Invisible speed camera + traffic calming rants

[scott1968]

Speed humps damage cars,

Irresponsible drivers damage more cars

they destablise them,

Driver slow over them

they create discomfort,

Driver slow over them

they make roads unusable by some vehicles.

What vehicles?

and they put lives at risk by slowing down emergency services vehicles.

They help save lives

The fact that they are an easy option for councils does not excuse them.

No – but I rather have speed humps than idiots on the roads.

 

[hermes]

No – but I rather have speed humps than idiots on the roads.

So would I, idiots keep standing up and wandering off, and then you have nothing to slow the traffic down.

 

[baldy01]

No – but I rather have speed humps than idiots on the roads.

So would I, idiots keep standing up and wandering off, and then you have nothing to slow the traffic down.

 

[Softus]

If I had the time and the money I would love to take a council to court to sue them for damage to my car because they had deliberately made it damaging to the car to drive at the posted speed limit.

Time and money would not be accepted as evidence that they had acted to deliberately damage transgressing cars. Your only chance of success would be a claim of negligence.

Speed humps are an effective way of slowing traffic

That isn't a fact, it's an opinion, because it depends on how you measure effectiveness. Have you seen this:

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/speedhumps.html

 

[Gary_M]

What vehicles?

This, unfortunately ............

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Irresponsible drivers damage more cars

But irresponsible drivers are not deliberately put in place by the council.

Driver slow over them

Driver slow over them

What is the justification for forcing drivers to go slower than is needed for safety reasons?

they make roads unusable by some vehicles.

What vehicles?

Why did you need to know which ones? GaryM had already told you that they had rendered a street-legal vehicle of his unusable.

and they put lives at risk by slowing down emergency services vehicles.

They help save lives

Is that meant to contradict what I wrote? Or is it meant to excuse the fact that they hinder emergency vehicles?

No – but I rather have speed humps than idiots on the roads.

I'd rather have neither, but I don't believe that the presence of the former removes the latter.

 

[Thermo]

ban-all-sheds wrote:
they make roads unusable by some vehicles.

you better get a 4 x 4 then, no problem over them!

 

[scott1968]

Irresponsible drivers damage more cars

But irresponsible drivers are not deliberately put in place by the council.

That’s right (well spotted)
Irresponsible driver are infinity times worse that speed bumps

Driver slow over them
Driver slow over them
What is the justification for forcing drivers to go slower than is needed for safety reasons?

That’s a matter of opinion what’s a save speed in a build up area. Technically the street I live has a 30 mph speed limit but I would never dream of going that fast,
The speed bumps have helped control irresponsible motorist speeding in the street and surrounding streets. There were moans from the residents at first but they have now seen the vast improvement from irresponsible drivers. That does not mean I like speed bumps but they are better than the a***holes in motors

they make roads unusable by some vehicles.
What vehicles
Why did you need to know which ones? GaryM had already told you that they had rendered a street-legal vehicle of his unusable.

Thanks GaryM for showing me that car, I would not blame the car or the speed bumps I would blame the a***holes.
You still have not showing me a car you were just being a bleat bleat.

and they put lives at risk by slowing down emergency services vehicles.
They help save lives
Is that meant to contradict what I wrote? Or is it meant to excuse the fact that they hinder emergency vehicles?

It’s an improvement in my street.

No – but I rather have speed humps than idiots on the roads.
I'd rather have neither, but I don't believe that the presence of the former removes the latter.

You will never get rid of the irresponsible drivers with the current laws, rules, regulations, etc, etc. But if speed bumps improves safety in the street I live I’m all for them.

 

[johnny_t]

Maybe speed bumps aren't the right answer, but I am all for slowing traffic down by road design, rather than enforcement.

As I see it, many roads have a 'natural' speed at which traffic flows down them. For example, in Leeds, there is a 6-lane urban motorway, running in its own canyon through the middle of town. The road being as it is actually encourages people to drive at, let's say, 70, but the limit is 40, enforced by camera.

If there was a real safety issue requiring you to drive at 40, surely they should redesign the road so as to be slower. Reduce it to 4 lanes, narrow the lanes, that sort of thing.

