Residents urged to have their say on speed camera locations

Residents urged to have their say on speed camera locations

Residents urged to have their say on speed camera locations

First published in News
Last updated
by

RESIDENTS have been urged to have their say on the locations of North Yorkshire Police's mobile speed cameras.

Each week, North Yorkshire Police releases a list of locations around the region where the vans will be, to monitor traffic and try to ensure public safety.

This week, the force released brief reasons for the locations they have chosen, along with details on how to bring speed monitoring to a road near you.

A police spokeswoman said: "The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

Forms to report concerns on local roads to the police are available online and assessed by safety experts to determine the best method of monitoring the site, which could include engineering, signage, police enforcement or by using the mobile safety camera.

To report a concern about a road in North Yorkshire, go to northyorkshire.police.uk/reportspeeding

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:57am Thu 7 Aug 14

smudge2 says...

No locations are good locations. There is no evidence that these mobile cameras have reduced any road deaths in North Yorkshire and all they seem to do is raise revenue to finance more mobile cameras as motorists have always been and always will be a cash cow for the authorities. As car safety has advanced beyond peoples wildest dreams we are still stuck with speed limits designed to be driven by the Morris Minor. Rant over !!
No locations are good locations. There is no evidence that these mobile cameras have reduced any road deaths in North Yorkshire and all they seem to do is raise revenue to finance more mobile cameras as motorists have always been and always will be a cash cow for the authorities. As car safety has advanced beyond peoples wildest dreams we are still stuck with speed limits designed to be driven by the Morris Minor. Rant over !! smudge2
  • Score: 77

10:32am Thu 7 Aug 14

asd says...

They should look at banning agricultural vehicles and JCB's using the the A64 dual from 7am - 9:30 am and 3pm - 6-30 pm. I am surprised there have not been more accidents caused by severely slow vehicles like these.
They should look at banning agricultural vehicles and JCB's using the the A64 dual from 7am - 9:30 am and 3pm - 6-30 pm. I am surprised there have not been more accidents caused by severely slow vehicles like these. asd
  • Score: 56

10:50am Thu 7 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit.

Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better.

Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.
I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit. Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better. Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit. The Great Buda
  • Score: 43

10:54am Thu 7 Aug 14

Rankled says...

The stats from the NYP website show some interesting information. For example, so far this year the vans have spent 23 hours on Strensall Road but have only issued 6 points and haven't sent anybody directly to court, so basically there isn't any major speeding on this "community concern" road. The pattern is repeated in other areas of York.
The stats from the NYP website show some interesting information. For example, so far this year the vans have spent 23 hours on Strensall Road but have only issued 6 points and haven't sent anybody directly to court, so basically there isn't any major speeding on this "community concern" road. The pattern is repeated in other areas of York. Rankled
  • Score: 45

11:21am Thu 7 Aug 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Oh, lets buy some more camera vans.

Aye that's a good idea, we've made loads of money from the ones we have, we can raise some more.

Where shall we put them?

Dunno, that's a hard one. I know, let's have a competition and ask the public. We must ask in such a way that they don't realise what we're doing though.........
Oh, lets buy some more camera vans. Aye that's a good idea, we've made loads of money from the ones we have, we can raise some more. Where shall we put them? Dunno, that's a hard one. I know, let's have a competition and ask the public. We must ask in such a way that they don't realise what we're doing though......... AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 43

11:40am Thu 7 Aug 14

BL2 says...

"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££
[quote]"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."[/quote] So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££ BL2
  • Score: 44

11:45am Thu 7 Aug 14

Jazzper says...

I agree with previous comments,positioned to make money, they are generally hidden from view, they are not a deterrent to most drivers whose speed may have crept up slightly above the limit. More traffic officers actually looking out for dangerous drivers would be the answer imho.
I agree with previous comments,positioned to make money, they are generally hidden from view, they are not a deterrent to most drivers whose speed may have crept up slightly above the limit. More traffic officers actually looking out for dangerous drivers would be the answer imho. Jazzper
  • Score: 29

11:54am Thu 7 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night.

I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable.

Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now!
I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night. I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable. Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: -52

12:00pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Haywire says...

The Great Buda wrote:
I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit.

Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better.

Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.
I generally agree with you G.B., but can you tell what weapons were used at dawn on these duel carriageways?
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit. Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better. Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.[/p][/quote]I generally agree with you G.B., but can you tell what weapons were used at dawn on these duel carriageways? Haywire
  • Score: 9

12:01pm Thu 7 Aug 14

CommonSense!! says...

