Thursday, 09 February 2012 19:52
27 Comments
Seven drivers a day who exceed the 40mph speed limit on the Fife side of the Forth road bridge are picking up at least three penalty points and a £60 fine.
Although there are no average speed cameras on the bridge itself, where the limit is 50mph, they were installed on the Fife side approach to the crossing some time ago to protect construction staff working on the new replacement bridge.
A Transport Scotland’s Forth Replacement Crossing team, spokesperson, said:
“This traffic management is an essential part of minimising the FRC project’s construction impact on journey times and public safety.
“These works are essential for the upgrade of M9 junction 1a, which is vital to the wider FRC scheme.
“The 40mph speed limit and average speed cameras will help ensure a steady flow of traffic and help maintain the safety of the travelling public and contractors working on the site.”
Average speed cameras measure the time it takes for a car to travel between two points – experts say driver speed limit compliance is significantly higher as a result.
To date the worst offender was flashed flying past the yellow-coloured cameras at 73mph – nearly double the sign posted speed limit. Some drivers have clearly yet to register the fact that the speed cameras are up and running and have been caught several times – one vehicle has been caught speeding three times, while four other cars have been detected twice.
A spokesperson for Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership who operate the system, said:
“There is no excuse for exceeding the speed limit at these roadworks.
“It is vitally important that motorists comply with the reduced speed limit for their own safety, as well as for the safety of others.”
Drivers themselves are frustrated at having to drive at 30mph below the usual speed limit, over a distance of several miles on both sides of the bridge, straight after the often challenging task of making it across the bridge – made even more irritating with heavy rush hour traffic that can already cause significant delays.
Cameras have also been installed on junction 1a of the M9 at in preparation for the large number of construction workers and their vehicles involved in the Forth Replacement Crossing project.
The cameras will be in place until the spring of 2013.
Comments
#
2012-02-10 12:51
“The 40mph speed limit and average speed cameras will help ensure a steady flow of traffic and help maintain the safety of the travelling public and contractors working on the site.”
Absolute p*sh! I was on that road four times over two days last month, in busy traffic and when it was quieter & any enforced reduction of speed on these roads will cause traffic to bunch-up, as people only slow to under 40mph when approaching the second set of cameras, hoping their average will be less overall.
In addition, it causes grouping of vehicles, as there are always cars in lane 2 going slower than those in lane 1, with long gaps in front of them but they refuse to return to lane 1.
Of course, there was little actual work going on inside the cones on both days!
Absolute p*sh! I was on that road four times over two days last month, in busy traffic and when it was quieter & any enforced reduction of speed on these roads will cause traffic to bunch-up, as people only slow to under 40mph when approaching the second set of cameras, hoping their average will be less overall.
In addition, it causes grouping of vehicles, as there are always cars in lane 2 going slower than those in lane 1, with long gaps in front of them but they refuse to return to lane 1.
Of course, there was little actual work going on inside the cones on both days!
#
2012-02-10 13:38
Quoting gt-cri:
The truth is that the bit of road from the Bridge that is speed limited has a very real purpose. That bit of road, though motorway standard, is not a motorway. The good reason for that is that cyclists must use it to get onto roads that can be cycled upon. You cannot cycle on motorways. Where do you expect the cyclists who cross the bridge to go as they leave the cycleway that runs across the bridge? It can also be used for wheelchairs and disability scooters which must also stay off motorways. Think about it, some idiot driving at 70 plus MPH where children may be cycling, disabled people may be in a wheelchair. Look at the signs - that bit of road IS NOT A MOTORWAY.
“The 40mph speed limit and average speed cameras will help ensure a steady flow of traffic and help maintain the safety of the travelling public and contractors working on the site.”
Absolute p*sh! I was on that road four times over two days last month, in busy traffic and when it was quieter & any enforced reduction of speed on these roads will cause traffic to bunch-up, as people only slow to under 40mph when approaching the second set of cameras, hoping their average will be less overall.
In addition, it causes grouping of vehicles, as there are always cars in lane 2 going slower than those in lane 1, with long gaps in front of them but they refuse to return to lane 1.
Of course, there was little actual work going on inside the cones on both days!
