Speeding camera fines.

[AtW]

However the figures have been regularly disproved

I don't think they were - the figures I referred to are the official police conclusions on what were the reasons for fatal crashes, AFAIK, excessive speed is around 15% of those.

[vetran]

no

more like 7% rather than 30% quoted.

No real imperical research has been done in the UK AFAIK. Don't get me wrong speeding is bad, but we need to look at the real problems. Think how many accidents reported in the news have been a direct result of only excessive speed. Most are a direct result of driver error / negligence and speed is only a symptom.

I'd prefer to see police waiting outside pubs, stopping dodgy cars etc. But of course cameras are cheaper which is why the Traffic team is slowly being disbanded.

[AtW]

But of course cameras are cheaper which is why the Traffic team is slowly being disbanded.

I think they reduced traffic cops by like 80% - good for Brown since traffic cops cost him money, where as cameras actually make money. But it seems that now they really reached the limit and they being careful.

[expat]

expat - do you know the %-tage of fatal accidents that were classified by the Govt as having happened due to excessive speed?

Less than 100% of accidents but close to 100% of Govt action to increase safety: that's my point.

I'm not suggesting that I approve of driving too fast, I don't: I dislike it strongly.

Though I might suggest that (((driving too fast for safety) <> (driving faster than posted limit)) & ((driving slower than posted limit) <> (driving safely))).

My real point is that the authorities take no interest in anything safety-related on the roads, except what is easy to do: measure speed by radar and take ictures of people going faster than a fixed rate.

[threaded]

A perfect example of what you speak has been mentioned yesterday on the Snape Pass. There was a recomendation to fix some of the corners by Police Traffic Officers and their recommendation included how many deaths would be prevented by the proposed changes.

The changes weren't made and the deaths continue. Yet they are listed as excessive speed. Well they were moving on a very dangerous road so I guess they are correct!

[expat]

...measure speed by radar and take ictures...

Is somebody taking the pee??!!@*!

[VectraMan]

Though I might suggest that (((driving too fast for safety) <> (driving faster than posted limit)) & ((driving slower than posted limit) <> (driving safely))).

That's complete nonsense. Clearly what you mean is:

(((driving too fast for safety) != (driving faster than posted limit)) && ((driving slower than posted limit) != (driving safely)))

[expat]

That's complete nonsense. Clearly what you mean is:

(((driving too fast for safety) != (driving faster than posted limit)) && ((driving slower than posted limit) != (driving safely)))

Oh good, a religious war!

]

[VectraMan]

Oh good, a religious war!

I was watching the Top Gear yesterday with Lady Man on it. Clarkson was saying the stopping distance from 70mph was 315ft according to the highway code, but an Aston Martin can stop in half that distance, so why isn't an Aston Martin allowed to travel at twice the speed limit?

Okay so that's not a serious suggestion, but the braking ability of different cars does vary enormously and this is not something that seems to ever get mentioned in all the talk of speed and road safety. Clearly if you can stop faster you're safer at higher speeds.

[threaded]

Roflmfao