£800K per month.

[Steve Hunt]

Its definitely "revenue raising", Mark.

The government in this country, no matter what party was in power, declared war on motorists years ago and have used us a cash cow to be milked as and when required.

And the whole thing is dressed up in "safety" clothes so it is hard for anyone to make a case against it......or that old favourite which has been used to fleece us for decades now " to do something about global warming".

Spot on, Ol' Pet

[Petingo]

Not been caught speeding since July 2009 and have been driving about 20k miles a year. Not sure why it's difficult for drivers to pay attention to speed signs on the motorway and adjust their speed accordingly. Those speed awareness courses actually make a difference and everyone should be made to attend one. I did just before the last set of points I got and it made a difference to my driving.

I would agree with you about the motorways, Mr. L.

If you are caught speeding on a motorway you have no one to blame but yourself and deserve any fine you receive.

It is motoring around the city where the problems arise......where different speed limits apply on different sections of a road or even a street where there is a school.

Here's the thing.....no one should disagree with the imposition of a 20 m.p.h. limit when one is passing a school......or even lower.

But to be done for exceeding that artificially low limit at midnight is obviously just plain bonkers.

The whole thing is a mishmash of dogma competing with itself......crawling along city centre roads at 20 mph is very inefficient fuel consumption wise so the tree hugger argument is put to one side because it looks like they are "doing their bit" for road safety.

Then again, there is method in the madness.

It is a twofer.......they make money from catching people exceed their absurdly low limits.....plus there is extra fuel revenue raised as cars burn gas at an increased rate

[Roy Twing]

Apart from it being the salary of more than a few overpaid public servants, it's also the amount Bham City Council is raking in after they switched on their new average speed cameras.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi ... t-11928025

There's the usual group who make the entirely reasonable argument that if these drivers stuck to the speed limit they wouldn't get a fine. There's also the more worrying aspect of how much further this kind of thing is taking us down the road to even Bigger Brother.

I know all the routes they operate and most are typical boy racer roads, and most in Asian areas.

But they've also lowered speed limits to 20 as well in many places and some lunatics want this ridiculously low limit imposed everywhere.

Apparently it's all for safety only so it won't be long before we have conclusive proof detailing the exact reduction in accidents. Yes accidents and nothing else.

But at least there's one good things to come of it, apart from the obvious revenue some people have their eye on; the millions of drivers stuck on their mobiles while driving will be able to do it more safely from now on as they'll be going slower, or feel that they can anyway.

Do you lot think this is an important move forward in road safety or just a cynical revenue raiser in disguise?

Its definitely "revenue raising", Mark.

The government in this country, no matter what party was in power, declared war on motorists years ago and have used us a cash cow to be milked as and when required.

And the whole thing is dressed up in "safety" clothes so it is hard for anyone to make a case against it......or that old favourite which has been used to fleece us for decades now " to do something about global warming".

I mean, if they were really that concerned with stopping accidents on the road, they would insist we all drove along behind a man with a flag, the way early motorists had to do.

There were no accidents then

Just the very point I would have made.

In fact I did a while back:

[m4rkb]

I must admit, I've had my suspicions for a long time about the extra revenue they rake in due to the inefficiencies of driving at 20 and other uneconomical speeds.

It's in the same camp as why any govt never likes to see the price of fuel drop at the pump as they much prefer to pile their taxes onto a higher price rather than a lower one.

[Steve Hunt]

As the late great Mike Dickin used to say "it's not speed that kills, it's inappropriate speed that kills".

For instance, 30 mph may well be inappropriate in a busy child friendly area.
Likewise, if you are heading North on the M6 and you get past Lancaster, I really don't see why the speed limit should be 70 mph. Every time I have used it (which is a lot), the motorway is virtually deserted. Three lanes of fuck all traffic & you are limited to 70 in case a camera is lurking. Bonkers.

[The Tick]

Has anyone actually been done for doing 30mph in a 20mph road? I've done it without any penalty.

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

Has anyone actually been done for doing 30mph in a 20mph road? I've done it without any penalty.

OR SO YOU THINK

[Petingo]

As the late great Mike Dickin used to say "it's not speed that kills, it's inappropriate speed that kills".

