[Closed] Average speed cameras work. Are they even on ?

No, you're missing the many posts made that suggest that advanced drivers are a bunch of speed hungry boy racers.

And I have suggested that where? Like I said it's not a campaign against advanced driving courses or the people who take them.

Still waiting to hear your unwarped logic.

I've made my very simple position pretty clear. Not sure how you've missed it. And while we're on the subject of forgetfulness, we're still waiting on why you think creating a predictable and standardized environment on the roads is a bad idea.

edlong - Member

Can you not see the contradiction within that statement? By your own observation, you cannot know where the limits are, since they are constantly changing.

Maybe it would be safer to try not to drive anywhere near where those limits are likely to be.

Can you not see your contradiction?
I'm guessing you can, as you didn't answer my question.

Unless you really want to, in which case, please take it to a track not the roads my kids might be cycling on.

Please point out where I have condoned driving recklessly on the road.
Or are you just using diversion because your argument doesn't stand up?

sbob - Member

In your lifetime, the chances are that you will never be involved in a serious accident.
If that wasn't the case then none of us would use the roads.
You don't have to take my word for it, look up KSIs per mile travelled and the proof is there for you to see.

all good points, it [u]is[/u] worth remembering that most people muddle along just fine.

but, 20-odd thousand people every year find themselves in some form of bother, and we can all do a little bit to reduce that number.

No, you're missing the many posts made that suggest that advanced drivers are a bunch of speed hungry boy racers.

To be fair, the advanced drivers on here are hardly helping their cause by saying things like this:

Plus I'd never be able to have any fun on a deserted motorway or quiet country B road.

or by saying that speed limits shouldn't apply to them because they are advanced drivers with jolly fast cars etc.

or by commenting on how they are very often flashed by people who consider their overtaking to be in some way dangerous, but that because they are such a jolly advanced driver, the people flashing them are clearly the ones in the wrong (I overtake people all the time, and I think I've been flashed maybe twice in the last couple of years, and if I am honest both times were when I did something stupid and at best cheeky and rude.)

If advanced driving should teach people anything, it should be some humility, and an ability to perceive that whilst you do have greater training, you are still limited and fallible, the same as everyone else and should take this into account in your planning and anticipation whilst driving, rather than that you are a super-driving-god because you've got a little red badge on your windscreen.

ahwiles - Member

unwarped logic: it's quite a good idea if everyone tries to drive at sort of roughly the same speed. to make lane changing easier, and that sort of thing.

It's dazh who accused me of using warped logic, and it's his alternative I am still waiting to hear.

you said that would be 'extremely dangerous'

I said "creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads" was an extremely dangerous path to go down, so don't misquote me to your own ends.
Reducing difference in speed between vehicles is something that is taught, so again you are showing your ignorance of AD.

The only reason why making the roads predictable would be a good idea is if you could act on that prediction.
This may come as a surprise to you but there are vehicles on the road that can legally ignore the speed limit.
Are you suggesting that you should make decisions based on the probability that meeting such a vehicle is unlikely?

Or another example:
You are at a T junction waiting to turn right (from minor to major) and a vehicle is travelling towards you from the right indicating to turn left (back the way you came from).
When do you pull out?

Feel free to actually answer any of those questions.

Please point out where I have condoned driving recklessly on the road.

Not sure who I'm pointing out / at as I'm talking about the issues, not the people, but [b]someone[/b] was suggesting that it was a positive for safety to drive a car to it's edge, on the logic that you / they then knew where that edge was.

I'm disagreeing and suggesting that deliberately driving a car to the limit on public roads is not, in fact, a safety positive behaviour.

creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads

Breeds complacency maybe, cocooned in our safe little metal boxes ?

Dunno ...

dazh - Member

And I have suggested that where? Like I said it's not a campaign against advanced driving courses or the people who take them.

Did I say that you, personally, had made those comments?
No I didn't.
Stop arguing against things I haven't said.

I've made my very simple position pretty clear. Not sure how you've missed it.

I stated that driving [i]was[/i] about getting from A to B quickly.
You called that twisted logic.
Where is your alternative? I seem to have missed it.

And while we're on the subject of forgetfulness, we're still waiting on why you think creating a predictable and standardized environment on the roads is a bad idea.

See my previous post, I hadn't forgotten, I was simply having lunch.

Breeds complacency maybe, cocooned in our safe little metal boxes ?

Dunno ...