A police spokeswoman said: "The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

What an absolute pack of lies. In which of these three categories does the Malton Bypass fit? Or the Seamer Bypass? Or Whitwell Hill? Or the A64 between Grimston Bar and the Hopgrove?

The only reason they put cameras there is the grasping greed which sees them buying more vans to make more money when this approach has been proven, by the increase in road deaths, not to be working.

Shameful.
A police spokeswoman said: "The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor." What an absolute pack of lies. In which of these three categories does the Malton Bypass fit? Or the Seamer Bypass? Or Whitwell Hill? Or the A64 between Grimston Bar and the Hopgrove? The only reason they put cameras there is the grasping greed which sees them buying more vans to make more money when this approach has been proven, by the increase in road deaths, not to be working. Shameful. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 57

12:01pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

The Great Buda wrote:
I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit.

Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better.

Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.
100% agree..... the vans should be in built up areas catching motorists that are a threat to others.... Not on A64 where 85mph is no different to 70mph.
[quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit. Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better. Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.[/p][/quote]100% agree..... the vans should be in built up areas catching motorists that are a threat to others.... Not on A64 where 85mph is no different to 70mph. Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 75

12:04pm Thu 7 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

BL2 wrote:
"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££
It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't.

Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit."

Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."
[quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote]"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."[/quote] So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££[/p][/quote]It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't. Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit." Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously." BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: -30

12:05pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Haywire says...

smudge2 wrote:
No locations are good locations. There is no evidence that these mobile cameras have reduced any road deaths in North Yorkshire and all they seem to do is raise revenue to finance more mobile cameras as motorists have always been and always will be a cash cow for the authorities. As car safety has advanced beyond peoples wildest dreams we are still stuck with speed limits designed to be driven by the Morris Minor. Rant over !!
S2: Well, I've seen some rants on here before, but that has to qualify for the most illogical piece so far! Congratulations S2, that is real 'Guinness Book of Records' stuff.
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: No locations are good locations. There is no evidence that these mobile cameras have reduced any road deaths in North Yorkshire and all they seem to do is raise revenue to finance more mobile cameras as motorists have always been and always will be a cash cow for the authorities. As car safety has advanced beyond peoples wildest dreams we are still stuck with speed limits designed to be driven by the Morris Minor. Rant over !![/p][/quote]S2: Well, I've seen some rants on here before, but that has to qualify for the most illogical piece so far! Congratulations S2, that is real 'Guinness Book of Records' stuff. Haywire
  • Score: -35

12:18pm Thu 7 Aug 14

inthesticks says...

So far the cameras have been on the same stretches of roads week in week out for the last year or so. Is it just me or do the police not realise that locals will cotton on very quickly to this habitual behaviour and amend their speed as necessary, then when round the corner will go back to whatever speed they wish.
Simple answer - vary the roads used and stop telling the public where you are going to be. Otherwise you are wasting your time and our money.
Agree with the cameras being used more in urban areas and should also be used more in villages where 30 limits are largely ignored and some drivers adopt a free for all speed up to 70 in some cases.
So far the cameras have been on the same stretches of roads week in week out for the last year or so. Is it just me or do the police not realise that locals will cotton on very quickly to this habitual behaviour and amend their speed as necessary, then when round the corner will go back to whatever speed they wish. Simple answer - vary the roads used and stop telling the public where you are going to be. Otherwise you are wasting your time and our money. Agree with the cameras being used more in urban areas and should also be used more in villages where 30 limits are largely ignored and some drivers adopt a free for all speed up to 70 in some cases. inthesticks
  • Score: 5

12:36pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Rankled says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
A police spokeswoman said: "The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

What an absolute pack of lies. In which of these three categories does the Malton Bypass fit? Or the Seamer Bypass? Or Whitwell Hill? Or the A64 between Grimston Bar and the Hopgrove?

The only reason they put cameras there is the grasping greed which sees them buying more vans to make more money when this approach has been proven, by the increase in road deaths, not to be working.

Shameful.
Seamer bypass is listed as KSI (killed or seriously injured), the others are EX (community concern). Whitwell Hill looks like it catches a lot of people - 48 people straight to court this year. Seamer bypass less so - 1 to court this year. Make of that what you will; I don't know those roads so can't comment on them.