For instance, 30 mph may well be inappropriate in a busy child friendly area.
Likewise, if you are heading North on the M6 and you get past Lancaster, I really don't see why the speed limit should be 70 mph. Every time I have used it (which is a lot), the motorway is virtually deserted. Three lanes of fuck all traffic & you are limited to 70 in case a camera is lurking. Bonkers.

+1

[Royal24s]

Obviously you don't get caught every time you break a speed limit or everyone in the country would be disqualified in six weeks. That'd reduce congestion I suppose.
Most 20 limits are advisory only and have restricted hours.

[m4rkb]

Has anyone actually been done for doing 30mph in a 20mph road? I've done it without any penalty.

No.

This is precisely my point about taking speed enforcement into areas where there is a clear danger rather than the trawler approach of speed cameras . If you were to prosecute speeding drivers in residential back streets where kids play or normal people just cross the road, you'd also be catching the most dangerous drivers on the open carriageways as well. They drive recklessly wherever they go. It really is that simple.

The only reason these mass surveillance speed cameras exist is because they are ruthlessly efficient at generating money.

[Lord Notin Kwestion]

I don't see the problem. The speed limit is clearly marked. Speeding causes more deaths than drunk driving but i find it rather amusing that the twats on here are quick to condemn people that have had a drink. Sounds like a bunch of small dicked old boy racers tbh. if anything, I'm more careful if I've had a few pints before driving home.

[Steve Hunt]

I don't see the problem. The speed limit is clearly marked. Speeding causes more deaths than drunk driving but i find it rather amusing that the twats on here are quick to condemn people that have had a drink. Sounds like a bunch of small dicked old boy racers tbh. if anything, I'm more careful if I've had a few pints before driving home.

If you have had a few pints, you may well be over the limit, Notin.

Certainly would be if it was say, Stella Artois.

[Zambo]

The bottom line is that there are rules and laws. People may criticise them, and that criticisism may well be valid in many instances, but if you get caught exceeding the speed limit, the alcohol limit, or using a mob, then look in the mirror to establish who is the cunt.

[Royal24s]

It is ridiculous logic to say that speed causes deaths. The WRONG speed in the wrong situation may cause an accident or even a fatal one, but going 38 mph in a 30 at 2 am on an empty road with no other cars or pedestrians present, good street lighting and a long arc or vision is not dangerous.
Police cars often go fast all the time but they don't usually kill people on the way.
To simplify this down to speed kills is just to take one factor, add the outcome and reach a simplistic but incorrect conclusion.
It's like noting that most drownings involve boats and concluding that boats cause drowning.

[Royal24s]

The bottom line is that there are rules and laws. People may criticise them, and that criticisism may well be valid in many instances, but if you get caught exceeding the speed limit, the alcohol limit, or using a mob, then look in the mirror to establish who is the cunt.

No, we're entitled to question laws if they're wrong. Laws are not simply a means of someone telling you what to do because they say so, and no human being is so low and insignificant that they must obey the orders of some superior class of law makers whether they are just or unjust. That is called slavery.

[Royal24s]

By that logic people in Germany in the mid 20th century who failed to report Jews to the SS were "cunts" because they broke the law.

[Zambo]

The bottom line is that there are rules and laws. People may criticise them, and that criticisism may well be valid in many instances, but if you get caught exceeding the speed limit, the alcohol limit, or using a mob, then look in the mirror to establish who is the cunt.

No, we're entitled to question laws if they're wrong. Laws are not simply a means of someone telling you what to do because they say so, and no human being is so low and insignificant that they must obey the orders of some superior class of law makers whether they are just or unjust. That is called slavery.

Who said people are not entitled to question laws, in fact I've actually said that some criticism is valid. My point is don't fucking well whine like a banshee if you are caught breaking one. Take some positive action instead, and try and get them changed. If you don't like the speed limit laws, then start a petition. You may well get over 100,000 signatures and force a debate in HP.

As for the slavery remark, that's bollocks. The public vote at local and general elections, and the mandate is therefore given for those elected to act on the publics behalf. If you don't like that system do something about it. If you don't like it here you could always go and live in somewhere like Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Iran.

[Zambo]

It is ridiculous logic to say that speed causes deaths. The WRONG speed in the wrong situation may cause an accident or even a fatal one, but going 38 mph in a 30 at 2 am on an empty road with no other cars or pedestrians present, good street lighting and a long arc or vision is not dangerous.
Police cars often go fast all the time but they don't usually kill people on the way.
To simplify this down to speed kills is just to take one factor, add the outcome and reach a simplistic but incorrect conclusion.
It's like noting that most drownings involve boats and concluding that boats cause drowning.

