More mobile speed cameras for roads of North Yorkshire

More mobile speed cameras for roads of North Yorkshire

A police officer uses a mobile speed camera

The majority of people believe road safety should be a concern

First published in News
Last updated

THE number of mobile speed cameras in North Yorkshire is set to double.

The Executive Board of North Yorkshire Police yesterday gave the green light to a number of proposals to improve road safety across the region, which also included the development of a community speed watch scheme, enhanced training and education for road users, and the purchase of three new mobile safety camera vans, in addition to the three that are already in operation.

Research showed that police in North Yorkshire were covering about 9,000km of roads with fewer resources than other forces of a similar size. the new vans will be in use from next spring, and will be used at locations around the region with frequent reports of accidents or speeding.

Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick said: "More enforcement is an effective approach, so it is great news that North Yorkshire Police will soon have more mobile safety camera vans to deploy in safety hot-spots, but this alone won't solve the problem.

"Many road-users don't think of themselves as 'anti-social', so they continue to take risks until they are involved in a collision, and tragically we have seen a number of serious incidents recently where people have lost their lives. We will also be doing more training and education, to help all road-users to realise that unless we all share the responsibility for keeping roads safe, we will all continue to share in the risks. Our aim is safer roads for everyone."

More than 8,000 people were killed or seriously injured on the region's roads between 2010 and 2012, and police currently have three mobile speed cameras to try and tackle the problem - but recent research showed 80 per cent of the public believed road safety was a concern for residents.

Julia Mulligan, the Police and Crime Commissioner said: "I am absolutely committed to improving road safety in our region, and I hope that the activities we have announced today will make a significant contribution to reducing fatalities, injuries and anti-social behaviour on our roads.

"The recent survey I undertook showed without question the vast majority of the public are concerned about road safety, and this shows we are taking those concerns seriously. By approving the proposals we have increased North Yorkshire Police's capacity for enforcement to bring it into line with that of other comparable Forces, but I would also like to call upon the region's drivers, bikers and cyclists to play their part, and help us to keep the roads safe for everyone."

The Speedwatch initiative, which is already under way in 20mph, 30mph and some 40mph areas in Hampshire and on the Isle of Wight. It is managed by local Safer Neighbourhood Teams and run by volunteers who use equipment that can monitor the speed of passing traffic and record the details, later adding them to a database.

Figures released by North Yorkshire Police showed 51 people died on the roads of York and North Yorkshire last year, up from 35 the previous year - the highest number since 2008.

The figures also showed 442 people were seriously injured on the roads last year, compared with 489 the previous year – the lowest in 20 years.

A police spokeswoman said that figures had fallen since 1994, when 84 people were killed on the roads, with 1,176 people seriously injured, and almost 3,500 people injured, and other changes to be made by police would include the formation of a new unit to bring together all road policing and fining teams.

Comments (123)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:25am Wed 30 Jul 14

X5019c says...

So they won't put more police on foot in the city centre where feral youths run riot but they will hide in little vans acting as tax collectors. My country really has gone to the dogs.
So they won't put more police on foot in the city centre where feral youths run riot but they will hide in little vans acting as tax collectors. My country really has gone to the dogs. X5019c
  • Score: 103

8:28am Wed 30 Jul 14

smudge2 says...

Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw... smudge2
  • Score: 76

8:50am Wed 30 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

IF it was only about road safety it wouldn't be so bad. It is about raising revenue in these still difficult times.

If the police really wanted to have a visible deterrent why do they hide their vans on the bridges over the A64 with only a small part of the van projecting over the edge of the bridge?

With these speed camera vans and the council spy vans, we really have sleep walked into a big brother state.
IF it was only about road safety it wouldn't be so bad. It is about raising revenue in these still difficult times. If the police really wanted to have a visible deterrent why do they hide their vans on the bridges over the A64 with only a small part of the van projecting over the edge of the bridge? With these speed camera vans and the council spy vans, we really have sleep walked into a big brother state. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 69

8:55am Wed 30 Jul 14

P3TER1 says...

Cash cow
Cash cow P3TER1
  • Score: 58

8:56am Wed 30 Jul 14

pedalling paul says...

smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........ pedalling paul
  • Score: -75

8:56am Wed 30 Jul 14

Fat Harry says...

Motorists are only a "soft target" if they break the law by going too fast.

There's been an awful lot said in these pages since the weekend about people taking responsibility for their own actions and I'd suggest it applies to drivers as much as it does to drinkers.

The answer is in your own hands, ladies and gentlemen.
Motorists are only a "soft target" if they break the law by going too fast. There's been an awful lot said in these pages since the weekend about people taking responsibility for their own actions and I'd suggest it applies to drivers as much as it does to drinkers. The answer is in your own hands, ladies and gentlemen. Fat Harry
  • Score: -33

8:57am Wed 30 Jul 14

dj4 says...

Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.
Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users. dj4
  • Score: -14

9:01am Wed 30 Jul 14

CHISSY1 says...

X5019c wrote:
So they won't put more police on foot in the city centre where feral youths run riot but they will hide in little vans acting as tax collectors. My country really has gone to the dogs.
It is not our country anymore.
[quote][p][bold]X5019c[/bold] wrote: So they won't put more police on foot in the city centre where feral youths run riot but they will hide in little vans acting as tax collectors. My country really has gone to the dogs.[/p][/quote]It is not our country anymore. CHISSY1
  • Score: 11

9:04am Wed 30 Jul 14

muckybutt says...

If they want to slow traffic down and keep the speed regulated then why don't they invest in average speed cameras down the A64 or at other black spots - a far better deterrent knowing you can only go ** MPH rather than spotting a scamera van and slowing down till you have gone past it then speeding up once it gone.
Scamera vans are nothing but a cash cow for the fuzz, they dont impact on speeding and crashes as the A64 testifies with all its recent crashes and deaths, you put average speed cameras on there and watch the traffic slow down - no brainer in my opinion.
If they want to slow traffic down and keep the speed regulated then why don't they invest in average speed cameras down the A64 or at other black spots - a far better deterrent knowing you can only go ** MPH rather than spotting a scamera van and slowing down till you have gone past it then speeding up once it gone. Scamera vans are nothing but a cash cow for the fuzz, they dont impact on speeding and crashes as the A64 testifies with all its recent crashes and deaths, you put average speed cameras on there and watch the traffic slow down - no brainer in my opinion. muckybutt
  • Score: 35

9:10am Wed 30 Jul 14

roadwars says...

How dare those pesky coppers, who we pay to enforce the law, go out there on our roads and try to enforce the law...
How dare those pesky coppers, who we pay to enforce the law, go out there on our roads and try to enforce the law... roadwars
  • Score: -10

9:24am Wed 30 Jul 14

smudge2 says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
And you have never had a ticket or driven over the speed limit in your life..Get in the real world Mr Hepworth.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........[/p][/quote]And you have never had a ticket or driven over the speed limit in your life..Get in the real world Mr Hepworth. smudge2
  • Score: 36

9:41am Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back?

Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help.

It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.
Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back? Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help. It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 47

9:47am Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist?
3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment
I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist? 3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment courier46
  • Score: -11

9:56am Wed 30 Jul 14

Mullarkian says...

Funny but I thought motorways and dual carriageways were built to allow traffic to move faster and reduce bottlenecks, and here we are photographing everybody doing 5 or 10 mph over the ludicrous 60 & 70 mph limits on these roads.
The main reason people are involved in accidents is they are not taught to 'drive' but only to pass their tests.
Funny but I thought motorways and dual carriageways were built to allow traffic to move faster and reduce bottlenecks, and here we are photographing everybody doing 5 or 10 mph over the ludicrous 60 & 70 mph limits on these roads. The main reason people are involved in accidents is they are not taught to 'drive' but only to pass their tests. Mullarkian
  • Score: 30

9:58am Wed 30 Jul 14

BL2 says...

dj4 wrote:
Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.
What rubbish! The most dangerous people on the roads are those driving around in boxes who are blatantly incapable of driving safely! Speed cameras do nothing to improve safety, all they do is raise revenue. Catching dangerous road users should be the most important thing (this may or may not include speeding or even going to slowly).
[quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.[/p][/quote]What rubbish! The most dangerous people on the roads are those driving around in boxes who are blatantly incapable of driving safely! Speed cameras do nothing to improve safety, all they do is raise revenue. Catching dangerous road users should be the most important thing (this may or may not include speeding or even going to slowly). BL2
  • Score: 36

10:06am Wed 30 Jul 14

yorkshirelad says...

Bing! That word 'revenue' again.... but the 'revenue' brigade are losing the argument. No one pays 'revenue' unless they break the law. Even then it's still a very leniently applied law....

First the sites are usually very visible, then they are advertised in advance, then a leeway is allowed, then before points/fine you get allowed to go on an educational course, if you do get points they have to add up before there is a loss of license...hey they even put great big signs up to warn of enforcement areas and gadgets are sold which remind people of these areas.

Can anyone think of any law that is enforced with all those provisos? The technology is needed because of the large numbers involved and the substantial minority who they that they are above the law (just read the posts).

Decent people will support this extension...for people who very occasionally stray over and are unlucky to get caught, the system has more than enough safeguards to ensure the penalty is proportionate.

In the real world people are accepting this technology...I do because it feels that it keeps me safer on the roads and keeps my family safer too.

I think in time we will grow out of fixed sites, advanced advertising and brightly coloured vans. 'Anytime, anywhere' would be much more effective.

Someone getting killed (or badly injured) on the roads is appalling - this is proportionate to those terrible consequences and should be supported.
Bing! That word 'revenue' again.... but the 'revenue' brigade are losing the argument. No one pays 'revenue' unless they break the law. Even then it's still a very leniently applied law.... First the sites are usually very visible, then they are advertised in advance, then a leeway is allowed, then before points/fine you get allowed to go on an educational course, if you do get points they have to add up before there is a loss of license...hey they even put great big signs up to warn of enforcement areas and gadgets are sold which remind people of these areas. Can anyone think of any law that is enforced with all those provisos? The technology is needed because of the large numbers involved and the substantial minority who they that they are above the law (just read the posts). Decent people will support this extension...for people who very occasionally stray over and are unlucky to get caught, the system has more than enough safeguards to ensure the penalty is proportionate. In the real world people are accepting this technology...I do because it feels that it keeps me safer on the roads and keeps my family safer too. I think in time we will grow out of fixed sites, advanced advertising and brightly coloured vans. 'Anytime, anywhere' would be much more effective. Someone getting killed (or badly injured) on the roads is appalling - this is proportionate to those terrible consequences and should be supported. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -20

10:06am Wed 30 Jul 14

ian923 says...

You wonder where cash raised by these vans goes. It doesn't,t go to fund more officers I bet. Anyway who is on the Executive Board and what other decisions does it have to make. This must be separate from the Crime Panel?
You wonder where cash raised by these vans goes. It doesn't,t go to fund more officers I bet. Anyway who is on the Executive Board and what other decisions does it have to make. This must be separate from the Crime Panel? ian923
  • Score: 18

10:11am Wed 30 Jul 14

bolero says...

GOOD!
GOOD! bolero
  • Score: -20

10:11am Wed 30 Jul 14

The Great Buda says...

Once again the unwanted Julia Mulligan puts profit ahead of policing. These vans have been proven not to work, they do nothing for road safety. They do great wonders for the Polices bank acount.

She clearly isn't serious about increasing safety.
Once again the unwanted Julia Mulligan puts profit ahead of policing. These vans have been proven not to work, they do nothing for road safety. They do great wonders for the Polices bank acount. She clearly isn't serious about increasing safety. The Great Buda
  • Score: 35

10:17am Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

courier46 wrote:
I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist?
3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment
And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is?

I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way.

10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist? 3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment[/p][/quote]And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is? I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way. 10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 34

10:24am Wed 30 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist?
3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment
And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is?

I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way.

10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.
Hmmm.Spot on. A writer with some common sense!!
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist? 3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment[/p][/quote]And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is? I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way. 10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.[/p][/quote]Hmmm.Spot on. A writer with some common sense!! AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 27

10:32am Wed 30 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Bing! That word 'revenue' again.... but the 'revenue' brigade are losing the argument. No one pays 'revenue' unless they break the law. Even then it's still a very leniently applied law....

First the sites are usually very visible, then they are advertised in advance, then a leeway is allowed, then before points/fine you get allowed to go on an educational course, if you do get points they have to add up before there is a loss of license...hey they even put great big signs up to warn of enforcement areas and gadgets are sold which remind people of these areas.

Can anyone think of any law that is enforced with all those provisos? The technology is needed because of the large numbers involved and the substantial minority who they that they are above the law (just read the posts).

Decent people will support this extension...for people who very occasionally stray over and are unlucky to get caught, the system has more than enough safeguards to ensure the penalty is proportionate.

In the real world people are accepting this technology...I do because it feels that it keeps me safer on the roads and keeps my family safer too.

I think in time we will grow out of fixed sites, advanced advertising and brightly coloured vans. 'Anytime, anywhere' would be much more effective.

Someone getting killed (or badly injured) on the roads is appalling - this is proportionate to those terrible consequences and should be supported.
Regarding your second paragraph. Why do they hide on the bridges over the A64? They are not visible. They hide behind the parapet of the bridge with only the camera and the very top of the van being visible.

That IS about revenue raising and nothing to do with safety.

Speed plays a part in some accidents. Accidents are the result of bad roads and bad driving. There are a lot of roads that could be made better but that involves spending money (speed camera vans just generate revune). If they got out in their cars the police could do so much more to help keep the roads safe.

The "revenue brigade" are not losing the argument.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: Bing! That word 'revenue' again.... but the 'revenue' brigade are losing the argument. No one pays 'revenue' unless they break the law. Even then it's still a very leniently applied law.... First the sites are usually very visible, then they are advertised in advance, then a leeway is allowed, then before points/fine you get allowed to go on an educational course, if you do get points they have to add up before there is a loss of license...hey they even put great big signs up to warn of enforcement areas and gadgets are sold which remind people of these areas. Can anyone think of any law that is enforced with all those provisos? The technology is needed because of the large numbers involved and the substantial minority who they that they are above the law (just read the posts). Decent people will support this extension...for people who very occasionally stray over and are unlucky to get caught, the system has more than enough safeguards to ensure the penalty is proportionate. In the real world people are accepting this technology...I do because it feels that it keeps me safer on the roads and keeps my family safer too. I think in time we will grow out of fixed sites, advanced advertising and brightly coloured vans. 'Anytime, anywhere' would be much more effective. Someone getting killed (or badly injured) on the roads is appalling - this is proportionate to those terrible consequences and should be supported.[/p][/quote]Regarding your second paragraph. Why do they hide on the bridges over the A64? They are not visible. They hide behind the parapet of the bridge with only the camera and the very top of the van being visible. That IS about revenue raising and nothing to do with safety. Speed plays a part in some accidents. Accidents are the result of bad roads and bad driving. There are a lot of roads that could be made better but that involves spending money (speed camera vans just generate revune). If they got out in their cars the police could do so much more to help keep the roads safe. The "revenue brigade" are not losing the argument. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 21

10:40am Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist?
3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment
And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is?

I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way.

10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.
Ah!,the safe A64 where theres been so many deaths and injuries that i dont even know the number.
If you dont have a detterant idiots will soon be up 100mph.
I see the mileage you do you will be one of those that thinks there a safe driver at 80? 90? ,by your response you might not have had an accident or lost someone to speed yet?
And doing 10-20mph in a 30 zone has nothing to do with prudence but respect for peoples lives.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist? 3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment[/p][/quote]And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is? I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way. 10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.[/p][/quote]Ah!,the safe A64 where theres been so many deaths and injuries that i dont even know the number. If you dont have a detterant idiots will soon be up 100mph. I see the mileage you do you will be one of those that thinks there a safe driver at 80? 90? ,by your response you might not have had an accident or lost someone to speed yet? And doing 10-20mph in a 30 zone has nothing to do with prudence but respect for peoples lives. courier46
  • Score: -17

10:52am Wed 30 Jul 14

Fat Harry says...

If you don't break the law, you won't get fined.
If you don't break the law, you won't get fined. Fat Harry
  • Score: -10

10:54am Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

If you'd read my post before frothing at the mouth and hammering out your reply you'd have seen I was discussing 10-20 mph OVER the speed limit in a 30.

How many deaths on the A64 are caused by speed in excess of the posted limit? Barton Crossroads for example, how many people die there due to their inability to use a crossroads safely rather than someone doing 80 being the cause.

How many people have ever died on the Malton Bypass by doing 80?

I will guarantee I am a safer driver taking into account safe road conditions and choosing a speed accordingly rather than blindly obeying a number on a signpost simply because it is there.
If you'd read my post before frothing at the mouth and hammering out your reply you'd have seen I was discussing 10-20 mph OVER the speed limit in a 30. How many deaths on the A64 are caused by speed in excess of the posted limit? Barton Crossroads for example, how many people die there due to their inability to use a crossroads safely rather than someone doing 80 being the cause. How many people have ever died on the Malton Bypass by doing 80? I will guarantee I am a safer driver taking into account safe road conditions and choosing a speed accordingly rather than blindly obeying a number on a signpost simply because it is there. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 25

11:11am Wed 30 Jul 14

again says...

Bring on the driverless cars.
Bring on the driverless cars. again
  • Score: -9

11:17am Wed 30 Jul 14

Paul the 6th says...

There are some very dangerous roads in North Yorkshire, and excessive speed is a problem however mobile camera vans sat on smooth straight bits of dual carriageway of the a64, zapping drivers who have drifted upto 80mph, in a moment of sincere inattention to their speedo (yet giving 100% attention to the road/vehicles around them), punishing & fining these people doesn't deal with the horrific standards of driving on our roads - the people who learned how to pass a driving test but have no idea about road craft or playing their part in the dynamics of traffic & are a danger to themselves/everyone around them. People sat in the outside lane at 60mph, weaving all over because they're texting. The people with no concept of closing speed who pull out to overtake lorries & consider their indicator to give them the right of way regardless of traffic in lane 2 or 3. The people who stop at roundabouts when there is nothing coming (an outright driving test fail). The people who stop & then indicate that they're turning right into a side road...