The truth is that the bit of road from the Bridge that is speed limited has a very real purpose. That bit of road, though motorway standard, is not a motorway. The good reason for that is that cyclists must use it to get onto roads that can be cycled upon. You cannot cycle on motorways. Where do you expect the cyclists who cross the bridge to go as they leave the cycleway that runs across the bridge? It can also be used for wheelchairs and disability scooters which must also stay off motorways. Think about it, some idiot driving at 70 plus MPH where children may be cycling, disabled people may be in a wheelchair. Look at the signs - that bit of road IS NOT A MOTORWAY.
#
2012-02-10 17:50
Quoting pmcrek:
What? Free money to send to the Westminster exchequer? Oh aye, great idea and no camera yet invented "saves lives". What saves lives is better driver awareness / knowldege of the vehicle's potential to cause death and destruction and, in certain cases, reduced speed.
The more speed camera's we have the better, free money and it saves lives
What? Free money to send to the Westminster exchequer? Oh aye, great idea and no camera yet invented "saves lives". What saves lives is better driver awareness / knowldege of the vehicle's potential to cause death and destruction and, in certain cases, reduced speed.
#
2012-02-11 15:05
It is a well documented fact that speed camera's save lives:
racfoundation.org/.../...
guardian.co.uk/.../...
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
While I certainly agree we should keep the money, the fact the money goes to Westminster is irrelevant to the camera's effectiveness.
racfoundation.org/.../...
guardian.co.uk/.../...
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
While I certainly agree we should keep the money, the fact the money goes to Westminster is irrelevant to the camera's effectiveness.
#
2012-02-11 16:55
Road deaths peaked in Scotland in 1969 and have fallen every year since. Serious injuries have fallen since the peak in 1973. Slight injuries have fallen since 1965. "Safety Cameras" were introduced in Scotland in 1993.
From Lothian & Borders Safety Camera Partnership's website:
Safety cameras have been in the Lothian and Borders region since 1993; the first ones were in the Scottish Borders on the A1. More safety cameras went live on the A697 in 1996 and on the A68 in 1999. These cameras were installed by the then Scottish Office as a route strategy to slow traffic down over a distance.
That tells us more about the true intentions of "Safety" cameras than any other SCP. The big-picture is a broad intent to reduce car journeys and "encourage" people to use more eco-friendly methods of getting around. In the meantime, increased revenue from vehicle-related activities will be funnelled into such things as bus-lanes, cycle lanes and park-and-ride schemes. I make no comment on these schemes but as usual, the intent is not headlined but a tug on the heart-strings is how it is "fed" to the public, to ensure they remain "on-message".
My gripe is with the targeting of sections of travelling public & the collection of moneys which are not used to, in this case, improve safety but are instead used to further "the cause" while the great-unwashed are told it is for their own good! I for one won't swallow it and most posters on this site have already shown themselves to be savvy when it comes to recognising lies and obfuscations in one area. Perhaps it is time to look around & see where the boundaries actually lie?
From Lothian & Borders Safety Camera Partnership's website:
Safety cameras have been in the Lothian and Borders region since 1993; the first ones were in the Scottish Borders on the A1. More safety cameras went live on the A697 in 1996 and on the A68 in 1999. These cameras were installed by the then Scottish Office as a route strategy to slow traffic down over a distance.
That tells us more about the true intentions of "Safety" cameras than any other SCP. The big-picture is a broad intent to reduce car journeys and "encourage" people to use more eco-friendly methods of getting around. In the meantime, increased revenue from vehicle-related activities will be funnelled into such things as bus-lanes, cycle lanes and park-and-ride schemes. I make no comment on these schemes but as usual, the intent is not headlined but a tug on the heart-strings is how it is "fed" to the public, to ensure they remain "on-message".
My gripe is with the targeting of sections of travelling public & the collection of moneys which are not used to, in this case, improve safety but are instead used to further "the cause" while the great-unwashed are told it is for their own good! I for one won't swallow it and most posters on this site have already shown themselves to be savvy when it comes to recognising lies and obfuscations in one area. Perhaps it is time to look around & see where the boundaries actually lie?
#
2012-02-11 17:10
Why should speeding fines be used to improve roads? As far as I know, parking fines are not used to improve parking and shoplifting fines are not used to improve shops.