They're all on the spreadsheet here:

http://www.northyork
shire.police.uk/1095
1
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: A police spokeswoman said: "The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor." What an absolute pack of lies. In which of these three categories does the Malton Bypass fit? Or the Seamer Bypass? Or Whitwell Hill? Or the A64 between Grimston Bar and the Hopgrove? The only reason they put cameras there is the grasping greed which sees them buying more vans to make more money when this approach has been proven, by the increase in road deaths, not to be working. Shameful.[/p][/quote]Seamer bypass is listed as KSI (killed or seriously injured), the others are EX (community concern). Whitwell Hill looks like it catches a lot of people - 48 people straight to court this year. Seamer bypass less so - 1 to court this year. Make of that what you will; I don't know those roads so can't comment on them. They're all on the spreadsheet here: http://www.northyork shire.police.uk/1095 1 Rankled
  • Score: 6

1:15pm Thu 7 Aug 14

CommonSense!! says...

Seamer Bypass is a perfectly sighted straight road which is nearly wide enough to turn into a dual carriageway. No side turnings or exits.

Malton Bypass, well sighted dual carriageway, no side turnings or exits. Perfectly straight. No one living alongside it.

Community concern is obviously their code for "makes us boat loads of cash".
Seamer Bypass is a perfectly sighted straight road which is nearly wide enough to turn into a dual carriageway. No side turnings or exits. Malton Bypass, well sighted dual carriageway, no side turnings or exits. Perfectly straight. No one living alongside it. Community concern is obviously their code for "makes us boat loads of cash". CommonSense!!
  • Score: 31

1:19pm Thu 7 Aug 14

The Great Buda says...

Haywire wrote:
The Great Buda wrote:
I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit.

Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better.

Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.
I generally agree with you G.B., but can you tell what weapons were used at dawn on these duel carriageways?
In this case, I think it was Oil Dipsticks :-)
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Great Buda[/bold] wrote: I have something to say about their locations. Stop putting them on well sighted duel carrigeways where it is safe to do inexcess of the speed limit. Instead start putting them on residential 30mph streets, where excessive speeding is a much greater risk to life. I've lost count of the times I've seen the 40mph everywhere brigade driving round such roads without a care in the world. Most of this lot tend to come from an age range that should know a lot better. Come on NYPD, start putting safety ahead of profit.[/p][/quote]I generally agree with you G.B., but can you tell what weapons were used at dawn on these duel carriageways?[/p][/quote]In this case, I think it was Oil Dipsticks :-) The Great Buda
  • Score: 5

1:32pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Scott Arten says...

I overtook a tractor on the Pocklington road and reached trouser filling speeds of 53 mph on a 50 mph road while doing so. Fortunately i knew i was approaching a mobile camera location and as soon i completed my overtake... guess who was there? Luckily i was 2 mph off the threshold.
I overtook a tractor on the Pocklington road and reached trouser filling speeds of 53 mph on a 50 mph road while doing so. Fortunately i knew i was approaching a mobile camera location and as soon i completed my overtake... guess who was there? Luckily i was 2 mph off the threshold. Scott Arten
  • Score: 30

1:35pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

Breaking the speed limit is one thing, but failing to approach anywhere close to it is another. The A59 to Knaresborough on a weekday - great: everyone doing up to 60mph. Sunday lunchtime - you're lucky if you get above 40 sometimes. So what's save about bunching traffic, people who can drive safely at 55-60mph being tempted to overtake some dodderer who hasn't even noticed the straggling crocodile of traffic behind?

If the road says it's safe to go 60 mph, why don't people go 60mph? Don't they need to get anywhere? Why else are they on it?
Breaking the speed limit is one thing, but failing to approach anywhere close to it is another. The A59 to Knaresborough on a weekday - great: everyone doing up to 60mph. Sunday lunchtime - you're lucky if you get above 40 sometimes. So what's save about bunching traffic, people who can drive safely at 55-60mph being tempted to overtake some dodderer who hasn't even noticed the straggling crocodile of traffic behind? If the road says it's safe to go 60 mph, why don't people go 60mph? Don't they need to get anywhere? Why else are they on it? Ignatius Lumpopo
  • Score: 58

7:13pm Thu 7 Aug 14

muckybutt says...

Oy North Yorks Police - stop fannying about wasting money on camera vans and install Average Speed cameras on the A64 instead, far better way to reduce speed on there, drop it to 60 MPH and install ASC's instead.

