SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum



Bikes - Talk & Issues Newsworthy and topical general biking and bike related issues. No crapola!
Need Help: Try Searching before posting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 14-08-05, 08:11 PM   #21
Flamin_Squirrel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by northwind
Still an attitude problem... And IMO still caused by limit targeting. It's a pretty sorry indictment of the state of driving today that people have so much to be paranoid about on the speed front.
I'd say that's more a sorry inditement of the state, not the state of peoples driving. Noone was paranoid before the introduction of cameras; they adjusted their speed to the conditions and the surrounding hazards, just as they should.
  Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-05, 10:20 PM   #22
northwind
Moderator
Mega Poster
 
northwind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In the garage where I belong
Posts: 17,082
Default

So before cameras everyone drove perfectly safely and at an appropriate speed, but since cameras the roads are more dangerous? Really?

Embee, it's not self righteous- I make no bones about the fact that I speed quite a lot, pretty much constantly in fact. It's just this suggestion that it takes some huge effort to stay within speed limits that bugs me. It's obvious rubbish to me, it's such a basic skill. Human beings are very good at judging speeds, it's a useful side effect of being a carnivorous predator- As long as you're not trying to stay at 30 or 40 all the time, staying within the limit is absolute childs play.

If it's zero tolerance that causes the problem, what's a reasonable margin? 10%? Fine then, drive 10% below and you're perfectly safe.

Again, I've no time for the zero tolerance, cameras as a cure for all ills case either but the truth usually lies somewhere between the 2 extremes.
__________________
"We are the angry mob,
we read the papers every day
We like what we like, we hate what we hate
But we're oh so easily swayed"
northwind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-05, 11:33 PM   #23
embee
Member
Mega Poster
 
embee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Warwickshire
Posts: 2,801
Default

OK, I'm calm.

What I was really getting at was that anyone expressed any degree of surprise that people concentrate on their speedo when there's a very real threat of fines and points for doing a few mph over the limit. I know of people who have been done for 34 in a 30, they're perfectly safe and responsible drivers and don't deserve 3 points.

I agree with most of what's been said about other aspects of driving standards, but don't be surprised when that's what people do. I do it.

If there is a copper who will stop someone driving inappropriately and tell them the error of their ways and by the way watch your speed, no problems. Cameras don't use common sense though.

We all know of sections of road where the limits are not really appropriate. I know of numerous examples where what have been 40 limits for the last 20yrs suddenly become 30, or where the 30 limit has just been extended out into the countryside by another 500m, or a semi-rural dual carriageway has a 40 limit on it. These situations have "unnatural" limits applied (referring to the post citing the 85th percentile stuff) so you DO need to concentrate on the speedo to avoid exceeding the limit. These are where the mobile speed camera vans (let's cut the politically correct "safety partnership" stuff) usualy site themselves, as often as not round a bend at the bottom of a hill where people will probably be a few mph over (I know at least 2 spots on the old Banbury road from Warwick where the vans do exactly this).

Certainly driving/riding in 30 limits I spend far too much time looking at my speedo. Call me paranoid but I just feel that they really are out to get me and any slight transgression will get me 3 points. If a kid runs out in front of me while I'm looking at the speedo, well tough. Sorry but that's the kind of attitude the authorities' "speed obsession" has engendered in me. I wish it hadn't, but there you go. Maybe I have an attitude problem? I just resent the "control and punish" approach that is applied by the authorities to every aspect of modern life.
embee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-08-05, 11:40 PM   #24
hall13uk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

just seen this post & if anyone tries to fit one of those boxes to my bike or car they be told where to go, if i have to i will give up my private transport i brought my bike for the freedom it gives not so i have to stuck to a certian limit. sorry rant over
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-05, 06:43 AM   #25
Flamin_Squirrel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by northwind
So before cameras everyone drove perfectly safely and at an appropriate speed, but since cameras the roads are more dangerous? Really?
No of course not. As you say later on, the truth lies somewhere in between

Quote:
Originally Posted by northwind
It's just this suggestion that it takes some huge effort to stay within speed limits that bugs me. It's obvious rubbish to me, it's such a basic skill.
I agree people are good at judging speed (actualy I think people are better at judging what speed is safe... anyway) - you could probably remove everyones speedo with no ill effects. The problem comes if you threaten people with a £60 fine and a potential loss of licence if they creep slightly over the speed limit. They will become speedo fixated regardless of their ability to judge speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by northwind
If it's zero tolerance that causes the problem, what's a reasonable margin? 10%? Fine then, drive 10% below and you're perfectly safe.
But if speed isn't a major factor in RTA's, what would be the point?
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-05, 09:01 AM   #26
afterburner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
The Gulf state is grappling with a soaring accident rate: 21.6 people per 100,000 population are dying in traffic accidents, nearly four times the toll in Britain.
Is it speed or antics like this...