More speed 'safety' camera vans will do nothing for driving standards. Safer roads need real police officers in traffic cars to educate & explain to the public where they've gone wrong. Obviously this is all just a symptom of the problem of budgets being slashed.
There are some very dangerous roads in North Yorkshire, and excessive speed is a problem however mobile camera vans sat on smooth straight bits of dual carriageway of the a64, zapping drivers who have drifted upto 80mph, in a moment of sincere inattention to their speedo (yet giving 100% attention to the road/vehicles around them), punishing & fining these people doesn't deal with the horrific standards of driving on our roads - the people who learned how to pass a driving test but have no idea about road craft or playing their part in the dynamics of traffic & are a danger to themselves/everyone around them. People sat in the outside lane at 60mph, weaving all over because they're texting. The people with no concept of closing speed who pull out to overtake lorries & consider their indicator to give them the right of way regardless of traffic in lane 2 or 3. The people who stop at roundabouts when there is nothing coming (an outright driving test fail). The people who stop & then indicate that they're turning right into a side road... More speed 'safety' camera vans will do nothing for driving standards. Safer roads need real police officers in traffic cars to educate & explain to the public where they've gone wrong. Obviously this is all just a symptom of the problem of budgets being slashed. Paul the 6th
  • Score: 30

11:19am Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control.
Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.
I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control. Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed. courier46
  • Score: -6

11:20am Wed 30 Jul 14

the-e-man says...

What annoys me is that the motorist is treated differently than offenders who commit crime and other anti social offences.
Motorists are easy game. The offences they commit are easy to prove and with the fixed penalty system the enforcement and punishment are cost effective if not profitable.
Offences of dishonesty or anti social behaviour often involve costly lengthy investigations and costly effective punishments.
Consquently crime and anti social behaviour is not dealt with effectively. This has resulted in the motorist feeling as if he is being persecuted.
I am not surprised that the publics' perception of the police is steadly deteriorating .
The answer is not to lower the standards for the enforcement of traffic laws but to introduce effective non expensive punishments for crime and anti social behaviour. The motorist would then have to accept their punishment and not feel "picked on".
What annoys me is that the motorist is treated differently than offenders who commit crime and other anti social offences. Motorists are easy game. The offences they commit are easy to prove and with the fixed penalty system the enforcement and punishment are cost effective if not profitable. Offences of dishonesty or anti social behaviour often involve costly lengthy investigations and costly effective punishments. Consquently crime and anti social behaviour is not dealt with effectively. This has resulted in the motorist feeling as if he is being persecuted. I am not surprised that the publics' perception of the police is steadly deteriorating . The answer is not to lower the standards for the enforcement of traffic laws but to introduce effective non expensive punishments for crime and anti social behaviour. The motorist would then have to accept their punishment and not feel "picked on". the-e-man
  • Score: 17

11:24am Wed 30 Jul 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway.
Cash vans.
I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway. Cash vans. Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 19

11:28am Wed 30 Jul 14

angry neil says...

It's hard not to be cynical about these vans,when they hide them on a bridge of a dual carriageway. It's a fact that more accidents occur off motorways and dual carriageways it's just that people are more likely to go over the speed limit on these safer long stretches of roads ,so they know they can make an easy money!
I mean if sticking a van at the bottom of whitwell hill isn't designed to make more money over safety then they are lying.
Built up areas should be there targets,not some wide open long stretch of road that you can see for miles in front .
Until they start putting these things where they should be ,I won't believe it's anything other than a revenue raiser.
It's hard not to be cynical about these vans,when they hide them on a bridge of a dual carriageway. It's a fact that more accidents occur off motorways and dual carriageways it's just that people are more likely to go over the speed limit on these safer long stretches of roads ,so they know they can make an easy money! I mean if sticking a van at the bottom of whitwell hill isn't designed to make more money over safety then they are lying. Built up areas should be there targets,not some wide open long stretch of road that you can see for miles in front . Until they start putting these things where they should be ,I won't believe it's anything other than a revenue raiser. angry neil
  • Score: 23

11:44am Wed 30 Jul 14

yorkshirelad says...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway.
Cash vans.
Are all serious crashes near schools and parks? Do children going to those places only deserve protection right outside them? Are the rest of us unworthy of protection on the roads?

People are generally accepting this kind of enforcement more and more. Of course a minority (over-represented on local newspaper discussion forums unsurprisingly!) think it's terrible that the law should be enforced against them and shout 'revenue' but really they are treated leniently.

How many other offences allow your record to stay clean by swapping the conviction for an education day? I don't recall burglars or drug-users being treated so leniently when their crimes are actually far less dangerous to other people.

Bottom line - if you seek to obey the law, you are unlikely to be fined.
[quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway. Cash vans.[/p][/quote]Are all serious crashes near schools and parks? Do children going to those places only deserve protection right outside them? Are the rest of us unworthy of protection on the roads? People are generally accepting this kind of enforcement more and more. Of course a minority (over-represented on local newspaper discussion forums unsurprisingly!) think it's terrible that the law should be enforced against them and shout 'revenue' but really they are treated leniently. How many other offences allow your record to stay clean by swapping the conviction for an education day? I don't recall burglars or drug-users being treated so leniently when their crimes are actually far less dangerous to other people. Bottom line - if you seek to obey the law, you are unlikely to be fined. yorkshirelad
  • Score: -18

11:50am Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

courier46 wrote:
I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control.
Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.
Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control. Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.[/p][/quote]Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 8

11:50am Wed 30 Jul 14

GixerGaz says...

dj4 wrote:
Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.
I am a middle aged biker and I take great offence to your comment. I have two young children and I cerainly dont ride like an idiot.

......pity the Police cant do anything about idiot car/van and lorry drivers who pull out on bikers!
[quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.[/p][/quote]I am a middle aged biker and I take great offence to your comment. I have two young children and I cerainly dont ride like an idiot. ......pity the Police cant do anything about idiot car/van and lorry drivers who pull out on bikers! GixerGaz
  • Score: 16

11:52am Wed 30 Jul 14

GixerGaz says...

......pity that the Police cant do anything about idiot car/van and lorry drivers who pull out on bikers!
......pity that the Police cant do anything about idiot car/van and lorry drivers who pull out on bikers! GixerGaz
  • Score: 8

12:04pm Wed 30 Jul 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Speed needs to be controlled as unfortunately there are a tiny minority who would and do speed recklessly. Once again in this country the majority are made to pay for the minority.
But I have to agree this is just another form of tax. When have you ever seen a speed camera van parked in plain open view which you can see from a distance away? I never have. They will generally hide over the brow of a hill or, in the case of the A64 Westbound, just at the bottom of Whitwell Hill were they are hidden from view by the shrubbery and only become visible right at the bottom where, in most cars, if you have not had your foot on the brake momentum and gravity will have taken you over the limit.
Recently on the A64 I have seen them parked at an angle in laybys facing the traffic so that all marking are not visible with the cameras at the front operating and at the back where the markings can be seen the flaps firmly closed. Now no one can tell me that is not just maximising the revenue raising opportunity.
Lets face it cars have advanced by leaps and bounds since these limits were introduced and at times it is perfectly safe to go a little quicker than the limits would allow.
Think about it. When was the last time the government raised direct taxes? Can't remember? I can't. But indirectly VAT, Fuel Duty, Green Levies on fuel bills, National Insurance. All but VAT, which you don't notice until the builder sends his bill to you, have been sold to us on the basis they are good for us they will help save the planet and secure our health & safety. Seems like more of the same to me and who is going to argue against the H&S benefits?.
Speed needs to be controlled as unfortunately there are a tiny minority who would and do speed recklessly. Once again in this country the majority are made to pay for the minority. But I have to agree this is just another form of tax. When have you ever seen a speed camera van parked in plain open view which you can see from a distance away? I never have. They will generally hide over the brow of a hill or, in the case of the A64 Westbound, just at the bottom of Whitwell Hill were they are hidden from view by the shrubbery and only become visible right at the bottom where, in most cars, if you have not had your foot on the brake momentum and gravity will have taken you over the limit. Recently on the A64 I have seen them parked at an angle in laybys facing the traffic so that all marking are not visible with the cameras at the front operating and at the back where the markings can be seen the flaps firmly closed. Now no one can tell me that is not just maximising the revenue raising opportunity. Lets face it cars have advanced by leaps and bounds since these limits were introduced and at times it is perfectly safe to go a little quicker than the limits would allow. Think about it. When was the last time the government raised direct taxes? Can't remember? I can't. But indirectly VAT, Fuel Duty, Green Levies on fuel bills, National Insurance. All but VAT, which you don't notice until the builder sends his bill to you, have been sold to us on the basis they are good for us they will help save the planet and secure our health & safety. Seems like more of the same to me and who is going to argue against the H&S benefits?. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 18

12:39pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CaroleBaines says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back?

Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help.

It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.
Why would catching people speeding mean that the texters and the drink drivers get away with it? The issues are not mutually exclusive, but if we (say) never targeted speeding, the message would go out its okay to speed, thus more deaths etc etc.

Simple way to avoid fines is not to speed. Had one about fifteen years ago, didn't like it, now I stick to limits and not had one since. Simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back? Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help. It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.[/p][/quote]Why would catching people speeding mean that the texters and the drink drivers get away with it? The issues are not mutually exclusive, but if we (say) never targeted speeding, the message would go out its okay to speed, thus more deaths etc etc. Simple way to avoid fines is not to speed. Had one about fifteen years ago, didn't like it, now I stick to limits and not had one since. Simple as that. CaroleBaines
  • Score: -9

12:42pm Wed 30 Jul 14

ouseswimmer says...

I've never seen an accident on the A64 Malton by-pass yet the camera van seems to be there far too often. Its a very safe part of the A64. They actually don'r seem to position themselves anywhere near the accident blackspots but on wide open stretches where people may speed.

Its all about revenue and one friend who attended a course recently said there were two courses being held at the same time with two others the same day. All in al £12,000 for one days work. Not a bad earner.
I've never seen an accident on the A64 Malton by-pass yet the camera van seems to be there far too often. Its a very safe part of the A64. They actually don'r seem to position themselves anywhere near the accident blackspots but on wide open stretches where people may speed. Its all about revenue and one friend who attended a course recently said there were two courses being held at the same time with two others the same day. All in al £12,000 for one days work. Not a bad earner. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 24

12:46pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

CaroleBaines wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back?

Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help.

It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.
Why would catching people speeding mean that the texters and the drink drivers get away with it? The issues are not mutually exclusive, but if we (say) never targeted speeding, the message would go out its okay to speed, thus more deaths etc etc.

Simple way to avoid fines is not to speed. Had one about fifteen years ago, didn't like it, now I stick to limits and not had one since. Simple as that.
Are you unable to see that money spent on camera vans takes funds away from money which could be spent on proper police officers, ones who are able to look at all hazards, rather than just speed like the camera vans?

You really do have to spell it out to some people.
[quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back? Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help. It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.[/p][/quote]Why would catching people speeding mean that the texters and the drink drivers get away with it? The issues are not mutually exclusive, but if we (say) never targeted speeding, the message would go out its okay to speed, thus more deaths etc etc. Simple way to avoid fines is not to speed. Had one about fifteen years ago, didn't like it, now I stick to limits and not had one since. Simple as that.[/p][/quote]Are you unable to see that money spent on camera vans takes funds away from money which could be spent on proper police officers, ones who are able to look at all hazards, rather than just speed like the camera vans? You really do have to spell it out to some people. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 16

12:46pm Wed 30 Jul 14

The Great Buda says...

Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway.
Cash vans.
And thats the crux of it.

No right minded person would, as they would genuinely improve safety.
[quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway. Cash vans.[/p][/quote]And thats the crux of it. No right minded person would, as they would genuinely improve safety. The Great Buda
  • Score: 10

12:47pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Stevie D says...

At least most roads in North Yorkshire have sensible speed limits (although the same is often not true in York) - be grateful you are not living in East Riding, Derbyshire, Cheshire or other places where councils have been relentlessly cutting speed limits so that they can now be exceeded by a blind badger in perfect safety for 90% of the time.
At least most roads in North Yorkshire have sensible speed limits (although the same is often not true in York) - be grateful you are not living in East Riding, Derbyshire, Cheshire or other places where councils have been relentlessly cutting speed limits so that they can now be exceeded by a blind badger in perfect safety for 90% of the time. Stevie D
  • Score: 13

12:55pm Wed 30 Jul 14

ouseswimmer says...

I've never seen an accident on the A64 Malton by-pass yet the camera van seems to be there far too often. Its a very safe part of the A64. They actually don'r seem to position themselves anywhere near the accident blackspots but on wide open stretches where people may speed.

Its all about revenue and one friend who attended a course recently said there were two courses being held at the same time with two others the same day. All in al £12,000 for one days work. Not a bad earner.
I've never seen an accident on the A64 Malton by-pass yet the camera van seems to be there far too often. Its a very safe part of the A64. They actually don'r seem to position themselves anywhere near the accident blackspots but on wide open stretches where people may speed. Its all about revenue and one friend who attended a course recently said there were two courses being held at the same time with two others the same day. All in al £12,000 for one days work. Not a bad earner. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 5

1:10pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CaroleBaines says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
CaroleBaines wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back?

Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help.

It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.
Why would catching people speeding mean that the texters and the drink drivers get away with it? The issues are not mutually exclusive, but if we (say) never targeted speeding, the message would go out its okay to speed, thus more deaths etc etc.

Simple way to avoid fines is not to speed. Had one about fifteen years ago, didn't like it, now I stick to limits and not had one since. Simple as that.
Are you unable to see that money spent on camera vans takes funds away from money which could be spent on proper police officers, ones who are able to look at all hazards, rather than just speed like the camera vans?

You really do have to spell it out to some people.
In fairness, if people like you did not advocate breaking the law, we could afford more of what you call 'proper policemen' for dealing with those who commit more serious crime.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CaroleBaines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: Is this the same Deputy Chief Constable who complained that road deaths were rising just a few weeks back? Yes Mr Madgwick, it is because there are so few police officers out looking for poor driving instead of hiding in little vans collecting cash for you. Instead of looking at the causes of this increase you assume raising a few more quid by placing some more camera vans on the streets will help. It won't, as long as you focus solely on speed the real causes of deaths, the poor driving, the unlicenced, the drunk, the drugged, the drivers texting or reading the paper, will all get away with it and cause more deaths.[/p][/quote]Why would catching people speeding mean that the texters and the drink drivers get away with it? The issues are not mutually exclusive, but if we (say) never targeted speeding, the message would go out its okay to speed, thus more deaths etc etc. Simple way to avoid fines is not to speed. Had one about fifteen years ago, didn't like it, now I stick to limits and not had one since. Simple as that.[/p][/quote]Are you unable to see that money spent on camera vans takes funds away from money which could be spent on proper police officers, ones who are able to look at all hazards, rather than just speed like the camera vans? You really do have to spell it out to some people.[/p][/quote]In fairness, if people like you did not advocate breaking the law, we could afford more of what you call 'proper policemen' for dealing with those who commit more serious crime. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 2

1:18pm Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control.
Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.
Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.
Ability at what? i`m not the one who`s admitted that they break the law by speeding and as such have judged and hung yourself.
If substandard ability means keeping within the law and having respect for peoples lives ,never having one point on licence ,no parking fine or speeding fine,yes mate very substandard to your driving by the sound of it.
And no i`m not a goody two shoes ,i just don`t want a fine or points on my licence ,die or kill someone.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control. Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.[/p][/quote]Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.[/p][/quote]Ability at what? i`m not the one who`s admitted that they break the law by speeding and as such have judged and hung yourself. If substandard ability means keeping within the law and having respect for peoples lives ,never having one point on licence ,no parking fine or speeding fine,yes mate very substandard to your driving by the sound of it. And no i`m not a goody two shoes ,i just don`t want a fine or points on my licence ,die or kill someone. courier46
  • Score: -1

1:27pm Wed 30 Jul 14

gmc_1963 says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
I've never seen an accident on the A64 Malton by-pass yet the camera van seems to be there far too often. Its a very safe part of the A64. They actually don'r seem to position themselves anywhere near the accident blackspots but on wide open stretches where people may speed. Its all about revenue and one friend who attended a course recently said there were two courses being held at the same time with two others the same day. All in al £12,000 for one days work. Not a bad earner.
So if the van positioning is only concerned with the likelihood of catching a speeding motorist and not about the consequences associated with speeding at the location, then it's not about risk reduction and it's not a safety camera.

Sound like a valid argument to me.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: I've never seen an accident on the A64 Malton by-pass yet the camera van seems to be there far too often. Its a very safe part of the A64. They actually don'r seem to position themselves anywhere near the accident blackspots but on wide open stretches where people may speed. Its all about revenue and one friend who attended a course recently said there were two courses being held at the same time with two others the same day. All in al £12,000 for one days work. Not a bad earner.[/p][/quote]So if the van positioning is only concerned with the likelihood of catching a speeding motorist and not about the consequences associated with speeding at the location, then it's not about risk reduction and it's not a safety camera. Sound like a valid argument to me. gmc_1963
  • Score: 17

1:28pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control.
Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.
Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.
Ability at what? i`m not the one who`s admitted that they break the law by speeding and as such have judged and hung yourself.
If substandard ability means keeping within the law and having respect for peoples lives ,never having one point on licence ,no parking fine or speeding fine,yes mate very substandard to your driving by the sound of it.
And no i`m not a goody two shoes ,i just don`t want a fine or points on my licence ,die or kill someone.
Firstly I am not, nor would ever wish to be your mate.

Secondly meat is hung, people are hanged, assuming that is what you mean in this poorly written shambles of a post?

Thirdly if you assume that I will die or kill someone if I exceed 70 how do you reconcile other countries with limits higher than 70? The French autoroute speed limit is 130km/h or 81mph, do you think the minute you pass through 70 you miraculously die or start a kill crazy rampage?