#
2012-02-12 08:21
I posted "the targeting of sections of the travelling public & the collection of moneys which are not used to, in this case, improve safety" meaning all motor-vehicle-owners. If revenue raised from vehicle owners was returned to improve safety on the roads, there would be far fewer deaths and injuries than there are at present.
Perhaps you have a point & the roads should be left to deteriorate...then speed limits or cameras would not be required, as the vehicles would need to reduce to a crawl to negotiate the broken surfaces and wreckage where drivers did not know of a blind-bend, due to the sign having been blown-down or rusted away? Or then again, perhaps a sensible balance should be struck.
So what should the revenue from speeding fines be used for? In fact, I'd be interested to know what you think any of the revenue raised from vehicles should be used to fund?
Perhaps you have a point & the roads should be left to deteriorate...then speed limits or cameras would not be required, as the vehicles would need to reduce to a crawl to negotiate the broken surfaces and wreckage where drivers did not know of a blind-bend, due to the sign having been blown-down or rusted away? Or then again, perhaps a sensible balance should be struck.
So what should the revenue from speeding fines be used for? In fact, I'd be interested to know what you think any of the revenue raised from vehicles should be used to fund?
#
2012-02-12 02:05
Quoting pmcrek:
All highly believable, unless you have even the lightest grasp of statistics.
It's a wee thing called 'regression to the mean'. Google it.
It is a well documented fact that speed camera's save lives:
racfoundation.org/.../...
guardian.co.uk/.../...
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
While I certainly agree we should keep the money, the fact the money goes to Westminster is irrelevant to the camera's effectiveness.
All highly believable, unless you have even the lightest grasp of statistics.
It's a wee thing called 'regression to the mean'. Google it.
#
2012-02-10 17:46
Auld Bob,
"Think about it, some idiot driving at 70 plus MPH where children may be cycling, disabled people may be in a wheelchair. Look at the signs - that bit of road IS NOT A MOTORWAY."
You are entirely correct; any "idiot" driving or cycling, would present a danger to other road users, without a doubt. I'd suggest, say, a cycling lane be laid for the cyclists and motorised scooter users to use on either side of the bridge maybe?
What I was referring to was the claim from the spokesperson that the measeures "will help ensure a steady flow of traffic". That's not what I saw. I saw bunches of vehicles, travelling at +/- 50mph at the first set of cameras and then slowing to less than 40 at the second and third sets, too close together to stop safely and this was when the bridge-limit was 30mph, due to high-winds.
I sincerely hope the new design of the road incorporates separated lanes for cyclists etc.
"Think about it, some idiot driving at 70 plus MPH where children may be cycling, disabled people may be in a wheelchair. Look at the signs - that bit of road IS NOT A MOTORWAY."
You are entirely correct; any "idiot" driving or cycling, would present a danger to other road users, without a doubt. I'd suggest, say, a cycling lane be laid for the cyclists and motorised scooter users to use on either side of the bridge maybe?
What I was referring to was the claim from the spokesperson that the measeures "will help ensure a steady flow of traffic". That's not what I saw. I saw bunches of vehicles, travelling at +/- 50mph at the first set of cameras and then slowing to less than 40 at the second and third sets, too close together to stop safely and this was when the bridge-limit was 30mph, due to high-winds.
I sincerely hope the new design of the road incorporates separated lanes for cyclists etc.
#
2012-02-10 20:41
Quoting gt-cri:
I drove that road at least twice a day from the day it opened until I retired. The road maps show the bridge and as far as Admiralty flyover is A90 and M90 starts from there going northwards. It was much clearer and the speed limits more clear at first. As the laws changed the road signs got more in number and more complex. So the simple speed limits were not so easy to note. You would be surprised how many don't know that bit of road is not motorway.
I sincerely hope the new design of the road incorporates separated lanes for cyclists etc.
I drove that road at least twice a day from the day it opened until I retired. The road maps show the bridge and as far as Admiralty flyover is A90 and M90 starts from there going northwards. It was much clearer and the speed limits more clear at first. As the laws changed the road signs got more in number and more complex. So the simple speed limits were not so easy to note. You would be surprised how many don't know that bit of road is not motorway.