Shame van drivers don't know the speed limits as well, 60 MPH on dual carriageways not 70 MPH as most seem to think as they go flying by me in my van - IDIOTS !
Oy North Yorks Police - stop fannying about wasting money on camera vans and install Average Speed cameras on the A64 instead, far better way to reduce speed on there, drop it to 60 MPH and install ASC's instead. Shame van drivers don't know the speed limits as well, 60 MPH on dual carriageways not 70 MPH as most seem to think as they go flying by me in my van - IDIOTS ! muckybutt
  • Score: -17

7:26pm Thu 7 Aug 14

twotonethomas says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night.

I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable.

Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now!
BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law!

I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night. I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable. Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now![/p][/quote]BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law! I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical. twotonethomas
  • Score: 14

7:30pm Thu 7 Aug 14

twotonethomas says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
BL2 wrote:
"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££
It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't.

Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit."

Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."
Dear god, I didn't see this post. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Hopefully the hunt she hunts with will advertise their meets in the media and we can all go along and make sure that the law isn't being broken!
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote]"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."[/quote] So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££[/p][/quote]It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't. Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit." Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."[/p][/quote]Dear god, I didn't see this post. I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Hopefully the hunt she hunts with will advertise their meets in the media and we can all go along and make sure that the law isn't being broken! twotonethomas
  • Score: 13

7:38pm Thu 7 Aug 14

nottoooldtocare says...

twotonethomas wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night.

I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable.

Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now!
BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law!

I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.
Doesn't really matter which she is being, can you imagine a night in her company? How many high horses does she have?
[quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night. I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable. Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now![/p][/quote]BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law! I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really matter which she is being, can you imagine a night in her company? How many high horses does she have? nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 16

8:20pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Jonlogical says...

I cannot count the number of times I have been held up by elderly drivers doing 40-45 mph on country lanes, only for them to pull away from me when we reach a 30 mph village.

These are some of the same self righteous advocating the death sentence for doing 80 mph on the A64 dual carriageway.
I cannot count the number of times I have been held up by elderly drivers doing 40-45 mph on country lanes, only for them to pull away from me when we reach a 30 mph village. These are some of the same self righteous advocating the death sentence for doing 80 mph on the A64 dual carriageway. Jonlogical
  • Score: 19

10:45pm Thu 7 Aug 14

piaggio1 says...

Ow come there.s never a copper about .when the git in the bmw/strange rover..is up yer arse then overtakes.s at 80+.
Ow come there.s never a copper about .when the git in the bmw/strange rover..is up yer arse then overtakes.s at 80+. piaggio1
  • Score: 3

12:24am Fri 8 Aug 14

strangebuttrue? says...

So what are they trying to achieve with this? Get people to tell you where they perceive drivers are speeding. Check out the area. If there is a handy bush to hide behind go and generate loads more cash. If no handy bush don't bother?
So what are they trying to achieve with this? Get people to tell you where they perceive drivers are speeding. Check out the area. If there is a handy bush to hide behind go and generate loads more cash. If no handy bush don't bother? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 9

9:16am Fri 8 Aug 14

CommonSense!! says...

It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers.

Disgraceful.
It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers. Disgraceful. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 10

11:35am Fri 8 Aug 14

A19A64 says...

If you analyse the data it is possible to see that even in the most heavily fined `operation` that has been devised, there is never any record of an accident occurring during that period. This would seem to indicate that all of the motorists found to be driving over the limit are in fact driving perfectly safely.
And another thing - when will there be an outcome to the investigation into the `collison` between a camera van & car at Chop Gate? Remarkably quiet on this, considering the road was closed for hours while `evidence` was gathered.
I understand no van has been back to that little hideaway since.

If you`d like a spot to catch some dangerous speeding try Scalm Lane near Selby, eastbound 10 mins after a shift change at the warehouses at Sherburn in Elmet. Lots of clapped out european registered cars hurtling home with many drivers on the phone.
If you analyse the data it is possible to see that even in the most heavily fined `operation` that has been devised, there is never any record of an accident occurring during that period. This would seem to indicate that all of the motorists found to be driving over the limit are in fact driving perfectly safely. And another thing - when will there be an outcome to the investigation into the `collison` between a camera van & car at Chop Gate? Remarkably quiet on this, considering the road was closed for hours while `evidence` was gathered. I understand no van has been back to that little hideaway since. If you`d like a spot to catch some dangerous speeding try Scalm Lane near Selby, eastbound 10 mins after a shift change at the warehouses at Sherburn in Elmet. Lots of clapped out european registered cars hurtling home with many drivers on the phone. A19A64
  • Score: 5

7:43pm Fri 8 Aug 14

BethFoxhunter96 says...

nottoooldtocare wrote:
twotonethomas wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night.