Finally you have no idea of my driving standard, qualifications or experience, as I have asked before please don't judge me by your substandard skill. You keep blindly obeying limits, regardless of whether they are appropriate or reasonable or not and enjoy your smugness. I, meanwhile, will exercise my skill and judgement on what is an appropriate speed given the conditions.
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control. Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.[/p][/quote]Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.[/p][/quote]Ability at what? i`m not the one who`s admitted that they break the law by speeding and as such have judged and hung yourself. If substandard ability means keeping within the law and having respect for peoples lives ,never having one point on licence ,no parking fine or speeding fine,yes mate very substandard to your driving by the sound of it. And no i`m not a goody two shoes ,i just don`t want a fine or points on my licence ,die or kill someone.[/p][/quote]Firstly I am not, nor would ever wish to be your mate. Secondly meat is hung, people are hanged, assuming that is what you mean in this poorly written shambles of a post? Thirdly if you assume that I will die or kill someone if I exceed 70 how do you reconcile other countries with limits higher than 70? The French autoroute speed limit is 130km/h or 81mph, do you think the minute you pass through 70 you miraculously die or start a kill crazy rampage? Finally you have no idea of my driving standard, qualifications or experience, as I have asked before please don't judge me by your substandard skill. You keep blindly obeying limits, regardless of whether they are appropriate or reasonable or not and enjoy your smugness. I, meanwhile, will exercise my skill and judgement on what is an appropriate speed given the conditions. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 2

1:35pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CaroleBaines says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control.
Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.
Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.
Ability at what? i`m not the one who`s admitted that they break the law by speeding and as such have judged and hung yourself.
If substandard ability means keeping within the law and having respect for peoples lives ,never having one point on licence ,no parking fine or speeding fine,yes mate very substandard to your driving by the sound of it.
And no i`m not a goody two shoes ,i just don`t want a fine or points on my licence ,die or kill someone.
Firstly I am not, nor would ever wish to be your mate.

Secondly meat is hung, people are hanged, assuming that is what you mean in this poorly written shambles of a post?

Thirdly if you assume that I will die or kill someone if I exceed 70 how do you reconcile other countries with limits higher than 70? The French autoroute speed limit is 130km/h or 81mph, do you think the minute you pass through 70 you miraculously die or start a kill crazy rampage?

Finally you have no idea of my driving standard, qualifications or experience, as I have asked before please don't judge me by your substandard skill. You keep blindly obeying limits, regardless of whether they are appropriate or reasonable or not and enjoy your smugness. I, meanwhile, will exercise my skill and judgement on what is an appropriate speed given the conditions.
Keep cool; anger is not an argument.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I thought the same about you ,your reply seemed very agitated to my original post,maybe you are an aggressive driver too?.You are asking me things that i dont know as probably you dont,what i do know is that a car is harder to take evasive action at high speeds and easier to lose control. Your last sentence says it all you break the speed limit and the law and i just hope that you don`t ever kill an innocent person with that speed.[/p][/quote]Please don't judge my driving by what sounds to be your own substandard ability.[/p][/quote]Ability at what? i`m not the one who`s admitted that they break the law by speeding and as such have judged and hung yourself. If substandard ability means keeping within the law and having respect for peoples lives ,never having one point on licence ,no parking fine or speeding fine,yes mate very substandard to your driving by the sound of it. And no i`m not a goody two shoes ,i just don`t want a fine or points on my licence ,die or kill someone.[/p][/quote]Firstly I am not, nor would ever wish to be your mate. Secondly meat is hung, people are hanged, assuming that is what you mean in this poorly written shambles of a post? Thirdly if you assume that I will die or kill someone if I exceed 70 how do you reconcile other countries with limits higher than 70? The French autoroute speed limit is 130km/h or 81mph, do you think the minute you pass through 70 you miraculously die or start a kill crazy rampage? Finally you have no idea of my driving standard, qualifications or experience, as I have asked before please don't judge me by your substandard skill. You keep blindly obeying limits, regardless of whether they are appropriate or reasonable or not and enjoy your smugness. I, meanwhile, will exercise my skill and judgement on what is an appropriate speed given the conditions.[/p][/quote]Keep cool; anger is not an argument. CaroleBaines
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Leeby2 says...

I agree that motorists get fleeced at every opportunity but this is one time when you don't have to pay - just keep within the speed limit, the driver controls the car after all. In response to a previous comment, I regularly see cop cars and camera vans in 30mph speed limits (not just on dual carriageways) and not right at the sign either, they usually give you plenty of time to slow down. Why is everybody in such a rush all the time anyway - better to arrive late than dead on time......(or worse still, kill somebody else)
I agree that motorists get fleeced at every opportunity but this is one time when you don't have to pay - just keep within the speed limit, the driver controls the car after all. In response to a previous comment, I regularly see cop cars and camera vans in 30mph speed limits (not just on dual carriageways) and not right at the sign either, they usually give you plenty of time to slow down. Why is everybody in such a rush all the time anyway - better to arrive late than dead on time......(or worse still, kill somebody else) Leeby2
  • Score: -4

1:59pm Wed 30 Jul 14

MidnightBoo says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
Why is this comment being marked down, its correct! You can deflect blame as much as you like, your car doesn't have a mind of its own. Speed cameras are only a cash cow if you let them be. If you want to drive over the speed limit then there are consequences. It you get caught then you'll just have to suck it up. I expect to get down voted and an array of verbal from you out there, doesn't change the fact that a car is driven by a person. Once the new driverless cars come into being (bbc news today) then there will be no need for speed cameras because they will be programmed to obey the road speeds.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........[/p][/quote]Why is this comment being marked down, its correct! You can deflect blame as much as you like, your car doesn't have a mind of its own. Speed cameras are only a cash cow if you let them be. If you want to drive over the speed limit then there are consequences. It you get caught then you'll just have to suck it up. I expect to get down voted and an array of verbal from you out there, doesn't change the fact that a car is driven by a person. Once the new driverless cars come into being (bbc news today) then there will be no need for speed cameras because they will be programmed to obey the road speeds. MidnightBoo
  • Score: -20

1:59pm Wed 30 Jul 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Fat Harry: You said that it was in our own hands! Reminds me of the gentleman who used a JCB in the middle of the night to dig up a hump! He was punished too.
Our roads remain in a disgusting state despite all these fines etc and this makes them unsafe. Ever wondered why so many vehicles have lights out or worn steering and suspension?
Madgwick and Mulligan or M&M for short; you need a reality check. This is about raising cash while doing nothing to improve the state of our roads.
On the general theme of public safety, one would assume that NYP will be taking on extra staff to man your new speed camera vans.
Sounds more like North Wales all over again!
Fat Harry: You said that it was in our own hands! Reminds me of the gentleman who used a JCB in the middle of the night to dig up a hump! He was punished too. Our roads remain in a disgusting state despite all these fines etc and this makes them unsafe. Ever wondered why so many vehicles have lights out or worn steering and suspension? Madgwick and Mulligan or M&M for short; you need a reality check. This is about raising cash while doing nothing to improve the state of our roads. On the general theme of public safety, one would assume that NYP will be taking on extra staff to man your new speed camera vans. Sounds more like North Wales all over again! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 11

2:10pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

ColdAsChristmas wrote:
Fat Harry: You said that it was in our own hands! Reminds me of the gentleman who used a JCB in the middle of the night to dig up a hump! He was punished too.
Our roads remain in a disgusting state despite all these fines etc and this makes them unsafe. Ever wondered why so many vehicles have lights out or worn steering and suspension?
Madgwick and Mulligan or M&M for short; you need a reality check. This is about raising cash while doing nothing to improve the state of our roads.
On the general theme of public safety, one would assume that NYP will be taking on extra staff to man your new speed camera vans.
Sounds more like North Wales all over again!
Exactly, it has a whiff of the Brunstrom about it.
[quote][p][bold]ColdAsChristmas[/bold] wrote: Fat Harry: You said that it was in our own hands! Reminds me of the gentleman who used a JCB in the middle of the night to dig up a hump! He was punished too. Our roads remain in a disgusting state despite all these fines etc and this makes them unsafe. Ever wondered why so many vehicles have lights out or worn steering and suspension? Madgwick and Mulligan or M&M for short; you need a reality check. This is about raising cash while doing nothing to improve the state of our roads. On the general theme of public safety, one would assume that NYP will be taking on extra staff to man your new speed camera vans. Sounds more like North Wales all over again![/p][/quote]Exactly, it has a whiff of the Brunstrom about it. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 11

2:12pm Wed 30 Jul 14

bringbackcommonsense says...

Just a couple of points:
1. People need to learn the difference between excessive speed, inappropriate speed and speeding. Majority of accidents will be down to INAPPROPRIATE speed. Driving at 70mph on the A64 may be inappropriate at times, likewise driving along it at 80 may be appropriate but is speeding, driving along it at 120 is excessive speed.

2. When will the populace wake up and see that these are no more than money-making ventures. If they were safety measures then they would not be placed AFTER the hazardous bend but before it (income over safety). If safety is a priority, why when roads are resurfaced is it the speed-camera distance reference lines get painted first often followed weeks later by the centre-line and edge markers (income over safety).

3. Ask yourself this; would you rather be on the same road with a competent driver who (when appropriate) exceeds the speed limit but remains 100% focused on the task or with one who is too p**&%$d to read his phone texts so slows to 30mph.

4. Reading some of the comments on here I feel we are very lucky indeed that the award of a driving licence is not based upon IQ or effective intelligence; or perhaps that is something that should be considered.

5. Remember, it is not speed that kills, it is INAPPROPRIATE SPEED that kills. It is a lack of concentration that kills, it is distractions that kill, it is impairment that kills, it is a lack of ability that kills. All of which can happen at 20mph!

6. Setting ridiculously low speed limits and then nabbing everyone who exceeds these is the scam. Limits are lowered using safety as the argument for doing so but all this does is let the drivers' minds wander, there is no mental stimulus and the brain starts to shut down as it thinks the task is menial.

The only real way to improve safety is to get more police on the roads catching the high percentage of hazardous drivers (drink, drug, distracted etc) , improve the road surfaces and layout and to improve driver training. It's not rocket science, it is common sense and that is what is clearly lacking.
Just a couple of points: 1. People need to learn the difference between excessive speed, inappropriate speed and speeding. Majority of accidents will be down to INAPPROPRIATE speed. Driving at 70mph on the A64 may be inappropriate at times, likewise driving along it at 80 may be appropriate but is speeding, driving along it at 120 is excessive speed. 2. When will the populace wake up and see that these are no more than money-making ventures. If they were safety measures then they would not be placed AFTER the hazardous bend but before it (income over safety). If safety is a priority, why when roads are resurfaced is it the speed-camera distance reference lines get painted first often followed weeks later by the centre-line and edge markers (income over safety). 3. Ask yourself this; would you rather be on the same road with a competent driver who (when appropriate) exceeds the speed limit but remains 100% focused on the task or with one who is too p**&%$d to read his phone texts so slows to 30mph. 4. Reading some of the comments on here I feel we are very lucky indeed that the award of a driving licence is not based upon IQ or effective intelligence; or perhaps that is something that should be considered. 5. Remember, it is not speed that kills, it is INAPPROPRIATE SPEED that kills. It is a lack of concentration that kills, it is distractions that kill, it is impairment that kills, it is a lack of ability that kills. All of which can happen at 20mph! 6. Setting ridiculously low speed limits and then nabbing everyone who exceeds these is the scam. Limits are lowered using safety as the argument for doing so but all this does is let the drivers' minds wander, there is no mental stimulus and the brain starts to shut down as it thinks the task is menial. The only real way to improve safety is to get more police on the roads catching the high percentage of hazardous drivers (drink, drug, distracted etc) , improve the road surfaces and layout and to improve driver training. It's not rocket science, it is common sense and that is what is clearly lacking. bringbackcommonsense
  • Score: 25

2:36pm Wed 30 Jul 14

P3TER1 says...

Speeding doesn’t necessarily cause accidents, poor judgement, indecisiveness, and lack of concentration does. Have you every driven in Italy?
Speeding doesn’t necessarily cause accidents, poor judgement, indecisiveness, and lack of concentration does. Have you every driven in Italy? P3TER1
  • Score: 23

2:59pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Y.I.P. says...

We all accept policing has changed,and is forensically and intelligence led,but you still need local police to interact with the public (for intelligence !)and sort the race drunks out (PLEASE)But coppers now are frightened to talk to folk or smile.Easier to catch on camera.
We all accept policing has changed,and is forensically and intelligence led,but you still need local police to interact with the public (for intelligence !)and sort the race drunks out (PLEASE)But coppers now are frightened to talk to folk or smile.Easier to catch on camera. Y.I.P.
  • Score: 9

3:04pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Big Bad Wolf says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
Big Bad Wolf wrote:
I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway.
Cash vans.
Are all serious crashes near schools and parks? Do children going to those places only deserve protection right outside them? Are the rest of us unworthy of protection on the roads?

People are generally accepting this kind of enforcement more and more. Of course a minority (over-represented on local newspaper discussion forums unsurprisingly!) think it's terrible that the law should be enforced against them and shout 'revenue' but really they are treated leniently.

How many other offences allow your record to stay clean by swapping the conviction for an education day? I don't recall burglars or drug-users being treated so leniently when their crimes are actually far less dangerous to other people.

Bottom line - if you seek to obey the law, you are unlikely to be fined.
Of course not all serious crashes are near schools.... in no way did I say they were.

My point is that if these "Safety Camera Vans" are to reduce speeding they would be better deployed in an area of increased risk ie Schools and Parks.

Most straight stretches of duel carriageway are accident free.I do not tend to see many people wandering in these areas.
As for the swapping of cash for points, this is a victimless crime and the swap can only be done once (and only in certain circumstances)

Bottom line Deploy the resource in an area where it will benefit people and not just raise funds.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Big Bad Wolf[/bold] wrote: I would agree if these vans were used near schools and parks instead of straight stretches of duel carriageway. Cash vans.[/p][/quote]Are all serious crashes near schools and parks? Do children going to those places only deserve protection right outside them? Are the rest of us unworthy of protection on the roads? People are generally accepting this kind of enforcement more and more. Of course a minority (over-represented on local newspaper discussion forums unsurprisingly!) think it's terrible that the law should be enforced against them and shout 'revenue' but really they are treated leniently. How many other offences allow your record to stay clean by swapping the conviction for an education day? I don't recall burglars or drug-users being treated so leniently when their crimes are actually far less dangerous to other people. Bottom line - if you seek to obey the law, you are unlikely to be fined.[/p][/quote]Of course not all serious crashes are near schools.... in no way did I say they were. My point is that if these "Safety Camera Vans" are to reduce speeding they would be better deployed in an area of increased risk ie Schools and Parks. Most straight stretches of duel carriageway are accident free.I do not tend to see many people wandering in these areas. As for the swapping of cash for points, this is a victimless crime and the swap can only be done once (and only in certain circumstances) Bottom line Deploy the resource in an area where it will benefit people and not just raise funds. Big Bad Wolf
  • Score: 15

3:10pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Steve, says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
I would LOVE to see the day some jobsworth copper tickets you for riding recklessly due to excessive speed PP, i very much doubt you'd be blaming the mere metal that makes up your cycle.

It must be incredibly boring, sitting up on that high horse of yours while us mere motorists live our (faster) lives.

The fact is, as mentioned, if these were about safety and education they would be parked at school and hospital locations across the city at peak times, not on the bypass and A64 over weekends or evenings serving as more of a hazard by decreasing speeds of vehicles that are travelling within conditions allowing them to safely do ~80mph.
DON'T forget when speed limits were decided, and the vast improvements of motors between then and now.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........[/p][/quote]I would LOVE to see the day some jobsworth copper tickets you for riding recklessly due to excessive speed PP, i very much doubt you'd be blaming the mere metal that makes up your cycle. It must be incredibly boring, sitting up on that high horse of yours while us mere motorists live our (faster) lives. The fact is, as mentioned, if these were about safety and education they would be parked at school and hospital locations across the city at peak times, not on the bypass and A64 over weekends or evenings serving as more of a hazard by decreasing speeds of vehicles that are travelling within conditions allowing them to safely do ~80mph. DON'T forget when speed limits were decided, and the vast improvements of motors between then and now. Steve,
  • Score: 19

3:16pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Leeby2 says...

So many people drive without thinking of the consequences. People driving at 80/90/100mph on dual carriageways/motorwa
ys are assuming nothing's going to happen - if something unexpected does happen (eg. a car in front has a blowout and loses control) you have travelled that much further before you've even had time to react. Imagine if you turned what may have been a non-fatal crash into a fatal one because of the speed you were driving - I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience.
So many people drive without thinking of the consequences. People driving at 80/90/100mph on dual carriageways/motorwa ys are assuming nothing's going to happen - if something unexpected does happen (eg. a car in front has a blowout and loses control) you have travelled that much further before you've even had time to react. Imagine if you turned what may have been a non-fatal crash into a fatal one because of the speed you were driving - I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience. Leeby2
  • Score: -3

3:18pm Wed 30 Jul 14

RingoStarr says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
Ah, you'll be waiting (again) with 'glee and trepidation' for this to happen!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........[/p][/quote]Ah, you'll be waiting (again) with 'glee and trepidation' for this to happen! RingoStarr
  • Score: 12

3:19pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

Leeby2 wrote:
So many people drive without thinking of the consequences. People driving at 80/90/100mph on dual carriageways/motorwa

ys are assuming nothing's going to happen - if something unexpected does happen (eg. a car in front has a blowout and loses control) you have travelled that much further before you've even had time to react. Imagine if you turned what may have been a non-fatal crash into a fatal one because of the speed you were driving - I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience.
I've had a tyre blow out at 100+ (on private roads, naturally).

It is far less dramatic than one would imagine.
[quote][p][bold]Leeby2[/bold] wrote: So many people drive without thinking of the consequences. People driving at 80/90/100mph on dual carriageways/motorwa ys are assuming nothing's going to happen - if something unexpected does happen (eg. a car in front has a blowout and loses control) you have travelled that much further before you've even had time to react. Imagine if you turned what may have been a non-fatal crash into a fatal one because of the speed you were driving - I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience.[/p][/quote]I've had a tyre blow out at 100+ (on private roads, naturally). It is far less dramatic than one would imagine. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 4

3:31pm Wed 30 Jul 14

nottoooldtocare says...

