warning

[Quillan]

What you need is a garage door opening transmitter that is fitted to the car, makes their radar thingys go mad and they can't get a lock. Don't foget to put the rest of it on your garage door otherwise they know you know and will 'do' you.

[Alcazar]

Quillan: I'd be VERY careful with those devices if I were you: in France, even having one IN your car, unconnected and not is use, can lead to a €2000 fine on the spot, and the possible impounding of your vehicle.

Beware. They are desperate for YOUR cash.

I once saw a speed trap on the A20. it was situated in the outer (LH) lane, which the gendarmes had coned off. They had also placed temporary 110, then 90kph limits around it, and were happily fining anyone who didn't obey the temporary limit There was no other reason for the temporary limit, other than the fact that the outer lane was coned to take the speed trap!

NOW tell me it's not about revenue generation!

Alcazar

[Quillan]

[quote]Quillan: I'd be VERY careful with those devices if I were you: in France, even having one IN your car, unconnected and not is use, can lead to a €2000 fine on the spot, and the possible impounding of ...[/quote]

So why do they sell then in Leroy Merlin, all they do is open garage doors.

[Deimos]

Quote: “As an aside, I have often thought that knowing where speed cameras are, completely defeats their point.”

(Continuing the aside), I am unsure about the true reasons behind speed cameras. However, in the UK we are told that they are to try and slow motorists down and make the roads safer. If this is really the case I imagine that, should the be correctly positioned (e.g. accident “black spots”) then people knowing about them will tend to cause drivers to slow down.

I guess it’s a balance between the “random threat” (which might have a greater effect on people closer to already having 12 points) and little effect on many to addressing specific black spots (hidden without people knowing their locations). If people don’t know where they are, there may be few enough (with cameras) that many will totally ignore the risk and just speed everywhere (accident black spots included).

However, I have a suspicion (from my experience of speed camera locations in the area where I used to live in the UK) that a significant aspect to their use is to generate revenue.

I wonder if this new “in-car” device that warns drivers before approaching accident black spots about the danger is a more positive method to achieve the same result.

Some French map (e.g. Michelin) books mark the location of speed cameras throughout the country (though I guess there is a risk of this info being a bit out of date on occasions.

[JohnM]

You will probably want to call me a hypocrite at the end of this because I do not always obey the speed limits. BUT, I do get annoyed by people who whinge about not being allowed to drive at the speed they want to. If we opt to live with other people with all the advantages that that brings, we should also accept the disadvantages. The 'powers that be' think that, on balance, it is better to restrict speed to a level that poor drivers can cope with. So, if we wish to live in a society 'with' the poor drivers, surely we should do as we are told, or cheerfully accept it when we get caught breaking the law. If we want to avoid being told what to do, we should buy an island in the south seas and live on our own.

 

 

[Deimos]

(On a bit of a tangent to the main thread)

I also do not always obey the speed limits, though through built-up areas I do (other than by accident). I believe there is a difference between speeding on open clear motorway and around schools, etc. in built-up areas. As enforcement is “resource limited”, priority should (in my opinion) be directed to the worst/most dangerous offences rather than where it is easiest to catch most people. I have a suspicion that some UK cameras locations are prioritised to generate revenue rather than make roads safer.

A slightly different example of the law being used to generate revenue is where the government has given enforcement powers to local councils for some offences (e.g. littering). Thus, some councils (e.g. Birmingham) now employ “enforcers” to target and fine people dropping litter. What these people do is to follow smokers as it is very likely that a smoker will discard a cigarette end. When they do - £50 fine. You can get caught shop lifting or breaking into somebody’s house and get a lower penalty. In the case of this littering example, the council is using the law to generate revenue rather than to solve a problem.

It is using the law as a way of making money that I am against and I believe that some speed cameras in the UK are being used as such.

[Teamedup]

JFM I am for sensible speed restrictions. We have had lots of stupid ones put onround here in the last couple of years. I'm sick to the back teeth of them. If you obey them, then people get annoyed and overtake dangerously where they shouldn't... bouts of road rage it is and I worry that I'll be involved in an accident because of this, in spite of me adhering to the speed limit.

Autoroutes we pay for and are perfectly good roads, why speed limits, or at least low ones like 130kph.

[Logan]

[quote]You will probably want to call me a hypocrite at the end of this because I do not always obey the speed limits. BUT, I do get annoyed by people who whinge about not being allowed to drive at the speed...[/quote]

So we should defer to "the powers that be" for they know what's good for us and trust in authority for they are always right and to question that authority's motives in the laws they pass is nothing short of sedition for we live with others, so our rights to think and act independently are forfeit.

I would ask what planet this contributor is living on. Not questioning the law makers and blind deference to authority gave us Hitler and all his works. All governments make stupid laws and its up to us the people to prevent them getting too big for their boots.

"All it takes for evil to thrive is men of good will to do nothing". (can't remember who wrote it)

 

 

[Deimos]

Quote Teamedup: “We have had lots of stupid ones put onround here in the last couple of years.”