#
2012-02-11 09:11
Quoting gt-cri:
Well, for starters the road was never the one with a toll on it - the Bridge was. Another good reason for Scotland's independence. I remember the reason given for the tolls in the first place. Being questioned about English bridges free from tolls while the Forth Crossing was not, they claimed that if the bridge was part of the countries main transport system it came under the normal roads budget but that the Forth crossing was not part of the normal roads infrastructure.
Aye! Richt!
The main link to the whole regions of Fife, Perth, Dundee and all points north including all the East coast towns and Inverness.
Then to rub salt in the wounds they added in the costs of all the approach road system to what they wanted paid back for. Sheeesh!
And Google Maps still show the road as a "toll road"!
Well, for starters the road was never the one with a toll on it - the Bridge was. Another good reason for Scotland's independence. I remember the reason given for the tolls in the first place. Being questioned about English bridges free from tolls while the Forth Crossing was not, they claimed that if the bridge was part of the countries main transport system it came under the normal roads budget but that the Forth crossing was not part of the normal roads infrastructure.
Aye! Richt!
The main link to the whole regions of Fife, Perth, Dundee and all points north including all the East coast towns and Inverness.
Then to rub salt in the wounds they added in the costs of all the approach road system to what they wanted paid back for. Sheeesh!
#
2012-02-13 17:07
I'm surprised its even on google maps !! :P The satellite view o my hoose has my car fae 7 years ago on it.
#
2012-02-11 09:44
"Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership"
Tax raising dressed up as safety, it makes me boak.
I see the speed camera van regularly on the motorway between Grangemouth and Denny, the reason is not because the motorway is an accident blackspot, it's because they know they'll catch people.
Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit and sometimes it's necessary to be well below the speed limit. It's a pity there is no common sense, only black and white ......and a radar gun.
Tax raising dressed up as safety, it makes me boak.
I see the speed camera van regularly on the motorway between Grangemouth and Denny, the reason is not because the motorway is an accident blackspot, it's because they know they'll catch people.
Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit and sometimes it's necessary to be well below the speed limit. It's a pity there is no common sense, only black and white ......and a radar gun.
#
2012-02-11 10:14
Quoting dillond666:
It's never legal though, is it? It's a pity there's no respect for the law, only complaining about being caught breaking it.
Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit
It's never legal though, is it? It's a pity there's no respect for the law, only complaining about being caught breaking it.
#
2012-02-11 15:50
Quoting Jiggsbro:
And tailoring the law to the lowest common denominator makes it laughable. It all comes back to who the law is there to protect and serve? If "safety" cameras are designed and operated with the purpose of saving lives, why are some situated on straight roads with no history of accidents? Why do mobile-cameras hide so they can not be seen? I'm all for imp[roved driver awareness & no deaths on the roads but until improved driver training, compulsory re-testing periodically and changing the attitude that some roads are "killers", people will still be killed & maimed on the road.
Cameras do not catch bad-drivers, only speeding vehicles.
NB, the Roads Traffic Act (Scotland) 1988 is the ONLY act in this country which does not give you a right to silence. You could murder someone & stay silent and influence your case. Get your vehicle's picture taken by a "Safety" camera & unless you identify the driver, you automatically are guilty.
Sorry, I have no respect for a law which removes the rights of the accused, when civilians are capable of convicting them by taking a picture from behind trees, under railway arches or blind approaches.
Quoting dillond666:Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit
It's never legal though, is it? It's a pity there's no respect for the law, only complaining about being caught breaking it.
And tailoring the law to the lowest common denominator makes it laughable. It all comes back to who the law is there to protect and serve? If "safety" cameras are designed and operated with the purpose of saving lives, why are some situated on straight roads with no history of accidents? Why do mobile-cameras hide so they can not be seen? I'm all for imp[roved driver awareness & no deaths on the roads but until improved driver training, compulsory re-testing periodically and changing the attitude that some roads are "killers", people will still be killed & maimed on the road.
Cameras do not catch bad-drivers, only speeding vehicles.
NB, the Roads Traffic Act (Scotland) 1988 is the ONLY act in this country which does not give you a right to silence. You could murder someone & stay silent and influence your case. Get your vehicle's picture taken by a "Safety" camera & unless you identify the driver, you automatically are guilty.
Sorry, I have no respect for a law which removes the rights of the accused, when civilians are capable of convicting them by taking a picture from behind trees, under railway arches or blind approaches.