The majority of drivers have been and possibly still are guilty of speeding at some time in their lives, but most have done it when road and weather conditions allow. but you will always get the idiots who need to be in front, no matter what speed you do. Increasing the number of vans like this will not stop them.

Neither sadly will it pick up the drivers who do 35 - 40 mph along roads such as the A1079, oblivious to the stream of traffic behind them, or those who drive tractors and their ilk and think there is no need to pullover and allow traffic to pass as they have a field or site to get to etc. Ever notice how most of them wear a cap or hat of sorts? These types of driver can be a bigger menace as others get so frustrated and then take risks they wouldn't normally do.

As ever there is a balance to be had, and it will also be interesting to see, when LGV's are allowed to 50 mph on A roads, if the number of accidents goes down. h and as a parting shot, my wife and I often play "spot the texter" when out and about, and of those we spot, they are nearly always women, so not always the male teenage racers that pose a threat. Just an observation.
The majority of drivers have been and possibly still are guilty of speeding at some time in their lives, but most have done it when road and weather conditions allow. but you will always get the idiots who need to be in front, no matter what speed you do. Increasing the number of vans like this will not stop them. Neither sadly will it pick up the drivers who do 35 - 40 mph along roads such as the A1079, oblivious to the stream of traffic behind them, or those who drive tractors and their ilk and think there is no need to pullover and allow traffic to pass as they have a field or site to get to etc. Ever notice how most of them wear a cap or hat of sorts? These types of driver can be a bigger menace as others get so frustrated and then take risks they wouldn't normally do. As ever there is a balance to be had, and it will also be interesting to see, when LGV's are allowed to 50 mph on A roads, if the number of accidents goes down. h and as a parting shot, my wife and I often play "spot the texter" when out and about, and of those we spot, they are nearly always women, so not always the male teenage racers that pose a threat. Just an observation. nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 15

4:05pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Leeby2 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
Leeby2 wrote:
So many people drive without thinking of the consequences. People driving at 80/90/100mph on dual carriageways/motorwa


ys are assuming nothing's going to happen - if something unexpected does happen (eg. a car in front has a blowout and loses control) you have travelled that much further before you've even had time to react. Imagine if you turned what may have been a non-fatal crash into a fatal one because of the speed you were driving - I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience.
I've had a tyre blow out at 100+ (on private roads, naturally).

It is far less dramatic than one would imagine.
OK, a lorry then - that can be dramatic, as proven by the lorry that went flying off Rawcliffe Bridge recently.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Leeby2[/bold] wrote: So many people drive without thinking of the consequences. People driving at 80/90/100mph on dual carriageways/motorwa ys are assuming nothing's going to happen - if something unexpected does happen (eg. a car in front has a blowout and loses control) you have travelled that much further before you've even had time to react. Imagine if you turned what may have been a non-fatal crash into a fatal one because of the speed you were driving - I certainly wouldn't want that on my conscience.[/p][/quote]I've had a tyre blow out at 100+ (on private roads, naturally). It is far less dramatic than one would imagine.[/p][/quote]OK, a lorry then - that can be dramatic, as proven by the lorry that went flying off Rawcliffe Bridge recently. Leeby2
  • Score: -7

4:13pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 11

4:20pm Wed 30 Jul 14

bolero says...

I'll bet the Great North Air Ambulance organisation wish that they had a pound for every non-sensical loon who has marked down the scores on this posting. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Keep within the prescribed law, get your foot off the gas, behave like a sensible human being and you won't be fined a penny. No I'm not a goody-two-shoes, I broke the law, I was caught, I was fined. Tough but I learned a lesson. Now start driving with respect for the law and more importantly, other road users and stop acting like a prat.
I'll bet the Great North Air Ambulance organisation wish that they had a pound for every non-sensical loon who has marked down the scores on this posting. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Keep within the prescribed law, get your foot off the gas, behave like a sensible human being and you won't be fined a penny. No I'm not a goody-two-shoes, I broke the law, I was caught, I was fined. Tough but I learned a lesson. Now start driving with respect for the law and more importantly, other road users and stop acting like a prat. bolero
  • Score: -8

4:23pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Leeby2 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
You don't have to be driving immediately behind the lorry - it has happened that a lorry driver has fallen asleep at the wheel on the inside lane of a motorway, travelled across all three lanes, over the central reservation and onto the opposite carriageway. My point was that anything could happen at any time...
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]You don't have to be driving immediately behind the lorry - it has happened that a lorry driver has fallen asleep at the wheel on the inside lane of a motorway, travelled across all three lanes, over the central reservation and onto the opposite carriageway. My point was that anything could happen at any time... Leeby2
  • Score: -3

4:38pm Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe.
You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds.
Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe. You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds. Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) . courier46
  • Score: -9

4:46pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe.
You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds.
Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .
Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word.

What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death?

Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances.

Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe. You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds. Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .[/p][/quote]Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word. What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death? Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances. Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 7

4:50pm Wed 30 Jul 14

toweliechaos says...

This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety.

I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme.

I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri
ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a
This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety. I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme. I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a toweliechaos
  • Score: 7

4:53pm Wed 30 Jul 14

toweliechaos says...

This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety.

I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme.

I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri
ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a
This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety. I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme. I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a toweliechaos
  • Score: 3

4:56pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Caecilius says...

smudge2 wrote:
pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
And you have never had a ticket or driven over the speed limit in your life..Get in the real world Mr Hepworth.
"Many road-users don't think of themselves as 'anti-social', so they continue to take risks until they are involved in a collision."

Thought you might benefit from reading that again.
[quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........[/p][/quote]And you have never had a ticket or driven over the speed limit in your life..Get in the real world Mr Hepworth.[/p][/quote]"Many road-users don't think of themselves as 'anti-social', so they continue to take risks until they are involved in a collision." Thought you might benefit from reading that again. Caecilius
  • Score: -10

4:57pm Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe.
You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds.
Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .
Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word.

What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death?

Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances.

Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.
You again not only come across as a danger but seem to always resort to little child like insults,poor driver? not sure how you come to that but hey! in your world it must make sense.
Sorry my written word is not to your standards,i spose it`s because i never put in enough work at school but i get by.
Good luck with your speeding and if you come a cropper let`s hope it`s not fatal for you or some innocent.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe. You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds. Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .[/p][/quote]Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word. What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death? Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances. Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.[/p][/quote]You again not only come across as a danger but seem to always resort to little child like insults,poor driver? not sure how you come to that but hey! in your world it must make sense. Sorry my written word is not to your standards,i spose it`s because i never put in enough work at school but i get by. Good luck with your speeding and if you come a cropper let`s hope it`s not fatal for you or some innocent. courier46
  • Score: -6

5:02pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe.
You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds.
Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .
Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word.

What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death?

Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances.

Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.
You again not only come across as a danger but seem to always resort to little child like insults,poor driver? not sure how you come to that but hey! in your world it must make sense.
Sorry my written word is not to your standards,i spose it`s because i never put in enough work at school but i get by.
Good luck with your speeding and if you come a cropper let`s hope it`s not fatal for you or some innocent.
And I bid you good luck in you quest to write more like an adult and less like a child. It really doesn't help the already flimsy argument you put forward.

I will stick to driving, you toddle on back to school, everyone is happy.
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe. You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds. Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .[/p][/quote]Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word. What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death? Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances. Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.[/p][/quote]You again not only come across as a danger but seem to always resort to little child like insults,poor driver? not sure how you come to that but hey! in your world it must make sense. Sorry my written word is not to your standards,i spose it`s because i never put in enough work at school but i get by. Good luck with your speeding and if you come a cropper let`s hope it`s not fatal for you or some innocent.[/p][/quote]And I bid you good luck in you quest to write more like an adult and less like a child. It really doesn't help the already flimsy argument you put forward. I will stick to driving, you toddle on back to school, everyone is happy. CommonSense!!
  • Score: -1

5:04pm Wed 30 Jul 14

courier46 says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe.
You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds.
Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .
Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word.

What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death?

Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances.

Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.
You again not only come across as a danger but seem to always resort to little child like insults,poor driver? not sure how you come to that but hey! in your world it must make sense.
Sorry my written word is not to your standards,i spose it`s because i never put in enough work at school but i get by.
Good luck with your speeding and if you come a cropper let`s hope it`s not fatal for you or some innocent.
And I bid you good luck in you quest to write more like an adult and less like a child. It really doesn't help the already flimsy argument you put forward.

I will stick to driving, you toddle on back to school, everyone is happy.
God help us all.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe. You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds. Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .[/p][/quote]Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word. What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death? Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances. Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.[/p][/quote]You again not only come across as a danger but seem to always resort to little child like insults,poor driver? not sure how you come to that but hey! in your world it must make sense. Sorry my written word is not to your standards,i spose it`s because i never put in enough work at school but i get by. Good luck with your speeding and if you come a cropper let`s hope it`s not fatal for you or some innocent.[/p][/quote]And I bid you good luck in you quest to write more like an adult and less like a child. It really doesn't help the already flimsy argument you put forward. I will stick to driving, you toddle on back to school, everyone is happy.[/p][/quote]God help us all. courier46
  • Score: -3

5:07pm Wed 30 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe.
You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds.
Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .
Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word.

What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death?

Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances.

Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.
Agreed Common Sense. It's innapropriate speed that's the problem. If it was just speed then by definition ALL racing drivers would be dead!

Further, if 100mph was intrinsically dangerous how come the police manage to do it when late for their lunch or whatever?
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]I think you should change your name cause you don`t have commonsense if you think at ANY time that 100+ mph on the A64 could be safe. You are right about me calling you mate because i too would not want to be your mate in your car if you drive at those speeds. Makes me wonder how your wife feels getting in the car with you ( if she does) .[/p][/quote]Yet again your obvious lack of talent shines through, to accompany your poor grasp of the written word. What do you think actually happens at 100, the magical mythical speed at which you seem to imagine the wheels of the car suddenly fly off resulting in a fiery death? Once again please go out with a good driver, someone with specialist training in high speeds, and see them at work, you would be surprised to see the speeds which can safely be attained in the right circumstances. Or alternatively sit there in your own world of ineptitude chanting "speed kills" whilst being proud to be a poor driver. I care not either way.[/p][/quote]Agreed Common Sense. It's innapropriate speed that's the problem. If it was just speed then by definition ALL racing drivers would be dead! Further, if 100mph was intrinsically dangerous how come the police manage to do it when late for their lunch or whatever? AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 7

5:18pm Wed 30 Jul 14

dj4 says...

To be honest, I don't drive a lot on main roads and the camera van which I see most regularly is on the main street in Wheldrake in a 30 mph zone. As far as I can tell from the list of locations around York where the camera van is deployed (as published by the York press), at least half are in 30/40 mph zones at the request of bodies like parish councils as I understand it and not on dual carriageways. I hardly see how this equates to the "cash cow" that some people seem to think it is. I would think it's quite simple to avoid getting a speeding ticket - drive carefully and within the limit. If other people's stupidity and aggressive driving leads to them being fined then I'm all for it. Less of my tax money needed for the police.
To be honest, I don't drive a lot on main roads and the camera van which I see most regularly is on the main street in Wheldrake in a 30 mph zone. As far as I can tell from the list of locations around York where the camera van is deployed (as published by the York press), at least half are in 30/40 mph zones at the request of bodies like parish councils as I understand it and not on dual carriageways. I hardly see how this equates to the "cash cow" that some people seem to think it is. I would think it's quite simple to avoid getting a speeding ticket - drive carefully and within the limit. If other people's stupidity and aggressive driving leads to them being fined then I'm all for it. Less of my tax money needed for the police. dj4
  • Score: -5

5:19pm Wed 30 Jul 14

johnwill says...

Camera vans are pure and simple revenue raisers , I would have more respect for the police if they were upfront and said it.
The van is most often situated at the end of , or on a straight stretch of road where a driver is most likely to speed and least likely to cause an accident, ie Easingwold Bypass, A19, A64, Great Smeaton.
Great Smeaton near Northallerton is a good example a mile long straight stretch of road after miles of bends, the camera van sits in wait about half a mile before the village and can get the driver before the driver sees the van parked under a tree. I gather a good catch are van drivers doing 56mph or more and HGVs doing 45mph or more. The excuse for using this location is that a car once hit the tree, unfortunate but not a trend here. Why not have the camera van in the 30 zone in the village ? maybe because everyone has slowed down for the corners.
I hope the Police don't get to depend on this method of funding because one day vehicles will be automatically limited by roadside and vehicle technology.
Camera vans are pure and simple revenue raisers , I would have more respect for the police if they were upfront and said it. The van is most often situated at the end of , or on a straight stretch of road where a driver is most likely to speed and least likely to cause an accident, ie Easingwold Bypass, A19, A64, Great Smeaton. Great Smeaton near Northallerton is a good example a mile long straight stretch of road after miles of bends, the camera van sits in wait about half a mile before the village and can get the driver before the driver sees the van parked under a tree. I gather a good catch are van drivers doing 56mph or more and HGVs doing 45mph or more. The excuse for using this location is that a car once hit the tree, unfortunate but not a trend here. Why not have the camera van in the 30 zone in the village ? maybe because everyone has slowed down for the corners. I hope the Police don't get to depend on this method of funding because one day vehicles will be automatically limited by roadside and vehicle technology. johnwill
  • Score: 12

5:20pm Wed 30 Jul 14

AnotherPointofView says...

GixerGaz wrote:
dj4 wrote:
Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.
I am a middle aged biker and I take great offence to your comment. I have two young children and I cerainly dont ride like an idiot.

......pity the Police cant do anything about idiot car/van and lorry drivers who pull out on bikers!
Gaz, it's not hard to see what you ride!!

I drive a van and a car but like you feel that DJ4's comments are offensive. It is usually the car/van/lorry drivers who don't look and cause the problem pulling out in front of bikes.

How do I know? I ride as well.
[quote][p][bold]GixerGaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.[/p][/quote]I am a middle aged biker and I take great offence to your comment. I have two young children and I cerainly dont ride like an idiot. ......pity the Police cant do anything about idiot car/van and lorry drivers who pull out on bikers![/p][/quote]Gaz, it's not hard to see what you ride!! I drive a van and a car but like you feel that DJ4's comments are offensive. It is usually the car/van/lorry drivers who don't look and cause the problem pulling out in front of bikes. How do I know? I ride as well. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: -3

5:22pm Wed 30 Jul 14

dementia says...

Since the introduction of the last lot of Speeding vans we have seen an increase in deaths on Our roads. so its all about the money1
One by product is a greater cynicism about our police force too. can we have more redundancies please
Since the introduction of the last lot of Speeding vans we have seen an increase in deaths on Our roads. so its all about the money1 One by product is a greater cynicism about our police force too. can we have more redundancies please dementia
  • Score: 8

5:24pm Wed 30 Jul 14

CommonSense!! says...

Any redundancies should be at the top, the current management should be ashamed of themselves, their cynical concentration on revenue raising at the expense of cutting down on poor driving has cost people their lives.
Any redundancies should be at the top, the current management should be ashamed of themselves, their cynical concentration on revenue raising at the expense of cutting down on poor driving has cost people their lives. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 4

5:33pm Wed 30 Jul 14

bolero says...

bolero wrote:
I'll bet the Great North Air Ambulance organisation wish that they had a pound for every non-sensical loon who has marked down the scores on this posting. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Keep within the prescribed law, get your foot off the gas, behave like a sensible human being and you won't be fined a penny. No I'm not a goody-two-shoes, I broke the law, I was caught, I was fined. Tough but I learned a lesson. Now start driving with respect for the law and more importantly, other road users and stop acting like a prat.
Just an opportunity to allow you to mark me down again. Notice the childlike rhetoric from those who are anti the law.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: I'll bet the Great North Air Ambulance organisation wish that they had a pound for every non-sensical loon who has marked down the scores on this posting. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Keep within the prescribed law, get your foot off the gas, behave like a sensible human being and you won't be fined a penny. No I'm not a goody-two-shoes, I broke the law, I was caught, I was fined. Tough but I learned a lesson. Now start driving with respect for the law and more importantly, other road users and stop acting like a prat.[/p][/quote]Just an opportunity to allow you to mark me down again. Notice the childlike rhetoric from those who are anti the law. bolero
  • Score: -4

5:59pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Omega Point says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed.

You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.
There is logic to your argument but a flaw as well. It is the unexpected or the other road-user who has poor skills that can affect a "good drivers" driving. Say a wild animal runs across and you are doing 100mph, bet you would wish to be doing a slower speed.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: If you're driving so close to a lorry that you can't avoid it then you're not driving well, regardless of speed. You have fallen for the "speed kills" mantra pedalled by the uneducated. Inappropriate speed kills, not speed per se. On a clear day in light traffic the A64 could safely be navigated at 100+ MPH, there are other days when 40 would be too much for the same stretch of road. It is the job of the driver to decide what speed is appropriate, blindly observing a speed as it is legal or otherwise to do so is not good driving.[/p][/quote]There is logic to your argument but a flaw as well. It is the unexpected or the other road-user who has poor skills that can affect a "good drivers" driving. Say a wild animal runs across and you are doing 100mph, bet you would wish to be doing a slower speed. Omega Point
  • Score: -3

6:05pm Wed 30 Jul 14

WardieYork says...

I won't mind so much if they actually patrolled around schools and stuff but they don't. It's only targeting people on the carriageways, money maker. Plus the 70mph limit became law in 1965, sorry but automotive technology has moved on since then. I think we should adopt the German way of doing things
I won't mind so much if they actually patrolled around schools and stuff but they don't. It's only targeting people on the carriageways, money maker. Plus the 70mph limit became law in 1965, sorry but automotive technology has moved on since then. I think we should adopt the German way of doing things WardieYork
  • Score: 9

6:06pm Wed 30 Jul 14

trailblazer says...

Its a pity they don't give as much attention to catching people driving whilst on their mobile phones which is just as dangerous as speeding if not more so but lets face it, its probably not a money spinner like the speed awareness course that generates more than fines.
Its a pity they don't give as much attention to catching people driving whilst on their mobile phones which is just as dangerous as speeding if not more so but lets face it, its probably not a money spinner like the speed awareness course that generates more than fines. trailblazer
  • Score: 10

6:25pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist?
3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment
And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is?

