobot said: What about thinking of other, more vulnerable, road users. How about driving at a speed which is safe for them too when you meet them on the road? Such as? Cyclists? Horses? Pedestrians? So what constitutes a 'safe' speed then? Depends on the scenario because each has their own separate hazards. A safe speed is one that allows you to pass the horse/cyclist/pedestrian in good time and give them as much room as possible. Things to be taken into consideration would be horses being spooked easily and cyclists wobbling or avoiding pot holes and drains. Just check this link for advice on safely passing vulnerable road users: www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm

So, in a narrow road, with a 40mph limit, you'd pass a horse at 40mph would you, becasue you've been told it's a "safe" speed?

Well, I would probably pass at maybe 20, 30mph.

Just because people think limits are stupidly low, doesn't mean thay can't use discretion when required.

It seems to be that you can't use discretion and you need to be told a limit is "safe". It's not "safe" in every circumstance.