The only reason why making the roads predictable would be a good idea is if you could act on that prediction. This may come as a surprise to you but there are vehicles on the road that can legally ignore the speed limit. Are you suggesting that you should make decisions based on the probability that meeting such a vehicle is unlikely?

Eh? I've now read that 3 times and still can't figure out what you're on about. As far as I can gather you're saying emergency vehicles drive in a non-standard way (which I would dispute) which means it's a bad idea for everyone else. Is that right?

sbob - Member

I said "creating a standard and predictable environment on the roads" was an extremely dangerous path to go down, so don't misquote me to your own ends.

i honestly don't think i'm misquoting you*, you just said it again after all.

(*but i apologise if you feel i am, i don't mean anything personal, i'm just enjoying a hearty debate)

but someone was suggesting that it was a positive for safety to drive a car to it's edge, on the logic that you / they then knew where that edge was.

That was me. Where though did I ever mention practicing finding those limits on the public road?

I stated that driving was about getting from A to B quickly.
You called that twisted logic.
Where is your alternative? I seem to have missed it.

Oh right, here was I thinking we were arguing about speed limits and their usefulness and instead you're arguing about the existential nature of driving a car. In answer:

"Driving is about getting from A to B [s]quickly[/s]."

FTFY.

joemarshall - Member

To be fair, the advanced drivers on here are hardly helping their cause by saying things like this:
"I'd never be able to have any fun on a deserted motorway or quiet country B road"

What is wrong with having fun on the roads?
It doesn't have to be dangerous.
Don't we all enjoy riding our bikes?

or by commenting on how they are very often flashed by people who consider their overtaking to be in some way dangerous, but that because they are such a jolly advanced driver, the people flashing them are clearly the ones in the wrong

I see people get flashed for overtaking perfectly safely all the time, and I've had it once or twicw over the years.
Tell me, what should a driver use a flash of the headlights for?
Now tell me those doing the flashing were right.

If advanced driving should teach people anything, it should be some humility, and an ability to perceive that whilst you do have greater training, you are still limited and fallible, the same as everyone else and should take this into account in your planning and anticipation whilst driving

It does.

rather than that you are a super-driving-god because you've got a little red badge on your windscreen.

I don't know any advanced drivers that either think like that, or display a sticker on their vehicle.

The percentage reduction in accident
frequency achievable per 1mile/h reduction in average
speed is between 2-7% ... The reduction achievable, however,
varies according to the road type and the average traffic
speed. Specifically, it is:

- about 6% for urban roads with low average speeds;

- about 4% for medium speed urban roads and lower
speed rural main roads;

- about 3% for the higher speed urban roads and rural
main roads.

hang on, are those numbers per mph reduction? - because that's how i'm reading it - that's massive!

**** me.

Yep. From a TRL report in 2000.

again.

**** me.

edit: i'm getting carried away now.

dazh - Member

Oh right, here was I thinking we were arguing about speed limits and their usefulness and instead you're arguing about the existential nature of driving a car.

Stop pretending that you hadn't realized you were wrong so kept quiet.

In answer:

"Driving is about getting from A to B"

FTFY.

Then why go through all the expense and hassle of getting a licence and car when you could simply walk?

Jog on.

aracer - Member

7% according to the stats.

Less than 4%.

"Causative factors" is misleading, as are numbers plucked out of partly subjective police assessments.

The TRL report is the thing that smashes those numbers out of the park. Lower speeds - less accidents. "Causative" doesn't mean that some accidents caused by other things couldn't have been avoided at lower speed. Someone falls off the pavement in front of my car when I'm doing 25pmh in a 30 zone, that won't be recorded as partly caused by excess speed, even if I could have missed them if I'd happened to be doing 20mph.

You are at a T junction waiting to turn right (from minor to major) and a vehicle is travelling towards you from the right indicating to turn left (back the way you came from).
When do you pull out?

Well unless I'm missing some advanced driving jedi wisdom, you wait until the car indicating left initiates the manoeuvre to turn left and once you're happy it is in fact turning left, and the rest of the traffic is clear enough for you to pull out, you do so. Is that the sort of thing they teach you on IAM courses? Think I learnt that on my first ever lesson on my 17th birthday.

It does.

Yes, I know it should do. That was kind of my point.

I don't know any advanced drivers that either think like that,

I do. Look at the quote below if you want an example of someone who thinks that they're a super-hero because of their elite skills and fast car, and better than the 'lowest common denominator' non-elite driver?