I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way.

10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.
Tadcaster Rd Dringhouses has a camera ion a 230mph limit. Opposite the stabling blocks. The list is on the web-site but without forewarned periods.

The cameras do not get tailgaters, or mobile phone users - the ultras-intelligent police vehicles are a few years away.

Where are the most accidents; and why. Probably rural roads with farm transport where the vehicles have varying speed limits; e.g Trailers. caravans.

Too many signs don;'t help.
[quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist? 3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment[/p][/quote]And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is? I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way. 10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.[/p][/quote]Tadcaster Rd Dringhouses has a camera ion a 230mph limit. Opposite the stabling blocks. The list is on the web-site but without forewarned periods. The cameras do not get tailgaters, or mobile phone users - the ultras-intelligent police vehicles are a few years away. Where are the most accidents; and why. Probably rural roads with farm transport where the vehicles have varying speed limits; e.g Trailers. caravans. Too many signs don;'t help. Cheeky face
  • Score: -3

6:31pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dr Martin says...

roadwars wrote:
How dare those pesky coppers, who we pay to enforce the law, go out there on our roads and try to enforce the law...
agreed
[quote][p][bold]roadwars[/bold] wrote: How dare those pesky coppers, who we pay to enforce the law, go out there on our roads and try to enforce the law...[/p][/quote]agreed Dr Martin
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

angry neil wrote:
It's hard not to be cynical about these vans,when they hide them on a bridge of a dual carriageway. It's a fact that more accidents occur off motorways and dual carriageways it's just that people are more likely to go over the speed limit on these safer long stretches of roads ,so they know they can make an easy money!
I mean if sticking a van at the bottom of whitwell hill isn't designed to make more money over safety then they are lying.
Built up areas should be there targets,not some wide open long stretch of road that you can see for miles in front .
Until they start putting these things where they should be ,I won't believe it's anything other than a revenue raiser.
On an A road in Notts a camera is painted to be blended in on the stone parapet it is concealed in! Chances of seeing it zero. Revenue collected is massive. Injuries and fatalities on the same stretch very little.

Tailgating seen per 1200 miles when I drive is usually 10%. Cameras do not get them; nor do they get dangerous practices- fouling double white lines.
[quote][p][bold]angry neil[/bold] wrote: It's hard not to be cynical about these vans,when they hide them on a bridge of a dual carriageway. It's a fact that more accidents occur off motorways and dual carriageways it's just that people are more likely to go over the speed limit on these safer long stretches of roads ,so they know they can make an easy money! I mean if sticking a van at the bottom of whitwell hill isn't designed to make more money over safety then they are lying. Built up areas should be there targets,not some wide open long stretch of road that you can see for miles in front . Until they start putting these things where they should be ,I won't believe it's anything other than a revenue raiser.[/p][/quote]On an A road in Notts a camera is painted to be blended in on the stone parapet it is concealed in! Chances of seeing it zero. Revenue collected is massive. Injuries and fatalities on the same stretch very little. Tailgating seen per 1200 miles when I drive is usually 10%. Cameras do not get them; nor do they get dangerous practices- fouling double white lines. Cheeky face
  • Score: 4

6:43pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

bringbackcommonsense wrote:
Just a couple of points:
1. People need to learn the difference between excessive speed, inappropriate speed and speeding. Majority of accidents will be down to INAPPROPRIATE speed. Driving at 70mph on the A64 may be inappropriate at times, likewise driving along it at 80 may be appropriate but is speeding, driving along it at 120 is excessive speed.

2. When will the populace wake up and see that these are no more than money-making ventures. If they were safety measures then they would not be placed AFTER the hazardous bend but before it (income over safety). If safety is a priority, why when roads are resurfaced is it the speed-camera distance reference lines get painted first often followed weeks later by the centre-line and edge markers (income over safety).

3. Ask yourself this; would you rather be on the same road with a competent driver who (when appropriate) exceeds the speed limit but remains 100% focused on the task or with one who is too p**&%$d to read his phone texts so slows to 30mph.

4. Reading some of the comments on here I feel we are very lucky indeed that the award of a driving licence is not based upon IQ or effective intelligence; or perhaps that is something that should be considered.

5. Remember, it is not speed that kills, it is INAPPROPRIATE SPEED that kills. It is a lack of concentration that kills, it is distractions that kill, it is impairment that kills, it is a lack of ability that kills. All of which can happen at 20mph!

6. Setting ridiculously low speed limits and then nabbing everyone who exceeds these is the scam. Limits are lowered using safety as the argument for doing so but all this does is let the drivers' minds wander, there is no mental stimulus and the brain starts to shut down as it thinks the task is menial.

The only real way to improve safety is to get more police on the roads catching the high percentage of hazardous drivers (drink, drug, distracted etc) , improve the road surfaces and layout and to improve driver training. It's not rocket science, it is common sense and that is what is clearly lacking.
Good thinking.

Driver training stops when people pass their test. Something amiss there!
[quote][p][bold]bringbackcommonsense[/bold] wrote: Just a couple of points: 1. People need to learn the difference between excessive speed, inappropriate speed and speeding. Majority of accidents will be down to INAPPROPRIATE speed. Driving at 70mph on the A64 may be inappropriate at times, likewise driving along it at 80 may be appropriate but is speeding, driving along it at 120 is excessive speed. 2. When will the populace wake up and see that these are no more than money-making ventures. If they were safety measures then they would not be placed AFTER the hazardous bend but before it (income over safety). If safety is a priority, why when roads are resurfaced is it the speed-camera distance reference lines get painted first often followed weeks later by the centre-line and edge markers (income over safety). 3. Ask yourself this; would you rather be on the same road with a competent driver who (when appropriate) exceeds the speed limit but remains 100% focused on the task or with one who is too p**&%$d to read his phone texts so slows to 30mph. 4. Reading some of the comments on here I feel we are very lucky indeed that the award of a driving licence is not based upon IQ or effective intelligence; or perhaps that is something that should be considered. 5. Remember, it is not speed that kills, it is INAPPROPRIATE SPEED that kills. It is a lack of concentration that kills, it is distractions that kill, it is impairment that kills, it is a lack of ability that kills. All of which can happen at 20mph! 6. Setting ridiculously low speed limits and then nabbing everyone who exceeds these is the scam. Limits are lowered using safety as the argument for doing so but all this does is let the drivers' minds wander, there is no mental stimulus and the brain starts to shut down as it thinks the task is menial. The only real way to improve safety is to get more police on the roads catching the high percentage of hazardous drivers (drink, drug, distracted etc) , improve the road surfaces and layout and to improve driver training. It's not rocket science, it is common sense and that is what is clearly lacking.[/p][/quote]Good thinking. Driver training stops when people pass their test. Something amiss there! Cheeky face
  • Score: 6

6:50pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

johnwill wrote:
Camera vans are pure and simple revenue raisers , I would have more respect for the police if they were upfront and said it.
The van is most often situated at the end of , or on a straight stretch of road where a driver is most likely to speed and least likely to cause an accident, ie Easingwold Bypass, A19, A64, Great Smeaton.
Great Smeaton near Northallerton is a good example a mile long straight stretch of road after miles of bends, the camera van sits in wait about half a mile before the village and can get the driver before the driver sees the van parked under a tree. I gather a good catch are van drivers doing 56mph or more and HGVs doing 45mph or more. The excuse for using this location is that a car once hit the tree, unfortunate but not a trend here. Why not have the camera van in the 30 zone in the village ? maybe because everyone has slowed down for the corners.
I hope the Police don't get to depend on this method of funding because one day vehicles will be automatically limited by roadside and vehicle technology.
Thistle Hill on the Safer Road partnership web-site speeding log under NYorkshire Police gets load of speeders, but how many accidents?

An East Anglian police chief once said let motorists drive as fast as is safe and we could do away with the plethora of speed limit signs!
[quote][p][bold]johnwill[/bold] wrote: Camera vans are pure and simple revenue raisers , I would have more respect for the police if they were upfront and said it. The van is most often situated at the end of , or on a straight stretch of road where a driver is most likely to speed and least likely to cause an accident, ie Easingwold Bypass, A19, A64, Great Smeaton. Great Smeaton near Northallerton is a good example a mile long straight stretch of road after miles of bends, the camera van sits in wait about half a mile before the village and can get the driver before the driver sees the van parked under a tree. I gather a good catch are van drivers doing 56mph or more and HGVs doing 45mph or more. The excuse for using this location is that a car once hit the tree, unfortunate but not a trend here. Why not have the camera van in the 30 zone in the village ? maybe because everyone has slowed down for the corners. I hope the Police don't get to depend on this method of funding because one day vehicles will be automatically limited by roadside and vehicle technology.[/p][/quote]Thistle Hill on the Safer Road partnership web-site speeding log under NYorkshire Police gets load of speeders, but how many accidents? An East Anglian police chief once said let motorists drive as fast as is safe and we could do away with the plethora of speed limit signs! Cheeky face
  • Score: 3

6:52pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Cheeky face wrote:
CommonSense!! wrote:
courier46 wrote:
I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist?
3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment
And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is?

I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way.

10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.
Tadcaster Rd Dringhouses has a camera ion a 230mph limit. Opposite the stabling blocks. The list is on the web-site but without forewarned periods.

The cameras do not get tailgaters, or mobile phone users - the ultras-intelligent police vehicles are a few years away.

Where are the most accidents; and why. Probably rural roads with farm transport where the vehicles have varying speed limits; e.g Trailers. caravans.

Too many signs don;'t help.
I meant 30mph. Sorry.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CommonSense!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: I presume the ones who think it`s ok to speed have never lost someone to a speeding motorist? 3mph over the limit is one thing which we all may do at some time,10-20 mph over needs punishment[/p][/quote]And the difference between being hit at 70mph and being hit at 80mph is? I'll give you a clue, there isn't one, you'll be very dead either way. 10 to 20 over in a 30mph limit no one would suggest was prudent, but when was the last time you saw a camera van deployed in a 30 mph limit? I cover around 800-1000 miles every week and I regularly see them on the A64 at Whitwell, A64 at Malton Bypass, A64 at Seamer Bypass, A64 at Tadcaster etc, all well sighted open roads where exceeding 70 can be done safely. I can't remember the last time I saw one near a school at kicking out time, or in town on a Friday evening when the roads are full of drunks.[/p][/quote]Tadcaster Rd Dringhouses has a camera ion a 230mph limit. Opposite the stabling blocks. The list is on the web-site but without forewarned periods. The cameras do not get tailgaters, or mobile phone users - the ultras-intelligent police vehicles are a few years away. Where are the most accidents; and why. Probably rural roads with farm transport where the vehicles have varying speed limits; e.g Trailers. caravans. Too many signs don;'t help.[/p][/quote]I meant 30mph. Sorry. Cheeky face
  • Score: -3

7:00pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

trailblazer wrote:
Its a pity they don't give as much attention to catching people driving whilst on their mobile phones which is just as dangerous as speeding if not more so but lets face it, its probably not a money spinner like the speed awareness course that generates more than fines.
Courses are probably better than fines, because licence is not endorsed, and insurance premiums are increased if you go to court and get points.

Police now are breathylsing and checking for mobile phones when attending accidents.

Mobile phone use on the bend near Harewood on the A61 is rife.

Crawling at 40mph in a 60mph is distressing also!

Speed awareness courses are supplemented driver alertness courses, the latter offered after an accidernt where speeding was not an issue.

How about on-line safety courses for newly passed drivers; and those the authorities pick up with their plethora of traffic cops!
[quote][p][bold]trailblazer[/bold] wrote: Its a pity they don't give as much attention to catching people driving whilst on their mobile phones which is just as dangerous as speeding if not more so but lets face it, its probably not a money spinner like the speed awareness course that generates more than fines.[/p][/quote]Courses are probably better than fines, because licence is not endorsed, and insurance premiums are increased if you go to court and get points. Police now are breathylsing and checking for mobile phones when attending accidents. Mobile phone use on the bend near Harewood on the A61 is rife. Crawling at 40mph in a 60mph is distressing also! Speed awareness courses are supplemented driver alertness courses, the latter offered after an accidernt where speeding was not an issue. How about on-line safety courses for newly passed drivers; and those the authorities pick up with their plethora of traffic cops! Cheeky face
  • Score: -1

7:09pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Jonlogical says...

The one thought I have, the parasites who sit in these vans (not regular Police by the way), must be sweating their bits off in the recent heatwave.
this gives me a warm happy thought in my air-conditioned cocoon. Travelling at 71 mph until I get to the A1/M1.
The one thought I have, the parasites who sit in these vans (not regular Police by the way), must be sweating their bits off in the recent heatwave. this gives me a warm happy thought in my air-conditioned cocoon. Travelling at 71 mph until I get to the A1/M1. Jonlogical
  • Score: 1

7:16pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Dr Martin says...

bolero wrote:
I'll bet the Great North Air Ambulance organisation wish that they had a pound for every non-sensical loon who has marked down the scores on this posting. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Keep within the prescribed law, get your foot off the gas, behave like a sensible human being and you won't be fined a penny. No I'm not a goody-two-shoes, I broke the law, I was caught, I was fined. Tough but I learned a lesson. Now start driving with respect for the law and more importantly, other road users and stop acting like a prat.
good point
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: I'll bet the Great North Air Ambulance organisation wish that they had a pound for every non-sensical loon who has marked down the scores on this posting. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Keep within the prescribed law, get your foot off the gas, behave like a sensible human being and you won't be fined a penny. No I'm not a goody-two-shoes, I broke the law, I was caught, I was fined. Tough but I learned a lesson. Now start driving with respect for the law and more importantly, other road users and stop acting like a prat.[/p][/quote]good point Dr Martin
  • Score: 4

7:16pm Wed 30 Jul 14

bringbackcommonsense says...

Here's one for you all to consider.
Imagine there is a generic dual carriageway which has a speed limit of 70mph: number of drivers that break that limit by more than 10mph = 5%
Camera revenue is low, accidents are low (but do happen) more often than not caused by inattention.

Speed kills brigade and safety camera partnerships kick up a fuss so the limit gets reduced to 50mph: The number of drivers now breaking this limit = 25%. Revenue increases, accident rate remains unchanged.

"oh my, goes the cry, we need to be more strict. Those evil motorists are not obeying the law" and so the limit is reduced to 40mph. The number of motorists breaking this limit by 10mph rockets to 40%. Revenue from the scameras goes through the roof but accident rates remain unchanged.

We then get the situation where the keyboard warriors come out with the crap "don't speed and you won't get caught" rubbish. Bearing in mind that even 10mph over the limit is still 20mph slower than the road had been capable of being safely travelled for the past 40 years.

WAKE UP PEOPLE....it is all a money making SCAM.
Here's one for you all to consider. Imagine there is a generic dual carriageway which has a speed limit of 70mph: number of drivers that break that limit by more than 10mph = 5% Camera revenue is low, accidents are low (but do happen) more often than not caused by inattention. Speed kills brigade and safety camera partnerships kick up a fuss so the limit gets reduced to 50mph: The number of drivers now breaking this limit = 25%. Revenue increases, accident rate remains unchanged. "oh my, goes the cry, we need to be more strict. Those evil motorists are not obeying the law" and so the limit is reduced to 40mph. The number of motorists breaking this limit by 10mph rockets to 40%. Revenue from the scameras goes through the roof but accident rates remain unchanged. We then get the situation where the keyboard warriors come out with the crap "don't speed and you won't get caught" rubbish. Bearing in mind that even 10mph over the limit is still 20mph slower than the road had been capable of being safely travelled for the past 40 years. WAKE UP PEOPLE....it is all a money making SCAM. bringbackcommonsense
  • Score: 9

7:29pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Priapus says...

I can only assume that all the time that the petrol heads 'save' by 'safely speeding' is then used up writing moany whiney comments on this site.
I can only assume that all the time that the petrol heads 'save' by 'safely speeding' is then used up writing moany whiney comments on this site. Priapus
  • Score: -12

7:31pm Wed 30 Jul 14

nottoooldtocare says...

to add to what bringbackcommonsense says...

.... we now have a growing number of people who resent what the Police force are doing, and no longer respect them or the law. All very sad.

Mulligan and Madgwick should start to focus on what the majority feel are issues and where society in general benefits. these two are at the top of the monkey tree with the serving officers below. when they look down they see smiling faces, when the officers look up we know what they can see......!
to add to what bringbackcommonsense says... .... we now have a growing number of people who resent what the Police force are doing, and no longer respect them or the law. All very sad. Mulligan and Madgwick should start to focus on what the majority feel are issues and where society in general benefits. these two are at the top of the monkey tree with the serving officers below. when they look down they see smiling faces, when the officers look up we know what they can see......! nottoooldtocare
  • Score: 7

8:08pm Wed 30 Jul 14

bringbackcommonsense says...

Priapus wrote:
I can only assume that all the time that the petrol heads 'save' by 'safely speeding' is then used up writing moany whiney comments on this site.
I can't speak for the others but I use the time I save to catch up on all the missed calls I ignored on the drive home.

I often take my motorcycle out for a nice ride but the best thing I did with my extra free-time was to get driver training. The IAM course is the best there is. What do you do with your lack of spare time? oh sorry, you whine on forums .
[quote][p][bold]Priapus[/bold] wrote: I can only assume that all the time that the petrol heads 'save' by 'safely speeding' is then used up writing moany whiney comments on this site.[/p][/quote]I can't speak for the others but I use the time I save to catch up on all the missed calls I ignored on the drive home. I often take my motorcycle out for a nice ride but the best thing I did with my extra free-time was to get driver training. The IAM course is the best there is. What do you do with your lack of spare time? oh sorry, you whine on forums . bringbackcommonsense
  • Score: 5

8:14pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Littleladykatie says...

"The recent survey I undertook showed without question the vast majority of the public are concerned about road safety, and this shows we are taking those concerns seriously"

Yet, interestingly, she didn't conduct any survey on viewpoints of the speed camera vans/cash machines. That or she did and is selectively choosing not to share those results/viewpoints with us. Funny that? ;)


"Figures released by North Yorkshire Police showed 51 people died on the roads of York and North Yorkshire last year, up from 35 the previous year - the highest number since 2008."

