Mobile Speed Cameras......Again

[MMUK]

All I will say here is to reiterate a comment I made on a previous thread.

We need to overhaul the training system. Things will not change until driving standards improve. Drivers need to be re-educated and the test needs to be a lot tougher. New drivers should be restricted to a lower performance car for at least two years, maybe a maximum of 75BHP. I would also increase this restriction for young drivers so that they will be on a restricted license until the age of either 21 or 25. I would also introduce a mandatory assessment every 5 years (similar to PPC for HGV/PSV drivers) up to the age of 70, then every year after that. I would also adopt the auto bahn principle on our motorways and make punishments for transgression of the law more severe.

One last thing I would do is outlaw the ambulance chasers and stop compensation unless injury is severe enough to threaten livelihood or possible loss of your home or if there is a fatality. Otherwise, it was an accident, get over it like they used to in the olden days.

The authorities keep telling us that most accidents are caused by young drivers, new drivers and drivers over a certain age. So therefore my idea makes sense, to me anyway.

 

[John Brown]

I don't see that anyone has addressed this point, made by DrPhill earlier.
"Because the law says that he should not. Is that really so difficult to comprehend? Or if you are saying that people are only obliged to obey laws that they like, then you would agree that it is fine to break your window and steal your telly? Where is the difference?"
I would be genuinely interested in seeing how the pro-speeders respond. How do you choose which laws to obey, and which to flout?

 

[RogerS]

....
I would be genuinely interested in seeing how the pro-speeders respond. How do you choose which laws to obey, and which to flout?

Simple. There is only the one. Speed limits. It is a sledge hammer. Much better to be charged with something like careless driving. That then brings into the equation wrong speed for the wrong conditions in the wrong place. Would also remove the concept of 'revenue generation' with some cameras.

 

[Jacob]

.......
If you have raced cars, motorcycles etc on tracks, and can do these things and have never had any serious accidents, as well as being able to apply safe techniques on the road, then I would say you could pretty safely call yourself an above average driver.

The difference is that on race tracks you are not likely to encounter people wobbling along on bikes, drunks staggering off the pavements, small kids running out after balls, dogs, learner drivers and a huge list of perfectly legitimate other users who aren't racing drivers, or even very competent. So an above average driver would be one who (amongst other things) doesn't exceed speed limits. Anybody who imagines he doesn't need to do this is a dangerous twerp.

One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)

 

[RogerS]

From The Times...

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled
Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.
The data, revealed by annual road casualty statistics, provoked calls for responsible cycling and the construction of dedicated facilities to keep cyclists out of conflict with other road users.
When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

 

[MMUK]

One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)

:shock: :?:

So you would be happy to get charged with dangerous driving if you were tootling along at 20mph and a child or cyclist suddenly appears 2 feet in front of you from behind a parked van and you end up knocking them down?

You need to think a little more about your statement Jacob.

What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance.

 

[carlb40]

One amendment to the law - I would make all drivers responsible by default for any collision with a non-powered road user (bike, walker, etc)

:shock: :?:

So you would be happy to get charged with dangerous driving if you were tootling along at 20mph and a child or cyclist suddenly appears 2 feet in front of you from behind a parked van and you end up knocking them down?

You need to think a little more about your statement Jacob.

What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance.

Exactly. I had that a few years back. Driving up the A45 to coventry and a cyclist was on the path. Without even looking he rode straight onto the road right in front of me and carried on cycling :twisted:

 

[mseries]

Plenty of motorists do stupid things while insured and licenced and having paid their duty. Plenty of motorists are not insured, have paid no VED and are not licenced to use the road. Nothing will change by charging cyclists, not even the attitude of motorists.

 

[John Brown]

"What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance."
Leaving aside the VED chestnut, why stop there?
Surely the same rules should apply to babies in prams and pedestrians.
Let's have MOTs for pedestrians as well. If you have any sort of disability, you are legally banned from going anywhere near a public thoroughfare.
It may seem harsh, but the rights of Mr Toad are paramount.

 

[RogerS]

"What would be more prudent is to make cyclists legally obliged to pass a test to use the road, pay VED and pay insurance."
Leaving aside the VED chestnut, why stop there?
Surely the same rules should apply to babies in prams and pedestrians.
Let's have MOTs for pedestrians as well. If you have any sort of disability, you are legally banned from going anywhere near a public thoroughfare.
It may seem harsh, but the rights of Mr Toad are paramount.