I've done lots of extra training since passing my test. AIM, police type fast road training, observational training and a couple of track based handling sessions. So I think my standard of driving is way above average. Sure I still make the odd mistake but who doesn't. The extra training, awareness of hazards combined with a high performance car with good handling and good brakes means that often I can drive above the posted limits completely safely whilst at the same time taking accounts if any harass that might be present. For someone who's not had this training then these hazards might seem like unexpected events, but in reality 99% are totally predictable.

I fail to see why if conditions allow then a speed limit can't be safely exceeded. We shouldn't all have to drive to the lowest common denominator.

ahwiles - Member

again.

**** me.

Again, as you seem to have missed it the first time:

On a road with a 20mph speed, by what percentage decrease in accidents will a 20mph decrease in speed achieve, according to those stats? 😉

Always be wary of accepting stats at face value.

Then why go through all the expense and hassle of getting a licence and car when you could simply walk?

So now were arguing about the definition of 'quickly'? Well I admit that driving is undeniably quicker than walking. Well done. You win.

sbob - Member

Always be wary of accepting stats at face value.

of course.

food for though though isn't it? cutting deaths in 30 zones by around 40% by lowering the limit to 20.

On a road with a 20mph speed, by what percentage decrease in accidents will a 20mph decrease in speed achieve, according to those stats?

Always be wary of accepting stats at face value.

I think he saw it, but couldn't be bothered responding to such a ridiculous question. Is that all you've got to contribute to this?

Here's that report:

Please could anyone read it before trotting out the "excess speed is only a factor in 7%/4%/0.0002853% of accidents" line as a definitive argument? Agree with it or not it's a very detailed analysis with the firm conclusion that reducing speeds - and speeding - would significantly reduce accidents.

Tell me, what should a driver use a flash of the headlights for?
Now tell me those doing the flashing were right.

Now that's a funny one. Because whilst obviously the highway code just says to let someone know that you are there, I did meet one IAM guy who suggested that when you saw bad driving on the road, you should beep or flash your lights, to let people know that you felt their actions were discourteous or unsafe, as without this kind of feedback, people won't realise that they are having a negative effect on people, and won't change their driving to avoid it. So the advanced motorists don't actually agree on that one.

I don't disagree that sometimes people flash something that is perfectly safe, but I do think that if it happens to you often, as described in that post above, it is possibly time to start thinking about whether it is you, not them who is doing something wrong, and I think that this is exactly the kind of reflection that should be expected of someone with advanced driver training, rather than just arrogantly assuming that all the people in your rear view flashing you are mere mortals in the presence of a driving god.

Always be wary of accepting stats at face value.

You seemed happy enough to accept them when your H&S matey was quoting them about accidents in the playground.

dazh - Member

Well unless I'm missing some advanced driving jedi wisdom, you wait until the car indicating left initiates the manoeuvre to turn left and once you're happy it is in fact turning left, and the rest of the traffic is clear enough for you to pull out, you do so. Is that the sort of thing they teach you on IAM courses? Think I learnt that on my first ever lesson on my 17th birthday.

Well thanks for answering someone else's question, but you've just proven my point.
Although you could predict that the car was almost certainly going to turn left, you didn't act on that prediction, and rightly so.

I take it I don't have to explain further...

Do IAM motorists have the headlight flash equivalent of the Masonic handshake?

I find it exceptionally helpful when people flash their lights at someone when they're overtaking. Being suddenly blinded makes the manoeuvre much easier and safer.

Although you could predict that the car was almost certainly going to turn left, you didn't act on that prediction, and rightly so.

You'll have to humour me here, as I'm obviously struggling with this higher level of abstraction. So why does this means we shouldn't have speed limits? Are you now suggesting we *shouldn't* exercise common sense and good judgement? This may be a revelation to you, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

dazh - Member

So now were arguing about the definition of 'quickly'? Well I admit that driving is undeniably quicker than walking. Well done. You win.

We were always arguing about the same thing; I made a statement that you disagreed with.
You've now finally changed your mind and all of a sudden don't disagree with me.
That's nice 'n'all, just a shame you have to be a [i]silly billy[/i] about, pretending that you weren't actually wrong.

dazh - Member

You'll have to humour me here, as I'm obviously struggling with this higher level of abstraction. So why does this means we shouldn't have speed limits?

I didn't ever say that.
You imply I have said something I haven't because you cannot argue against what I have said.
Seriously, grow up or go away.

Are you now suggesting we *shouldn't* exercise common sense and good judgement?

Show me where I've suggested that and I'll buy you a pint.
When you're old enough.

This may be a revelation to you, but the two are not mutually exclusive.