I remember may years ago there was a problem with people driving excessively fast on Hackney High Street (an 30 mph limit). So to address the problem they increased the speed limit to 40 mph and the average speed of vehicles decreased as a result (as they had expected – which is why they did it). I always remember that because it does illustrate that lowering speed limits does not always cause the speed of cars to drop.

[bixy]

Saying that speed cameras are just there to collect revenue is just another kind of whinging. It always amazes me that motorists believe that they can select the laws they wish to obey. Thus we got motorists punching traffic wardens for giving them a ticket for parking illegally. Living, as we do, in a society [yes I know Mrs Bonkers said there's no such thing as society but she was wrong] we have to obey all the rules whether we like them or not. We can't just pick and choose. If we enjoy society's protection against complete anarchy and chaos, then we are bound to go along with society's rules. You can't have it both ways - expecting other people to respect you and your property while doing just what you feel like. And no, I wasn't particularly happy about getting a speeding ticket for doing 38mph the first in forty years of motoring but I didn't whinge - it was my fault.

Finally, I would venture to suggest that anyone who has been involved in scraping up the results of stupid driving [as I have]would never complain about attempts to get people to drive at sensible speeds.

Patrick

[Deimos]

Quote: “Saying that speed cameras are just there to collect revenue is just another kind of whinging”.

My comment was that a NUMBER of speed cameras appear targeted at revenue generation rather than improving road safety. This is neither winging nor selecting which laws to obey. It is commenting that the laws are to improve public safety not to implement a new tax system. Where resources to enforce laws are limited (which they certainly are in the UK), then priority should be given to road safety rather than income generation. I’m afraid (bixy) that you oversimplified other comments – which were “limited” in their nature. The main UK motoring organisations have commented about the positioning of UK speed cameras to generate revenue rather than target road safety. The UK government has also talked about the matter and stated that such practices will change (acknowledging that this has happened) but that existing cameras will not be moved. Nobody is saying that all speed cameras are only to generate income but rather that some are positioned more for income from fines than to improve road safety.

Commenting on the possibility that some organisations are using the law to generate income is not winging but is commenting on the actions of public servants. As we live in a democracy (in the UK) commenting on such things is more than valid.

There is a world of difference between commenting on bad use of resources enforcing laws and choosing to break a law.

[SaligoBay]

Not questioning the law makers and blind deference to authority gave us Hitler and all his works.

What rubbish!!!   War reparations, high unemployment, hyperinflation, and general poverty and desperation in Germany allowed Hitler to get to power.    If other countries hadn't questioned him there wouldn't have been a war, and Britain would have been part of his empire.  You are doing all the millions of people who fought against Hitler a huge disservice with your crass statement. 

Look at the history of Sophie Scholl (and many others) for examples of "blind deference".  For all your brave words, I bet you wouldn't have gone that far.  

[Tresco]

Deimos said

'My comment was that a NUMBER of speed cameras appear targeted at revenue generation rather than improving road safety'.

If people reduce their speed to within the legal limit that improves road safety, overall  If they don't they break the law, and yes, income is generated by the fine they pay. You make the point yourself that 'resources to enforce laws are limited'.  

There is a dual function, wherever they are placed.

 

Ps, Bravo SaligoBay.

[Logan]

[quote]Not questioning the law makers and blind deference to authority gave us Hitler and all his works. What rubbish!!! War reparations, high unemployment, hyperinflation, and general poverty and desper...[/quote]

Oh dear Saligo Bay a history debate was not intended. Perhaps I should have used the word 'contributed' instead of 'gave'. But lets not indulge in semantics.

Stupid and unnecessary laws like making it an offence to warn other motorists of speed traps ahead seem to me to have the hall marks of  overbearing and dictatorial government. The way the ordinary man can fight back in my opinion is make such silly laws unenforceable. Hunting in the UK is a recent example.

I believe the majority of people are responsible drivers and use speed in a responsible way. To legislate with a heavy hand only provokes resentment and encouragement to circumvent such laws. Hence the flashing to warn of speed traps. One thing begets the other.

[JohnM]

[quote]So we should defer to "the powers that be" for they know what's good for us and trust in authority for they are always right and to question that authority's motives in the laws they pass is nothing s...[/quote]

Dear Logan, What an odd question to ask. Well in answer to it, I live on a planet called earth which has an estimated population of 6,444,021,635 most of whom live in close quite proximity and therefore individuals need to ensure that their lifestyle choices show consideration for the lives of the others. In the particular areas of earth where I spend a lot of my time, a system of government has evolved where we elect law makers (some good, some bad, some indifferent) to make laws which are in the best interests of the population in general. This they do with varying degrees of success. The difficulty they have is that they have to try and find a "best fit". The laws have to be in the best interest of most of the population, enforceable and affordable, which, by and large, means that the resulting law is a compromise. I hope that helps.

I quite agree that "All governments make stupid laws and it's up to us the people to prevent them from getting too big for their boots" and I am all in favour of questioning, lobbying and of course, Elections! BUT I am not sure that it's enough to object to a law without also coming up with a viable alternative. Here's a challenge for you, I assume that you believe the speed limit rules are wrong. Why don't you draft an alternative? It will need to be flexible enough allow for varying driver ability/confidence (but take into account that most drivers "think" they are better than most of the others), take into account varying road, weather or car conditions, can be afforded and (probably most important of all) protects the rights (and lives) others. I look forward to reading your proposal.

