speed cameras on A149

[Guest]

My personal opinion is it`s NOT speed that is dangerous, but dangerous drivers.

It's still an undeniable fact that nobody has died or been seriously injured along that stretch of the A149 since the cameras went up, even while people didn't realise they were not working.

Yet prior to that, there had been nine fatalities and 18 serious injuries since just 2003.

[senator]

My most economical speed is 62 miles per hour and when I took my driving test I was always taught that I would fail for driving too slowly and should always drive up to the speed limit if conditions allowed, it was called making satisfactory progress.

It means someone driving slowly is not only costing me time but money too and driving in a manor that would be considered not suitable for the driving standards agency.

You are absolutely right Neil in your observations of reliance on speed cameras over police patrols but on occasions average speed cameras in accident black spots can contribute to road safety, at least there should be no need to jam the brakes on when you see one.

[Brian J.]

There are no bad roads, only bad drivers. I agree with every word of Neils posting. Brian J.

[Guest]

There are no bad roads, only bad drivers.

Yes, no road, (or any other inanimate object) has ever crashed into anyone and killed them.

The crucial point though is cause and effect.

A "bad road" makes a "bad driver" even more likely to cause an accident, and higher speeds make it easier for a bad driver to kill.

Speed is proportional to impact damage after an accident has occurred, and therefore the degree of personal injury, or even death.

[mbird]

Sorry Mark, but because they wanted to drive at 45 miles per hour . I live in a small country lane where even the speed limit of 30mph is too fast. Drivers though ignore the "drive in accordance with the conditions" rule and if challenged say - I'm not speeding. I am sort of in favour of minimum speeds on certain roads like motorways but worry that rivers will just use this as an excuse to drive faster than the conditions dictate.

Hi Soundings, as you say, it can be an emotive subject.

My problem isn't with people wanting to drive at 45mph, but the fact they are in capable of adjusting their speed when entering a 60 limit from a 50. Most people will speed up a bit, even if they stay 5mph below the limit. I'm afraid the "because they at to drive at 45" arguement holds no water with me, as I want to drive at 60 where I can and it is safe to do so, as did the dozen cars behind me, so why should one person dictate what twelve others can do?

The biggest issue with too low a speed is that it frustrates people, and that can lead to some very dodgy overtaking being attempted. In my opinion, that is a far greater danger then simply driving at a safe speed.

[kfurbank]

Whilst it frustrates me as well to be stuck behind a slower driver, most roads do not have a minimum speed limit, and it is not an offence in law to be driving slower than the maximum speed limit. Its a sad fact that as people get older their responses slow down, so should they be forced to drive faster to avoid holding other people up? or drive at a speed that they feel comfortable with? Whatever speed the car in front is doing, there is NEVER an excuse for reckless driving, or poor judgement in overtaking just because you feel frustrated at losing 10mins on your journey. One thing is inevitable, given good health we will all get older someday, have slower reactions, and more than likely want to remain mobile when our legs start to pack up. It's also worth bearing in mind that where minimum speed limits have been applied, they are so low as to be almost worthless anyway in the context that is being discussed here. I believe the Blackwell tunnel is 10mph, and on Irish motorways the minimum speed limit is 30mph.

[mbird]

All very true and undeniable Keith, but, and lets be honest here, hands up who hasn't been frustrated behind a slow driver though? Age was never brought into the discussion; thats a whole other debate

[kfurbank]

Hi Mark,

Whilst it's true that age was not specifically bought up, I can't help but think that the two are intrinsically linked. I don't remember having to overtake, or get stuck behind many drivers under, and I'm going to be careful here, 50ish. There is another category of driver who will drive slowly in the outside lane of motorways, or dual carridgeways, who I have even seen move over for faster drivers and then pull straight back out into the fast lane behind them, who more than likely passed their test in a different country. The A13 in Essex is becoming a joke for that style of driving, but that's an entirely different subject.

[Antares_9]

I believe the Blackwell tunnel is 10mph

Good job they don't have minimum speed cameras in there, you're lucky if you can manage to get up to 5mph in the rush hour, I say hour.... it seems to be more of a rush 3 hour in the morning and again in the evening.

[C.Ricko]

If so, they can record the use of any vehicles that are stolen, untaxed, uninsured, or without current MOTs.