I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable.

Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now!
BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law!

I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.
Doesn't really matter which she is being, can you imagine a night in her company? How many high horses does she have?
A few. A girl is allowed an opinion on everything!

I have no problems with people driving at the speed limit. But it looks like people are trying to justify breaking the law. I find that unacceptable from an ethical point of view, and also a humanitarian one. Slow down, and the roads will be safer, more relaxing, more enjoyable places.

And nature will also benefit.

I find it very amusing the people are trying to justify speeding by saying that its okay because people drive too slowly. Old people who drive slowly may annoy the Jeremy Clarkson types, but they are doing the right thing: being safe, being slow, being happy. Can't overtake without speeding? Don't. #Simples!
[quote][p][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night. I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable. Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now![/p][/quote]BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law! I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really matter which she is being, can you imagine a night in her company? How many high horses does she have?[/p][/quote]A few. A girl is allowed an opinion on everything! I have no problems with people driving at the speed limit. But it looks like people are trying to justify breaking the law. I find that unacceptable from an ethical point of view, and also a humanitarian one. Slow down, and the roads will be safer, more relaxing, more enjoyable places. And nature will also benefit. I find it very amusing the people are trying to justify speeding by saying that its okay because people drive too slowly. Old people who drive slowly may annoy the Jeremy Clarkson types, but they are doing the right thing: being safe, being slow, being happy. Can't overtake without speeding? Don't. #Simples! BethFoxhunter96
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Fri 8 Aug 14

yorkshirelad says...

Well I support the cameras...as one part of making the roads safer. It's amazing listening to people trying to justify breaking the laws they would like to....do they offer the same right to burglars to choose to burgle their homes?

But, like many people I would like to see more use in residential areas and country lanes rather than straight dual carriageways. I'd rather the. Police didn't slavishly follow accident stats , local campaigns etc. Instead I would be totally happy for the Police to make a professional judgement about where speeding looks particularly dangerous and target those areas.

Also think a far more random use of the cameras would have more of a deterrent effect with fewer fines needed.

I would very much support a new 80mph speed limit on motorways and some dual carriageways but I'm also in support of 30mph and 20mph areas.
Well I support the cameras...as one part of making the roads safer. It's amazing listening to people trying to justify breaking the laws they would like to....do they offer the same right to burglars to choose to burgle their homes? But, like many people I would like to see more use in residential areas and country lanes rather than straight dual carriageways. I'd rather the. Police didn't slavishly follow accident stats , local campaigns etc. Instead I would be totally happy for the Police to make a professional judgement about where speeding looks particularly dangerous and target those areas. Also think a far more random use of the cameras would have more of a deterrent effect with fewer fines needed. I would very much support a new 80mph speed limit on motorways and some dual carriageways but I'm also in support of 30mph and 20mph areas. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 2

11:02pm Fri 8 Aug 14

yorkshirelad says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers.

Disgraceful.
Total nonsense and the 'revenue' argument is increasingly tedious. Even it it was true....if it was designed to raise 'revenue' ....who is better to provide that revenue.? Law abiding people or people breaking the law?
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]Total nonsense and the 'revenue' argument is increasingly tedious. Even it it was true....if it was designed to raise 'revenue' ....who is better to provide that revenue.? Law abiding people or people breaking the law? yorkshirelad
  • Score: 1

8:32am Sat 9 Aug 14

twotonethomas says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers.

Disgraceful.
Total nonsense and the 'revenue' argument is increasingly tedious. Even it it was true....if it was designed to raise 'revenue' ....who is better to provide that revenue.? Law abiding people or people breaking the law?
I've always held the same view, that if it's a 'tax', it's better to 'tax' criminals than wages :)
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]Total nonsense and the 'revenue' argument is increasingly tedious. Even it it was true....if it was designed to raise 'revenue' ....who is better to provide that revenue.? Law abiding people or people breaking the law?[/p][/quote]I've always held the same view, that if it's a 'tax', it's better to 'tax' criminals than wages :) twotonethomas
  • Score: 1

8:59am Sat 9 Aug 14

CommonSense!! says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers.