I agree, whilst speed in itself does not necessarily cause deaths, it can and does contribute to them. Hit a child at 20 and there is a good chance of them surviving. Hit them at 40, and the risk shoots up dramatically. However, you can't have a different speed limit for when the schools turn out and then change it when the road is quiet

If people want to tear arse around at every opportunity, then join a racing club, don't do it on the roads where other peoples lives are at stake.

[Royal24s]

Best not to hit them at all in my experience . That's a daft bit of false logic often quoted by money grabbing legislators but of course they issue most speeding fines in circumstances when there's absolutely no chance of hitting a child at all.
It's very like the crap about, " would you torture someone if there was a nuclear bomb about to destroy a city and kill 10 million people and they had the code to disarm it ? "
Well, yes maybe I would , but that's not really going to happen is it, and it's never happened outside an Austin Powers movie, so in reality it doesn't justify Guantanamo Bay, does it ?

[Royal24s]

The bottom line is that there are rules and laws. People may criticise them, and that criticisism may well be valid in many instances, but if you get caught exceeding the speed limit, the alcohol limit, or using a mob, then look in the mirror to establish who is the cunt.

No, we're entitled to question laws if they're wrong. Laws are not simply a means of someone telling you what to do because they say so, and no human being is so low and insignificant that they must obey the orders of some superior class of law makers whether they are just or unjust. That is called slavery.

Who said people are not entitled to question laws, in fact I've actually said that some criticism is valid. My point is don't fucking well whine like a banshee if you are caught breaking one. Take some positive action instead, and try and get them changed. If you don't like the speed limit laws, then start a petition. You may well get over 100,000 signatures and force a debate in HP.

As for the slavery remark, that's bollocks. The public vote at local and general elections, and the mandate is therefore given for those elected to act on the publics behalf. If you don't like that system do something about it. If you don't like it here you could always go and live in somewhere like Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Iran.

Hang on.... So if I question the behaviour of local councillors misusing their ability to make traffic regulations I'd want to live under a still more fucked up bannana republic than this has become ?
Or perhaps I'm supposed to feel grateful that these fucking little tin hitlers aren't quite as bad as Robert Mugabe and just put up with it. Laws are supposed to conform with certain guidelines in what used to be our constitution before Tony Blair abolished it. This is called jurisprudence and appears to be a lost art here, and that's our fault for putting up with it.
I'm sorry , but I don't regard the existence of dictators in third world hell holes as mitigation for riding a coach and horses through the Common Law and usage of England.
Obedience to unjust laws without constant accountability is indeed slavery.

[warmleatherette]

It is ridiculous logic to say that speed causes deaths. The WRONG speed in the wrong situation may cause an accident or even a fatal one, but going 38 mph in a 30 at 2 am on an empty road with no other cars or pedestrians present, good street lighting and a long arc or vision is not dangerous.
Police cars often go fast all the time but they don't usually kill people on the way.
To simplify this down to speed kills is just to take one factor, add the outcome and reach a simplistic but incorrect conclusion.
It's like noting that most drownings involve boats and concluding that boats cause drowning.

Ice cream sales correlate with drowning rates, therefore ice cream must be the problem

[warmleatherette]

It is ridiculous logic to say that speed causes deaths. The WRONG speed in the wrong situation may cause an accident or even a fatal one, but going 38 mph in a 30 at 2 am on an empty road with no other cars or pedestrians present, good street lighting and a long arc or vision is not dangerous.
Police cars often go fast all the time but they don't usually kill people on the way.
To simplify this down to speed kills is just to take one factor, add the outcome and reach a simplistic but incorrect conclusion.
It's like noting that most drownings involve boats and concluding that boats cause drowning.

I agree, whilst speed in itself does not necessarily cause deaths, it can and does contribute to them. Hit a child at 20 and there is a good chance of them surviving. Hit them at 40, and the risk shoots up dramatically. However, you can't have a different speed limit for when the schools turn out and then change it when the road is quiet

If people want to tear arse around at every opportunity, then join a racing club, don't do it on the roads where other peoples lives are at stake.