I repeat the extract from the Times...

Motor vehicles kill five times more pedestrians than cyclists, but figures show risk of serious injury is similar relative to distance travelled
Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.
The data, revealed by annual road casualty statistics, provoked calls for responsible cycling and the construction of dedicated facilities to keep cyclists out of conflict with other road users.
When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

What is so hard to understand about that? Certainly there is no excuse for cyclists not to have insurance and pass a test to use the road.

Babies in prams. ? That is just being plain daft.

 

[MMUK]

Leaving aside the VED chestnut, why stop there?
Surely the same rules should apply to babies in prams and pedestrians.
Let's have MOTs for pedestrians as well. If you have any sort of disability, you are legally banned from going anywhere near a public thoroughfare.
It may seem harsh, but the rights of Mr Toad are paramount.

The difference being that cyclists INTENTIONALLY use the road. A bit different to crossing the road. The number of cyclists I see who can't ride in a straight line and continually wobbling all over the place beggars belief. These are the ones who cause motorists to swerve out of the way and therefore potentially cause accidents.

Also, how many cyclists actually obey road signs and traffic signals? Answer - very few. If they want to use the road they should at least obey the laws of the road.

I know professional cyclists who agree with me.

 

[John Brown]

I have no objection to cyclists having to pass some sort of competency test, and possibly even insurance(VED, as has been pointed out numerous times before, is simply a tax, and is not ring-fenced for spending on roads. You may think it should be, and I might agree, but in any event, when I'm riding a bike my emissions are lower than that of a duty exempt Toyota Prius), but I think that enforcement would be a big problem. However, I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.

 

[Grahamshed]

We already have laws forbidding the disabled from using roads < he says, tongue in cheek >Despite laws regarding discriminating against the disabled ( I am technically blind ) they will not let me drive a car.

 

[MMUK]

I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.

Did anyone say it was? :roll:

 

[RogerS]

I have no objection to cyclists having to pass some sort of competency test, and possibly even insurance(VED, as has been pointed out numerous times before, is simply a tax, and is not ring-fenced for spending on roads. You may think it should be, and I might agree, but in any event, when I'm riding a bike my emissions are lower than that of a duty exempt Toyota Prius), but I think that enforcement would be a big problem. However, I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.

But it was you who introduced babies in prams. No-one is saying that bad cyclists are an excuse for motorists driving carelessly for the road conditions. But cyclists are not holier-than-thou as your original post seemed to suggest.

 

[John Brown]

"Also, how many cyclists actually obey road signs and traffic signals? Answer - very few. If they want to use the road they should at least obey the laws of the road."
Speaking for myself, when I'm cycling I obey all the rules of the road, and I indicate before manouvering. When did you last see a motorist indicating before a left turn? If you can remember such an event, then it was probably me driving.

But this is all distraction and misdirection. The fact that a lot of cyclists choose to ride three abreast on narrow roads, ignore stop signals or fail to indicate does nothing to justify Mr Toad.

 

[John Brown]

I don't see how the sins of the cyclists are any sort of justification or excuse for speeding motorists.

Did anyone say it was? :roll:

Well why on earth did anyone bring them up, then, in a discussion about speed cameras?

 

[John Brown]

"But it was you who introduced babies in prams."
Yes, in an obviously futile attempt to highlight how irelevant misbehaving cyclists are to a discussion about speeding.

 

[John Brown]

"I know professional cyclists who agree with me."
Brilliant!
I can not compete with such watertight arguments as the Appeal to Higher Authority.

 

[MMUK]

John, if you look back you will find that the cyclist element was introduced by Jacob with his statement of making all drivers responsible by default for any collisions with peds, cyclists, etc.

So, this is not a distraction or misdirection. This is how the thread has gone. How many threads actually stay perfectly on topic?

Speaking for myself, when I'm cycling I obey all the rules of the road, and I indicate before manouvering.

ALL of them? You can recite the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act by heart then I take it?

When did you last see a motorist indicating before a left turn? If you can remember such an event, then it was probably me driving.

So you are saying that the vast majority of drivers don't indicate to turn left? That's how your comment comes across.


So far your comments give the impression that you see your own driving abilities elevated to a much higher level than the rest of us and that you are one of the safest road users. IME, it's these drivers that can be among the most incompetent of all, just as bad as a testosterone fueled teenager in an EVO or Scooby.