10 cameras to be positioned on A500 in speed crackdown

“DJofTNE seems to be very fond of saying that "speed does not kill, it's the driver". In his latest post he says: "You can dress it up how you want speed does not kill, its the driver, they make all the decisions, not the vehicle. I cannot believe anyone would think any different."

What complete and utter illogical gibberish. Literally! Of course it's the driver! Who exactly are you accusing of saying it's the vehicle?! As if anyone in their right mind WOULD! When one uses the term 'Speed Kills', what could anyone possibly mean other than that 'Speeding Drivers Kill'?

I think you are confusing your cliches........one could use that argument about guns or knives, for example, but it doesn't work with vehicles. There is no parallel. The only scenario in which a comparison could be drawn is if someone was deliberately using their vehicle as a weapon and that in turn led to people calling for vehicles to be banned, in which case you could say: 'It's not the vehicle, it's the person driving the vehicle!".

I'd give the wackybaccy a rest for a while if I were you.”

“I see the anti-camera brigade are out in force again repeating all their well rehearsed platitudes! Jolyteddy claims that "camera areas" make him tense, "as constantly checking the speedometer means one's eyes spend less time observing the road and environment". I must have come across this old chestnut several hundred times during the past eight or nine years ('Repitition' was one of Hitler's favourite propoganda techniques)! Well in the first place the "someone" who told you they were fined for doing 32mph in a 30mph zone is a liar, as ALL cameras are set to trigger at the 'unmythical' 10%+2mph above the posted limit - ie 35mph in a thirty limit, 46mph in a forty limit, and so on - and THAT has been the case since the formation of the Safety Camera Partnership program back in 2001/2002 (prior to that the trigger speed was anywhere from 10-20mph above the posted limit).

I have no doubt that Jolyteddy has invented this "someone", and that he is fully aware of the !0%+2mph threshold, and that he is a member of one of the nasty little anti-camera black propaganda groups such as Safe Speed, or the ABD, or Pistonheads. THEY - these dispicable groups - are in effect responsible for the deaths of thousands of people during the last ten years or more as a consequence of their lies and falsehoods, but mainly for vociferously opposing - along with the anti-camera newspapers such as the Sun and the Mail and the Express - the proposal put forward by road safety groups back in 2002 that all cameras should be hidden. If they HAD been hidden, then many of the tens of thousands of people who have been killed and crippled WOULDN'T have been killed and crippled, because if the speedfreaks didn't know where the cameras were located then they would be much more likely to drive within the speed limits most of the time. And those that didn't would soon have six or nine penalty points and, as such, be inclined to conform once they HAD (or risk being banned)!

The anti-camera brigade have for years been bleating on about how looking out for cameras and having to keep checking their speedos is a dangerous distraction, but why would you have to look out for cameras or keep checking your speedo if you are driving within the posted limit. All that is needed is just the occasional quick glance at your speedo - which takes about half a second (much the same as checking your rear view mirrors occasionally) - to check you're staying within the limit, and if you did that then there would be no need to look out for speed cameras. That said, the reality is that most of the time most people drive in the areas where they live and on familiar routes and, as such, they know where all the speed cameras are situated, so there is no need to always be looking out for them.

Another of their Big Lies is that speeding is responsible for only a very small number of fatal and serious injury collisions/crashes (and they usually mention an 'official' figure of 5%, which is a Big Lie in itself). The reality is that the vast majority of fatal and the more serious of the serious injury collisions and crashes are caused by people exceeding limits by 10-20mph or more. 94% of driving offences in which someone is killed or seriously injured are committed by male drivers (Source: Ministry of Justice), and allowing for the additional number of male drivers and the additional average annual mileage they do, male drivers are some eight times more likely to kill or seriously injure someone than female drivers. Is it remotely plausible that male drivers are some eight times more 'inattentive' than female drivers, or some eight times more prone to 'bad driving', or could it be that a significant number of male drivers tend to drive fast and aggressively. We all know the answer to that one, don't we!”

“You can dress it up how you want speed does not kill, its the driver, they make all the decisions, not the vehicle. I cannot believe anyone would think any different.Yes i am a confident driver, its alot better than being the opposite. Why in 13 years of driving have i never had a fault accident? Because i can drive, why have others caused lots in that time? Because they cannot drive, for whatever reason. Speed does not kill, its the driver.”