Ah so the annual death toll on north yorkshire's roads is higher now than it was before the camera vans were introduced?

I'd be interested to know how they assess the 'success' of the camera vans - how do they measure the data, what tests of significance do they use and do they carry out research and publish the data? I highly doubt they do... I think they're much more likely to count the cash they're bringing in than count the accident numbers. Each van is bringing in over £100,000 a month isn't it? Who could ever hope to make that kind of money on a weekly basis? Only a footballer and a 'safety' camera van operator ;)
"The recent survey I undertook showed without question the vast majority of the public are concerned about road safety, and this shows we are taking those concerns seriously" Yet, interestingly, she didn't conduct any survey on viewpoints of the speed camera vans/cash machines. That or she did and is selectively choosing not to share those results/viewpoints with us. Funny that? ;) "Figures released by North Yorkshire Police showed 51 people died on the roads of York and North Yorkshire last year, up from 35 the previous year - the highest number since 2008." Ah so the annual death toll on north yorkshire's roads is higher now than it was before the camera vans were introduced? I'd be interested to know how they assess the 'success' of the camera vans - how do they measure the data, what tests of significance do they use and do they carry out research and publish the data? I highly doubt they do... I think they're much more likely to count the cash they're bringing in than count the accident numbers. Each van is bringing in over £100,000 a month isn't it? Who could ever hope to make that kind of money on a weekly basis? Only a footballer and a 'safety' camera van operator ;) Littleladykatie
  • Score: 8

8:31pm Wed 30 Jul 14

Littleladykatie says...

Doesn't it just frustrate and sadden you that they're doing nothing to address the wider and very real issues on our roads? What about investment in putting traffic police out there, cameras that aren't there to make an easy buck from someone going 5mph faster on a calm dual carriageway at 8pm on an evening rather than cameras that look into cars to catch the vast numbers texting and calling when driving?

Accident data consistently shows that, in most cases, speed is not the primary cause of accidents on the road. Granted, it can exacerbate an accident, but it isn't the primary cause. Until recently, my job as a rep meant I was doing up to 1,000 miles on the road a week, and I saw all manner of dangerous driving! From the lady doing her mascara whilst on the move to the most aggressive and dangerous manoeuvres. Adding in 3 new vans with the guise of 'road safety' and the real ulterior motive of cash generator is not addressing any of those issues I saw out on the road on a day to day basis!

I hasten to add that I'm a safe driver, I always try to adhere to speed limits and I've never had a speeding ticket. But these speed camera vans are being out on the road for all the wrong reasons and that is the very bottom line in my opinion
Doesn't it just frustrate and sadden you that they're doing nothing to address the wider and very real issues on our roads? What about investment in putting traffic police out there, cameras that aren't there to make an easy buck from someone going 5mph faster on a calm dual carriageway at 8pm on an evening rather than cameras that look into cars to catch the vast numbers texting and calling when driving? Accident data consistently shows that, in most cases, speed is not the primary cause of accidents on the road. Granted, it can exacerbate an accident, but it isn't the primary cause. Until recently, my job as a rep meant I was doing up to 1,000 miles on the road a week, and I saw all manner of dangerous driving! From the lady doing her mascara whilst on the move to the most aggressive and dangerous manoeuvres. Adding in 3 new vans with the guise of 'road safety' and the real ulterior motive of cash generator is not addressing any of those issues I saw out on the road on a day to day basis! I hasten to add that I'm a safe driver, I always try to adhere to speed limits and I've never had a speeding ticket. But these speed camera vans are being out on the road for all the wrong reasons and that is the very bottom line in my opinion Littleladykatie
  • Score: 10

9:13pm Wed 30 Jul 14

the amazon returns again says...

I am from York but reside in Bournemouth, you never see these cash cow vans down here now. ! . A middle aged man on a motor bike with no previous motoring convictions was leaving the town on a dual carriageway early one Saturday Morning with no traffic on the road, the A338 has a 50mpi speed limit through the built up area of Bournemouth, trouble is this extends some half of a mile as you leave the town, on this stretch is a blind hill, the van was hiding here for the obvious reasons. The biker saw the van and applied his breaks and lost control, crashed and died. No witnesses as he was the only one on the road, there was uproar over this. SAFETY OR CASH COW. Your call Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick
I am from York but reside in Bournemouth, you never see these cash cow vans down here now. ! . A middle aged man on a motor bike with no previous motoring convictions was leaving the town on a dual carriageway early one Saturday Morning with no traffic on the road, the A338 has a 50mpi speed limit through the built up area of Bournemouth, trouble is this extends some half of a mile as you leave the town, on this stretch is a blind hill, the van was hiding here for the obvious reasons. The biker saw the van and applied his breaks and lost control, crashed and died. No witnesses as he was the only one on the road, there was uproar over this. SAFETY OR CASH COW. Your call Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick the amazon returns again
  • Score: 7

9:40pm Wed 30 Jul 14

MorkofYork says...

I saw one on Tadcaster road at the shops near the holiday inn. It's a 30mph stretch, you shouldn't pick up a ticket there if you're driving safely based on your surroundings.
Saw one once on that long stretch near Menwith hill. You can do more than 60 down there but i bet some people hammer it so i can see why it's there as a deterrent.

These are the only times i've seen them, no problem with this honestly.

The police earned my respect when they resisted 20mph zones.
I saw one on Tadcaster road at the shops near the holiday inn. It's a 30mph stretch, you shouldn't pick up a ticket there if you're driving safely based on your surroundings. Saw one once on that long stretch near Menwith hill. You can do more than 60 down there but i bet some people hammer it so i can see why it's there as a deterrent. These are the only times i've seen them, no problem with this honestly. The police earned my respect when they resisted 20mph zones. MorkofYork
  • Score: 1

9:57pm Wed 30 Jul 14

dj4 says...

toweliechaos wrote:
This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety.

I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme.

I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri

ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a
This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.
[quote][p][bold]toweliechaos[/bold] wrote: This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety. I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme. I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a[/p][/quote]This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course. dj4
  • Score: -5

10:27pm Wed 30 Jul 14

baldiebiker says...

dj4 wrote:
Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.
What makes the countryside a very dangerous place are car drivers on their phone, or messing with the in-car entertainment, having a nap or not paying attention to what they are doing, motorcyclists don't get to middle age if they don't give it 100%.
I'm not middle age, I've got my bus pass, still do 6,000 miles a year on my motorcycles, a 600cc and a 1700cc, just for fun?
[quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: Good. They should be tackling speeding particularly by middle aged men on motorbikes who make the countryside a very dangerous place for other road users.[/p][/quote]What makes the countryside a very dangerous place are car drivers on their phone, or messing with the in-car entertainment, having a nap or not paying attention to what they are doing, motorcyclists don't get to middle age if they don't give it 100%. I'm not middle age, I've got my bus pass, still do 6,000 miles a year on my motorcycles, a 600cc and a 1700cc, just for fun? baldiebiker
  • Score: 6

7:51am Thu 31 Jul 14

Kevin Turvey says...

Never mind there is one camera van less now!

See story above.

Oh the ironry…

‘FOUR teenagers injured in a crash that wrote off a police speed camera van have been discharged from hospital.’
Never mind there is one camera van less now! See story above. Oh the ironry… ‘FOUR teenagers injured in a crash that wrote off a police speed camera van have been discharged from hospital.’ Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 6

9:56am Thu 31 Jul 14

toweliechaos says...

dj4 wrote:
toweliechaos wrote:
This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety.

I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme.

I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri


ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a
This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.
No, if you know the road in question (A64 towards York) - or have the ability to read - you will know that at the crest of the hill and bend, there is a junction from Kirkham that lets local traffic join/cross the dual carriageway. People pull out of that junction and frequently, as in my case, massively underestimate (or don't care about) the speed of the oncoming traffic and cause lots of drivers to change lanes suddenly. Slowing down as you put it would put the traffic behind you in danger as they are unsighted, what with it being a bend and a hill.

The simple fact remains that it is the traffic joining/crossing the roads that causes the problems and accidents on the A64, not those quite safely driving between 70-80mph. Never once have I been endangered by someone driving at 80mph on the A64 but I have been several times by idiots crossing the dual carriageway or pulling on to the road without due care, consideration or attention. But they will never be penalised by the Police.

And in answer to your smart-arse comment "you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... " - Yes. It was that or drive right into the back of the cretin who pulled out onto a dual carriageway carelessly or slam on my brakes and be shunted by the person behind. Which of those would you have preferred me to do rather than take the evasive action?
[quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toweliechaos[/bold] wrote: This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety. I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme. I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a[/p][/quote]This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.[/p][/quote]No, if you know the road in question (A64 towards York) - or have the ability to read - you will know that at the crest of the hill and bend, there is a junction from Kirkham that lets local traffic join/cross the dual carriageway. People pull out of that junction and frequently, as in my case, massively underestimate (or don't care about) the speed of the oncoming traffic and cause lots of drivers to change lanes suddenly. Slowing down as you put it would put the traffic behind you in danger as they are unsighted, what with it being a bend and a hill. The simple fact remains that it is the traffic joining/crossing the roads that causes the problems and accidents on the A64, not those quite safely driving between 70-80mph. Never once have I been endangered by someone driving at 80mph on the A64 but I have been several times by idiots crossing the dual carriageway or pulling on to the road without due care, consideration or attention. But they will never be penalised by the Police. And in answer to your smart-arse comment "you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... " - Yes. It was that or drive right into the back of the cretin who pulled out onto a dual carriageway carelessly or slam on my brakes and be shunted by the person behind. Which of those would you have preferred me to do rather than take the evasive action? toweliechaos
  • Score: 5

12:03pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Littleladykatie wrote:
"The recent survey I undertook showed without question the vast majority of the public are concerned about road safety, and this shows we are taking those concerns seriously"

Yet, interestingly, she didn't conduct any survey on viewpoints of the speed camera vans/cash machines. That or she did and is selectively choosing not to share those results/viewpoints with us. Funny that? ;)


"Figures released by North Yorkshire Police showed 51 people died on the roads of York and North Yorkshire last year, up from 35 the previous year - the highest number since 2008."

Ah so the annual death toll on north yorkshire's roads is higher now than it was before the camera vans were introduced?

I'd be interested to know how they assess the 'success' of the camera vans - how do they measure the data, what tests of significance do they use and do they carry out research and publish the data? I highly doubt they do... I think they're much more likely to count the cash they're bringing in than count the accident numbers. Each van is bringing in over £100,000 a month isn't it? Who could ever hope to make that kind of money on a weekly basis? Only a footballer and a 'safety' camera van operator ;)
There is some data on the 95alive road safety or N Yorkshire Police safety camera web-site on number of offences, and includes the sites. One would expect that other facts/stats are collated on other issues that you mention; with an end result of a lot of useful data. Theses should be scrutinized/brainsto
rmed and recommendations passed to higher authority, for them to see if the law is strong enough etc. I believe the course trainers get lots of data/stats from road safety units/DfT, accident investigators be it police or insurance assessors.
[quote][p][bold]Littleladykatie[/bold] wrote: "The recent survey I undertook showed without question the vast majority of the public are concerned about road safety, and this shows we are taking those concerns seriously" Yet, interestingly, she didn't conduct any survey on viewpoints of the speed camera vans/cash machines. That or she did and is selectively choosing not to share those results/viewpoints with us. Funny that? ;) "Figures released by North Yorkshire Police showed 51 people died on the roads of York and North Yorkshire last year, up from 35 the previous year - the highest number since 2008." Ah so the annual death toll on north yorkshire's roads is higher now than it was before the camera vans were introduced? I'd be interested to know how they assess the 'success' of the camera vans - how do they measure the data, what tests of significance do they use and do they carry out research and publish the data? I highly doubt they do... I think they're much more likely to count the cash they're bringing in than count the accident numbers. Each van is bringing in over £100,000 a month isn't it? Who could ever hope to make that kind of money on a weekly basis? Only a footballer and a 'safety' camera van operator ;)[/p][/quote]There is some data on the 95alive road safety or N Yorkshire Police safety camera web-site on number of offences, and includes the sites. One would expect that other facts/stats are collated on other issues that you mention; with an end result of a lot of useful data. Theses should be scrutinized/brainsto rmed and recommendations passed to higher authority, for them to see if the law is strong enough etc. I believe the course trainers get lots of data/stats from road safety units/DfT, accident investigators be it police or insurance assessors. Cheeky face
  • Score: -2

12:12pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

Littleladykatie wrote:
Doesn't it just frustrate and sadden you that they're doing nothing to address the wider and very real issues on our roads? What about investment in putting traffic police out there, cameras that aren't there to make an easy buck from someone going 5mph faster on a calm dual carriageway at 8pm on an evening rather than cameras that look into cars to catch the vast numbers texting and calling when driving?

Accident data consistently shows that, in most cases, speed is not the primary cause of accidents on the road. Granted, it can exacerbate an accident, but it isn't the primary cause. Until recently, my job as a rep meant I was doing up to 1,000 miles on the road a week, and I saw all manner of dangerous driving! From the lady doing her mascara whilst on the move to the most aggressive and dangerous manoeuvres. Adding in 3 new vans with the guise of 'road safety' and the real ulterior motive of cash generator is not addressing any of those issues I saw out on the road on a day to day basis!

I hasten to add that I'm a safe driver, I always try to adhere to speed limits and I've never had a speeding ticket. But these speed camera vans are being out on the road for all the wrong reasons and that is the very bottom line in my opinion
Quite right. If you see to-day's Scarborough weekly paper Volvo are ahead of road safety; with the development of an intelligent car that brakes automatically if there is likely to be a collision. Of course the car behind this Volvo (when introduced ) will not be in a good position, as I suspect thinking time on a computer system will be quicker than the human brain.

People/motorists create accidents; with road layout/surface less a problem when the police/insurance assessors/highway agency inspectors start apportioning blame.
[quote][p][bold]Littleladykatie[/bold] wrote: Doesn't it just frustrate and sadden you that they're doing nothing to address the wider and very real issues on our roads? What about investment in putting traffic police out there, cameras that aren't there to make an easy buck from someone going 5mph faster on a calm dual carriageway at 8pm on an evening rather than cameras that look into cars to catch the vast numbers texting and calling when driving? Accident data consistently shows that, in most cases, speed is not the primary cause of accidents on the road. Granted, it can exacerbate an accident, but it isn't the primary cause. Until recently, my job as a rep meant I was doing up to 1,000 miles on the road a week, and I saw all manner of dangerous driving! From the lady doing her mascara whilst on the move to the most aggressive and dangerous manoeuvres. Adding in 3 new vans with the guise of 'road safety' and the real ulterior motive of cash generator is not addressing any of those issues I saw out on the road on a day to day basis! I hasten to add that I'm a safe driver, I always try to adhere to speed limits and I've never had a speeding ticket. But these speed camera vans are being out on the road for all the wrong reasons and that is the very bottom line in my opinion[/p][/quote]Quite right. If you see to-day's Scarborough weekly paper Volvo are ahead of road safety; with the development of an intelligent car that brakes automatically if there is likely to be a collision. Of course the car behind this Volvo (when introduced ) will not be in a good position, as I suspect thinking time on a computer system will be quicker than the human brain. People/motorists create accidents; with road layout/surface less a problem when the police/insurance assessors/highway agency inspectors start apportioning blame. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Thu 31 Jul 14

Cheeky face says...

toweliechaos wrote:
dj4 wrote:
toweliechaos wrote:
This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety.

I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme.

I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri



ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a
This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.
No, if you know the road in question (A64 towards York) - or have the ability to read - you will know that at the crest of the hill and bend, there is a junction from Kirkham that lets local traffic join/cross the dual carriageway. People pull out of that junction and frequently, as in my case, massively underestimate (or don't care about) the speed of the oncoming traffic and cause lots of drivers to change lanes suddenly. Slowing down as you put it would put the traffic behind you in danger as they are unsighted, what with it being a bend and a hill.

The simple fact remains that it is the traffic joining/crossing the roads that causes the problems and accidents on the A64, not those quite safely driving between 70-80mph. Never once have I been endangered by someone driving at 80mph on the A64 but I have been several times by idiots crossing the dual carriageway or pulling on to the road without due care, consideration or attention. But they will never be penalised by the Police.

And in answer to your smart-arse comment "you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... " - Yes. It was that or drive right into the back of the cretin who pulled out onto a dual carriageway carelessly or slam on my brakes and be shunted by the person behind. Which of those would you have preferred me to do rather than take the evasive action?
That Kirkham lane onto the A64 would be withdrawn by many highways agency safety engineers. You are actually starting from stationary and expect to be at 60/70 in no time at all, not a clever junction but a hazard that will always be there or someone else. That is what driver alert/awareness courses are for. Defence driving is another option. A warning on the A64 is an alternative similar to a warning about a farm type road on the crest of Golden Hill.

I would never expect safety camera car (or a traffic cop) here, because it does not create income.
[quote][p][bold]toweliechaos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toweliechaos[/bold] wrote: This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety. I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme. I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a[/p][/quote]This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.[/p][/quote]No, if you know the road in question (A64 towards York) - or have the ability to read - you will know that at the crest of the hill and bend, there is a junction from Kirkham that lets local traffic join/cross the dual carriageway. People pull out of that junction and frequently, as in my case, massively underestimate (or don't care about) the speed of the oncoming traffic and cause lots of drivers to change lanes suddenly. Slowing down as you put it would put the traffic behind you in danger as they are unsighted, what with it being a bend and a hill. The simple fact remains that it is the traffic joining/crossing the roads that causes the problems and accidents on the A64, not those quite safely driving between 70-80mph. Never once have I been endangered by someone driving at 80mph on the A64 but I have been several times by idiots crossing the dual carriageway or pulling on to the road without due care, consideration or attention. But they will never be penalised by the Police. And in answer to your smart-arse comment "you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... " - Yes. It was that or drive right into the back of the cretin who pulled out onto a dual carriageway carelessly or slam on my brakes and be shunted by the person behind. Which of those would you have preferred me to do rather than take the evasive action?[/p][/quote]That Kirkham lane onto the A64 would be withdrawn by many highways agency safety engineers. You are actually starting from stationary and expect to be at 60/70 in no time at all, not a clever junction but a hazard that will always be there or someone else. That is what driver alert/awareness courses are for. Defence driving is another option. A warning on the A64 is an alternative similar to a warning about a farm type road on the crest of Golden Hill. I would never expect safety camera car (or a traffic cop) here, because it does not create income. Cheeky face
  • Score: -2

12:40pm Thu 31 Jul 14

toweliechaos says...

Cheeky face wrote:
toweliechaos wrote:
dj4 wrote:
toweliechaos wrote:
This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety.

I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme.

I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri




ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a
This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.
No, if you know the road in question (A64 towards York) - or have the ability to read - you will know that at the crest of the hill and bend, there is a junction from Kirkham that lets local traffic join/cross the dual carriageway. People pull out of that junction and frequently, as in my case, massively underestimate (or don't care about) the speed of the oncoming traffic and cause lots of drivers to change lanes suddenly. Slowing down as you put it would put the traffic behind you in danger as they are unsighted, what with it being a bend and a hill.

The simple fact remains that it is the traffic joining/crossing the roads that causes the problems and accidents on the A64, not those quite safely driving between 70-80mph. Never once have I been endangered by someone driving at 80mph on the A64 but I have been several times by idiots crossing the dual carriageway or pulling on to the road without due care, consideration or attention. But they will never be penalised by the Police.

And in answer to your smart-arse comment "you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... " - Yes. It was that or drive right into the back of the cretin who pulled out onto a dual carriageway carelessly or slam on my brakes and be shunted by the person behind. Which of those would you have preferred me to do rather than take the evasive action?
That Kirkham lane onto the A64 would be withdrawn by many highways agency safety engineers. You are actually starting from stationary and expect to be at 60/70 in no time at all, not a clever junction but a hazard that will always be there or someone else. That is what driver alert/awareness courses are for. Defence driving is another option. A warning on the A64 is an alternative similar to a warning about a farm type road on the crest of Golden Hill.

I would never expect safety camera car (or a traffic cop) here, because it does not create income.
A warning on the A64 is an alternative similar to a warning about a farm type road on the crest of Golden Hill.

I would never expect safety camera car (or a traffic cop) here, because it does not create income.


Warnings would make no difference. If someone pulls out when they shouldn't and you are not expecting anyone to be that dumb, what can you possibly do?

Of course it creates income. It is steeply uphill on a reasonable bend (with overtaking the idiots coming out of the junction...) and then very steeply downhill and the van has you pegged as you are coming downhill. You cannot see it until it's far too late. So in other words, it can't be seen but sees cars coming steeply downhill after overtaking. I can't think of a more perfect setup to catch cars driving at 76-80mph.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toweliechaos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dj4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]toweliechaos[/bold] wrote: This is, as many have said, nothing at all to do with safety. I was caught allegedly doing 80 down Whitwell Hill by the van parked halfway-down in the tree-shrouded layby. The fact that I had moved to the outside lane to permit traffic emerging (unsafely I might add) from the Kirkham junction and, as is natural when performing an enforced overtaking manoeuvre, accelerated and then went downhill counted for nothing. And as the Police have no requirement to prove your speed unless you take them to court, it is an easy revenue generation scheme. I attended the so-called speed awareness course. They showed us one photo of a country-type lane leading into some sort of village. The room was asked what speed they would feel comfortable/appropri ate to drive at and the answers ranged from 30mph to 60mph, thus proving that in the absence of arbitrary signs denoting speed limit, people will make an assessment based on conditions and their ability. Everyone who had said a[/p][/quote]This is an interesting approach to road safety. You approach a junction where you were expecting slow moving traffic to enter - unsafely you claim - and rather than slow down in anticipation of that, you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... It sounds like a good thing you got sent on a driving awareness course.[/p][/quote]No, if you know the road in question (A64 towards York) - or have the ability to read - you will know that at the crest of the hill and bend, there is a junction from Kirkham that lets local traffic join/cross the dual carriageway. People pull out of that junction and frequently, as in my case, massively underestimate (or don't care about) the speed of the oncoming traffic and cause lots of drivers to change lanes suddenly. Slowing down as you put it would put the traffic behind you in danger as they are unsighted, what with it being a bend and a hill. The simple fact remains that it is the traffic joining/crossing the roads that causes the problems and accidents on the A64, not those quite safely driving between 70-80mph. Never once have I been endangered by someone driving at 80mph on the A64 but I have been several times by idiots crossing the dual carriageway or pulling on to the road without due care, consideration or attention. But they will never be penalised by the Police. And in answer to your smart-arse comment "you decided to pull out and accelerate - because clearly you had to.... " - Yes. It was that or drive right into the back of the cretin who pulled out onto a dual carriageway carelessly or slam on my brakes and be shunted by the person behind. Which of those would you have preferred me to do rather than take the evasive action?[/p][/quote]That Kirkham lane onto the A64 would be withdrawn by many highways agency safety engineers. You are actually starting from stationary and expect to be at 60/70 in no time at all, not a clever junction but a hazard that will always be there or someone else. That is what driver alert/awareness courses are for. Defence driving is another option. A warning on the A64 is an alternative similar to a warning about a farm type road on the crest of Golden Hill. I would never expect safety camera car (or a traffic cop) here, because it does not create income.[/p][/quote][quote] A warning on the A64 is an alternative similar to a warning about a farm type road on the crest of Golden Hill. I would never expect safety camera car (or a traffic cop) here, because it does not create income.[/quote] Warnings would make no difference. If someone pulls out when they shouldn't and you are not expecting anyone to be that dumb, what can you possibly do? Of course it creates income. It is steeply uphill on a reasonable bend (with overtaking the idiots coming out of the junction...) and then very steeply downhill and the van has you pegged as you are coming downhill. You cannot see it until it's far too late. So in other words, it can't be seen but sees cars coming steeply downhill after overtaking. I can't think of a more perfect setup to catch cars driving at 76-80mph. toweliechaos
  • Score: 1

1:04pm Thu 31 Jul 14

yorkshirelad says...

It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?

...In general, driving around North Yorks now, it's quite likely that you'll meet one of these vans unexpectedly. Surely it might be a good idea then to keep within the legal speed regardless of what your own views might be about the speed you prefer to drive at?

Although there's a lot of stuff about site specific enforcement, it's clear that a general background deterrent effect is intended. They really are not designed to just slow traffic down for the 45 mins they are parked up - they're designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times.
It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? ...In general, driving around North Yorks now, it's quite likely that you'll meet one of these vans unexpectedly. Surely it might be a good idea then to keep within the legal speed regardless of what your own views might be about the speed you prefer to drive at? Although there's a lot of stuff about site specific enforcement, it's clear that a general background deterrent effect is intended. They really are not designed to just slow traffic down for the 45 mins they are parked up - they're designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 1

1:13pm Thu 31 Jul 14

CommsAtNYP says...

ian923 wrote:
You wonder where cash raised by these vans goes. It doesn't,t go to fund more officers I bet. Anyway who is on the Executive Board and what other decisions does it have to make. This must be separate from the Crime Panel?
Dear Ian923

Just to let you know that the Executive Board is the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable and senior staff. It IS separate from the Police and Crime Panel. That is made up of Councillors from across North Yorkshire area, and they have an oversight role for the Commissioner.
[quote][p][bold]ian923[/bold] wrote: You wonder where cash raised by these vans goes. It doesn't,t go to fund more officers I bet. Anyway who is on the Executive Board and what other decisions does it have to make. This must be separate from the Crime Panel?[/p][/quote]Dear Ian923 Just to let you know that the Executive Board is the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable and senior staff. It IS separate from the Police and Crime Panel. That is made up of Councillors from across North Yorkshire area, and they have an oversight role for the Commissioner. CommsAtNYP
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Thu 31 Jul 14

the original Homer says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?

...In general, driving around North Yorks now, it's quite likely that you'll meet one of these vans unexpectedly. Surely it might be a good idea then to keep within the legal speed regardless of what your own views might be about the speed you prefer to drive at?

Although there's a lot of stuff about site specific enforcement, it's clear that a general background deterrent effect is intended. They really are not designed to just slow traffic down for the 45 mins they are parked up - they're designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times.
Your idea of "a general background deterrent" contradicts what the Police have stated as their intent.

Almost all Police forces have declared that intend to use cameras only at places identified as accident blackspots, and that they will publish the locations where they will be operating.

If we make the assumption that public servants wouldn't lie to the public, then the current policy supports 3 basic principles:

1) We should be able to protest if the published list includes locations which are not accident blackspots.
2) We should be able to protest if we see camera vans operating in locations not on the list.
3) Other than blackspot areas, we should be able to drive over the speed limit, provided our speed is not unsafe or inappropriate.

So, as it stands the camera vans are most definitely NOT "designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times".

Many drivers have actually been taught to drive above the speed limits and can do it safely. They are also taught to interpret speed limits as follows:

30=34
40=45
50=56
60=67
70=78

Those are the minimum prosecution levels, but the ultimate test is safety and appropriateness.

Personally, I can see a lot of merit in your idea of a general background deterrent, although I'd like to see that operating at a much higher threshold.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? ...In general, driving around North Yorks now, it's quite likely that you'll meet one of these vans unexpectedly. Surely it might be a good idea then to keep within the legal speed regardless of what your own views might be about the speed you prefer to drive at? Although there's a lot of stuff about site specific enforcement, it's clear that a general background deterrent effect is intended. They really are not designed to just slow traffic down for the 45 mins they are parked up - they're designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times.[/p][/quote]Your idea of "a general background deterrent" contradicts what the Police have stated as their intent. Almost all Police forces have declared that intend to use cameras only at places identified as accident blackspots, and that they will publish the locations where they will be operating. If we make the assumption that public servants wouldn't lie to the public, then the current policy supports 3 basic principles: 1) We should be able to protest if the published list includes locations which are not accident blackspots. 2) We should be able to protest if we see camera vans operating in locations not on the list. 3) Other than blackspot areas, we should be able to drive over the speed limit, provided our speed is not unsafe or inappropriate. So, as it stands the camera vans are most definitely NOT "designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times". Many drivers have actually been taught to drive above the speed limits and can do it safely. They are also taught to interpret speed limits as follows: 30=34 40=45 50=56 60=67 70=78 Those are the minimum prosecution levels, but the ultimate test is safety and appropriateness. Personally, I can see a lot of merit in your idea of a general background deterrent, although I'd like to see that operating at a much higher threshold. the original Homer
  • Score: -1

4:01pm Thu 31 Jul 14

bringbackcommonsense says...

Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?
--------------------
-
...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.
Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? -------------------- - ...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend. bringbackcommonsense
  • Score: 3

8:02pm Thu 31 Jul 14

growthorgreed says...

More money obviously needs to be spent on road maintenance by central government, if those who claim that there are an increasing number of potholes are correct.

Who, then, will pay for these repairs?

Should it be;

a) The innocent taxpayer, who may or may not drive,

or,

b) The motorist who chooses to break the law?
More money obviously needs to be spent on road maintenance by central government, if those who claim that there are an increasing number of potholes are correct. Who, then, will pay for these repairs? Should it be; a) The innocent taxpayer, who may or may not drive, or, b) The motorist who chooses to break the law? growthorgreed
  • Score: -1

9:16am Fri 1 Aug 14

toweliechaos says...

growthorgreed wrote:
More money obviously needs to be spent on road maintenance by central government, if those who claim that there are an increasing number of potholes are correct.

Who, then, will pay for these repairs?

Should it be;

a) The innocent taxpayer, who may or may not drive,

or,

b) The motorist who chooses to break the law?
Or c) all road users who pay for road tax...

And if it was about just breaking the law, then there would be little complaint beyond the antiquity of said laws. However, it is always, always put forward as being about enforcing safety which, as has been highlighted several times in this column, it most obviously is not.
[quote][p][bold]growthorgreed[/bold] wrote: More money obviously needs to be spent on road maintenance by central government, if those who claim that there are an increasing number of potholes are correct. Who, then, will pay for these repairs? Should it be; a) The innocent taxpayer, who may or may not drive, or, b) The motorist who chooses to break the law?[/p][/quote]Or c) all road users who pay for road tax... And if it was about just breaking the law, then there would be little complaint beyond the antiquity of said laws. However, it is always, always put forward as being about enforcing safety which, as has been highlighted several times in this column, it most obviously is not. toweliechaos
  • Score: 2

12:42pm Fri 1 Aug 14

yorkshirelad says...

bringbackcommonsense wrote:
Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?
--------------------

-
...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.
Wrong...
Imagine the cost of having to have totally visible installation at all the potentially dangerous areas. They need to be less visible so that motorists think they can be 'anywhere, anytime'.
Less visible means more deterrent effect. More visible means a temporary deterrent effect right next to the camera and only when it's there.
It's very clear why some would like them more visble - so they can generally speed and slow down occasionally to avoid getting caught.
[quote][p][bold]bringbackcommonsense[/bold] wrote: Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? -------------------- - ...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.[/p][/quote]Wrong... Imagine the cost of having to have totally visible installation at all the potentially dangerous areas. They need to be less visible so that motorists think they can be 'anywhere, anytime'. Less visible means more deterrent effect. More visible means a temporary deterrent effect right next to the camera and only when it's there. It's very clear why some would like them more visble - so they can generally speed and slow down occasionally to avoid getting caught. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Fri 1 Aug 14

bringbackcommonsense says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
bringbackcommonsense wrote:
Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?
--------------------


-
...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.
Wrong...
Imagine the cost of having to have totally visible installation at all the potentially dangerous areas. They need to be less visible so that motorists think they can be 'anywhere, anytime'.
Less visible means more deterrent effect. More visible means a temporary deterrent effect right next to the camera and only when it's there.
It's very clear why some would like them more visble - so they can generally speed and slow down occasionally to avoid getting caught.
Wrong...

They are called Safety Camera Vans but we know that is a fundamental lie; what they do is catch speeding motorists. As speed is a factor (not necessarily the cause) in only a small percentage of incidents it would be far more beneficial to improve or target the areas that cause the MAJORITY of accidents. When this is done then I would accept that they are indeed focused on safety. At the moment all I see is a mobile tax machine operating under a false premise.

There are innumerable ways to improve road safety but the other options cost money rather than raking it in. If the police were more honest and open about this rather than hiding behind the "safety" mask then they would stand a better chance of gaining the support of motorists.

They justify more restrictions because they catch more motorists and so they then catch even more. It is a vicious circle that needs to be broken or we will end up with a 20mph UK national speed limit and everyone getting fined on a daily basis.

The A64 is not a dangerous road by any means, where there are additional hazards then warn of them in good time. fix the sub-20metre slip roads (like the one from the garage east-bound between Tad and York). Build a footbridge so that people can get from bus-stop to home without having to play chicken and lose. If you can accept what they say and are happy to have the wool pulled over your eyes that is up to you. Many on here and throughout the country are not as gullible.
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bringbackcommonsense[/bold] wrote: Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? -------------------- - ...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.[/p][/quote]Wrong... Imagine the cost of having to have totally visible installation at all the potentially dangerous areas. They need to be less visible so that motorists think they can be 'anywhere, anytime'. Less visible means more deterrent effect. More visible means a temporary deterrent effect right next to the camera and only when it's there. It's very clear why some would like them more visble - so they can generally speed and slow down occasionally to avoid getting caught.[/p][/quote]Wrong... They are called Safety Camera Vans but we know that is a fundamental lie; what they do is catch speeding motorists. As speed is a factor (not necessarily the cause) in only a small percentage of incidents it would be far more beneficial to improve or target the areas that cause the MAJORITY of accidents. When this is done then I would accept that they are indeed focused on safety. At the moment all I see is a mobile tax machine operating under a false premise. There are innumerable ways to improve road safety but the other options cost money rather than raking it in. If the police were more honest and open about this rather than hiding behind the "safety" mask then they would stand a better chance of gaining the support of motorists. They justify more restrictions because they catch more motorists and so they then catch even more. It is a vicious circle that needs to be broken or we will end up with a 20mph UK national speed limit and everyone getting fined on a daily basis. The A64 is not a dangerous road by any means, where there are additional hazards then warn of them in good time. fix the sub-20metre slip roads (like the one from the garage east-bound between Tad and York). Build a footbridge so that people can get from bus-stop to home without having to play chicken and lose. If you can accept what they say and are happy to have the wool pulled over your eyes that is up to you. Many on here and throughout the country are not as gullible. bringbackcommonsense
  • Score: 3

3:42pm Fri 1 Aug 14

CommonSense!! says...

CommsAtNYP wrote:
ian923 wrote:
You wonder where cash raised by these vans goes. It doesn't,t go to fund more officers I bet. Anyway who is on the Executive Board and what other decisions does it have to make. This must be separate from the Crime Panel?
Dear Ian923

Just to let you know that the Executive Board is the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable and senior staff. It IS separate from the Police and Crime Panel. That is made up of Councillors from across North Yorkshire area, and they have an oversight role for the Commissioner.
No comment from NYP on the fact that road deaths have risen since you implemented the use of speed (note Speed, not safety) cameras? And that simply buying some more is unlikely to achieve anything other than further alienate the population you serve whilst road deaths continue to increase?

Shameful.
[quote][p][bold]CommsAtNYP[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ian923[/bold] wrote: You wonder where cash raised by these vans goes. It doesn't,t go to fund more officers I bet. Anyway who is on the Executive Board and what other decisions does it have to make. This must be separate from the Crime Panel?[/p][/quote]Dear Ian923 Just to let you know that the Executive Board is the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Chief Constable and senior staff. It IS separate from the Police and Crime Panel. That is made up of Councillors from across North Yorkshire area, and they have an oversight role for the Commissioner.[/p][/quote]No comment from NYP on the fact that road deaths have risen since you implemented the use of speed (note Speed, not safety) cameras? And that simply buying some more is unlikely to achieve anything other than further alienate the population you serve whilst road deaths continue to increase? Shameful. CommonSense!!
  • Score: 3

4:00pm Fri 1 Aug 14

the original Homer says...

yorkshirelad wrote:
bringbackcommonsense wrote:
Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?
--------------------


-
...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.
Wrong...
Imagine the cost of having to have totally visible installation at all the potentially dangerous areas. They need to be less visible so that motorists think they can be 'anywhere, anytime'.
Less visible means more deterrent effect. More visible means a temporary deterrent effect right next to the camera and only when it's there.
It's very clear why some would like them more visble - so they can generally speed and slow down occasionally to avoid getting caught.
They could be used that way and it might make sense, but it's not the official policy.