Now I'll concede a point. I didn't choose the best wording in the post that you responded to. What actually annoys me is when people whinge because they've been caught. It is against the law to drive at a speed which triggers a camera, it is not a crime to record the number of the offending vehicle and then fine the driver. Don't want to get caught speeding? There's a really easy solution, don't break the speed limit (most drivers who break the limit do not really need to, they do it because they want to).

Speed may not cause many accidents, but when one does occur, the results are usually far worse when people have been driving fast.

 

[Logan]

I do believe in some sensible speed limits where the prevailing road and environment conditions demand it. My point has always been that most of the speed limits in France have no sensible logic. (Built up/residential areas apart). The French do tend to drive fast but in my experience they are seldom reckless in general. I know there are always exceptions and I repeat I am generalising but contempt for the speed limits of France is a national sport. Why? Because the laws and restrictions are daft.

I happen to believe that less government is good government. Why? Because most societies police/govern themselves.

[RayB]

[quote]Dear Logan, What an odd question to ask. Well in answer to it, I live on a planet called earth which has an estimated population of 6,444,021,635 most of whom live in close quite proximity and therefo...[/quote]

**Don't want to get caught speeding? There's a really easy solution, don't break the speed limit (most drivers who break the limit do not really need to, they do it because they want to).**

It really IS that simple, John! Some just won't admit it and I hope they learn first-hand sometime.

[bixy]

Logan, I think you must be living on a different planet to the rest of us.  Your faith in human nature is quite charming. Johnfmarshall, you have put it better than I did. Well said.

Patrick

[JohnM]

[quote]I do believe in some sensible speed limits where the prevailing road and environment conditions demand it. My point has always been that most of the speed limits in France have no sensible logic. (Bui...[/quote]

OK then, don't draft a law, draft some guidelines for these self governing peoples, that will be so fantastic that even the most stupid of those people will be able to understand the logic and will willingly follow them voluntarily. I guess it will need some pretty amazing technology that can assess the road conditions, weather, state of the other cars (brake pads etc), mental state of the drivers etc etc etc, which will then give a constantly changing individual "advisory" speed limit to each driver, so I guess it would be nice to see some ideas on how it will all be paid for as well.

 

[Tresco]

First, I have made it clear in this thread, and others previously, that I am an anti speeder. I don't do it, and I encourage others not to.

I'm interested in other ways that the accident rate can be cut, particularly driving skills and how they connect to the factors john mentions above (varied road conditions, driver awareness and response, etc).

I think Alcazar mentioned in another thread, the constant banging on about 'speed kills', which I am 'guilty' of too, because I believe it.  But, he has a point. There is a danger that people will focus only on speed (which often to people means staying just within the limit, regardless of rain, double parking, etc - forgive me I am sure these points have been made before) as an indicator of being in the right, and not adjusting to conditions, or constantly trying to learn and improve their driving skills. 

I wonder how many people have had any further instruction after their original test?  I got 3 or 4 hours informally from a former police driver, and it was amazing. I still can't believe that the driving test I took and passed lasted 20 minutes. I am sure this won't go down well, but I think you should be tested more than once, at the outset of your driving career, and that people should be re-tested at intervals.

 

 

 

[Richard-R]

[quote]First, I have made it clear in this thread, and others previously, that I am an anti speeder. I don't do it, and I encourage others not to. I'm interested in other ways that the accident rate can be ...[/quote]

I'm also for re-test. Every 10 years would be good with a full medical. My mother-in-law as just given up her car, after passing her test in the late 40's. The only reason is she can no longer get in and out of it. She's got all manner of illnesses and the doctor just signed her o.k. to drive without a second thought. The general standard of driving needs to increase to reflect to increase in road users. AND why oh why is motorway driving not include in the driving test?

[Logan]

Travel also teaches you tolerance of others, less able than yourself and an understanding of the human condition and its weaknesses. With this broader understanding follows perhaps a realisation that rules, laws and beliefs are just there to to be broken, used or exploited. 

[JohnM]

Governments either rule by consent, fear or a mixture of both and so no government can make all the individuals obey the rules. (Even if they were to lock up all those who look likely to break a law or two, they'd be sure to miss some). It's just a matter of being aware that there are consequences and being prepared to live with those.

 

[RayB]

[quote]Governments either rule by consent, fear or a mixture of both and so no government can make all the individuals obey the rules. (Even if they were to lock up all those who look likely to break a law o...[/quote]

** It's just a matter of being aware that there are consequences and being prepared to live with those.**

You do the crime . . . you pay the fine and/or do the time. Seems fair to me!

[Deimos]

Quote: “You do the crime . . . you pay the fine and/or do the time”

I wonder if sometimes the “balance” in crime/time has been lost (in the UK). Not with regard to speeding, but e.g. in Birmingham you can get fined £50 for dropping a cigarette end whereas for a burglary you can get off with a police warning