“@ DJofTNE... cont/d (3)

Quote:- "If speed kills why am i not dead?" unquote.

Well DJofTNE, if you want to tempt providence, ....You must have heard of the cat and its nine lives....
Stay in that mindset and you could, but not necessarily so, find the answer to your question sooner than you may have thought possible. As I have already said below on this point, 'speed' itself' -is simply and abstract concept, until coming into play by what is going on around any moving objects, and their inter-action.
The only 'speed' that can stand alone as a 'killer' is amphetamine.... when taken in large amounts and immobile -even. (if you want to play silly games of ridicule)


And finally your point (4) -(quote) "Now people are not as good as me, (at driving); -camband, comeback when you know anything at all about driving, cheers." UNQUOTE.

It's this very last comment that says it all abut you son. You're too confident -to the point of arrogance and pomposity.... a lethal combination of personality trait -when behind the wheel of a car -and regularly 'doing your own thing' at high speed.

The fact that you 'ASSUME' that I must have less experience that yourself, because I apply more 'care and attention' to the 'risk factors' -says much for your unhealthy attitude to driving standards -and competence.
Good driving has nothing to do with arrogantly 'flying in the face' of risk -supremely confident in your abilities to 'stay out of trouble', and treating 'speed' with contempt. No son, good driving is all to do with how one takes to the road, considers all aspects, especially speed and what it can do.
-Driving for a living over a life time and driving nearly every type of vehicle out there on the road. Regularly clocking up over 100,000 miles a year -both here in the UK and across Europe.... keeping the customers happy, the contracts intact -delivering on time -to schedule in one of the most competitive parts of industry there is -often cut-throat competition, no time to dally -up at the crack of dawn and away, day in day out... and retiring in my late 60s with a clean licence.
I don't normally dwell on my own experience -I now dwell on my family, but when I see people like you, 'boasting billys' -then your sort need to be told... if only for the safety of other road users.

Your 'schoolboy' type bravado and showing off -without substance, is simply embarrassing.... but nothing will change your attitude -your ego is in the way. The object of this posting is for 'general interest' -and the hope that some on here will see and understand -that we must have speed limits -and those speed limits are set -for the reasons I have stated above. (and below).

PS As just one instance.... Try driving a 44 ton artic DAILY, from East London to Brussels -5 days one week, 6 days the alternative week -(to stay within the tacho regulations). Then, on top of that, drive a car from Kent to Stoke (and return) every third week -passing 22 speed cameras each way -and all that with out getting one singe point one the licence.... 'come back when I know something about driving' -you say. Do me a favour -DO US ALL A FAVOUR -AND SHUT THE ******* UP.”

“@ DJofTNE ... To continue addressing the points/questions you put to me:-

(2) (quote)- "I speed all the time, i must admit, especially on the motorway, where i can do 90mph on un busy stretch of road no problem whatsoever, i have'nt died, no accidents either do you know why? Because i can drive, i know whats around me, i use my mirrors. by DJofTNE. unquote.

Answer to (2). The fact that you illegally break the speed limits on a regular basis -and 'live to tell the tale' ... is neither here nor there in relation to 'high speeds and risk'.

We all know that travelling at speeds of 90mph on a deserted stretch of motorway, -is unlikely to lead to death or serious injury, compared to - 'passing through Junction 15 of the M6 at 10pm on any day of the week. Sparse enough to do 90mph -but certainly not 'deserted'.

But, 'when things go wrong' -and the unexpected happens -then one of the factors that come into play in helping to avoid getting caught up in a pile-up -is SPEED. Less time to react. More damage on impact, to vehicles and persons when vehicles collide into each other or hit a bridge etc
A vehicle hitting, head-on, the concrete pillar of a bridge, is going to come far worse of when travelling at 90mph than one travelling at 70mph -and so on and so on. It's not rocket science.

No matter how good a driver you are at 90mph, if you are unlucky to get involved with a poor driver who's doing 70mph, because he or she made a silly idiotic mistake, then you'll cop for it in a far more serious way than if you were obeying the law, laid down to protect in the full knowledge that there will be 'idiotic mistakes' made by some poor drivers. That's the problem. That's why, as fallible human beings, those responsible for protecting us all from such possibilities of death and serious injury -make the laws they do.