And a bl**dy good job too, if they are......

so when can we stop buying car tax and just have it included in the price of petrol? that way we only pay tax depending on how much we drive the car....

[Brian]

Oh Clive, please no more TAX, its getting silly now, price of Diesel £1.31 a Litre ! It costs over £100 to fill my little truck up, £110 to fill up each Van.

THis is slowly bringing the country to a halt.

Its all doom and gloom, Bring in the Electric cars !

They are here allready, Mitsi have one and a nice looking one it is but a price tag of 40K !!!!! i mean, theres less moving parts, far less, a electric motor instead of a engine, what needs servicing ? not alot.

When they roll out at 15K, it will mark the end of the normal combustion engine.

WOnt be long now, but what will the government think up then to TAX us all on ?

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

so when can we stop buying car tax and just have it included in the price of petrol? that way we only pay tax depending on how much we drive the car....

I think there`s been MORE than enough tax put on petrol clive, so let`s now have road tax abolished to balance the equasion : : .

[Guest]

so when can we stop buying car tax and just have it included in the price of petrol? that way we only pay tax depending on how much we drive the car....

I'm 100% with you there Clive, the logic of paying "car tax" proportional to how much you use the road system is undeniable !

[Guest DAYTONA-BILL]

Oh Clive, please no more TAX, its getting silly now, price of Diesel £1.31 a Litre ! It costs over £100 to fill my little truck up, £110 to fill up each Van.

THis is slowly bringing the country to a halt.

Its all doom and gloom, Bring in the Electric cars !

They are here allready, Mitsi have one and a nice looking one it is but a price tag of 40K !!!!! i mean, theres less moving parts, far less, a electric motor instead of a engine, what needs servicing ? not alot.

When they roll out at 15K, it will mark the end of the normal combustion engine.

WOnt be long now, but what will the government think up then to TAX us all on ?

Alternative powered cars have been around for over half a century, but they are being styfled by the oil giants to keep up their profits and keep the exorbitent revinue for the treasury. If ANY government was REALLY concerned about road safety and the environment, we`d see a total scrappage of stationary and gatso speed cameras, and alternative fuel celled vehicals encouraged, and regular police patrols. As things stand, we HAVE to have internal combustion engined vehicals and speed cameras to finance the country, and the rest of the world for that matter.

[Guest]

The reason we, (and the rest of the world) aren't using electric vehicles in quantity yet is because they're not economically viable, because battery and fuel cell technology is not good enough yet.

It's got nothing to do with Governments worried about oil derived tax revenue.

If/when we do get viable everyday electric vehicles, then they will simply switch the way the tax is applied.

We've already seen it with the attempts at LPG car and van conversions. Diesel fuel tax was cheaper than petrol, until it become more popular.

Once the mainstream users buy alternative fuel sources in quantity, it ceases to become cheaper, tax-wise.

There's no way round it, it's a big source of tax income

[senator]

I have never heard such a ridiculous idea as paying more tax on fuel to replace the road tax.

My boat does about 1 mpg on petrol, bad enough paying road levy on it let alone road tax too.

[C.Ricko]

ho ho ho! what have I started!!

I stupidly like driving old vehicles but although I dont mind paying to MOT a vehicle I dont like the road tax aspect which is why I stick with tax exempt vehicles.

The point is that any car which has just missed the date is less desirable and our motoring history is being deleted from 1972 onward which is a real shame..

[Guest]

I have never heard such a ridiculous idea as paying more tax on fuel to replace the road tax.

My boat does about 1 mpg on petrol, bad enough paying road levy on it let alone road tax too.

Bug**r..... I didn't think of that.....

My boat's petrol too.

[Guest]

ho ho ho! what have I started!!

I stupidly like driving old vehicles but although I dont mind paying to MOT a vehicle I dont like the road tax aspect which is why I stick with tax exempt vehicles.

The point is that any car which has just missed the date is less desirable and our motoring history is being deleted from 1972 onward which is a real shame..

Yes, it's a real shame they didn't carry on with it as a rolling date for tax exempt.

It was a big disappointment when they froze it at 1972.

[goodall_m1]

I have never heard such a ridiculous idea as paying more tax on fuel to replace the road tax.

