[Closed] Increased speeding fines

The cars that wind me are the totally superfluous trackday specials that belt around the countryside on a Sunday, them and motorbikes

I'm the opposite. I'm not really that fussed about the odd leisure drive/ride, they're too infrequent to matter.
What bothers me is choking on fumes every day on my way to work because people are selfish and lazy bastards.

b r - Member

Best form of city/urban transport

There's also an invention that doesn't rely on churning out fumes to run: the bicycle. 💡

[quote=mattyfez ]Bring in the automated car, that's the real solution for road safety.
Take ego and attitude out of the equation.

This, it is much the best idea.

And I had absolutely no idea that the car tax fund thingy is not enough to pay for the road network, I thought it covered the roads and a lot more. Interesting.
Shows how powerful the car lobby is perceived to be by the gov.

5plusn8 - Member

This, it is much the best idea.

Is it ****.

Ceasing to rely on the car is the best idea.

Ceasing to rely on the car is the best idea.

Poly - yes its true. of course you can manipulate stats any way you like but take the total cost of motoring to the country and subtract the total taxation raised only from motorists and you have a huge subsidy or many hundreds a year.

You have to do things like include the cost of all injuries and deaths ( million pounds a death x 2000 a year just from RTCs) o the roads, the cost of congestion, the costs of illhealth from vehicle fumes and the value of the land used.

This summary sums it up quite well:
[img] [/img]
However it is worth noting that inevitably the external factors are estimates, and the author has adopted the larger number in any range and made a sweeping assumption that it can be extrapolated to the 20% of the population outside of English Urban Areas. When you reverse those assumptions you get back to something much closer to break even. Now, in fact, if you consider that even if we had no private motorists we would still need roads for busses, deliveries, emergency services etc - then perhaps that 9BN on roads (which happens to be the amount of the worst case "subsidy") should actually be shared by the whole country anyway as it is essential infrastructure that keeps the country working - regardless of whether you ever drive a car yourself.

Now I commute on public transport so would love to see more investment there, and although a car owner have no objection to increased motoring taxes, so I suppose it depends what you'd call a huge subsidy.

Roads are paid for by local authorities not from motoring taxes

Its not necessarily that people don't want to hear your argument - but if you obscure it in misleading claims like that it makes it hard to believe the rest was prepared from an entirely impartial viewpoint.

I reckon my motorbike costs me £60 per ride before I put petrol in it.

£20 per gallon won't stop me going for a blast on a summer Sunday. Nor stop me speeding. No point in having a litre bike and sticking to 70mph.

The hand wringing, holier than thou STW massive can go **** themselves.

It would still only come into the nearest town, and not near enough for me to carry my shopping home?

But people won't do it without infrastructure. I don't blame anyone who doesn't feel safe to ride on our roads as they're currently built. But if we build them with safe space for cycling then people will use it.

The same goes for public transport.

But as we can see on this thread, stuff gets an as an attack on motorists, or extrapolated out so "maybe don't use a car for every trip" becomes "everyone should have their car taken away".

One thing that's often overlooked with our car-centric way of doing things is how isolating it can be for people who can't drive, e.g. for financial or medical reasons. If you've been used to driving everywhere and all of a sudden your cataracts mean you lose your license then you're going to feel stranded. It's easy to say "nah, keep driving cheap and easy, we don't need proper public transport" when you're a driver. I'm not surprised elderly people hide medical conditions in order to keep their driving licenses.

The Netherlands is something we should aim for IMO, yet try have a higher rate of car ownership than we do. It's not anti car, it's just that we're so far pro-car that any movement looks "anti".

zanelad - Member

The hand wringing, holier than thou STW massive can go **** themselves.

No need, for there are women on the moral high ground. 😀

Ps, baggsy your lungs. 😉

I'm loving the posts by people who claim speeding is okay if you have the skill or the conditions are right. It doesn't matter how much skill you have or think you have, you are not alone on the roads and cannot account for the behavior of others. The limits are there for a reason.