Arguing against things I haven't said, and pretending I've said things to further your argument, that's trolling, pure and simple.

Ah, I'm back in for a moment. The whole accident rates since speed cameras is easily tackled, the propaganda officer at my speed safe course tripped over his own feet with this one.

Turns out (according to him) that before they can install a speed camera at the particular accident blackspot, they must also "fix" the area. It might be extra signs, resurfacing, changed priorites, (re)moving hedgrows, white paint, street lighting... And then they bung a speed camera somewhere within a mile of the place. And fatalities go down! Because of the camera! Right?

When Swindon threw all theirs away, fatalities dropped by 100% that year. (From 1 to 0 mumble mumble but that's 100%.)

You've now finally changed your mind and all of a sudden don't disagree with me.

You might soon realise that his claiming you we're using strange logic to justify an argument was correct didn't require an "alternative". You have shown that driving is often quicker than walking. Awesome. 8)

We don't even need selective acceptance of whatever stats suit our argument to prove that one.

joemarshall - Member

Now that's a funny one. Because whilst obviously the highway code just says to let someone know that you are there, I did meet one IAM guy who suggested that when you saw bad driving on the road, you should beep or flash your lights, to let people know that you felt their actions were discourteous or unsafe, as without this kind of feedback, people won't realise that they are having a negative effect on people, and won't change their driving to avoid it. So the advanced motorists don't actually agree on that one.

Interesting conclusion from your sample of one.
The IAM does not teach the above, and my initial guess is that he wasn't an advanced driver.

We were always arguing about the same thing; I made....

To be honest I've no idea what you're arguing about any more. Have you an actual point to make about the rights/wrongs of speed limits and who they apply to? If you'd like to enlighten us without the willy waving I'm all ears.

Average speed cams scare me- not the current ones but future, interlinked-networked ones. I love petrol engines, red-lining the buggers until I'm upto the speed limit but occassionally I will drift over if its quiet. good conditions etc. In the future- theres not a snowy-chance in hell this would be possible with average-cam networks (being tested now aren't they?).

[quote=hora ]Average speed cams scare me- not the current ones but future, interlinked-networked ones. I love petrol engines, red-lining the buggers until I'm upto the speed limit but occassionally I will drift over if its quiet. good conditions etc. In the future- theres not a snowy-chance in hell this would be possible with average-cam networks (being tested now aren't they?).
An [i]average[/i] speed camera network wouldn't catch [i]occasional[/i] speeding.

It seems simple that there's some on here who like to drive fast using the prevailing road conditions rather than the posted speed limit to judge how fast to safely make progress. Whatever the law says life is just like that I'm afraid. In the same way that good skiers naturally ski faster than poor skiers, and good cyclists cycle faster than poor cyclists. Adding more regulations simply frustrates those people who feel perfectly safe doing what they are already doing. In the same way as the faster driver needs to make allowances for the ditherers, the indecisive and the downright slow, the slower drivers need to appreciate that others feel confident to drive faster than they are and with a good level of safety in doing so. Right or wrong, we all need to get used to it.

<mod>
Just a gentle reminder to keep it civil, people. It's a discussion, not a Who Can Be The Most Right competition.
</mod>

[img] [/img]

I think that the much improved safety of the modern car, improved road design, a harder driving test plus theory and the fact that many of the youngsters are now priced of the road by huge insurance costs have much more to do with the reduction in casualties over the last 10-15 years rather than the introduction of Scameras.

occassionally I will drift over if its quiet. good conditions etc.

loon

Cougar - Moderator

<mod>
Just a gentle reminder to keep it civil

Difficult in the face of such obvious trolling, but I'll do my best. 🙂

An average speed camera network wouldn't catch occasional speeding.

But it'd mean you'd have to drop well below the speed limit to average that stretch out between cam's (if you see what I mean?). If they are interlinked you've then got a high chance of getting it wrong whereas on the motorway if you did a spurt at 60 in a 50, before the second cam you'd drop to say 40.

rebel12 - Member
Right or wrong, we all need to get used to it.

it, and speed cameras.

Ps. I've zip against speed camera's. If you can't spot one then you also can't spot crucial safety boards/signs in urban areas. Clarkson et al's childish grandstanding against them was counter-productive and not required IMO.

Whatever the law says life is just like that I'm afraid.

This sounds very much like a 'Sod you all, I'm going to do what I want and I don't care about the consequences' statement that I was talking about earlier. Is it?

Scameras.

dazh - Member

To be honest I've no idea what you're arguing about any more.