My boat does about 1 mpg on petrol, bad enough paying road levy on it let alone road tax too.

Especially as they are also using car tax to try to reduce emissions...

A new way to reduce the Government's deficit, I can see a converation with the DVLC going someting like...

And what cubic capacity is the engine on your vehicle sir?

Oh you have more than one engine in the vehicle!

So what is the total co2 per kilometere rating for the engines?

Ok so when I apply our emissions multiplier, using the standard logarithmic scale

that means that you owe £xxx,xxx for a one year permit sir.

I'd rather go down to Ispwich and spend the money on a fuel efficent vehicle myself.

Now where is that number for Oyster Yachts...

Martin

[goodall_m1]

Bring in the Electric cars !

Wont be long now, but what will the government think up then to TAX us all on ?

Tax on all Electricity as it MAY be being used to re-charge a road vehicle

(c.t. Fuel Duty on marine diesel as it MAY be being used in a vehicle)!

Also did you see that the BBC sent a guy from London to Edinburgh in an Electric Mini,

it only took him 4 days due to the amount of time he had to stop to recharge it.

I did take 4.5 days getting from Southampton to Edinburgh once, but I was on a push-bike!

[Brian]

Storing power in omething lite and compact is the issue, and im so surprised this hasnt been cracked yet.

Im sure it has, but imagine what would happen. IF next week saw the releases of a electric car that did 400 miles on one charge, it took 4 people comfortably and cruised along at 70mph with ease. And costs 15K

The motor/powerplant could be universal, theres would be no need for different capacity motors, as one motor would be fine, want to go faster then turn up the juice.

You wont need mechanics anymore just a electrician

This wont happen as it cant happen, Petrol stations, would go, replaced by ? well nothing.

THe world depends on the Petrol and Diesel so much in TAX, take Petrol and Diesel away. I just cant even begin to comprihend what would happen.

[Guest]

Storing power in something light and compact is the issue, and im so surprised this hasnt been cracked yet.

Exactly right. Electricity has shown it's superior controllability and wider torque band over many years with Diesel Electric powerplants in trains, ships, and specialist vehicles like giant earth movers.

Innovations like Pulsed power control has made electric motors even more efficient and powerful.

Battery technology has advanced tremendously in low power items like mobile phones, (remembering the "bricks" we had 20 years ago).

I can't believe that battery advances could be stifled by commercial interests, they affect too many other things, aside from cars.

As for petrol stations, it's quite possible they will go over to fast recharging, or cell exchange, or whatever, to replenish electric car's charges, since most journeys will be beyond base charge range for the foreseeable future.

[senator]

Have always enjoyed a good conspiracy story but there have been plenty of allegations concerning buying up and hiding alternative energy's

Lets face it if anyone has the financial muscle to ensure that inventions get squirrelled away it is the oil company's. They are also quite pally with plenty of evidence of cohersion in the past.

If the technology existed to replace fossil fuels then the industry would be heavily impacted, don't forget that whole country's are dependent on oil for their very significant wealth and virtually every other developed country raises massive amounts of revenue from taxing oil.

Personally I find it hard to believe that in this day and age the technology does not exist to power at least vehicles through a far more efficient source and there are plenty of accounts of vehicles that can run on water and a tablet.

Everyone knows that hydrogen is abundant in water, can anyone honestly believe that no one has worked out how to get it out easily? It can easily be used as a direct fuel or as a cell to create energy, storage problems aside Hydrogen is a sustainable source of power so probably the most likely to be viable.

Who would like a wager on it being an oil company that eventually releases the technology for alternative fuel sources, just in time to save us as the last drops of oil dribble through the wells?

[w44nty]

I have never heard such a ridiculous idea as paying more tax on fuel to replace the road tax.

My boat does about 1 mpg on petrol, bad enough paying road levy on it let alone road tax too.

I think the suggestion was based on the more you use the roads the more tax you would pay,which means a low user would be happy to pay more for fuel with the tax combined and the heavy road users would pay more.

I would support neither I am a low user and pay my tax on fuel,A higher user pays more tax than me because they use more fuel,therefore it seems not logical,to abolish road tax and add it to fuel costs.

Also Senator you are correct saying why should you pay the extra tax if your fuel is used on your boat,you are not using the roads, unless they are B roads (broads).