#
2012-02-13 17:27
Quoting gt-cri:
What does that even mean? It's against the law to break the speed limit. There aren't special people who should be allowed to break the law. The law is for everyone.
Quoting gt-cri:
Because they're there to catch criminals. If you don't like it, don't believe you're one of the special people who ought to be able to break the law.
Quoting gt-cri:
Because they're there to catch criminals. The sort of criminal that stops breaking the law if they can see that they might get caught, but breaks it again as soon as they think they're unobserved.
Quoting gt-cri:
Similarly CCTV cameras in shops don't catch people with poor fashion sense, only shoplifters. That cameras don't address every problem is not an argument against them addressing one. If you don't like being punished for breaking the law, all you need to do is obey the law.
Quoting gt-cri:
Yes, because you're the registered owner of the vehicle. The right to silence is a right against self-incrimination. The silence you wish to protect here is the silence of the witness who refuses to identify the criminal, not the silence of the accused. Once you name the quilty driver, they're free to say as little as they like.
Quoting gt-cri:
Sorry, but - leaving aside for the moment that it does not remove the rights of the accused - I have no respect for someone who decides what laws they will or will not respect based on a sense that they're a bit special and ought to be allowed to break them and a feeling that it's unfair to try to catch them at it.
Quoting gt-cri:
There are no special places where you're allowed to break the law and no one is allowed to gather evidence of you doing it. And speeding is far from the only law where civilians can gather evidence of you breaking it: CCTV cameras, digital and video cameras, phone cameras...there's hardly a civilian who doesn't carry the means to record someone breaking all sorts of laws all the time. If you don't want people to photograph you breaking the law, all you have to do is not break the law.
By the way, where are you going in such a hurry?
And tailoring the law to the lowest common denominator makes it laughable.
What does that even mean? It's against the law to break the speed limit. There aren't special people who should be allowed to break the law. The law is for everyone.
Quoting gt-cri:
If "safety" cameras are designed and operated with the purpose of saving lives, why are some situated on straight roads with no history of accidents?
Because they're there to catch criminals. If you don't like it, don't believe you're one of the special people who ought to be able to break the law.
Quoting gt-cri:
Why do mobile-cameras hide so they can not be seen?
Because they're there to catch criminals. The sort of criminal that stops breaking the law if they can see that they might get caught, but breaks it again as soon as they think they're unobserved.
Quoting gt-cri:
Cameras do not catch bad-drivers, only speeding vehicles.
Similarly CCTV cameras in shops don't catch people with poor fashion sense, only shoplifters. That cameras don't address every problem is not an argument against them addressing one. If you don't like being punished for breaking the law, all you need to do is obey the law.
Quoting gt-cri:
Get your vehicle's picture taken by a "Safety" camera & unless you identify the driver, you automatically are guilty.
Yes, because you're the registered owner of the vehicle. The right to silence is a right against self-incrimination. The silence you wish to protect here is the silence of the witness who refuses to identify the criminal, not the silence of the accused. Once you name the quilty driver, they're free to say as little as they like.
Quoting gt-cri:
Sorry, I have no respect for a law which removes the rights of the accused,
Sorry, but - leaving aside for the moment that it does not remove the rights of the accused - I have no respect for someone who decides what laws they will or will not respect based on a sense that they're a bit special and ought to be allowed to break them and a feeling that it's unfair to try to catch them at it.
Quoting gt-cri:
when civilians are capable of convicting them by taking a picture from behind trees, under railway arches or blind approaches.
There are no special places where you're allowed to break the law and no one is allowed to gather evidence of you doing it. And speeding is far from the only law where civilians can gather evidence of you breaking it: CCTV cameras, digital and video cameras, phone cameras...there's hardly a civilian who doesn't carry the means to record someone breaking all sorts of laws all the time. If you don't want people to photograph you breaking the law, all you have to do is not break the law.
By the way, where are you going in such a hurry?
#
2012-02-13 18:00
"The right to silence is a right against self-incrimination. The silence you wish to protect here is the silence of the witness who refuses to identify the criminal, not the silence of the accused. Once you name the quilty driver, they're free to say as little as they like."
If you are the driver, you are required to incriminate yourself!