http://tadas.dtiltas.lt/arab.htm

Click on a number to see a vid..
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-05, 11:37 AM   #27
Ken McCulloch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by embee
Hey, after all if I'm not exceeding 30mph it must be safe, yes???
Well safer than doing 70 in the same place which is the point surely? The idea of things being safe or unsafe is a bit inadequate, there are degrees of safe/unsafeness to be considered I think. The faster you travel the less safe you and those around you are because of the consequences of things going wrong. Having a hole in the wing of an aircraft that flies at 200mph might not be a huge problem but havin a hole in the wing of a sapce shuttle is because of the speed related effect. A child being hit by a motorcycle at walking pace will suffer less injury than at 40 mph.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-05, 12:03 PM   #28
Anonymous
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken McCulloch
Quote:
Originally Posted by embee
Hey, after all if I'm not exceeding 30mph it must be safe, yes???
Well safer than doing 70 in the same place which is the point surely? The idea of things being safe or unsafe is a bit inadequate, there are degrees of safe/unsafeness to be considered I think. The faster you travel the less safe you and those around you are because of the consequences of things going wrong. Having a hole in the wing of an aircraft that flies at 200mph might not be a huge problem but havin a hole in the wing of a sapce shuttle is because of the speed related effect. A child being hit by a motorcycle at walking pace will suffer less injury than at 40 mph.
Absolute rubbish. I'll slow a Boeing 747 down from 400 knots to 90 knots over central London (with no flaps) - lets see how 'safe' it becomes then. Before all the obsession with speed we just as capable of judging what was and what wasn't a safe speed to drive at - I would say the vast majority of fines by scameras are due to people not deviating from this driving policy (which earned us the safest roads in the world I will add) and being punished on a technicality.

Numerical values have absolutely no relevance to safety. Consider the recent example near me of a truck hitting a kid at what was estimated to be 17mph - the kid was killed, and the truck was doing nearly half the speed limit. How is a "safety" camera going to stop this sort of incident? If you look at research by SafeSpeed, it is shown that the vast majority of fatal accidents occur at speeds well under the speed limit!
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-05, 12:15 PM   #29
snoopy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel
Quote:
Originally Posted by northwind
Still an attitude problem... And IMO still caused by limit targeting. It's a pretty sorry indictment of the state of driving today that people have so much to be paranoid about on the speed front.
I'd say that's more a sorry inditement of the state, not the state of peoples driving. Noone was paranoid before the introduction of cameras; they adjusted their speed to the conditions and the surrounding hazards, just as they should.
but not for the minority who are unable to do this.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15-08-05, 12:32 PM   #30
creamerybutter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What I see as a major flaw in the current monitoring of speed is that it is all electronic and therefore isn't able to make judgement calls, it sees you as either guilty or not guilty and it isn't always black and white like that.

The roads haven't got any safer despite the number of cameras rocketing up and the amount of penalties going out mainly in my opinion due the massive reduction in traffic police. Cameras only catch speed and that isn't the only cause of accidents (so say it doesn't cause any is wrong in my opinion), police catch (or can do) drunk drivers, people on mobile phones, tail gaters and just bad driving in general. I was on the motorway and an obviously ****ed bloke was in front, he was speeding he was just swerving across all three lane which is surely much more dangerous! A camera wouldn't have seen a problem a copper would. My worry is with these GPS unit thing is that the police force will loose even more traffic cops.

Another worry for me is that kids aren't taught the dangers of the road like they used to be. Its all well and good saying hitting a kit at 30 is better than at 40 but surely it would be better to not hit the kid at all and when some kids just run into the road without looking it's getting harder.

I accept that limits are there for a reason but I feel the way they are being enforced is all wrong. What with cameras hidden behind trees clearly designed to catch people after the event rather than slow them down in the first place, even cameras placed after the school rather than before to catch people who have already sped past the school rather than have them go past the school at a slower speed.

Just my 2p's worth.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good news! Neeja Idle Banter 27 24-02-09 09:34 PM
Good & bad news.. Paws Idle Banter 3 05-10-07 04:13 PM
Bad News/Good News tiggers1963 South & West Surfers 20 02-05-06 04:46 PM
Some good news (Well for me) rwoodcock01 Idle Banter 11 27-04-06 08:44 AM
Good News! Natasha Bikes - Talk & Issues 2 24-06-05 05:10 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.