 

[masona]

Maybe speed bumps aren't the right answer, but I am all for slowing traffic down by road design, rather than enforcement.

How about more invisible speed cameras and more plain police cars? Drivers would have to think twice before speeding.

 

[johnny_t]

Maybe speed bumps aren't the right answer, but I am all for slowing traffic down by road design, rather than enforcement.

How about more invisible speed cameras and more plain police cars? Drivers would have to think twice before speeding.

There are (at least) two types of speeding to my mind, though.

The one I was talking about is where a road 'just flows' at 60, and they then stick a 40 sign up on it and start nicking people. This should be solved by designing the road to 'just flow' slower.

The other sort, driving at an unsafe speed for the road (60 down a suburban street, for example) is a different sort of offence and requires a different sort of solution where enforcement, rather than design, is the answer.

If they do insist on cameras, why make them invisible ? Is there purpose to discourage people from speeding, or to catch people in the act of speeding ? It should be the former, IMHO.

 

[baldy01]

If they do insist on cameras, why make them invisible ? Is there purpose to discourage people from speeding, or to catch people in the act of speeding ?

The purpose is to make money. Why else put camera's on straight bits of dual carriageway where there's never been an accident?

 

[johnny_t]

The purpose is to make money. Why else put camera's on straight bits of dual carriageway where there's never been an accident?

Sorry, you are right and I know it. My question should have read:

Should their purpose be to discourage people from speeding, or to catch people in the act of speeding ?

 

[paulbrown]

The purpose is to make money. Why else put camera's on straight bits of dual carriageway where there's never been an accident?

Exactly, its a money making scam.

I been driving 37 years and got my first ticket 12 months ago. I was doing 38 in a 30 zone. In reality it was a dual carraigeway with a 40 sign followed by a big bush hiding a 30 sign and a camera.

I went to court to explain, they kept me waiting 4 hours and didn't want to know.The camera picture was unclear and I said it might not have been me driving(we do share the car). Their reply? We don't have to prove anything, its for you to prove it wasn't you. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I got three points a £300 fine and £43 costs. I then phoned my insurance and that went up £20.

I've been law abiding all my life and have always helped the police whenever possible. In future they can get stuffed, I will never ever give them any help whatsoever.

I have spoken to many people who feel the same, its a stealth tax, they use dubious figures and it will backfire. The only reason speeding is apparently on the increase is because they are forever dropping the limits to justify their disgraceful activities.

The police chiefs love it because they get a cut of the action plus it bolsters their usless performance figures. Take 10 crimes solve 1 and you have a 90% failure rate. Chuck 90 motorists in the figures and they have a 91% success rate.

Every motorist will have had a non concentrating I pod listening or texting kid just waltz out in front of them. If parents care about kids safety keep these things off them when on roads, don't just blame the innocent driver.

I don't condone irresponsible driving or speeding, but genuinely hope the current court case goes against the Government.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,200-2377414,00.html

Sorry for the rant.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

That’s right (well spotted)
Irresponsible driver are infinity times worse that speed bumps

Worse at what? Worse at preventing GaryM from driving the car of his choice? Worse at damaging the cars of people driving legally?

That’s a matter of opinion what’s a save speed in a build up area. Technically the street I live has a 30 mph speed limit but I would never dream of going that fast,

It is indeed a matter of opinion. Why should your opinion take precedence over that of the traffic engineers and other relevant authorities whose experts have set the posted speed limit?

The speed bumps have helped control irresponsible motorist speeding in the street and surrounding streets.

If they were breaking the law, then the answer is to deal with them for those offences, and to use other techniques to detect and deter them, not to put measures in place which will break vehicles that are not being driven irresponsibly.

Thanks GaryM for showing me that car, I would not blame the car or the speed bumps I would blame the a***holes.

I'm sure you would - that comes as no surprise to me whatsoever...

It’s an improvement in my street.

What's an improvement? The ability of emergency vehicles to drive along it?

You will never get rid of the irresponsible drivers with the current laws, rules, regulations, etc, etc. But if speed bumps improves safety in the street I live I’m all for them.

Would you like to explain why the current laws, rules and regulations are inadequate to deal with people who speed?