To think all laws are beyond question is to refuse to advance. If we all thought like you, we'd be deporting criminals to the new colonies & hanging children for theft of a loaf of bread when they're starving through no fault of their own. Oh and there would be no speed limits to boot.
To suggest I am in a "hurry", is quite daft...back on the road in my original post, an arbitary 40mph was no more dangerous than 50mph, which was the bridge speed-limit on the second day. I was in no particular hurry but would wish to spend my time more productively than driving at a needlessly reduced speed.
In fact, I believe some roads should have their speed limits lowered, but then again, I'm "special".
You are over-simplifying the issues and defending something because it is. That should not mean no-one should question it. That is my right.
PS, try taking a picture, or video, or reporting (with corroboration) someone using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving. No action will be taken, as it is not allowed for in the Act. It requires two Police Officers to witness someone using a phone before any action can be taken but according to you, that's OK because "That is the LAW"?
Aye, right!
If you are the driver, you are required to incriminate yourself!
To think all laws are beyond question is to refuse to advance. If we all thought like you, we'd be deporting criminals to the new colonies & hanging children for theft of a loaf of bread when they're starving through no fault of their own. Oh and there would be no speed limits to boot.
To suggest I am in a "hurry", is quite daft...back on the road in my original post, an arbitary 40mph was no more dangerous than 50mph, which was the bridge speed-limit on the second day. I was in no particular hurry but would wish to spend my time more productively than driving at a needlessly reduced speed.
In fact, I believe some roads should have their speed limits lowered, but then again, I'm "special".
You are over-simplifying the issues and defending something because it is. That should not mean no-one should question it. That is my right.
PS, try taking a picture, or video, or reporting (with corroboration) someone using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving. No action will be taken, as it is not allowed for in the Act. It requires two Police Officers to witness someone using a phone before any action can be taken but according to you, that's OK because "That is the LAW"?
Aye, right!
#
2012-02-12 02:11
Quoting dillond666:
You are completely correct. The cameras are never positioned at true blackspots, such as dangerous corners, where speed needs reduced. Why is that? - simple, they wouldn't catch anybody speeding there.
Unfortunately their have been two decades of lies about speed cameras, and how much of a role speed is in the cause of accidents. The DOT used to say excess speed caused around a third of accidents, until they were proven to be wrong - actually it's about 7%.
The use of cameras in roadworks however, where there is a real need to reduce speed, can be useful.
"Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership"
Tax raising dressed up as safety, it makes me boak.
I see the speed camera van regularly on the motorway between Grangemouth and Denny, the reason is not because the motorway is an accident blackspot, it's because they know they'll catch people.
Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit and sometimes it's necessary to be well below the speed limit. It's a pity there is no common sense, only black and white ......and a radar gun.
You are completely correct. The cameras are never positioned at true blackspots, such as dangerous corners, where speed needs reduced. Why is that? - simple, they wouldn't catch anybody speeding there.
Unfortunately their have been two decades of lies about speed cameras, and how much of a role speed is in the cause of accidents. The DOT used to say excess speed caused around a third of accidents, until they were proven to be wrong - actually it's about 7%.
The use of cameras in roadworks however, where there is a real need to reduce speed, can be useful.
#
2012-02-13 10:45
Quoting dillond666:
In a nutshell. There's a road near here which you would think is national speed limit, but is only 30mph (there was a school nearby over 30 years ago and it's never been changed), the police used to hide in the church car park trying to catch speeding motorists, not because it was unsafe to drive at 40 there, but because they knew they would catch people easily.
"Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership"
Tax raising dressed up as safety, it makes me boak.
I see the speed camera van regularly on the motorway between Grangemouth and Denny, the reason is not because the motorway is an accident blackspot, it's because they know they'll catch people.
Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit and sometimes it's necessary to be well below the speed limit. It's a pity there is no common sense, only black and white ......and a radar gun.
In a nutshell. There's a road near here which you would think is national speed limit, but is only 30mph (there was a school nearby over 30 years ago and it's never been changed), the police used to hide in the church car park trying to catch speeding motorists, not because it was unsafe to drive at 40 there, but because they knew they would catch people easily.
#
2012-02-11 11:51
I drive on the road to and from work every week day and fully support the speed limit. Perhaps it should be remembered that the speed limit is not only there for the safety of the drivers but also for the safety of the many workers who are working at the side of a busy motorway.
#
2012-02-11 15:52
Quoting darkblue1965:
But no-one was & as pointed out, it isn't!
I drive on the road to and from work every week day and fully support the speed limit. Perhaps it should be remembered that the speed limit is not only there for the safety of the drivers but also for the safety of the many workers who are working at the side of a busy motorway.
But no-one was & as pointed out, it isn't!
#
2012-02-11 14:02
New speed cameras on Forth road bridge catching 7 drivers a day
Although there are no average speed cameras on the bridge itself....
Very sloppy headline NNS. How many times do we berate the unionists for headlines which have no bearing on the story or like this one are contradicted by the story?
The words 'approach roads' after Forth Road Bridge would cover it.
Although there are no average speed cameras on the bridge itself....
Very sloppy headline NNS. How many times do we berate the unionists for headlines which have no bearing on the story or like this one are contradicted by the story?
The words 'approach roads' after Forth Road Bridge would cover it.
#
2012-02-15 11:52
Those that complain about limits in place for safety reasons are the same ones that break the speed law on our roads every day because they believe it is their right to do so. Speed limits exist to protect drivers from themselves, and in this case, workers from idiots who believe that the life taking crash will never happen to them. Drive within the law and stay alive a bit longer!
#
2012-02-16 09:34
Quoting slowdown:
To use the latest in-phrase, very "pejorative" language there, slowdown. "protect from themselves", "idiots", "right to do so", "never happen to them", "drive within the law and stay alive"...so, why don't we go back to having the red-flag waver in front of the vehicles, drive at walking speed & make it even safer then? Why are the speed-limits going down in comparison to when they were introduced, despite vehicles becoming safer, road-deaths and serious injuries fewer every year and all this despite more & more vehicles on the roads? Bad-driving causes accidents which cause harm, not roads, not an arbitary number being applied to a stretch of road & proclaimed as the "safe-speed maximum". The way to fix the problems you claim are down to those "idiots", is to improve their awareness of the potential dangers and improve their ability to recognise & react to hazards. Then test them & test them again at regular intervals. Your blanket descriptions do not help your argument or reduce the likelihood of becoming a casualty. I hope you do not learn this the hard way.
Those that complain about limits in place for safety reasons are the same ones that break the speed law on our roads every day because they believe it is their right to do so. Speed limits exist to protect drivers from themselves, and in this case, workers from idiots who believe that the life taking crash will never happen to them. Drive within the law and stay alive a bit longer!
To use the latest in-phrase, very "pejorative" language there, slowdown. "protect from themselves", "idiots", "right to do so", "never happen to them", "drive within the law and stay alive"...so, why don't we go back to having the red-flag waver in front of the vehicles, drive at walking speed & make it even safer then? Why are the speed-limits going down in comparison to when they were introduced, despite vehicles becoming safer, road-deaths and serious injuries fewer every year and all this despite more & more vehicles on the roads? Bad-driving causes accidents which cause harm, not roads, not an arbitary number being applied to a stretch of road & proclaimed as the "safe-speed maximum". The way to fix the problems you claim are down to those "idiots", is to improve their awareness of the potential dangers and improve their ability to recognise & react to hazards. Then test them & test them again at regular intervals. Your blanket descriptions do not help your argument or reduce the likelihood of becoming a casualty. I hope you do not learn this the hard way.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Getting ahead of yourself Newsnet report... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Absolutely Govanite, but listening to th... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Good points Nautilus. Lesley says, “Depr... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
The pantomime horse is called 'Secretari... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Can't wait until they start moaning to t... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
o/t great news for the people who voted ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
One point I would like to make is in reg... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Aplinal 2012-05-17 13:17 I take your poi... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
When they act in concert and have a lead... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
This is bizarre. Loony Labour councillor... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
I never watch FMQs on telly. Far better ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
It's interesting - but not alarming. My ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Really? Apart from the 1945-50 governme... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Lesley says, “Deprivation for example is... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
Thanks for these three. I viewed the Ale... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
bbc website first minister questions! bb... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Ha ha, I know that - no worries. Just aw... - Conservatives at war over Came...
They should have gone with Murdo ! - Conservatives at war over Came...
"cannot stand the sight of each other" I... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Was just listening to that in the radio ...