If the Police want to hide the cameras to get us to travel slower "just in case there's a hidden camera" then they should say that publicly.

That's the principle behind unmarked cars, but they keep saying the marked camera vans are supposed to be visible
[quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bringbackcommonsense[/bold] wrote: Yorkshire Lad Wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? -------------------- - ...and THAT is the point that posters on here are failing to grasp! If it was there as a safety measure then THAT is exactly what they would be doing. However, it is not a safety measure, but a money-making scheme, designed to raise as much income as possible. It goes back to my earlier comment; if cameras are there to improve safety why are they positioned AFTER the "dangerous" bend.[/p][/quote]Wrong... Imagine the cost of having to have totally visible installation at all the potentially dangerous areas. They need to be less visible so that motorists think they can be 'anywhere, anytime'. Less visible means more deterrent effect. More visible means a temporary deterrent effect right next to the camera and only when it's there. It's very clear why some would like them more visble - so they can generally speed and slow down occasionally to avoid getting caught.[/p][/quote]They could be used that way and it might make sense, but it's not the official policy. If the Police want to hide the cameras to get us to travel slower "just in case there's a hidden camera" then they should say that publicly. That's the principle behind unmarked cars, but they keep saying the marked camera vans are supposed to be visible the original Homer
  • Score: 2

7:57pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

the original Homer wrote:
yorkshirelad wrote:
It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it?

...In general, driving around North Yorks now, it's quite likely that you'll meet one of these vans unexpectedly. Surely it might be a good idea then to keep within the legal speed regardless of what your own views might be about the speed you prefer to drive at?

Although there's a lot of stuff about site specific enforcement, it's clear that a general background deterrent effect is intended. They really are not designed to just slow traffic down for the 45 mins they are parked up - they're designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times.
Your idea of "a general background deterrent" contradicts what the Police have stated as their intent.

Almost all Police forces have declared that intend to use cameras only at places identified as accident blackspots, and that they will publish the locations where they will be operating.

If we make the assumption that public servants wouldn't lie to the public, then the current policy supports 3 basic principles:

1) We should be able to protest if the published list includes locations which are not accident blackspots.
2) We should be able to protest if we see camera vans operating in locations not on the list.
3) Other than blackspot areas, we should be able to drive over the speed limit, provided our speed is not unsafe or inappropriate.

So, as it stands the camera vans are most definitely NOT "designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times".

Many drivers have actually been taught to drive above the speed limits and can do it safely. They are also taught to interpret speed limits as follows:

30=34
40=45
50=56
60=67
70=78

Those are the minimum prosecution levels, but the ultimate test is safety and appropriateness.

Personally, I can see a lot of merit in your idea of a general background deterrent, although I'd like to see that operating at a much higher threshold.
If you read the speed camera location web-site you will see three reasons for cameras. Anti-social issue involving motor cycle noise. Areas of fatalities or serious injuries is another. Finally, local concerns on speeding whether those locations have accidents or not.

Tailgating, texting etc are far worse normally than 10% plus 2 over the limit.

Drive safely and always within the above "real term" limits should be ok. I like to keep 4ft away from sides of any other road user and use the 2 second rule. Problem is roads are narrow/flexuous in North Yorkshire so even that is not always enough.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yorkshirelad[/bold] wrote: It's just not cricket is it? They should really put flashing signs up for several hundred metres before the speed van to give us a sporting chance of getting away with it. Perhaps the speed van should have flashing lights and a great big 30 ft high arrow on it? ...In general, driving around North Yorks now, it's quite likely that you'll meet one of these vans unexpectedly. Surely it might be a good idea then to keep within the legal speed regardless of what your own views might be about the speed you prefer to drive at? Although there's a lot of stuff about site specific enforcement, it's clear that a general background deterrent effect is intended. They really are not designed to just slow traffic down for the 45 mins they are parked up - they're designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times.[/p][/quote]Your idea of "a general background deterrent" contradicts what the Police have stated as their intent. Almost all Police forces have declared that intend to use cameras only at places identified as accident blackspots, and that they will publish the locations where they will be operating. If we make the assumption that public servants wouldn't lie to the public, then the current policy supports 3 basic principles: 1) We should be able to protest if the published list includes locations which are not accident blackspots. 2) We should be able to protest if we see camera vans operating in locations not on the list. 3) Other than blackspot areas, we should be able to drive over the speed limit, provided our speed is not unsafe or inappropriate. So, as it stands the camera vans are most definitely NOT "designed to get us all to slow down, keep legal in all places at all times". Many drivers have actually been taught to drive above the speed limits and can do it safely. They are also taught to interpret speed limits as follows: 30=34 40=45 50=56 60=67 70=78 Those are the minimum prosecution levels, but the ultimate test is safety and appropriateness. Personally, I can see a lot of merit in your idea of a general background deterrent, although I'd like to see that operating at a much higher threshold.[/p][/quote]If you read the speed camera location web-site you will see three reasons for cameras. Anti-social issue involving motor cycle noise. Areas of fatalities or serious injuries is another. Finally, local concerns on speeding whether those locations have accidents or not. Tailgating, texting etc are far worse normally than 10% plus 2 over the limit. Drive safely and always within the above "real term" limits should be ok. I like to keep 4ft away from sides of any other road user and use the 2 second rule. Problem is roads are narrow/flexuous in North Yorkshire so even that is not always enough. Cheeky face
  • Score: -3

8:25am Mon 4 Aug 14

holden79 says...

I live in a 30mph zone and if I had a speed camera at the back of my house and I kept half the fines it gave out, I reckon I'd retire in a few weeks! These things should be parked in built up areas, not staked out on the A64.
I live in a 30mph zone and if I had a speed camera at the back of my house and I kept half the fines it gave out, I reckon I'd retire in a few weeks! These things should be parked in built up areas, not staked out on the A64. holden79
  • Score: 1

8:02pm Mon 4 Aug 14

deathwatch says...

As an advanced motorcyclist, and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I see stupid, reckless and downright antisocial driving EVERY day. Road users who blame "bad roads" are fools. There is usually only bad driving. Drivers drive too fast and too close. They have NO idea of safe stopping distances. Too often I see cars "lane-hogging" in lane 2 or 3, aggressively tailgating the car in front in order to intimidate them into either speeding up or moving out of the way, so the speeding idiot (often in an Audi, surprise, surprise...), can then accelerate towards the back end of their next victim. These selfish parasites have no idea how much road they need to come to a halt until it's too late. In urban areas I frequently face aggression and even abuse from car drivers who resent me adhering to the speed limit and stopping them from speeding as I happen to be in front of them. Speed limits are just that: Limits, NOT targets! That said, road users are expected to make 'reasonable progress' and not hold up following traffic by driving unnecessarily slowly. People should simply drive WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS and according to the conditions. Drivers are often oblivious as to what is going on around them and are simply staring at the back of the vehicle in front. Put simply, drive legally and you will not have to worry about speed cameras. Insist on speeding and you deserve all you get as you are putting yourself and innocent road users, (and pedestrians) in considerable danger.
As an advanced motorcyclist, and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I see stupid, reckless and downright antisocial driving EVERY day. Road users who blame "bad roads" are fools. There is usually only bad driving. Drivers drive too fast and too close. They have NO idea of safe stopping distances. Too often I see cars "lane-hogging" in lane 2 or 3, aggressively tailgating the car in front in order to intimidate them into either speeding up or moving out of the way, so the speeding idiot (often in an Audi, surprise, surprise...), can then accelerate towards the back end of their next victim. These selfish parasites have no idea how much road they need to come to a halt until it's too late. In urban areas I frequently face aggression and even abuse from car drivers who resent me adhering to the speed limit and stopping them from speeding as I happen to be in front of them. Speed limits are just that: Limits, NOT targets! That said, road users are expected to make 'reasonable progress' and not hold up following traffic by driving unnecessarily slowly. People should simply drive WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS and according to the conditions. Drivers are often oblivious as to what is going on around them and are simply staring at the back of the vehicle in front. Put simply, drive legally and you will not have to worry about speed cameras. Insist on speeding and you deserve all you get as you are putting yourself and innocent road users, (and pedestrians) in considerable danger. deathwatch
  • Score: 3

12:55am Tue 5 Aug 14

bringbackcommonsense says...

deathwatch wrote:
As an advanced motorcyclist, and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I see stupid, reckless and downright antisocial driving EVERY day. Road users who blame "bad roads" are fools. There is usually only bad driving. Drivers drive too fast and too close. They have NO idea of safe stopping distances. Too often I see cars "lane-hogging" in lane 2 or 3, aggressively tailgating the car in front in order to intimidate them into either speeding up or moving out of the way, so the speeding idiot (often in an Audi, surprise, surprise...), can then accelerate towards the back end of their next victim. These selfish parasites have no idea how much road they need to come to a halt until it's too late. In urban areas I frequently face aggression and even abuse from car drivers who resent me adhering to the speed limit and stopping them from speeding as I happen to be in front of them. Speed limits are just that: Limits, NOT targets! That said, road users are expected to make 'reasonable progress' and not hold up following traffic by driving unnecessarily slowly. People should simply drive WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS and according to the conditions. Drivers are often oblivious as to what is going on around them and are simply staring at the back of the vehicle in front. Put simply, drive legally and you will not have to worry about speed cameras. Insist on speeding and you deserve all you get as you are putting yourself and innocent road users, (and pedestrians) in considerable danger.
Some valid points but you do highlight the fact that the majority of the antics you witness go unchallenged and that the police focus purely on speed.
Lane-hogging, tail-gating and other selfish behaviour all occur at or below the posted speed limit.

Reading through the messages on here it is clear to me that there are far more hazardous driving styles which the use of cameras do not detect. What is needed is more police on the roads and more robust penalties for those that actually cause the great majority of accidents. As I have said before, if you want safer roads then we must get rid of the distracted and, otherwise, incapable drivers.

Although not the topic here, I find it ludicrous that speed limits on generally safe roads keep getting reduced; these reductions do not improve safety but they do provide a scenario for vastly increased revenue.
[quote][p][bold]deathwatch[/bold] wrote: As an advanced motorcyclist, and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I see stupid, reckless and downright antisocial driving EVERY day. Road users who blame "bad roads" are fools. There is usually only bad driving. Drivers drive too fast and too close. They have NO idea of safe stopping distances. Too often I see cars "lane-hogging" in lane 2 or 3, aggressively tailgating the car in front in order to intimidate them into either speeding up or moving out of the way, so the speeding idiot (often in an Audi, surprise, surprise...), can then accelerate towards the back end of their next victim. These selfish parasites have no idea how much road they need to come to a halt until it's too late. In urban areas I frequently face aggression and even abuse from car drivers who resent me adhering to the speed limit and stopping them from speeding as I happen to be in front of them. Speed limits are just that: Limits, NOT targets! That said, road users are expected to make 'reasonable progress' and not hold up following traffic by driving unnecessarily slowly. People should simply drive WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS and according to the conditions. Drivers are often oblivious as to what is going on around them and are simply staring at the back of the vehicle in front. Put simply, drive legally and you will not have to worry about speed cameras. Insist on speeding and you deserve all you get as you are putting yourself and innocent road users, (and pedestrians) in considerable danger.[/p][/quote]Some valid points but you do highlight the fact that the majority of the antics you witness go unchallenged and that the police focus purely on speed. Lane-hogging, tail-gating and other selfish behaviour all occur at or below the posted speed limit. Reading through the messages on here it is clear to me that there are far more hazardous driving styles which the use of cameras do not detect. What is needed is more police on the roads and more robust penalties for those that actually cause the great majority of accidents. As I have said before, if you want safer roads then we must get rid of the distracted and, otherwise, incapable drivers. Although not the topic here, I find it ludicrous that speed limits on generally safe roads keep getting reduced; these reductions do not improve safety but they do provide a scenario for vastly increased revenue. bringbackcommonsense
  • Score: 2

12:55pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Cheeky face says...

bringbackcommonsense wrote:
deathwatch wrote:
As an advanced motorcyclist, and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I see stupid, reckless and downright antisocial driving EVERY day. Road users who blame "bad roads" are fools. There is usually only bad driving. Drivers drive too fast and too close. They have NO idea of safe stopping distances. Too often I see cars "lane-hogging" in lane 2 or 3, aggressively tailgating the car in front in order to intimidate them into either speeding up or moving out of the way, so the speeding idiot (often in an Audi, surprise, surprise...), can then accelerate towards the back end of their next victim. These selfish parasites have no idea how much road they need to come to a halt until it's too late. In urban areas I frequently face aggression and even abuse from car drivers who resent me adhering to the speed limit and stopping them from speeding as I happen to be in front of them. Speed limits are just that: Limits, NOT targets! That said, road users are expected to make 'reasonable progress' and not hold up following traffic by driving unnecessarily slowly. People should simply drive WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS and according to the conditions. Drivers are often oblivious as to what is going on around them and are simply staring at the back of the vehicle in front. Put simply, drive legally and you will not have to worry about speed cameras. Insist on speeding and you deserve all you get as you are putting yourself and innocent road users, (and pedestrians) in considerable danger.
Some valid points but you do highlight the fact that the majority of the antics you witness go unchallenged and that the police focus purely on speed.
Lane-hogging, tail-gating and other selfish behaviour all occur at or below the posted speed limit.

Reading through the messages on here it is clear to me that there are far more hazardous driving styles which the use of cameras do not detect. What is needed is more police on the roads and more robust penalties for those that actually cause the great majority of accidents. As I have said before, if you want safer roads then we must get rid of the distracted and, otherwise, incapable drivers.

Although not the topic here, I find it ludicrous that speed limits on generally safe roads keep getting reduced; these reductions do not improve safety but they do provide a scenario for vastly increased revenue.
Noted, and in general good comments. Altering speed limits outside urban areas uses data collected from a variety of sources. Parish councils request most of the reductions, but they must provide a good case for the traffic managers to alter any limit; even then it needs police stats on accidents etc.
[quote][p][bold]bringbackcommonsense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]deathwatch[/bold] wrote: As an advanced motorcyclist, and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I see stupid, reckless and downright antisocial driving EVERY day. Road users who blame "bad roads" are fools. There is usually only bad driving. Drivers drive too fast and too close. They have NO idea of safe stopping distances. Too often I see cars "lane-hogging" in lane 2 or 3, aggressively tailgating the car in front in order to intimidate them into either speeding up or moving out of the way, so the speeding idiot (often in an Audi, surprise, surprise...), can then accelerate towards the back end of their next victim. These selfish parasites have no idea how much road they need to come to a halt until it's too late. In urban areas I frequently face aggression and even abuse from car drivers who resent me adhering to the speed limit and stopping them from speeding as I happen to be in front of them. Speed limits are just that: Limits, NOT targets! That said, road users are expected to make 'reasonable progress' and not hold up following traffic by driving unnecessarily slowly. People should simply drive WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS and according to the conditions. Drivers are often oblivious as to what is going on around them and are simply staring at the back of the vehicle in front. Put simply, drive legally and you will not have to worry about speed cameras. Insist on speeding and you deserve all you get as you are putting yourself and innocent road users, (and pedestrians) in considerable danger.[/p][/quote]Some valid points but you do highlight the fact that the majority of the antics you witness go unchallenged and that the police focus purely on speed. Lane-hogging, tail-gating and other selfish behaviour all occur at or below the posted speed limit. Reading through the messages on here it is clear to me that there are far more hazardous driving styles which the use of cameras do not detect. What is needed is more police on the roads and more robust penalties for those that actually cause the great majority of accidents. As I have said before, if you want safer roads then we must get rid of the distracted and, otherwise, incapable drivers. Although not the topic here, I find it ludicrous that speed limits on generally safe roads keep getting reduced; these reductions do not improve safety but they do provide a scenario for vastly increased revenue.[/p][/quote]Noted, and in general good comments. Altering speed limits outside urban areas uses data collected from a variety of sources. Parish councils request most of the reductions, but they must provide a good case for the traffic managers to alter any limit; even then it needs police stats on accidents etc. Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Tue 5 Aug 14

petethefeet says...

pedalling paul wrote:
smudge2 wrote:
Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...
Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........
Paul, you are obviously not acquainted with the laws of Quantum Mechanics? Like electrons that have an infinitesimally small chance of bobbing-up out of the attraction forces of a nucleus then so it is that every car, sometime during the projected life of the universe WILL breach whatever limit you set. Just very improbable. So there!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smudge2[/bold] wrote: Motorists are always a soft target for revenue raising and the authorities know this.They are fleeced by government taxes, road fund licences, oil companies and insurance giants and now with the fine increase which has gone from £60 up to a massive £100 .The road surfaces in North Yorkshire are the worst I have every seen and all the fines go towards is more vans to raise more revenue.The only time the government wanted the motorist was in the depths of the recession when they encouraged us the trade in old cars for new ones to to prop the car industry up .Every car on the road every day at one time will go over speed limit even by a minor amount so it's just the luck of the draw...[/p][/quote]Every car on the road will go over the speed limit once every day.........you make it sound like an inevitability. If however you substitute the word "driver" for your misuse of the word "car" we then have a situation that can be managed. Every driver is capable of remaining within legal speed limits. Just lift one's foot from the accelerator........[/p][/quote]Paul, you are obviously not acquainted with the laws of Quantum Mechanics? Like electrons that have an infinitesimally small chance of bobbing-up out of the attraction forces of a nucleus then so it is that every car, sometime during the projected life of the universe WILL breach whatever limit you set. Just very improbable. So there! petethefeet
  • 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