I knew a bloke who thought he was skilled enough to drive quicker than the limit. I sat in court and watched him, head bowed, as the prosecution detailed what had happened to my brother when his car hit him.

35 in a 30, just making progress. According to the people that actually know what they are talking about 5 mph slower and the chance of two young kids still having a father and me still being able to hang out with my older brother would have been a damned sight higher. Stick your excuses and your reasons for speeding firmly up your arse.

Poly correct - its taxes on motoring not taxes from motorists

(And who has ever been done for speeding while overtaking? Nonsense argument).

Me, in the 'slow vehicle- only overtaking spot for miles' scenario. On the A9 by a mobile van camera. I think they were there on purpose and it was a bit unsporting but i did it so I paid up.

I'm a big fan of the average speed cams on the A9, I'm on it twice a day, it takes sod all extra time and its a nicer place to be

Me as well. on the a9. By a mobile camera. Booting it past a line of trucks on a dualled bit. 84 mph. £100 and 3 pts.

Ps, baggsy your lungs.

Well, you wouldn't want his brain.

[quote=tjagain ]Me as well. on the a9. By a mobile camera. Booting it past a line of trucks on a dualled bit. 84 mph. £100 and 3 pts.

Were you in the outside lane of the dual or had you crossed to the oncoming traffic?

Funkmasterp

I don't think you'll find any of the 'speeders' are condoning speeding in 30/40 limits, were saying that you should drive to the conditions and environment - which is why many of us 'suffer' vehicles right up our backsides when in 30/40 limits. Because most drivers DON'T, and seem to trundle along at whatever speed is the slowest in top gear their vehicle is comfortable at.

b r - motorways, I accept that going quicker with all traffic heading in the same direction, in some instances makes sense. Anywhere else, regardless of conditions or environment, there are far too many other factors at play. That's why speed limits exist and are enforced.

I admit my opinion is possibly biased, but you speed, you get fined, simple. It should go further and excessive speeding should result in a lifetime ban. Driving is a privilege and not a right. If people understood this now then there would be no need for threads like this to reach six pages.

5plusn8

In the outside lane. The camera was facing me ie I was heading towards the camera.

Well, you wouldn't want his brain.

Why not, it's not been over-used? 🙂

I'm all for minimum speed limits. That at least would get all the fools wobbling along on push bikes off the roads.

[quote=tjagain ]5plusn8
In the outside lane. The camera was facing me ie I was heading towards the camera.

Ah if I understand your description correctly then I feel that does not fit my definition of being caught speeding when "overtaking". I was thinking more on a single carriageway where you cross to the oncoming traffic side. Otherwise anyone caught by a camera speeding whilst in the middle or outside lane of the motorway was "overtaking". Do you get me?

Ps, baggsy your lungs

Of course you can. Luckily for you I've never been a smoker. £5,000 OK? Send the money now and I'll tell Mrs Z to put you down for them. 😀

5plusn8

Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible - roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

[quote=tjagain ]5plusn8
Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible - roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

I think we are talking crossed purposes here.

NOpe. I know what you mean. On the A1 on a single carriageway section south of edinburgh there is a long straight suitable for overtaking. there is a camera there specifically intended to catch drivers overtaking. Set up for exactly the scenario you think cannot happen

5plusn8 - Member
Ah if I understand your description correctly then I feel that does not fit my definition of being caught speeding when "overtaking".

Set up for exactly the scenario you think cannot happen

I can't really see many people being caught speeding whilst overtaking

So you and your brother haver neve broken a speed limit then? I find that hard to believe. In which case stick your sanctimonious drivel up your arse.

No I don't speed, never have. It's quite simple to stick to the limits you know. I don't recall my brother doing so either. He can't now though on account of being dead because somebody who was speeding hit him causing a massive brain bleed.