That's an obvious lie but I accept you've run out of troll feed and are probably starting to get weak.

Have you an actual point to make about the rights/wrongs of speed limits and who they apply to?

I have many points to make, why are you trying to steer me towards that particular topic?
If you want to keep things on topic, then the title was
"Average speed cameras work. Are they even on?"
to which the answer is yes. Case closed you can go now.

If you'd like to enlighten us without the willy waving I'm all ears.

What willy waving? You're obviously not all ears as you have chosen to repeatedly ignore what I have actually written in your quest to troll.

My initial points were (as you're pretending to be interested) that people need to take responsibility for themselves, and not be nannyed by the state, and that prevention is better than cure.

I appreciate responsibility of self is probably not going to go down too well in a forum populated by mainly [s]communists[/s] those of a left persuasion. 🙂

I appreciate responsibility of self is probably not going to go down too well in a forum populated by mainly communists those of a left persuasion.

Spongetroll alert!!

Wow ... 13 pages !!

Normal only us religious/non-religious bores get that far

Hope you're all having fun 😀

my acceptance of speed limits makes me a communist?

okay...

(but i do read the grauniad, grow a beard, and work for a university, so i know i'm on thin ice)

The thread seems to have strayed into cross arguing and nitpicking about exactly what each others argument is.

It's blatant common sense...

sbob I don't [i]think[/i] anyone is saying IAM drivers are all mental but there does appear to be a fair few internet arguers who say they speed and attempt to justify it with their IAM credentials, I'm sure not all IAMers are like that and obviously more driver training is a good thing, just got a bit of a reputation round here.
<edit>

I appreciate responsibility of self is probably not going to go down too well in a forum populated by mainly communists those of a left persuasion.

sbob, you obviously seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you on an internet forum is a troll. Whilst I may disagree with you, I can assure you I'm no troll. You may want to look up the definition.

Another feature of internet forums is that debate often very quickly evolves to cover subjects wider than the OP (Indeed STW is notorious for it!). I think we'd all agree this has happened in this case (ignoring the pedantic sillyness).

You say you have lots of points to make about speed limits and how they should be applied. Lets have them!

back on track albeit at a tangent, what was the justification for publicising camera locations? The cameras on our local 50mph DC are a PITA frankly with the oh so predictable [i]usual cruising speed of 60-80mph, slam on for the camera, accelerate hard back to original speed and repeat for the next 2 sets[/i] from a significant proportion of road users. Wouldn't having mobile cameras in undisclosed locations be more likely to get people to drive under the limit more of the time?

be very wary of starting any post with this line dazh, even if the rest of the post is rock solid this is a bad opener.

Agreed. However in this case I truly believe it to be the case, so had no qualms in using it.

but you lose credibility with that one

My apologies, I missed out the smiley.
I was simply trying to insert some gentle humourous rib-poking in a thread that was getting quite heated.

Honest. 😀

The cameras on our local 50mph DC are a PITA frankly with the oh so predictable usual cruising speed of 60-80mph, slam on for the camera, accelerate hard back to original speed and repeat for the next 2 sets from a significant proportion of road users.

A superb example of where average speed cameras would be beneficial?

[quote=D0NK ]back on track what was the justification for publicising camera locations? The cameras on our local 50mph DC are a PITA frankly with the oh so predictable usual cruising speed of 60-80mph, slam on for the camera, accelerate hard back to original speed and repeat for the next 2 sets from a significant proportion of road users. Wouldn't having mobile cameras in undisclosed locations be more likely to get people to drive under the limit more of the time?
I depends what you think the cameras are for. If you take it that they are designed to reduce accidents [i]at those specific locations[/i] then letting everyone know where they are makes some sense as everyone will slow down, not just the observant. Of course, this goes against the pre-conceptions of those who think they are solely deigned to raise revenue.

A superb example of where average speed cameras would be beneficial?

designed to reduce accidents at those specific locations then letting everyone know where they are makes some sense as everyone will slow down, not just the observant

dazh - Member

The cameras on our local 50mph DC are a PITA frankly with the oh so predictable usual cruising speed of 60-80mph, slam on for the camera, accelerate hard back to original speed and repeat for the next 2 sets from a significant proportion of road users.

A superb example of where average speed cameras would be beneficial?

Or perhaps a superb example of where drivers quite happily and safely do 60-80mph day after day without incident yet the local safety camera partnership felt the need to top up the coffers in the misguided name of 'speed kills'? Shame so many clueless people buy in to this.

in an attempt to push things forward positively...

lots of modern cars are fitted with GPS devices.

i'm guessing it's not beyond the limits of our technology to track/save data.

how long before insurance companies/the feds are using this information in crash/death cases

or has it already happened?