Speed itself in abstract -until it matters, and that's when the human element comes into play, with speed the deciding component as to who cops for an early exit from this life, or competes in the para-olympics -if lucky enough...”

“@- DJofTNE, Ok mate I'll address one or two of you points -but I do fear that they will probably go over the top of your head, judging by how you 'couched' your 'addressed comments to me'; and how you perceive the 'meaning of speed' -in relation to risk, which in turn can lead to death of serious injury.
So let's take it one at a time. Here's the fist one of your comments/questions I'll deal with first.

(1) "camband, to ridicule your argument....everytime someone speeds do they die? UNQUOTE.

'Ridicule' is the word you choose to prove what? The word I may use in reply, is its sister-word -'ridiculous'. But just for the benefit of clarity, let's run that by me again shall we ..... (quote): 'every time someone speeds do they die?' !!?
C'mon lad, you can do better than that. I thought you were into a serious debate, but I can tell by that rather strange totally irrelevant rhetorical question that you most definitely are not.

In your attempt to 'prove ridicule' -in this rather weak way -what's the point?

'Speed' in its isolated form, as you refer to it, is simply a 'rate of progress' -period. But of course, in the context of the thread, 'speed' is in direct relationship to 'reaction time', and 'impact consequence'. The 'risk factor' -which comes into play in all scenarios out on the public highway, and is a major component where 'chance' and safety are at the centre of concern.

To talk of 'Speed' as a 'stand alone' factor -unrelated to any interaction with other stationary or moving objects, is simply to 'discuss speed' as separate, in a vacuum; scientific and academic, and contributes nothing to this thread.”

“There is no arguing that lower speeds are safer. In fact, if everyone's speed was zero, there'd be no accidents on the road - even when the national speed limit was 4mph there were accidents. I am, of course, being daft, but my point is where do these speed limits stop?

The powers that be used to recognise and respect the fact that the majority of drivers were good drivers, able to judge the appropriate speed for their situation. Speed limits were set at the 85th percentile - meaning the speed 85% of drivers were not exceeding (and 15% are exceeding). This kept everyone going at roughly the same speed as each other, and gave the police legal powers to prosecute those driving too fast.

Nowadays, for some reason, speed limits are set to the 50th percentile - commonly known as the median. I can only guess this is because median is a word that the average councillor knows to be one of the common averages. The trouble with using averages such as the median to set speed limits is that while 50% of drivers will be sticking to the speed limit anyway, the other half will not be. Of course, some of these will slow down, but the rest will not. What you'll actually see - like on the A500 - is a significant proportion driving at the speed limit, and a significant proportion driving at the (for lack of a better word) natural speed - in the case of the A500 about 65-70mph. Having two large groups of drivers at such different speeds sharing the same road is frankly dangerous.

Another point. The A500 was built to relieve the city's roads of traffic by creating a faster option. By enforcing a 50mph speed limit, it is no longer the fastest option for a lot of journeys. When people start to realise this, they'll start to use other roads, increasing traffic rest of the city's roads and defeating the whole purpose of the D-road.

What I can almost see happening is that as usage of the A500 decreases, so will accidents - due to a simple lack of cars. The safety partnership will call the speed cameras a success, failing to mention that accidents per passenger mile (the only fair way to measure a safe road) has not really decreased, and the probable increase in accidents elsewhere.”

“this is so simple if they are on the bridges they have to have home office clearence to park on double yellows over the road.... they can not break the law to maintain the law..i have got away with this 4 times on the motorway in cheshire the police could not provide the paper work to clear the parking over the m6 ...”

“City4eva, if speed kills why am i not dead? Please answer this as you like to answer other peoples questions, cheers”

“Speeding is not the main cause of problems on the A500, in my opinion more accidents are caused by drivers insisting on staying in the outside lane until the very last minute then forcing their way across causing drivers in the nearside lane to brake hard , this is closely followed by people joining who seem to think they have priority over traffic already on the the road who usually have no choice but to stay in their lane because of traffic in the outside lane. These problems are made worse by the bad design of the acceleration and deceleration lanes being far too short.Irrespective of all these problems however there is no case for exceeding the posted speed limits.”