[quote=zanelad ]Stick your excuses and your reasons for speeding firmly up your arse.
So you and your brother haver neve broken a speed limit then? I find that hard to believe. In which case stick your sanctimonious drivel up your arse.

I think a little compassion is required here. It worries me that one persons right to arrive a bit earlier or to have more fun appears to trump others right to life.

5plusn8 - because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people overtaking

[quote=tjagain ]5plusn8 - because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people overtaking

Fair enough, I don't doubt that's the case.

This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road
https://goo.gl/maps/1iiNNwJ8Hh32

I think a little compassion is required here. It worries me that one persons right to arrive a bit earlier or to have more fun appears to trump others right to life.

Thank you. What I find incredulous is the fact that somebody can't seem to understand that others don't speed. That, in my opinion, is part of the issue. Speeding has been accepted to such a degree (by some individuals) in this country that they simply assume it's something everybody does.

The limit is just that, a limit. It's not a target or a minimum requirement. It's how fast you are legally able to travel under optimal road conditions. Perhaps some need revising, I would agree that this is the case for certain stretches of motorway and some dual carriageways.

You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

That's very common IME, I always thought it was so you couldn't evade the camera by just using the other lane rather than a specific measure to catch overtakers.

[quote=tjagain ]This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road
https://goo.gl/maps/1iiNNwJ8Hh32
br />

Or given what the others said earlier about how cameras can work both ways isn't this just to get speeders in any direction? I am sure it will get overtakers too, but I wonder that with the cost of cameras etc that this was set up only with the purpose of getting overtakers? Rather than just speeders in both directions.

Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible - roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

No you don't, Gatsos cannot do that.

This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

That's not a Gatso. It's the same type of camera they use to enforce red lights, IIRC it works by using sensors in the road (I don't know what it's called though). Could potentially work in both directions, I'm not sure.

tjagain - Member
This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

I'm pretty sure that style of camera is only capturing traffic moving away though, so it does seem set up to catch overtakes (heading towards a bend in the road)

FWIW there are no Gatsos on the A9 now. They were removed when the ASCs were installed. Some of the road markings still exist- with the expected comedic responses 🙂

Maybe its not the one I was thinking of

I thought these were gatsos. Oh well.

Assuming it is set up specifically to catch overtakers, you have to admit that it is an uncommon arrangement.

5plusn8 - because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people [b]exceeding the speed limit while[/b] overtaking

Fixed.

[i]The limit is just that, a limit. It's not a target or a minimum requirement. It's how fast you are legally able to travel under optimal road conditions. Perhaps some need revising, I would agree that this is the case for certain stretches of motorway and some dual carriageways. [/I]

Yep, an arbitrary number decided in the past - in fact the motorway and NSL limits were reduced for a time in the 70's as a fuel saving measure.

And as you say 'legally', so probably worth posting one of my favourite quotes (Michael Winner). To add context, I spent a lot of time riding a motorcycle in/around London, and there's no consistency to whether you can go in a bus lane or not, so had a fair few visits to TfL's appeals department.

They only charge you £60 to use them, and you get no points. Wonderful value!

The limit is just that, a limit. It's not a target or a minimum requirement.

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you'll fail. Strange, that.

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you'll fail. Strange, that.

I mentioned before that the statistics show that driving slower than the average speed increase the risk of an accident, much like going faster does.

Indeed. Google "85th percentile."

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you'll fail. Strange, that.

Exactly as you say, without good reason. Driving idiotically slowly, as mentioned above, is also extremely dangerous. If the road was covered in ice or you were driving in heavy fog you'd have good reason to drive at 15mph. Some people would continue to drive to the limit though because they seem to think that's the speed you have to go.

Yep, an arbitrary number decided in the past

Not all limits were set in the past. Plenty around where I live have been altered over the last few years. This is normally down to the number of accidents that have occurred on certain stretches of road. As I've previously said, some limits probably need looking at. In all fairness this would more than likely lead to further reductions not increases in limits. The road network appears to not be equipped to deal with the amount of traffic that utilises it.