If you were doing 40 in that 20 you would have already passed the child before he stepped into the road, therefore at 40 you'd be much less likely to harm them at all!

[Zambo]

Best not to hit them at all in my experience . That's a daft bit of false logic often quoted by money grabbing legislators but of course they issue most speeding fines in circumstances when there's absolutely no chance of hitting a child at all.
It's very like the crap about, " would you torture someone if there was a nuclear bomb about to destroy a city and kill 10 million people and they had the code to disarm it ? "
Well, yes maybe I would , but that's not really going to happen is it, and it's never happened outside an Austin Powers movie, so in reality it doesn't justify Guantanamo Bay, does it ?

Best not hit them at all? Well of course but we are talking about accidents which carry no intent here and an object is easier to avoid if you are not driving fast. Moreover less damage is likely. I really don't understand the apparent need to drive fast. If you are late get your arse out of bed earlier.

[Zambo]

The bottom line is that there are rules and laws. People may criticise them, and that criticisism may well be valid in many instances, but if you get caught exceeding the speed limit, the alcohol limit, or using a mob, then look in the mirror to establish who is the cunt.

No, we're entitled to question laws if they're wrong. Laws are not simply a means of someone telling you what to do because they say so, and no human being is so low and insignificant that they must obey the orders of some superior class of law makers whether they are just or unjust. That is called slavery.

Who said people are not entitled to question laws, in fact I've actually said that some criticism is valid. My point is don't fucking well whine like a banshee if you are caught breaking one. Take some positive action instead, and try and get them changed. If you don't like the speed limit laws, then start a petition. You may well get over 100,000 signatures and force a debate in HP.

As for the slavery remark, that's bollocks. The public vote at local and general elections, and the mandate is therefore given for those elected to act on the publics behalf. If you don't like that system do something about it. If you don't like it here you could always go and live in somewhere like Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Iran.

Hang on.... So if I question the behaviour of local councillors misusing their ability to make traffic regulations I'd want to live under a still more fucked up bannana republic than this has become ?
Or perhaps I'm supposed to feel grateful that these fucking little tin hitlers aren't quite as bad as Robert Mugabe and just put up with it. Laws are supposed to conform with certain guidelines in what used to be our constitution before Tony Blair abolished it. This is called jurisprudence and appears to be a lost art here, and that's our fault for putting up with it.
I'm sorry , but I don't regard the existence of dictators in third world hell holes as mitigation for riding a coach and horses through the Common Law and usage of England.
Obedience to unjust laws without constant accountability is indeed slavery.

Question what the fuck you like, but don't expect something to change just because you don't like it. You give the impression that just because you think something is wrong then it is. People are posted to positions to make decisions, that's their job. If you think you can do better then go and apply for one.

[Royal24s]

No, no, no. I've done my bit in jobs which require decision making and authority, and along with that goes a lot of heavy responsibility. In exercising authority you must be disciplined and have both self restraint and ethics .
I hope that I have in the past done that to the best of my ability and I think that one of the best traditions of our country has been a very high standard of honour in military, police and public service, and strict limitations to the use of legislation. Laws and even rules should and must be enforced effectively, but they should be limited by certain principles - maybe that's a thread in itself, because a lot of people have never been schooled in this . One of these is that the law must be approved of and respected by the majority of those it effects, another is that it must be enforceable . It must be equally to the benefit of all, and specifically not to one group of people at the expense of the majority . The law is never to be used for the financial , political or other benefit of the State beyond that which is absolutely necessary to gather essential and publicly agreed levels of taxes.
These principles were established in the time of Ancient Greece and Rome and developed over the millennia . Until very recently they were scrupulously applied by legislators and the judiciary in Britain, so it is not only a mans right but his duty to point it out when they are being flouted.
Authority is not absolute. It is given as a tool to ensure protection against disorder and harm against the peace of the nation, and to misuse it is not only a serious malfeasance , but open to censure and withdrawal .
If you hold the Queens Commission or Warrant, you may order men to kill and die, but you may not do that for your own benefit and you are trusted upon your honour and grave punishment to remember it at all times. If you should use force of arms to empty a civilian bank or rape women, you could not simply say, "Well, it's my job to make decisions, so hard luck".
In short, we are entitled to hold to account those whom we have entrusted with OUR authority to make decisions, and drawing malfeasance to the attention of the public is an essential part of that accountability.