[quote=D0NK ]scotroutes I see the point about accident black spots, fair enough, but if it's widely publicised that unmarked mobile cameras are used (i don't think anyone in the UK hasn't heard of speed limits and cameras) and they are used on roads with well signed limits what's the problem?
The problem is that folk know the likelihood of them getting caught for speeding is almost infinitesimal and so they'll sail through those blackspots without a second thought.

speed cameras are a tax on stupidity and as such ace. I do love the i'm an advanced driver so the law does not apply to me line of argument surely an advanced driving course would teach you how to read the speedo on a car dash board ?

[quote=ahwiles ]in an attempt to push things forward positively...
lots of modern cars are fitted with GPS devices.
i'm guessing it's not beyond the limits of our technology to track/save data.
how long before insurance companies/the feds are using this information in crash/death cases
or has it already happened?
Some insurance companies will give a discount for vehicles with those fitted. I guess it's enough of a consideration that folk drive slower when they know they are being tracked. I imagine that the fine print includes some wording to indicate that the data will be used in the event of any accident.

FWIW, I'd make GPS logging and front/rear cameras compulsory on all vehicles. It's a shame we've never had a government that had the drive to make a serious impact on the 2,000 road deaths / 20,000+ serious injuries every year.

or has it already happened?

If I recall correctly the last time doing anything like this was suggested all the motorists were up in arms about their human rights and freedom of movement*, and big brother etc.

*Of course what they really meant was their freedom to break the speed limit.

I do love the i'm an advanced driver so the law does not apply to me line of argument

I've not said this. I've said that as I frequently drive above the speed limit, I though that some extra training (including IAM) would be beneficial and make me much safer doing this. A big difference and I do appreciate that this is technically outside of the law.

Or perhaps a superb example of where drivers quite happily and safely do 60-80mph day after day without incident yet the local safety camera partnership felt the need to top up the coffers in the misguided name of 'speed kills'? Shame so many clueless people buy in to this.

You're right. Just like climate change, it's a left-wing conspiracy to make the world a better place 🙂

Or perhaps a superb example of...blah blah blah

Delighted council officials have revealed that after two years accidents have reduced by 60pc and injuries have fallen by 66pc.[/url] A666 had pretty bad safety record beforehand AFAIK - dunno wasn't driving myself then so didn't take much note

[quote=rebel12 ] I've said that as I frequently drive above the speed limit, I though that some extra training (including IAM) would be beneficial and make me much safer doing this.
This is true. I've had advanced training and was surprised at how much quicker I was able to make safe progress.

in the misguided name of 'speed kills'? Shame so many clueless people buy in to this.

Can you show where this slogan has been used in this country in recent years?

Average speed cameras across all the road network I say, and unmarked speed traps. They have unmarked traps in western Australia and the driving there is much better than here.

A9 needs average speed cameras all the way anyway, its a racetrack/deathtrack.

dazh - Member

sbob, you obviously seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you on an internet forum is a troll.

No, I think you're a troll for the reasons I listed earlier, pretending I said things I didn't, et cetera.
Page 13, just under halfway down. It's black and white.

Another feature of internet forums is that debate often very quickly evolves to cover subjects wider than the OP (Indeed STW is notorious for it!). I think we'd all agree this has happened in this case (ignoring the pedantic sillyness).

Yet you try and dictate what subject we actually discuss? 😕

You say you have lots of points to make about speed limits and how they should be applied. Lets have them!

You've done it again! Not only steering the topic of conversation but suggesting I've said something I haven't.

Why would you do that if you weren't trolling?
I hardly think you're dim enough to not realise you're doing it.

I do appreciate that this is technically outside of the law.

Well, there's no "technically" about it, it is.

Can you show where this slogan has been used in this country in recent years?

Given how everybody recognises it so much that it keeps getting brought out on threads like this without most people objecting, I reckon whether or not it's been used actively in recent years is irrelevant - the damage has been done.

dazh - Member

A superb example of where [s]average[/s] no speed cameras would be beneficial?

Unfortunately this also works.

Given how everybody recognises it so much that it keeps getting brought out on threads like this without most people objecting, I reckon whether or not it's been used actively in recent years is irrelevant - the damage has been done.

You can "reckon" all you want. The folk I have read using it are the ones who are anxious to prefix it with "inappropriate".