Disgraceful.
Total nonsense and the 'revenue' argument is increasingly tedious. Even it it was true....if it was designed to raise 'revenue' ....who is better to provide that revenue.? Law abiding people or people breaking the law?
Please explain how road deaths aren't increasing?

Please explain how this increase hasn't coincided with a move away from traditional roads policing and to the use of revenue raising camera vans?
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: It is merely subterfuge to try and disguise the fact that the current approach is allowing road deaths to rise whilst all they care about is filling their coffers. Disgraceful.[/p][/quote]Total nonsense and the 'revenue' argument is increasingly tedious. Even it it was true....if it was designed to raise 'revenue' ....who is better to provide that revenue.? Law abiding people or people breaking the law?[/p][/quote]Please explain how road deaths aren't increasing? Please explain how this increase hasn't coincided with a move away from traditional roads policing and to the use of revenue raising camera vans? CommonSense!!
  • Score: 3

7:19pm Sat 9 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night.

I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable.

Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now!
Most modern cars operate at their optimum efficiency when cruising at higher speeds i.e. 70mph +, that's what motorways were designed for, I don't agree that reducing speed limits on motorways helps reduce pollution, but if you can point me in the right direction I will certainly read up on it.
In this country there has not been a road building programme to keep pace with traffic expansion, so for example we have more cars per mile of motorway than say France which has a fantastic motorway infrastructure second to none, and it's a pleasure to drive there.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night. I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable. Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now![/p][/quote]Most modern cars operate at their optimum efficiency when cruising at higher speeds i.e. 70mph +, that's what motorways were designed for, I don't agree that reducing speed limits on motorways helps reduce pollution, but if you can point me in the right direction I will certainly read up on it. In this country there has not been a road building programme to keep pace with traffic expansion, so for example we have more cars per mile of motorway than say France which has a fantastic motorway infrastructure second to none, and it's a pleasure to drive there. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 5

7:26pm Sat 9 Aug 14

notpedallingpaul says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
BL2 wrote:
"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££
It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't.

Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit."

Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."
Beth, how can you say that driving fast is dangerous, if it's on a dual carriageway, devoid of obstructions such as traffic congestion how is that dangerous? On the other hand if driving fast when that same road is congested IS dangerous, there are differentials here I believe.
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote]"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."[/quote] So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££[/p][/quote]It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't. Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit." Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."[/p][/quote]Beth, how can you say that driving fast is dangerous, if it's on a dual carriageway, devoid of obstructions such as traffic congestion how is that dangerous? On the other hand if driving fast when that same road is congested IS dangerous, there are differentials here I believe. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: 6

12:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

asd wrote:
They should look at banning agricultural vehicles and JCB's using the the A64 dual from 7am - 9:30 am and 3pm - 6-30 pm. I am surprised there have not been more accidents caused by severely slow vehicles like these.
Quite understandable comments. Other than these there are other vehicles with a legal limit below the road speed limit; and these do lead to miscalculations and errors of judgement. All road users need to understand the differences associated with transport, travel, and safe motoring.

The farmers could argue they were here before the cars!
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: They should look at banning agricultural vehicles and JCB's using the the A64 dual from 7am - 9:30 am and 3pm - 6-30 pm. I am surprised there have not been more accidents caused by severely slow vehicles like these.[/p][/quote]Quite understandable comments. Other than these there are other vehicles with a legal limit below the road speed limit; and these do lead to miscalculations and errors of judgement. All road users need to understand the differences associated with transport, travel, and safe motoring. The farmers could argue they were here before the cars! Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
Seamer Bypass is a perfectly sighted straight road which is nearly wide enough to turn into a dual carriageway. No side turnings or exits.

Malton Bypass, well sighted dual carriageway, no side turnings or exits. Perfectly straight. No one living alongside it.

Community concern is obviously their code for "makes us boat loads of cash".
There MUST be evidence of community concern. However, one person complaining every day can swing it!
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Seamer Bypass is a perfectly sighted straight road which is nearly wide enough to turn into a dual carriageway. No side turnings or exits. Malton Bypass, well sighted dual carriageway, no side turnings or exits. Perfectly straight. No one living alongside it. Community concern is obviously their code for "makes us boat loads of cash".[/p][/quote]There MUST be evidence of community concern. However, one person complaining every day can swing it! Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
BL2 wrote:
"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."

So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££
It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't.

Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit."

Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."
Beth, how can you say that driving fast is dangerous, if it's on a dual carriageway, devoid of obstructions such as traffic congestion how is that dangerous? On the other hand if driving fast when that same road is congested IS dangerous, there are differentials here I believe.
Spot on; uncontrolled speed is a killer. Crawling at low speeds is a concern also. Safe, flow driving is the answer; and usually saves on fuel.
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: [quote]"The cameras operate at three different types of site, these are 'Exceptional' sites, which are identified through the speed management protocol as being of community concern, 'Motorcycle' routes used by motorcycles that have a high incidence of collisions and anti social behaviour, and 'Killed or seriously injured' - sites where people have been killed or seriously injured and where excess or inappropriate speed has been deemed to be a factor."[/quote] So that's why they are on long open clear straights where there are little of no junctions, no visibility or road surface problems and very little traffic then? Makes perfect sense ... ££££[/p][/quote]It is irrelevant if a driver believes he or she can "safely" do in excess of the speed limit. It is the limit and they shouldn't. Maybe a thief will say "I thought I could morally get away with only taking a tenner, it's only a little bit." Send both to jail. We know that for rich 4x4 owners fines don't work. End the "my right to drive fast and dangerously."[/p][/quote]Beth, how can you say that driving fast is dangerous, if it's on a dual carriageway, devoid of obstructions such as traffic congestion how is that dangerous? On the other hand if driving fast when that same road is congested IS dangerous, there are differentials here I believe.[/p][/quote]Spot on; uncontrolled speed is a killer. Crawling at low speeds is a concern also. Safe, flow driving is the answer; and usually saves on fuel. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
nottoooldtocare wrote:
twotonethomas wrote:
BethFoxhunter96 wrote:
I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night.

I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable.

Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now!
BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law!

I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.
Doesn't really matter which she is being, can you imagine a night in her company? How many high horses does she have?
A few. A girl is allowed an opinion on everything!

I have no problems with people driving at the speed limit. But it looks like people are trying to justify breaking the law. I find that unacceptable from an ethical point of view, and also a humanitarian one. Slow down, and the roads will be safer, more relaxing, more enjoyable places.

And nature will also benefit.

I find it very amusing the people are trying to justify speeding by saying that its okay because people drive too slowly. Old people who drive slowly may annoy the Jeremy Clarkson types, but they are doing the right thing: being safe, being slow, being happy. Can't overtake without speeding? Don't. #Simples!
Not getting past very low drivers, when it is safe, is not correct; and it leads to congestion and road rage! Just think, on A roads with only one lane each way, and we are all do 35mph on a Sunday with good conditions----- surely not!
[quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twotonethomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BethFoxhunter96[/bold] wrote: I don't think they should be announced. That is like telling a burglar where the police will be each night. I believe that reducing speed limits nationally by 10% will make this country a much better place. It will lower road deaths, discourage dangerous driving, drastically cut pollution and make driving far more enjoyable. Earlier this year I was in America with some friends. We hired a car and drove for miles and miles. Everyone stuck to the speed limit of 55 or 65 mph. So relaxing and enjoyable, so much safer and there seemed to be far less pressure to rush or make poor driving decisions. Unlike in the UK where people try to drive at 90+. So dangerous, utterly selfish, "me first" and completely unnecessary. Not to mention the exponential pollution which is created, air friction quadruples with a doubling in speed! Lower road speed limits now![/p][/quote]BethFoxHunter telling everyone else to obey the law! I don't know whether she's being ironic or hypocritical.[/p][/quote]Doesn't really matter which she is being, can you imagine a night in her company? How many high horses does she have?[/p][/quote]A few. A girl is allowed an opinion on everything! I have no problems with people driving at the speed limit. But it looks like people are trying to justify breaking the law. I find that unacceptable from an ethical point of view, and also a humanitarian one. Slow down, and the roads will be safer, more relaxing, more enjoyable places. And nature will also benefit. I find it very amusing the people are trying to justify speeding by saying that its okay because people drive too slowly. Old people who drive slowly may annoy the Jeremy Clarkson types, but they are doing the right thing: being safe, being slow, being happy. Can't overtake without speeding? Don't. #Simples![/p][/quote]Not getting past very low drivers, when it is safe, is not correct; and it leads to congestion and road rage! Just think, on A roads with only one lane each way, and we are all do 35mph on a Sunday with good conditions----- surely not! Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree