PDA

View Full Version : Speeding Cameras good or bad ?



stewart38
7th-November-2003, 01:06 PM
I don't like them and have got myself out of acquiring 6 points although I was gulity of both offences.

One of these including going to court etc

They should be in areas which have a known history of accidents and/or near schools etc.

I don't support cash generating cameras

Any thoughts on this ?

TheTramp
7th-November-2003, 01:28 PM
God. We agree on something?!? :what:

Hate speed cameras.

How did you get out of 6 points then??

Steve

Gadget
7th-November-2003, 01:43 PM
I must admit that there was one they hid behind a sign on the road down to glasgow that annoyed me, but since they are all painted flurescent and can't now be hidden, I don't have a problem with them:
If you fail to notice the yellow and orange stripey box as well as the stripes on the road, then you are not paying enough attention to the road or your driving (IMHO).

On the Glasgow road, I think that most cameras are sensibly positioned: most are just as a long straight is coming to an end.

(Although I was flashed at recently for doing about 74mph: don't think they can do anything about that, even if there was film in the camera.:innocent: )

Traffic cops with cameras in unmarked cars, or vans with blacked-out windows sitting on the verge... now they require a bit more observation to spot.

stewart38
7th-November-2003, 03:14 PM
To get off speeding fines red lights

You read up on the law then you read up on it again (some good web sites)

My 'mate' then did this

Told CPS car broken down in front of him, got caught going through red light as had to swerve to avoid broken down car. Best to have a 'friend' as a witness who is 'off to canada soon' to confirm your story.(Note friend didn't exist)
As they are not use to people appealing you will get off

Re speeding, plead human rights, they come back, then plead not sure if it was someone else driving your car so you can't decide . Ask for exact location of camera (ie not just the road,exactly where it was, they have to comply if your going to court) etc etc etc. A yr later you go to court and you get off (well my mate did !).

Alternatively dont speed or jump red lights

Obvioulsy if you are issue a NIP beyond 14 days thats a non starter etc etc

Dreadful Scathe
7th-November-2003, 03:26 PM
The way I understand speed cameras and the law is that if you get caught speeding you can claim to not know who was driving - its up to them to prove who was driving, not you and with a picture of only the back of the car its nearly impossible. Innocent until proven guilty you see, and they may know your car was speeding but that proves nothing whatsoever about the driver.

So Britain relies on the populace to automatically pay any fines sent to them without question.
In europe theyre not so stupid and take a picture of the front of the car and the driver as evidence. And, yes, its illegal to try and disguise yourself whilst driving, you'd get pulled over for that if they spotted you :).

stewart38
7th-November-2003, 03:39 PM
Unfortunately with driving its guilty until you prove your innocent (1988 Road Traffic Act is a good source). Otherwise I think people would have caught on !!

The burden of proof is on you the driver to prove you were not the driver.

However if you are going to court you have a lot of rights and rights pre trial, which people don't know about (far too much to go into detail here)



:what:

Daphne
7th-November-2003, 08:17 PM
Apparently over 50% of speed cameras don't register a picture, due to cost-cutting/admin.

Apparently only the top 30% 'that day' get fined.....

Any coppers out there can confirm??

Jive Brummie
7th-November-2003, 09:35 PM
My personal opinion of speed camera's is that they should all be smashed to pieces and burned to the ground.

What was intended to be a device for reducing road accidents and fatalities has now been completely exploited by greedy police forces the length and breadth of Britain.

It's an old argument but still pertinent.... why don't police go and prevent real crime instead of fining people for doing 34 in a 30.

Having said that, if speed camera's have saved even 1 life then they're completely worth it. I just don't like particularly like coppers..........period!!!:mad: :mad:

Dance Demon
8th-November-2003, 01:08 AM
Not sure how effective they are really. Now that they are painted with fluorescent paint and are very visible, everyone just slows down 'til they are past them, then speed up again, so they only really slow people down for about 20 yards or so. I think they also cause a hazard, particularly at night if they flash at a speeder as you ar passing on the other side at the same time. i have been startled a few times by this, and it could have caused an accident:( However if you don't break the limit, or jump red lights, You've got nothing to worry about really:)

Jon L
8th-November-2003, 09:42 AM
I don't think any driver really enjoys speed cameras. I have been flashed on the A3 coming out of London from ceroc, and coming home on the A29 from Portsmouth after a 'love to dance' night - I sometimes drive that way for a change.

But then again the answer if you don't wan't them flashing don't speed it is as simple as that :(

Out of interest I think many of motorways should adopt a variable speed limit for different times of the day? i.e have an 80 mph for overnight and a 60 mph during the day?

Lory
8th-November-2003, 10:41 AM
They are rigged with the latest SPECS speed cameras.
SPECS is >a camera based system.
* As you go past a camera, software detects and >reads your number plate.
When you go past the next camera, it detects >and reads your number plate
again.
* Knowing how far apart the cameras >are it can work out your average speed
between the two cameras.
* The >system is fully automatic and will automatically issue a ticket
without >any form of human intervention.
* It does >this for every single vehicle that passes a camera.
* You will not know >you've >been nicked as the cameras don't flash.
* There's no film in them either, >they're digital, using images of you in
your car, noting together the date >and time etc.
* >It works 24/7, 365 days a year, and theoretically, there's absolutely no
>limit on the number of tickets that it can issue.
* The whole section of the >M4 between Theale (J12) and Membury Services
(between 14 and 15) is wired, >both ways.
* It is believed that the system is set to trigger a ticket at >78mph.
* >Radar detectors won't work.
* SPECS is entirely passive, there's no radar or >laser beam to pick up.

>PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD..............

TheTramp
8th-November-2003, 10:50 AM
Taken from the SPECS website....


M4 SPECS Hoax

Speed Check has received a number of enquiries over the past week in relation to a hoax email. It has been implied that a SPECS system has been installed on the M4. Speed Check would like to assure all interested parties that there are currently no SPECS systems in place on the M4.

I remember a couple of years ago, the same sort of system was said to be going on the M1. And that was a hoax too. So I checked this one out :D

Of course, I don't think it'll be that long before this sort of system does come in :(

Steve

DavidY
8th-November-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by TheTramp

I remember a couple of years ago, the same sort of system was said to be going on the M1. And that was a hoax too. So I checked this one out :D

Of course, I don't think it'll be that long before this sort of system does come in :(
They've been installed on some roads round Nottingham for some time. And they seem to turn up when they do roadworks on the M6.

Neil
8th-November-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by DavidY
They've been installed on some roads round Nottingham Bloody hell! :eek: :eek: :eek: No one ever told me about this. Good job I'm a law-abiding citizen who never speeds :devil:

Neil

DavidY
8th-November-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Neil
Bloody hell! :eek: :eek: :eek: No one ever told me about this. Good job I'm a law-abiding citizen who never speeds :devil:

Neil Glad to hear it. You won't need to know they're on the A610 (Nuthall Road) and Ring Road (Western Boulevard) then. :wink:

Neil
8th-November-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by DavidY
You won't need to know they're on the A610 (Nuthall Road) and Ring Road (Western Boulevard) Thanks, David, for that completely unnecessary information :wink: :devil:

:cheers:

Neil

filthycute
9th-November-2003, 04:53 PM
ummmm....let me get this straight...
Seems to me like a whole lot of people are moaning about having to abide by the law for a mere 100 yards whilst passing a speedvcamera.......yet think nothing of harranging others for downloading music......flippin' MUSIC!!!!

ps. Would be interesting to see how different peoples reactions would be if their child was killed by a speeding driver.


pps. I've downloaded hundreds of illegal songs :yum:

filthycute x x

Chris
9th-November-2003, 05:03 PM
The downloading songs debate practically needed Lily with a bucket to mop up the blood. Noticed that Robbie Williams and Travis have come out in favour though so if you get sued at least you know it's not in their name lol.

I once lost my license for three months with sixteen points - all for speeding. Since doing a law degree I got a weird respect for such things though and have rarely exceeded the limit in seven years (I did an advanced drivers course as well and that doesn't mean I can drive either).
:rofl:

Boomer
9th-November-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by filthycute
ummmm....let me get this straight...
Seems to me like a whole lot of people are moaning about having to abide by the law for a mere 100 yards whilst passing a speedvcamera.......yet think nothing of harranging others for downloading music......flippin' MUSIC!!!!

ps. Would be interesting to see how different peoples reactions would be if their child was killed by a speeding driver.


pps. I've downloaded hundreds of illegal songs :yum:

filthycute x x

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Jon L
10th-November-2003, 03:28 AM
OK a "silly" thought has come to mind :grin:

Howabout all jivers being issued with Jiving licences !

On attending a jive venue for the first time is given a provisional jiving licence, allowing them to do certain types of this.

When they are ready they must take a jive test which will consist of an ettiquete theory paper and a practical.

The practical will not only include demonstrating to the examiner that the jiver can accurate demostrate the moves, but also that they can take women off and on to the dance floor, and allow enough space between couples

Assuming they pass they can then be allowed to dance the full range of moves with different types of veichle (No that is NOT how I think of my partners before anyone comments)

3 points for jiving offences could include.

Not taking care of your partner,
Not looking out for others
Not being friendly with anyone who asks you to dance.
Digging your nails into your partners hands
Poor personal hygene (should jivers need a MOT certificate)
Aerials on crowded dance floors,
Drops and seducers without permission

After 12 points is a jiving ban!

Of course you could have speed cameras for speed freaks i.e. dancers who dance lots of moves with no sense of rhythm

Sorry :sorry this is a "very silly" thread, I can do this in this part of the forum :grin:

stewart38
10th-November-2003, 10:21 AM
I'm not against all speeding cameras. Some in Slough and Sutton are placed at bottoms of 'hills' and others are just dangerous ie on the M40 as people break sharply. I was 'caught' on the A3 the other day but never got a ticket.

Having driven around 10,000 miles in the USA you don't get much speeding there and I am not aware of any/many cameras. Its just if you put your foot down some nice friendly police man will be in your rear mirror shortly afterwards.

I think there is a big difference between a boy racer going at 110mph in a 50mph area then someone doing 37mph.



:rolleyes:

Tiggerbabe
10th-November-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by stewart38

I think there is a big difference between a boy racer going at 110mph in a 50mph area then someone doing 37mph.
:rolleyes:

Of course there is :wink: someone doing 37mph in a 50mph area isn't speeding :blush:

Seriously though, I'm not sure I agree - if the limit is set to 30mph it's for a reason and I'm sure we've all seen the advert as to the difference a few extra mph will make to your stopping distance.

The limit on the road outside my house is 30mph, if you were to come around the corner doing 37mph it would be just as dangerous as someone driving at 110mph in a 50mph zone.

And yes, a car very similar to mine, might have been seen travelling at 85mph on the way up to Aberdeen, slowing down to carefully avoid the 300 ( :eek: ) speed cameras that are dotted along the way.

Forte
10th-November-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Sheena
And yes, a car very similar to mine might have been seen travelling at 85mph on the way up to Aberdeen, slowing down to carefully avoid the 300 ( :eek: ) speed cameras that are dotted along the way.

I know! There are loads on the way to Aberdeen, aren't there? A timely reminder for those of us travelling up there for the Beach ballroom weekend. We don't want any tickets.

Gadget
10th-November-2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by DavidY
They've been installed on some roads round Nottingham for some time. And they seem to turn up when they do roadworks on the M6.

These cameras do exist (all over the place), and they are currently being used in some areas to track down stolen vehicles and wanted felons.
They were initially put in place to catch speeders however european legislation ruled it against human rights to record information that basically tracks you on your journey. (This was after they invested lots and lots of money in them.)
I think that they are only now coming up with inovative ways to use the cameras since they have them anyway.

At least that was the story I heard.


Talking of big-brother conspiricy theorys; when traveling on dual carrageways, notice occasional rectangles on each lane with a line straggling them cut into the road's surface (shiney tar). These normally appear just before or after a junction/slip-road/roundabout. These have wires embeded in them and are connected to small boxes by the side of the road (most of the time hidden).
Anyone know what they do?

PeterL
10th-November-2003, 04:22 PM
I can't believe that a forum that is so against smoking as it can cause "serious harm" to others advocates speeding.

It seems to me that speeding is just socially acceptable.
a car going at 37 is more likely to kill a kid than a car going at 30
I would call that serious harm.

I remember 20-25 years ago drinking and driving were socially acceptable, the only reason peopel don't like this law is they speed themselves.

Personally I would advocate hidden spoeeding cameras all over the place because until people start viewing the car as a dangerous object and stop seeing themselves above the law in this area, that is the only way speeding motorists will be made to slow down.

PeterL
10th-November-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Gadget

Talking of big-brother conspiricy theorys; when traveling on dual carrageways, notice occasional rectangles on each lane with a line straggling them cut into the road's surface (shiney tar). These normally appear just before or after a junction/slip-road/roundabout. These have wires embeded in them and are connected to small boxes by the side of the road (most of the time hidden).
Anyone know what they do?

I could be wrong but I think they are there just to monitor the traffic flow.
i.e. how many cars pass that point at different points of the day.

Gadget
10th-November-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by PeterL
I could be wrong but I think they are there just to monitor the traffic flow.
i.e. how many cars pass that point at different points of the day.
Thought that they had little people in flurecent jackets with clickers and clipboards for that?

And how? I mean, I know how the counting wires nailed to the road work, but these are sunken into the road surface; I would not have though that the compression would be enough to register a change in the current?

Dreadful Scathe
10th-November-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by PeterL
I can't believe that a forum that is so against smoking as it can cause "serious harm" to others advocates speeding.

I think theres a big difference between driving dangerously and speeding. They are not the same thing. Also driving at 80 mph on the motorway is still illegal but just as safe as driving at 70mph in most cases - stopping distance comes into it of course, some people drive too close to the car at front - and some people drive at 60mph on a motorway where logic dicates that in thuderstorms you go a lot less than the speed limit. I like the german model of varying speed limits or no speed limit depending on the road.

Chris
10th-November-2003, 08:27 PM
I don't have the Hansards to hand but I seem to recall that the reason (ages ago) why the laws on dangerous driving were made so lenient was because of the number of MPs driving cars when they first became popular, and the desire not to criminalise MPs. Killing a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus through dangerous driving is a legal anomaly where the law is more severe.

DavidY
11th-November-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Gadget
Thought that they had little people in flurecent jackets with clickers and clipboards for that?

And how? I mean, I know how the counting wires nailed to the road work, but these are sunken into the road surface; I would not have though that the compression would be enough to register a change in the current? According to a link I found in the depths of the Department for Transport website, the black tubes you see fixed to the road are pneumatic tube counters. It says "a vehicle depresses the tube, causing a pneumatic pulse to be sent to the counter unit."

The things buried in the road might be induction loops - they have a magnetic field which changes when big metal things (like cars) go through the field, and don't rely on compression. If you drove a car made entirely of plastic car it probably wouldn't detect you... I think these are the things you see at eg. the approach to traffic lights, so the traffic light can tell you're there (and change red in my experience).

Daisy
11th-November-2003, 12:24 AM
I have'nt read through all the posts in this thread so I apologise if this has already been said:-

There are new speed cameras on the A24 near Ashington both north and southbound. They are just after the illuminating 60mph speed signs.

Take care.:wink:

DavidY
11th-November-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by PeterL
I can't believe that a forum that is so against smoking as it can cause "serious harm" to others advocates speeding.Can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't trying to advocate speeding - the whole point about the SPECS cameras is that they time you over a long distance, and take a long-distance average speed, rather than just your speed at the point when you pass the camera - so even if you know where they are, the only way not to get caught is to drive within the speed limit. Sharing this information might encourage more people to stick to the law.
a car going at 37 is more likely to kill a kid than a car going at 30. I would call that serious harm.This is because (if my memory of physics/maths is right) when you double a car's speed , you quadruple the kinetic energy. The more energy you have to get rid of in an emergency, the more chance of not stopping in time or dissipating that energy in a way that causes injury - if my maths is right a car going at 37 mph has 23% more speed than a car at 30, but 52% more kinetic energy. 52% more energy can do a lot more damage.
Personally I would advocate hidden spoeeding cameras all over the place I'd prefer it if there was a decent public transport system and I could leave the car at home!
Originally posted by Gadget
These cameras do exist (all over the place), and they are currently being used in some areas to track down stolen vehicles and wanted felons.
They were initially put in place to catch speeders however european legislation ruled it against human rights to record information that basically tracks you on your journey. (This was after they invested lots and lots of money in them.)
I think that they are only now coming up with inovative ways to use the cameras since they have them anyway.

At least that was the story I heard.I think they're still being used as speed cameras - I've not been caught myself, but a car I traded in at a garage 18 months earlier was caught this year and the police wrote to me to try and trace the owner. The car had been caught speeding in one of the areas where SPECS cameras are fitted, so I think they're still doing what they were designed to do...

Sonic
11th-November-2003, 01:27 PM
I'm sure nobody on this forum is advocating speeding as such. It's the arbitrary setting and enforcement of speed limits that is causing such anger against speed cameras.

First, most accidents are caused whilst driving within the speed limit ie. the presence of speed cameras would have made no difference. They are caused by tailgating, failure to judge road/weather conditions, drunken/reckless driving, driving using mobile phones etc. The government puts a massive spin on this by lumping factors such as "driving too close" and "slippery road conditions" under the heading of "speeding" to inflate the figures for accidents caused by speeding, when actually the speeds involved were within the limits. This is just bad driving.

Secondly, if speed cameras are supposed to save lives, then why are they located on motorways, invariably catching people doing 80mph at night (because it's almost impossible to speed during the day, at least on the M25), rather than in urban areas e.g. outside schools? There isn't a single camera anywhere near my local schools, yet loads on M4 going into London, where they installed a mostly unsued bus lane (on a motorway??!) and a 50mph speed limit which was so out of touch they had to raise it to 60.

Incidentally, when Jack Straw was caught doing 103mph because he was late for a meeting, he didn't get a ticket. (And when Tony Blair used the M4 bus lane, he didn't get fined.) And magistrates caught speeding used to have to resign their posts, but now they're just given a slap on the wrist. Isn't that an admission that speeding is not regarded as a serious offence because so many get caught it's fast becoming a nonsense.

There's a huge difference between boy racers tearing through town centres (where there are no speed cameras), and someone doing 80mph on a motorway in good driving conditions. Lumping them all together as criminals does nothing to address the real problems.

Final note on SPECS cameras: the good news is that these can be detected using a GPS speed trap detector. The satellites get a fix on the location of your car and compares it to its database of fixed camera postions, so you get alerted you when you come near a speed trap. Works everytime!

Bill
12th-November-2003, 01:29 PM
Looks as if I'm on my own on this one but I have no problems with speed cameras and think if they make people skow down then so much the better.

Rather than say they are in the 'wrong' places the poit should be that they should also be near schools and in built up areas.

Doing 40 in a 30 limit is far worse than speeding on a motorway as there are more children around. Why are people bothered if they are not speeding ?

I've found that once I drive past Glasgow and head down to England the drivers speed up and sometimes feel quite concerned at the speed and ability of many drivers. Up here few folk go beyond 80 and it feels much safer.

Idiots tanking down the outside lane doing 100 are being selfish and stupid and many major accidents are caused by excessive speed - even more dangerous when its a lorry rather than a car.

No-one complains that it's wrong to have a burglar alarm on a building so what's wrong with detecting drivers who speed ????
Everyone thinks they are great drivers and it's always some one else who causes accidents but I've seen some idiots driving at speed throug all sorts of weather conditions.

Sorry but I'd actually put speed fines up and get as many constant 'menaces' off the road to make it safer for the majority. And anyone doing over 100 banned for at least 3 years.

Now, that feels better :na:

PeterL
12th-November-2003, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Bill
Looks as if I'm on my own on this one but I have no problems with speed cameras and think if they make people skow down then so much the better.
Sorry but I'd actually put speed fines up and get as many constant 'menaces' off the road to make it safer for the majority. And anyone doing over 100 banned for at least 3 years.

Now, that feels better :na:

Bill you are not on your own.

I get fed up of people complaining about speed cameras.
They actualy give you 10% for speedo error and then another 10% for camera error so you have to be doing oer 84 on a 70 speed limit to be clocked.

If people don't agree with the law (i.e. the speed limits). Then complain and lobby about the limits, not the enforcement of the limits.

Too many people that consider themselves law abiding citizens believe themselves above the law when it comes to driving restrictions.
I recently heard of a group of people that said they were not boy racers but responsible drivers fed up of being caught speeding actually cutting down speed cameras.

I am not a slow driver but have never been caught by a camera so anyone that does get clocked is obviously not paying attention to the road (i.e. they didn't see the camera) and going too fast.

As far as empty road at night- this is the talk of people that have more confidence in there own ability than they should have. you have to be going over 80 to be clocked and if you are going over 80 then there is no way you can control the vehicle even in the best of conditions if the unexpected happens, and on the road it is not just your life at risk but every other road user.

And as far as speed cameras in town are concerned, there is no excuse for speeding in a built up area-the risk of killing someone is far too high and could you live with yourself if you ran over a kid. Could you forgive someone else for doing it to your kid, because they believed it was safe to do 40 in a 30.

As I said for a forum that is so against smoking because it can cause "serious harm" (and I agree with you there). Three is a double standard here.

:mad: :sad:

stewart38
12th-November-2003, 05:32 PM
People are not 'caught' because they are slamming their breaks on when they see a speeding camera.

Cash for cameras is wrong (although I see they have put back the 60mph limit back on some parts of the A3 when they had put it down to 50mph for no reason).

In some towns they have 40mph then 30mph then 20mph then 30mph then 40mph. I have never seen anyone drive at 20mph (apart from when I had to drive my gran)

Next yr there is going to be a 50% increase in camera to 4500 thats a joke

Usually the allowance is 10% its not cumulative (ie 77mph). there is however no fix 'rule'. 37mph or above is usual cut off for 30mph but some people have been done at 33mph

There are no actively working speed cameras on the M25.

I don't think anyone is against speed cameras at schools /accident black spots but are against cash for cameras and I would happily cut cameras down if I wasn't a law abiding citizen. :sick:

PeterL
12th-November-2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
People are not 'caught' because they are slamming their breaks on when they see a speeding camera.

Cash for cameras is wrong (although I see they have put back the 60mph limit back on some parts of the A3 when they had put it down to 50mph for no reason).

In some towns they have 40mph then 30mph then 20mph then 30mph then 40mph. I have never seen anyone drive at 20mph (apart from when I had to drive my gran)

Next yr there is going to be a 50% increase in camera to 4500 thats a joke

Usually the allowance is 10% its not cumulative (ie 77mph). there is however no fix 'rule'. 37mph or above is usual cut off for 30mph but some people have been done at 33mph

There are no actively working speed cameras on the M25.

I don't think anyone is against speed cameras at schools /accident black spots but are against cash for cameras and I would happily cut cameras down if I wasn't a law abiding citizen. :sick:


As I said if you have a problem with a speed limit then campaign against that, and yes I have seen people driving at 20, me, there is a 20 speed limit where my brother lives and I abide by it (Ibelieve it is advisory and the law still states 30). There are kids in this area including my nieces. And to be quite honest I get annoyed by people driving up my backend because they believe they know better and are capable of driving safely at higher speed.
It is simple SPEED KILLS and measures such as speed cameras reduce speed.
If you don't like paying fines don't speed. If you don't know the speed limits learn the highway code. I have never been snapped by a speed camera and I am not a slow driver. I am also not an idiot who thinks that I am above the law.

I think it only fair to fine people for speeding, they should pay for the damage that speeding causes in the same way that smokers pay extra tax so it pays for the damage smoking causes.

The only reason people are against speed cameras is because they believe that they are above the law and know better.
Speeding is one of the last socially acceptable bad habits left and the sooner it is viewed in the same way as drunk driving, spitting and smoking the better.

PeterL
12th-November-2003, 05:57 PM
Myth: “Safety cameras are cash-cows for the Government, in effect a stealth tax, especially when they are used on motorways or dual carriageways outside towns or villages.”

Fact: In the year 2000 over 1 million fixed penalty tickets were issued and the estimated revenue from them was about £44.3 million. There were also 139,200 fines from court proceedings for speeding worth about £18 million. The total fines for speeding for the year 2000 were therefore about £62.8 million. For comparison, the receipts of the Inland Revenue for the 1999-2000 tax year amounted to £148,860 million. Clearly, fines for speeding are insignificant in comparison with general taxation. Furthermore, not all fines are collected and no account is taken of safety camera running costs.


It is misleading to call fines for breaking the law ‘taxes’, as law abiding citizens don’t have to pay them. Safety cameras operating with safety camera partnership areas now cover 42 out of 43 police authorities. Police authorities do not 'make money' out of cameras: they simply recoup the costs of installing and running them. Overall safety cameras save us money. The Government estimates that each person killed on the road costs over £1 million in pain and suffering, lost output, hospital costs, police costs and damage to property.

Myth: “Safety cameras don’t save lives. Quite the opposite: when motorists see the cameras they suddenly brake hard, which is dangerous.”


Fact: Motorists should be driving within the speed limits so there is no need to brake hard at safety cameras if the law is being observed. Skilled drivers do not drive above the limit: they know the law and the consequences of car crashes. About half the people hit by a vehicle travelling at 30mph will die; hit at 40mph, nine out of ten will die.

Speed limits are intended to provide a safe road environment for all road-users including other motorists. Latest Government figures from the pilot safety camera sites have found that cameras have reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured by 35 per cent. For Northamptonshire alone, 105 fewer people were killed and seriously injured on the county’s roads in the first year of the safety camera scheme than in the previous year.

Myth: “The use of safety cameras means there are fewer traffic police. When there were traffic police, they would catch real criminals speeding not unlucky motorists.”


Fact: Traffic policing became less of a priority when the Government removed it as a core duty for the police. There is a need for greater traffic policing and it can be useful in catching criminals who are also breaking the law by speeding. Drivers who break the law by speeding are usually fined and penalty points are added to their licence. Generally, a motorist would have to be caught speeding four times before losing his or her licence, so there’s plenty of warning. Speeding is not a ‘victimless crime’. Fixed speed cameras in particular free up police time to respond to other violations in traffic and other areas of criminal law.

Myth: “Speed doesn’t cause accidents. There are more important contributing factors to crashes like drunkenness, tiredness or just plain boredom at driving slowly.”


Fact: Speeding is not only unlawful but irresponsible and threatens other motorists and road users who want to travel safely. Government advice is that drivers need to take regular breaks to avoid tiredness, and drink-driving is illegal and dangerous. Many drivers don’t realise that speed is responsible for more deaths than drink-driving.

In the year 2002, 59 per cent of drivers exceeded the 30mph speed limit in urban areas, down from 65 per cent in 2001. In 2002, 3431 people lost their lives on our roads: a third of these fatal crashes were due to excessive speed and 179 of the dead were children. The Association of Chief Police Officers says that speed is the most important factor in road crashes, more so than even drink or drug driving.


Myth: “Statistics show that counties with many safety cameras have no better accident figures than those with a few.”


Fact: There are many factors that contribute to crashes and comparing one county with another may not be particularly meaningful. It is, however, meaningful to compare the crash figures for a particular site before and after the installation of safety cameras. Government figures show that more than 800 separate before-and-after speed surveys at over 100 camera sites “demonstrate that cameras do reduce speed and a consequential reduction in casualties should be expected”.

Myth: “Research by the Government-funded Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an internationally recognised research establishment, shows that speed is a factor in only 7 per cent of accidents, not a third as some claim.”


Fact: There has been much misquoting of the Transport Research Laboratory’s (TRL’s) findings, particularly one of its reports, No. 323. TRL recently wrote: “Speed increases the impact of many factors which contribute to accidents. For example, ‘aggressive driving’ or ‘driving too closely’ are both much worse at speed… Misunderstandings in the press appear to have resulted in two ways. First, speed identified as a separate factor in its own right was present in 15 per cent of accidents, not 7.3 per cent, or lower figures that are often misquoted. Second, the 15 per cent is only one part of the total effect of speed on accidents. When allowance is made for all the other speed-dependent factors, the contribution is, we believe, much greater.” Marie Taylor, Group Manager of research into speed and accidents at TRL, said of their numerous studies over the past decade into the relationship between speed and crashes that: “The results from each of the studies show unambiguously that higher speeds are associated with more accidents.” The research at TRL has found that “excessive speed was recorded as a factor in more than a third of fatal accidents” and that “the true effect of speed is likely to be even greater than this”.

Myth: “The public don’t want safety cameras and most people break the speed limits.”


Fact: Many people want their neighbourhood to be places free of danger from speeding traffic. In the safety camera partnerships, requests from the public for safety cameras to be introduced in their areas “substantially exceeded the number of complaints about their operation”. An AA-commissioned survey showed 44 per cent believed that there should be more spending on Government campaigns for slower speeds in towns.

A MORI poll of 2000 drivers’ opinions of speed cameras revealed that seven out of ten drivers already accept that well-placed cameras are a useful way of reducing crashes and saving lives, while 80 per cent of drivers do not believe that cameras are an infringement on people’s civil liberties.

In 2002 a YouGov/Transport 2000 poll of Londoners showed that 75 per cent of people questioned thought there should be more speed cameras on roads where speeding is a problem.

Myth: “Safety cameras should be brightly painted and not hidden. If cameras are meant to reduce speeds then they should be highly visible so drivers slow down.”


Fact: The Government’s decision to paint safety cameras brightly was apparently an arbitrary decision taken without supporting research. Indeed, research undertaken in New Zealand between mid-1997 and mid-2000 compared the relative effectiveness of hidden versus visible safety cameras. Perhaps not unexpectedly it found that hidden cameras caught about four times as many speeding vehicles. However, it also found that when cameras were hidden there was less speeding in areas away from the immediate camera area, ie speed reduction occurred over a larger part of the road network when cameras were hidden. In addition, after ten years of intensified speed enforcement, the Victoria Project in Australia has switched to highly covert operations. This was because drivers were only complying with speed limits in the presence of cameras. In all other locations speeding continued to be a problem.

Myth: “Speed limits are a one-size-fits-all approach which isn’t suited to individual roads. Good drivers can judge what the appropriate speed for individual circumstances.”


Fact: Speed limits are maximum speeds and in some circumstances driving near those speeds is reckless. Other road users don’t expect to have additional risks of speeding vehicles imposed upon them without their consent. If drivers wish to drive at speed then motor sports offer these opportunities away from the public highway. Generally speaking, a 1mph reduction in traffic speed results in an average 5 per cent reduction in crashes.

Myth: “Safety cameras are often wrongly sited; in fact, often the safest roads have cameras, not the most dangerous.”


Fact: Some commentators seem to have missed the point: safety cameras make roads safer. If roads are safer with safety cameras this is a testament to the value and effectiveness of safety cameras. Furthermore, Government guidelines for the safety camera partnerships require four deaths or serious injuries or eight less serious injuries at a site for a safety camera to be installed.

stewart38
12th-November-2003, 05:58 PM
'Sunday drivers' as they use to be known or 'slow drivers' kill more people on the roads then any other category of driver according to the 'recent report ' thats just come out :cool:

Slow drivers 'usually' are old or drunk ??

Of course people can campaign against more speed cameras

If people didn't pay their 'fines' ie if the 3 million people who next yr will be 'fined' and actually stood up to this unjust system the whole thing would collapse and 'common sense' would return


As I said you don't get people speeding in USA,why is that because of cameras ? I don't think so.

12 cars following a car going at 20mph is far more dangerous (as they overtake) then cars going at 35mph

I'm also in favour of compulsory driving test every 10yrs
Thats just a opinion :yum:

Sheepman
12th-November-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
I would happily cut cameras down if I wasn't a law abiding citizen. Haven't you already admitted to speeding and perjury? If that's law abiding, then I'm a sheep!

Greg

PeterL
12th-November-2003, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by stewart38


12 cars following a car going at 20mph is far more dangerous (as they overtake) then cars going at 35mph



When there is a 20 speed limit it is generally there for a reason. i.e. residential area. they now build these areas with bendy roads on purpose to slow people down, so they can't do 30.

Anyone driving at above 30 in a 20 limit is a criminal in my opinion and is endangering innocent people around him for the sake of getting there a few minutes earlier.

I would be pleased if all the people who are so against smoking would because it causes "serious harm" would express the same viewpoint about speeding.

Deaths on the road have decreased since the introduction of speed cameras, and just because something else is worse "in your opinion" does not making driving dangerously (which speeding is) and breaking the law OK.
Speeding is not a victimless crime-it is one of the major causes of death in this country and causes far more deaths than smoking.

I would place a speeding camera on every road, if you don't speed you have nothing to worry about and then maybe the roads would be safe for people who want to abide by the law.

Bill
13th-November-2003, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by PeterL


I would place a speeding camera on every road, if you don't speed you have nothing to worry about and then maybe the roads would be safe for people who want to abide by the law.

Absolutely agree Peter.

On the news tonight was a story of speed cameras being burnt and destroyed but as has been said only drivers who want to speed and get away with it are going to be agrieved by their introduction.

It's only a source of income if people are caught and one argument seems to be that it's unfair that some get caught and others don't. I'd imagine that if a driver who speeds constantly and considers him/herself to be great driver had a relative killed by a speeding motorist they would want the driver strung up.

I think the views are changing and it's becoming less acceptable to drive very fast and I'd welcome much heavier fines - even prison sentences for those who persistently drive well beyond the speed limit.

Sonic
13th-November-2003, 10:49 AM
The vast majority of motorists are responsible drivers. If this wasn't the case, we'd all be taking an unacceptable risk when we get into our cars, and this is not the reality.

And yet the vast majority of motorists have broken the speed limit at least once. So they're all criminals? Technically, yes. Does this make the law look stupid? Absolutely. And doesn't the law look even more stupid when the authorities decide that so many magistrates - chosen because they are upstanding pillars of our community - are being caught speeding that to make them all resign becomes unworkable? Remember, these magistrates are now criminals, menaces who need to be kept off our roads! We need a sense of perspective here.

My friend's neighbour - a lovely, timid lady, 55 years old, never broken the law in her life - recently had her car vandalised by a gang of youths. The police, of course, did nothing. On the way to the garage, she was flashed by a camera. Of course, she felt the full force of the law. Now when you mention the police to her, she turns from timid lady to spitting rottweiler! Is it any wonder? Why do the police go after people like her with more vigour than the pond dwellers who vandalised her car? Is she a menace to society?

How many people who own cars on this forum have broken the speed limit at least once? I suspect 99%. How many have killed a child whilst speeding? None. If speed kills, then the odds are you would expect at least one death. The trouble with mantras like "speed kills" is that they simply don't reflect people's everyday experiences on the the roads. If you polled everyone who drives regularly to ceroc and asked them how many times on average they broke the speed limit on their journeys there and back, and how many times this resulted in death, you would find the former number would be high, and the latter number would be zero.

The reality is that speed doesn't kill. The majority of motorists are responsible drivers, yet the majority also speed now and then. What's the point of criminalising them all? There's a major difference between a boy racer and my friend's neighbour. But cameras treat them exactly the same. How does that help tackle the problem of menaces on our roads? How does making criminals out of decent ordinary folk help society?

stewart38
13th-November-2003, 11:06 AM
I'm afraid bendy roads and speed humps are on their way out as they kill far more people (ask the ambulance service). Also some London councils wanted to impose a 10mph speed limit this was kicked out. Also irrelevant but when they removed a lot of the crash barriers in the Alps accident rates reduced

I'm afraid there were too many flaws in PeterL arguments to make comment on e.g

'comparing one county with another may not be particularly meaningful.

Indeed, research undertaken in New Zealand between mid-1997 and mid-2000 compared' etc etc

I think we confuse 'speeding per say' and what is going on re cash for cameras scheme

I would hope they would lock up someone for going 60mph passed a school.

ps I didn't commit perjury ! (you need to read up on that)

At the end of the day like the poll tax there will be a breaking point,with a 50% increase next yr in cameras I would hope it comes then
:really:

PeterL
13th-November-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Sonic

The reality is that speed doesn't kill. The majority of motorists are responsible drivers, yet the majority also speed now and then. What's the point of criminalising them all? There's a major difference between a boy racer and my friend's neighbour. But cameras treat them exactly the same. How does that help tackle the problem of menaces on our roads? How does making criminals out of decent ordinary folk help society?


This is the same argument as I know someone who smoked all there life and lived till 90. Speed does kill, just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. Smoking used to be far more popular and socially acceptable. Speed cameras on roads have reduced deaths. Speed does kill and just because you haven't killed anyone and don't know anyone who has doesn't mean it doesn't.
The old lady who sped broke the law and was fined for it- fair enough. If the criminals had evidence of who had vandalised her car they would have prosecuted them. The old lady does not have a criminal record as speeding is a misdemeanor and not a criminal offence. I personally reckon it should be a criminal offence as it does kill.

I personally have sped and when I was younger and more wreckless did a lot of stupid things behind the wheel and yes I nearly killed people, I was lucky.
when going at speed your judgement is not as good your stopping and thinking distances are longer and your kinetic energy if you do make a mistake is greater.
I pay to use the roads and drive 90 miles a day to get to and from work. the difference an extra 10 miles an hour would make to my jourmey is 10 minutes at most and I drive more than most.
I put up with people speeding past me in both the inside and outside lanes just to get ahead of me and get stuck behind the next car.
Yes there are other forms of bad driving, too slow is one of them.
but the amount of people who drive too slow is negligible compatred to the amount who drive too fast.

There are thousands of deaths caused by speeding so to say speed doesn't kill is ridiculous.
If you were to speed past me and put my life at risk what would be the differenvce between that and a smoker blowing smoke in your face. No difference at all -both put me at risk - and both give the possible victim no choice.
As I said if you disagree with the speed limits campaign about them.
but do not tell me that it is OK to break the law and risk people's lives because other things are worse.

:mad:

Bill
13th-November-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Sonic
There's a major difference between a boy racer and my friend's neighbour. But cameras treat them exactly the same. How does that help tackle the problem of menaces on our roads? How does making criminals out of decent ordinary folk help society?


In as much as they both break the law there is no difference but there may be in the number of times they break it.

Because criminals ( thugs) get away with things does not make breaking another law acceptable. As Peter says, if folk disagree with cameras then they can argue against them but remember if no-one broke the speed limit ( by going well over 80 on motorways) then the Police would make no money and so the 'tax' argument would be invalid.

Should house breakers or shop lifters get away with breaking the law because they rarely harm anyone ? There are cases almost every day of a motorist knocking a pedestrian down - and how many motorways are blocked every day due to an accident ( normally caused by speeding !).

As I said, I notice a huge difference between speeds in Scotland and down south and I'm certain that's because we have more cameras.

Would lit make a difference if the limit was raised to 80 - or would that simply encourage more drivers to hit 100 ??? The unfortunate thing about driving is that there are far too many arrogant drivers who believe they are superb drivers able to cope with any eventuality and the number of accidents and deaths suggest that many are mistaken.

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 12:07 PM
Maybe we're looking at it the wrong way.

Instead of talking about the worry of raising speeds. How about we propose to lower speeds to 3mph in towns (preferably with someone walking in front of every vehicle with a red flag (removes the problem of unemployment at the same time)), and 10mph on the motorways (if you can arrange for someone who is very fit to be running in front of your car with said red flag, so much the better).

Incidentally, there were 312 deaths on the roads last year (average 6 per week). There were 466 deaths due to fires in homes. I say that we should not allow the use of fire. Or homes.

(Sorry. Just being facious for the sake of it)

Steve

psyc0diver
13th-November-2003, 12:10 PM
The Qn I have is, what is the percentage of accidents involving 4x4's. Thier stopping distance is actualy greater than those stated at the back of the highway code, even though they were formulated over 35 years ago (using a vauxhall marina with all round DRUM brakes[U]). Also there are more & more people using them for the school run. Kiddies dont get run over at 80mph, 10 miles out of town crossing dual carriageways! Dont get me started on bull-bars they're killers!

Boomer
13th-November-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by psyc0diver
..Dont get me started on bull-bars they're killers!

Haven't been following this thread too much, but could someone confirm something for me. I thought that 'Bull-bars' had somehow been banned for urban-use vehicles? Bit muddy that, I mean 4x4 owned by city-dwellers.

PeterL
13th-November-2003, 12:23 PM
Fifteen Key Facts About Road Safety


1. A half of all road deaths are to car occupants

2. Pedestrians make up over just over a quarter of all road deaths

2. 87% of all car casualties are front seat occupants; 64% of car deaths are drivers

3. 40% of all pedestrian casualties are children; 47% of pedestrian deaths are aged 60 and over

5. One-fifth of pedal cyclist deaths are children

6.About one in seven road casualties happen on urban roads, but over a half of deaths happen on rural roads

where you go faster so obviously speed has nothing to do with death

7. 42% of deaths happen in darkness

while as there are far less cars on the road so it is obviously OK to speed at night

8. 4 out of 5 road deaths occur in collisions involving cars

9. Car drivers between 17 and 20 are six times more likely to be involved in an injury collision than a driver over 40

young people drive faster

10. Excess or inappropriate speed is a main or contributory factor in one third of all collisions

so if people didn't speed we could cut accidents by a third

11.For every 1% reduction in mean traffic speed, fatalities reduce by about 7%

12. Impact speed determines the severity of injury, e.g. 5% of pedestrians hit at 20 mph are killed, at 30 mph 45% are killed and at 40 mph 85% are killed

13. About 5% of all road casualties and 15% of deaths are alcohol-related

14. An estimated 10% of collisions are related to driver fatigue

15. Vehicle defects are a contributory factor in an estimated 5% of collisions

Chris
13th-November-2003, 12:25 PM
One of my biggest concerns about speeding is police car chases that may be for comparatively minor things - a speeding car coming round a blind bend kills a child (or elderly person or tax-payer) whether the car is a police car or a joy-rider. I heard one state in America dramatically cut raod deaths by limiting police speed chases to serious crime such as murder and drug trafficking.

Back to the thread though, has someone already posted the widely reported news story from the other day? A lot of money is spent based on an assumption that cameras drastically reduce accidents, but it would be good to see revenue from fines poured directly back into ongoing accident prevention research.

Here's a short(ish) version of the news item (apologies if it's already been posted - haven't read all the thread). . .

"SPEED cameras have been slammed as a £150million failure which do not save lives.

A study by Autocar magazine shows they do not deter drivers and may CAUSE accidents.

And the increased reliance on speed cameras has led to a reduction in police patrols — meaning other serious offences go undetected.

Edmund King of the RAC, who helped carry out the study, said the people caught by cameras were often not the drivers causing accidents.

Research shows that while the number of drivers caught by cameras has risen four-fold since 1996, there is less than a five per cent drop in road deaths.

Britain has seen the number of speed cameras go from zero in 1993 to more than 5000 in 2001, but Buckingham says neither a reduction in speeds nor a marked reduction in serious and fatal accidents has been achieved.

"The net result of years of speed cameras in Britain and Australia is that road speeds have not slowed significantly . . . hundreds of thousands of the safest drivers are convicted each year and the goodwill between law abiding citizens and the police is evaporating.

Despite Buckingham's criticisms he said the devices could be effective in deterring motorists from breaking the law at known accident blackspots where speed has been a major factor.

Autocar and the RAC have sent the findings to the Government."

psyc0diver
13th-November-2003, 12:25 PM
The car manufactrers are not allowed to fit them to the vehicule - as this contravines the safety directives for car design (crumple-zones etc). but they can sell them with the car to be fitted by a third party.
The thing is - how do you distiguish between a townie and a ****-kicker.
The bull-bars were developed in Oz to stop cars being totalled by roo's jumping out into the road. THERE ISNT A HELL OF A LOT OF KANGAROOS IN SCOTLAND!

stewart38
13th-November-2003, 12:26 PM
If people didn't hog the middle lane there would be no need to undertake them. I will often flash them to move over (assuming of course the inner lane is totally clear). Why do they do that ?

Most of accidents on the Motorways don't have a primary cause as speeding. (ref me :rolleyes: )

Yes the Bull-Bar thing they were going to be banned,then they were not

I think we should ban all school runs as the streets would be safer.

If we banned all cars the world would be safer.

Speed kills so does hamburgers at the end of the day a law needs to be enforcable and if 95% of people are against cash for cameras it won't help.
Not sure what the GDP has to with the cash for cameras ?

Boomer
13th-November-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by psyc0diver
The car manufactrers are not allowed to fit them to the vehicule - as this contravines the safety directives for car design (crumple-zones etc). but they can sell them with the car to be fitted by a third party.
The thing is - how do you distiguish between a townie and a ****-kicker.
The bull-bars were developed in Oz to stop cars being totalled by roo's jumping out into the road. THERE ISNT A HELL OF A LOT OF KANGAROOS IN SCOTLAND!

Thanks mate. I thought there was also a loop-hole, and remember thinking at the time that it would be difficult to enforce.

Chris
13th-November-2003, 12:32 PM
Autocar magazine also said its study of speed camera locations on British roadways indicated a bias in favour of targeting safer roads, adding fuel to the criticism that speed cameras may be deployed to bring in revenues rather than to improve safety.

Autocar editor Steve Fowler said the government claimed cameras would be sited where there was a history of speed-related accidents "and that they are not there as a means of raising money". The magazine said there are 24 cameras on the 50 safest roads and just 18 on the 49 most dangerous. It based its research on estimates of risky roads from an AA study into more than 830 roads nationwide. The most dangerous was reckoned to be the A889 near Dalwhinnie in Perth and Kinross, where an 8.4 mile stretch of road had an accident rate of 875 fatal and serious accidents per 1bn vehicle kilometers between 1997 and 1999 - but no speed cameras. The second most hazardous road - an eight-mile section of the A537 between Macclesfield in Cheshire and Buxton in Derbyshire - also had no cameras.

Chris
13th-November-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by psyc0diver
THERE ISNT A HELL OF A LOT OF KANGAROOS IN SCOTLAND!

Shows how effective the bull-bars are doesn't it? :wink:

Boomer
13th-November-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Chris
Shows how effective the bull-bars are doesn't it? :wink:

:rofl:

psyc0diver
13th-November-2003, 12:46 PM
Nice one boomer!
re the statistic list - beware them as they are chosen/designed to prove what you set out to justify.
"There are lies, damned lies & statistics" - Winston Churchhill

6.About one in seven road casualties happen on urban roads, but over a half of deaths happen on rural roads

where you go faster so obviously speed has nothing to do with death

But also where visibility is restricted

7. 42% of deaths happen in darkness

while as there are far less cars on the road so it is obviously OK to speed at night

Yeah & the 58% that happen IN BROAD DAYLIGHT is because of less speed?

8. 4 out of 5 road deaths occur in collisions involving cars

9. Car drivers between 17 and 20 are six times more likely to be involved in an injury collision than a driver over 40

young people drive faster

And are less experienced & have dodgy cars

10. Excess or inappropriate speed is a main or contributory factor in one third of all collisions

so if people didn't speed we could cut accidents by a third

Its only contributory

11.For every 1% reduction in mean traffic speed, fatalities reduce by about 7%

So if we reduce the speed limit to 20 there will be no accidents at all & there will be no statistics like 5% of pedestrians hit at 20 mph are killed

12. Impact speed determines the severity of injury, e.g. 5% of pedestrians hit at 20 mph are killed, at 30 mph 45% are killed and at 40 mph 85% are killed

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by PeterL
Fifteen Key Facts About Road Safety

1. A half of all road deaths are to car occupants

2. Pedestrians make up over just over a quarter of all road deaths
Okie....

So, that's just over three-quarters of the number of people involved in road deaths.

Who are the missing quarter (presumably cyclists?). And why aren't the numbers quoted?? Aren't they important?? :tears:

Steve

Sonic
13th-November-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Incidentally, there were 312 deaths on the roads last year (average 6 per week). There were 466 deaths due to fires in homes. I say that we should not allow the use of fire. Or homes.


LOL!

How many motorists out there? About 20 million. How many of them speed? At least 19 million. How many times a year do they speed? Let's say 5 for arguments sake.

So out of 95 million incidents of speeding, there are 312 deaths. I've got a new government soundbite: "SPEED KILLS...0.00032% of the time". We need to quadruple speed cameras next year to eliminate this unacceptably high risk!

Where's my lottery ticket? I've got more chance of becoming a millionaire!

DavidB
13th-November-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Who are the missing quarter (presumably cyclists?). And why aren't the numbers quoted?? Aren't they important??I've heard that since we killed all the kangaroos in the UK, they are going to rename them 'cycle bars' and see if they have the same effect.

stewart38
13th-November-2003, 01:05 PM
If cyclist didn't go through red lights and ride on pavments I'm sure they would come to less harm,so there fare game

Re sonic maths have to agree but would suggest the average motorist exceeds the speed limit by 5 times a day not a year

0.000000899% or is it 0.000000899% ?

I know there is a serious side to this but you can't dispute the 'facts'

Also when I text and drive I slow down so that suggest I'm driving safer ?? :devil:

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 01:11 PM
Incidentally, having been facious.... here's my true feelings on the subject of speeding, and speed cameras...

I agree that excessive speed can kill. It's a fact, it's difficult to argue against it. However, I firmly believe that it's not most people that drive fast who cause the accidents. It's the people who do totally stupid things while driving. Reversing round corners into high streets, U turns in the middle of busy traffic, parking in places to restrict vision, driving without due care and attention, driving without consideration for fellow road users, etc, etc. I'm firmly in agreement that should any of the above be spotted by the authorities, that removal of a licence should result. However, having driven in London for a number of years, I've lost count of the number of times I've seen things like this happening, in full view of the police, and nothing has been done about it.

My main gripe about speed cameras, is that they are just black and white. If you are going above the speed limit, you are caught. Quite often, you could be driving above the speed limit, in a totally safe manner, and if 'caught' by the police, let off with a warning, or not even stopped. I've been driving for 18 years, do an average of about 15-20,000 a year, have never had an accident, and until last year, had never had a speeding ticket. I've now got 2 - driving at 58mph in a 50 mile zone through roadworks that had nobody working in them on a motorway, and driving at 36mph in a 30 mile zone in Brighton at 2am in the morning.

Yeah, I was breaking the law. Can't deny it. On the other hand, the chances of anything untoward happening were zero. And if I'd been seen by a policeman in either incident, I strongly believe the chances of them stopping me to be zero too.

Steve

Sonic
13th-November-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Re sonic maths have to agree but would suggest the average motorist exceeds the speed limit by 5 times a day not a year

0.000000899% or is it 0.000000899% ?

Yeah, I know, and the number of motorists exceeding the speed limit is probably nearer 20m instead of 19m. What does that make the rates now?

PeterL
13th-November-2003, 01:24 PM
So it appears to me the opinion of this forum is.

speeding is OK brecause we are all good drivers and the risk is minimal because we know what we are doing.

Speed cameras are wrong because they fine people like us who are perfectly responsible and know how to drive, it is other people that drive badly that cause the accidents.

fair enough if I had realised that everyone on this forum was that good a driver that they can decide what the safe speed for any given road in any condition is then I wouldn't have said a word.

and Steve driving at 38 in town is too fast at night there are pedestrains still and they are harder to spot than other cars.


I have stated my opinion and still stand by it, your arguments are to justify your own bad behaviour.

I have sped in the past myself and have paid speeding fines for what at the time I thought was a safe speed.
I was wrong to go too fast and deserved the fine.

if the only way to stop people speeding is to fine them then fine them, and if there are other dangerous practices such as driving without care and attention then fine them too

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by PeterL
and Steve driving at 38 in town is too fast at night there are pedestrains still and they are harder to spot than other cars.

I have stated my opinion and still stand by it, your arguments are to justify your own bad behaviour.Okie. Firstly, it was 36, and not 38. If you're going to quote me, at least have the decency to quote me correctly.

Secondly, you know nothing about the circumstances, or the road I was driving on. How can you have the gall to judge me?

Thirdly, 'bad behaviour'?? Maybe, in the eyes of the law. However, if you were less patronising, it'd probably help. It's your opinion, I'm not personally attacking you because you hold it. I'd appreciate it if you returned the favour.

Steve

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 01:35 PM
[TOTALLY ODA VIEW]
Maybe people who run out in front of cars deserve to die. It's just evolution doing her job. Survival of the fittest and all that jazz
[ODA OFF]

(Please note, I am again just being facious, and do not subscribe to this point of view at all).

Steve

Lory
13th-November-2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp

My main gripe about speed cameras, is that they are just black and white. If you are going above the speed limit, you are caught. Quite often, you could be driving above the speed limit, in a totally safe manner, and if 'caught' by the police, let off with a warning, or not even stopped. I've been driving for 18 years, do an average of about 15-20,000 a year, have never had an accident, and until last year, had never had a speeding ticket. I've now got 2 - driving at 58mph in a 50 mile zone through roadworks that had nobody working in them on a motorway, and driving at 36mph in a 30 mile zone in Brighton at 2am in the morning.

Yeah, I was breaking the law. Can't deny it. On the other hand, the chances of anything untoward happening were zero. And if I'd been seen by a policeman in either incident, I strongly believe the chances of them stopping me to be zero too.

Steve I agree totally, I've been driving over 20years and never been caught speeding but in the last year ive been done twice, once was on the A1....going 56mph at 1am, I was the only one on the road at the time! GRRRRR:devil:

Chris
13th-November-2003, 01:41 PM
I would say the main reason speeding is wrong is because it's against the law.

We live in a supposedly democratic society and have a duty to uphold the law or change it through democratic means. Not claiming to be a goody two shoes, but neither do I think speeding is ok, and the fact that it is illegal is enough to make it 'wrong' - but how 'wrong' you believe it is, is a subjective decision.

- chill {road rage off} :waycool:

Gadget
13th-November-2003, 02:06 PM
I don't really object to cameras; if you get caught, then you obviously were not paying as much attention to the road as you should be.
(Which is why I think you often see "Camera lines" on dangerous or potential accident black-spots where there is no camera and there was no intention of ever being one - just to slow you down.)

There are a couple of "Traffic Calming" things I do object to however:
- Large speed bumps; Bumps that scrape the underside of your car and contribute drastically to the wear and tear of your suspension. I also see no point in putting in speed bumps when "give way" blocks have been put in place on the same road (blocking off one lane and giving the other priority)
I don't mind the ones a full car or two in length (bump up..bump down) as they are effective and cause very little in the way of disruption to passengers or cargo. Same with the little ones that go right accross the road. These red/orange pyramids cause cargo to be shoogled and dislodged and pasengers disrupted. :mad:

- "20's plenty" limits; I have no real objection to them in principle; a 20 limit in a residential area is 110% OK by me. But when it's only on the one 'main' road leading through it, that has speed bumps on it, it's a bit redundant! And to make matters worse, they put 30 signs on all the residential side road exits where there are nursarys, cars parked, dogs being walked, kids running... :mad:
Aside from the fact that any speed below 30 is unenforcable, it's such a waste of goverment funds!

BTW Re:Being pulled over for speeding - seemingly the cop car's calibration has to be certified daily, and failure of them to produce a valid calibration certificate at the time means that they can't charge you.

PeterL
13th-November-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Okie. Firstly, it was 36, and not 38. If you're going to quote me, at least have the decency to quote me correctly.

Secondly, you know nothing about the circumstances, or the road I was driving on. How can you have the gall to judge me?

Thirdly, 'bad behaviour'?? Maybe, in the eyes of the law. However, if you were less patronising, it'd probably help. It's your opinion, I'm not personally attacking you because you hold it. I'd appreciate it if you returned the favour. I apologise for causing offence.:sorry
I just have trouble believing that so many people can justify speeding and state it is OK when it is not just there own lives at risk, as I said I do not know the circumstances and have been guilty of speeding myself in the past as stated in an earlier post.

I am not trying to offend anyone but am trying to state the case that speed cameras are there to catch people speeding, if you weren't speeding you wouldn't get caught and the roads would be safer, you may end up being a few minutes later but in the scheme of things it is better to arrive alive.

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 02:54 PM
That's no probs Peter. And now it's my turn to apologise. Having re-read my post when you quoted it. I think it makes me sound more upset than I probably was.

Having said that, while, like you, I was definitely guilty of driving too fast when I was younger, for the last few years, I've generally been driving at a much more reasonable speed.

Indeed, most of the time I drive up to Aberdeen (for example), I'm doing around 55-60mph on a 70mph road, mainly because it's cheaper on fuel (than a speeding issue) now that I'm a poor student, and I just make sure that I leave the house 15 minutes earlier to facilitate this. And indeed seem to spend most of the journey on the A979 from Stonehaven to Peterculter (a winding country road) cursing the drivers who speed up behind me (even though I'm doing 50mph), and then drive about --> <--- far away from my rear bumper.

Which makes it even more galling to now have 2 speeding offences against my licence, when both times, I felt that I was comfortably within safe driving speeds for the road conditions at the time (and hence wasn't paying close attention to the speedometer). As I said, I very much doubt that any watching policeman would have been at all interested in the speeds I was doing on both occasions.

I will however say that, especially on motorways, and other main roads, I do feel that the speed limit is probably too low - especially given that it was set as far back as I can remember (25 years ago at least I think), and cars are generally much safer these days - with ABS systems, power steering etc. 70mph and 80mph are probably not that much different really. As indeed is 100mph - if you crash, or hit something at those speeds, it really won't make a lot of difference. And on a free-flowing motorway, with good driving conditions, it shouldn't really be a problem driving at even 100mph (accepted that maybe then bad drivers wouldn't take account of the conditions, and just drive at 100mph anyhow). It would be interesting to see how the accident rate on the German Autobahns compares with our motorways (I'm far too lazy to look it up now).

Steve

psyc0diver
13th-November-2003, 03:03 PM
An interesting fact - re speed limits on motorways,.
One of the cheif constables in England about 5 years ago, got into a bit of trouble for stating that the SL on the M should be raised to 80 - as the general safety & design of cars, tyres & especially the quality of the roads is better.
The SL in France is 120 which is about 80, but they dont allow local traffic on the motorway. There is usually only one access er town.
another good thing they do is switch most of the traffic lights to flashing amber after 9pm which means treat it as a normal junction. No sitting like a pudding for 3 mins at 4 am.

Sheepman
13th-November-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
cars are generally much safer these days - with ABS systems, power steering etc. 70mph and 80mph are probably not that much different really. As indeed is 100mph - if you crash, or hit something at those speeds, it really won't make a lot of difference.
Agreed cars are a lot safer nowadays (pedestrians and bicylces are not). Is your inference that if you crash at 70mph or above you've had it, or are you saying that cars are now safe enough to crash at that speed?
I may need some help from up to date physicists here, but the energy absorbed in a crash isn't a linear relationship with the speed. So for instance at 100 mph, the energy is 4 times that at 50mph.

It would be interesting to see a poll on how many of us speed on a regular basis, (my guess is about 99.9%). If you are not aware enough of the road to detect a camera and slow down for it, then you have no chance of being aware enough to slow down for that child or animal that may run out on you, or that cone that's been dislodged around the bend in otherwise deserted motorway roadworks.

Greg

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman
Agreed cars are a lot safer nowadays (pedestrians and bicylces are not). Is your inference that if you crash at 70mph or above you've had it, or are you saying that cars are now safe enough to crash at that speed?
I may need some help from up to date physicists here, but the energy absorbed in a crash isn't a linear relationship with the speed. So for instance at 100 mph, the energy is 4 times that at 50mph.

It would be interesting to see a poll on how many of us speed on a regular basis, (my guess is about 99.9%). If you are not aware enough of the road to detect a camera and slow down for it, then you have no chance of being aware enough to slow down for that child or animal that may run out on you, or that cone that's been dislodged around the bend in otherwise deserted motorway roadworks.

Greg Nope. The inference is that the speed limit could possibly be raised (from the first part of the sentence before you chopped it off. The second part is that crashing a car at 70, 80, or 100mph probably won't make much difference to the people inside.

Incidentally, that was talking about motorways. And you don't get pedestrians or bicycles on motorways - at least, you shouldn't anyhow. It's against the law :D

It would maybe be an interesting poll. Feel free... :D

And yes. We probably should all be aware of speed cameras. So, you drive up to them, 15 mph above the speed limit. Become aware. Slow down until you pass them. Then speed up again. So what's the point??

Dunno why I'm defending this so much, when I really don't break the speed limit so much. Maybe I should just shut up now, before everyone loses the will to live. Guess I just love a good discussion :D

Steve

stewart38
13th-November-2003, 03:38 PM
That's the point !

People shouldn't have to be looking out for camera breaking sharply etc

Whether its right people break sharply is irrelevant as thats what they do

Its interesting about the subject of 'education'. ie smoking ,now speeding

I guess if you told people who were stuck in the trenches in the first world war who proabably smoke 100 cigs a day that passive smoking was bad for you they would probably say so is mustard gas

Maybe in 20yrs time people who talk flippantly about speeding will be seen as lowlife and we will be on about the obesity epidimic and talking about the old days when you could eat a hamburger with impunity and not have some one bash you on the head for it (or is that in 3 yrs time ?) .

:sick: :sick:

Sheepman
13th-November-2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Incidentally, there were 312 deaths on the roads last year (average 6 per week).

Steve, write out 100 times "I really must check my facts when they look ridiculous"

In the year 2000, there where 3,409 road deaths in the UK, I can't find anything more up to date, but I think we'd hear the government crowing if it had gone down by a factor of 10!

Greg

PeterL
13th-November-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
That's the point !

People shouldn't have to be looking out for camera breaking sharply etc

Whether its right people break sharply is irrelevant as thats what they do




I agree they shouldn't have to break sharply, if they weren't speeding they wouldn't have to.

Sheepman
13th-November-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Nope. The inference is that the speed limit could possibly be raised (from the first part of the sentence before you chopped it off. The second part is that crashing a car at 70, 80, or 100mph probably won't make much difference to the people inside. I assumed that's what you meant, just checking.

Also losing the will to live on this, but it get's my goat people thinking they have a right to speed (i.e. break the law) with impunity. Like someone has said, lobby for higher speed limits, looks like the Tory's will be in next time!

Greg

Sheepman
13th-November-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
ps I didn't commit perjury ! (you need to read up on that)

OK sorry, just re-read it, that must have been your 'mate'. (Quote marks yours, not mine.)

A dictionary (not a legal) definition -
Perjury - committed by a witness in judicial proceedings who, having been lawfully sworn or affirmed, wilfully gives false evidence.

Greg

TheTramp
13th-November-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman
Steve, write out 100 times "I really must check my facts when they look ridiculous"

In the year 2000, there where 3,409 road deaths in the UK, I can't find anything more up to date, but I think we'd hear the government crowing if it had gone down by a factor of 10!

Greg Did I say anything about the UK??

My number is for Scotland. Which is the only place that really counts (except for Wales of course!!) :D

Steve

Sonic
13th-November-2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman
Also losing the will to live on this, but it get's my goat people thinking they have a right to speed (i.e. break the law) with impunity. Like someone has said, lobby for higher speed limits, looks like the Tory's will be in next time!

Greg

I think you'll find most people on this forum agree with you on this! Nobody is saying that we should be allowed to speed with impunity, we're simply asking for common sense enforcement. (I'm not going into whether we should raise speed limits, this thread is about cameras)

I was recently caught speeding by the rozzers on a dual carriageway. The patrol car pulled alongside and the officer told me to slow down. Which I did, and he went on his way. I'm guessing he chose not to brand me a criminal that day because he could see that there was absolutely no danger. The difference between me and Tramp/Lory is that I was lucky to have the benefit of common sense policing.

I've noticed a proliferation in my area of cameras which flash up a reminder of the speed limit when they detect that you are exceeding it. No fines result from these. The police issued a statement, saying that they believe these cameras are effective because they appeal to the goodwill of motorists, the majority of whom are responsible. Common sense enforcement.

Sheepman
13th-November-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by TheTramp
Did I say anything about the UK?? Ooops sorry, not thinking again!

Have you got some lines for me :cheers:

Greg

stewart38
13th-November-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
ps I didn't commit perjury ! (you need to read up on that)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

""""
OK sorry, just re-read it, that must have been your 'mate'. (Quote marks yours, not mine.)

A dictionary (not a legal) definition -
Perjury - committed by a witness in judicial proceedings who, having been lawfully sworn or affirmed, wilfully gives false evidence.

Greg""

As I said my witness didn't exist so no perjury happened. If you start that in court you are in deep water

The lawyer :blush:

Gadget
13th-November-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by PeterL
I agree they shouldn't have to break sharply, if they weren't speeding they wouldn't have to.
If they were looking out for the cameras they shouldn't have to break sharply either - you shoud be able to spot them in loads of time.
And if someone is following close enough that a driver infront of them breaking sharply for a camera affects their driving, then 1) they are tailgateing 2) they are also speeding and have no right to complain. :devil:

Sheepman
13th-November-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
As I said my witness didn't exist so no perjury happened. If you start that in court you are in deep water
I had assumed (and could be way off the mark), that your 'mate' was a witness in his own defence in court, and was under oath - hence perjury if he was making up stories.

Greg

stewart38
14th-November-2003, 01:13 PM
He didn't exist ?

I wouldn't ask for someone to lie in court

If the CPS had ever asked for 'evidence' from him I would have come clean immediately

:what:


Anyway it was nice to have a 'debate' on speeding

Dreadful Scathe
14th-November-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
Re sonic maths have to agree but would suggest the average motorist exceeds the speed limit by 5 times a day not a year

Doubt it very much - your 'average' motorist drives on the busiest roads during the rush hour where speeding is not much of a problem. So 5 times a day ? waaaay over the top :)

It also could be argued that NOT keeping up with the average speed of the cars around you is dangerous to yourself and others and causes more accidents. Im sure theres proof on this - in fact i tried it once by sitting at 80 in the outside lane of the motorway i get undertaken by 8 cars and got some seriously angry glares. Just a little experiment you understand :).

Agree totally that cameras only handle the letter of the law - remember all the old films where the husband got caught speeding his pregnant and about to give birth wife to the hospital andthe police give him an escort there instead. He'd just come back home to 6 speeding tickets on his doormat these days. Oops that'll be no licence for 3 years then :(.

Sheepman
18th-November-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by stewart38
He didn't exist ?

I wouldn't ask for someone to lie in court

I think one of us has missed the point here. The way I undrestand it, (and I'm not a lawyer so could be wrong) is that any one that gets up in court and gives false evidence under oath is committing perjury. This applies equally to a defendant as well as to any other witnesses.

Back to the speeding, how do you define "number of times" you speed in a day. If it is every time the speedo needle goes above the current limit, then I must do it dozens of times, each time I drive, (and sometimes when cycling) even though most of my driving is done in London.

For example, if you did 100 miles on a motorway at a steady 75, would that be just once that you've been speeding, or if you did the same journey and had to slow down below 70 on 20 occasions, then have you been speeding 20 times?
So I'd be pleased to know exactly what it means when someone says they've been speeding "5 times a month" or whatever.

Greg

Sonic
18th-November-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Sheepman
Back to the speeding, how do you define "number of times" you speed in a day. If it is every time the speedo needle goes above the current limit, then I must do it dozens of times, each time I drive, (and sometimes when cycling) even though most of my driving is done in London.

For example, if you did 100 miles on a motorway at a steady 75, would that be just once that you've been speeding, or if you did the same journey and had to slow down below 70 on 20 occasions, then have you been speeding 20 times?
So I'd be pleased to know exactly what it means when someone says they've been speeding "5 times a month" or whatever.

Greg

The purpose of my original post was simply to illustrate the number of incidents of speeding against the number of deaths to show that statistically, the risk of death from speeding ALONE was tiny. I made the assumption that the average motorist speeds "5 times a year" because then for the purpose of my illustration it wouldn't matter how you define an incident of speeding, because my estimate was so low. What I mean is that, whether or not you define doing 75mph for 30 minutes past 3 cameras as one incident of speeding or 3, no one could argue that your average motorist will speed at least 5 times a year.

For the purpose of my illustration, by speeding, I meant every time the speedo goes over the limit. But when you continuously speed, I counted it as one so that no one could argue that I was using inflated figures to support my argument. However, as far as the law is concerned, I believe that in my example, it would count as 3 incidents. HTH.

Franck
13th-December-2003, 10:19 PM
Apologies for resurrecting this old thread :D but I thought I should warn everyone about the new speed cameras about to be introduced on UK roads!

Emma
13th-December-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Franck
Apologies for resurrecting this old thread :D but I thought I should warn everyone about the new speed cameras about to be introduced on UK roads! Do I detect a hint of paranoia here, Mr Pauly?? :what:

Tazmanian Devil
13th-December-2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Franck
Apologies for resurrecting this old thread :D but I thought I should warn everyone about the new speed cameras about to be introduced on UK roads! Ooh Scarry. I dont drive myself but can see this would be very worrying even for the passangers!! :sick:

DavidB
14th-December-2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Franck
Apologies for resurrecting this old thread :D but I thought I should warn everyone about the new speed cameras about to be introduced on UK roads! Well drivers can always get their own back...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232777.stm

DangerousCurves
14th-December-2003, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by PeterL
I agree they shouldn't have to break sharply, if they weren't speeding they wouldn't have to.

Co-incidently, just a few days ago I nearly had a crash. I was doing just under 30 mph. The road is very straight and has two lanes of traffic in each direction and it's not a residential area - it feels like a 40mph road. A car overtook me in the outside lane at about 40mph, spotted the camera and slammed on its brakes, pulling into my inside lane for good measure to look law abiding. I stood on the brakes and managed to to miss the back of its boot by a few inches.

I was nearly injured, when NOT speeding, due to a reaction to a camera which I do feel is deliberately placed on a road with an inappropriate and unexpected speed limit. I didn't like what the other motorist did - but I understood why he had fallen into error. We have two schools and a hospital only a few roads away - but no cameras there. This feels like a revenue making trap.

By the way, I may be wrong, but thought that some official body had published statistics saying that tiredness/ falling asleep at the wheel was now the biggest killer on the road? So why no big campaign to make people feel that this is not socially responsible behaviour? perhaps because its not so easy to catch tired drivers by some automatic process and fine them??

Don't get me wrong - I don't want my roads peopled either by speed-freaks or sleeping zombies - but I want to see fair and ethical enforcement of the law with some degree of reasonableness and equity according to circumstances, not a degradation of our legal process, with justice and real issues of safety taking a back seat in favour of money-making considerations.

TheTramp
14th-December-2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Franck
Apologies for resurrecting this old thread :D but I thought I should warn everyone about the new speed cameras about to be introduced on UK roads! And to think that while you were doing that Franck, you could have been dancing the night away in the Bonar Hall....!!!

Steve

Dance Demon
14th-December-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by DangerousCurves
like a revenue making trap.

By the way, I may be wrong, but thought that some official body had published statistics saying that tiredness/ falling asleep at the wheel was now the biggest killer on the road? So why no big campaign to make people feel that this is not socially responsible behaviour? perhaps because its not so easy to catch tired drivers by some automatic process and fine them??

D

Interesting point. I suffer from a condition called obstructive Sleep Apnoea....(pronouncerd Apnia), which was diagnosed about 10 years ago. It causes the throat muscles to close when you sleep, causing, initially snoring, then eventually choking. This choking causes the brain to awake enough to open the throat muscles. This can happen several times in a minute in extreme cases, and means that the sufferer gets very little deep refreshing sleep. This in turn causes the sufferer to nod off during the day. I have probably been a sufferer most of my adult life, but was not diagnosed until 10 years ago. Unfortunately, 10 years previous to that, I fell asleep behind the wheel of my car and crashed into a stone wall. It took the fire brigade 2 hours to cut me out, and I spent several months in hospital, learning how to walk again......after they had pieced the bones in my legs back together with pins, screws, and wire. The condition is easily fixed, by wearing a mask that blows air through the nose, keeping the throat open. I now sleep like a baby every night..( no not with my thumb in my mouth...before anyone asks :rolleyes: )
The moral of this story is...if you are a snorer.. and frequently feel sleepy during the day.......go get it checked out it could save your life:wink:

stewart38
15th-December-2003, 11:11 AM
I'm glad to see most of the papers are now against the cash for cameras scheme

:rolleyes: