This is a commonly made mistake that I hear all the time. In fact, speeding tickets are NO REVENUE for the police

That isn't true in the UK. Police authorities are now allowed to erect speed cameras anywhere they want (as opposed to only at accident blackspots) and keep the income in return for painting the camera bright yellow.

Rob

Of course I can only talk about the police force in my country. Sorry about that.

And I do hope you're kidding about painting those cameras. But I've learned that with you, one never knows!

Over here, the police never sees any of the money that the cameras bring in. What are the UK police forces actually supposed to do with that money then? Give all their officers a pay rise or use it to be somewhat self-supporting?

In reply to:

---

....none other than an invasion of your civil liberties, as many have argued.

But, if storing those numbers, which I assume the equipment does, leads to catching one of the terrorists that threaten us all, I'll be the last to complain.

---

Ahh yes.
But where do you draw the line here?

How many terrorists do think it is fair to catch to justify the potential invasion of hundreds of thousands or even millions of innocent people's civil liberties?
1, 2, a hundred? A thousand?, none?

Hmm, its a difficult problem I agree, but there are no simple answers.

I also fail to see how, storing car number plates in a database actually helps prevent terrorist attacks or to track down terrorists - except maybe after the fact (e.g. after a terrorist attack), but even then would this evidence stand up in court?
[as presumably all such terrorists will be subject to a fair trial].

There is presumably no actual ability with this system to prove who the driver was at the time the number plate was recorded - so how can you say "we know this (alleged) terrorist was at the wheel of this car as it speed away from the scene of the crime" or "we know you were driving this car on the way to a terrorist attack" ?

And of course, there is always the situation of people making up fake number plates to fool this sort of system - its happened in other crimes I know of, where a car has had its (distinctive) number plate cloned and another car the same make,model and colour was driven around in a totally different part of the country hundred of miles away for the precise purposes of giving the car, an alibi.

If these "terrorists" can make up fake id cards, and probably passports as well, as has been reported in the media, then any attempt to use number plates as a tracking device is equally doomed to failure as they start a business of making copies of other people number plates.

And its not like Number Plates have anti-forgery devices in them like money, passports and some ID cards - all you need is some Yellow Plastic (in the UK) and a tin of Black Paint or some black plastic stick on letters and you're done - fake number plate factory in business.

Whats next - finger-print ID devices in the steering wheel of every car so that the driver of the car can also be proven at the time?

In reply to:

---

I'm obviously being facetious, but realistically can anyone find statistics on What distracts drivers (causing accidents)?

---

Well, from a ongoing debate on the merits of banning cellphone use in cars the government agency in New Zealand responsible had this to say about accidents caused by distractions:

About 15 of the 425 road deaths last year were found to be due to distractions in the vehicle, e.g. reaching for something while driving, fiddling with the car stereo, trying to get rid of a insect pest (e.g. Bee/Wasp) in the car while driving etc.

And only about 5 deaths a year were attributable to cellphone use while driving.

Now those figures only tell half the story as everyone who has ever driven behind someone talking on a cellphone you'd know that their level of driving skills goes down dramatically while doing so.

And studies have confirmed that talking and driving just don't mix well - and thats whether on a cellphone or not [seems the brain can't drive a car and make the brain work well at the same time].

Of course with a non-handsfree cellphone there is also the added problem of not having two hands on the wheel at all times [like we're supposed to all do right?] and probably more than one accident (but not necessarily death) has been caused by someone dropping their phone and then scrambling to pick it up and crahsing into something while doing so.

the big issue with cellphones is that if you make handsfree compulsary, does it actually make it safer to use a cellphone while driving?

Not sure on that one, whereas if you see someone with a cellphone on their ear, you know to keep well back and to expect dangerous/inconsiderate driving if you're behind them, or see them coming the other way.
With a hands free solution, none of this would be visible.

Maybe we need a flashing light on the roof of every cellphone carrying car, which flashes whenever the driver is using a cellphone (handsfree or not), thus warning all drivers that this driver is a potential hazard.

A lady is in court in Melbourne for dangerous driving. She was seen to be swerving erratically and being 'distracted' while talking on her mobile.
Archeon: But I don't have any problem with driving home at 2AM on the interstate in dry weather at 160 km/h when I'm literally the only car on the road.

I'm not claiming that I'm any angel, but how do YOU know that the conditions are suitable for driving at 160Kph? is the road closed to all other traffic? I don't think that because the driver deems that the conditions are safe, they can do any speed the like. It's still illegal when I do it too.

Whats next - finger-print ID devices in the steering wheel of every car so that the driver of the car can also be proven at the time?


Ooohh.. That's a doubleplusgood idea.

And I do hope you're kidding about painting those cameras. But I've learned that with you, one never knows!

Nope it's true.

Over here, the police never sees any of the money that the cameras bring in. What are the UK police forces actually supposed to do with that money then? Give all their officers a pay rise or use it to be somewhat self-supporting?

They are allowed to spend some of it on maintaining the cameras and installing new ones. The rest is supposed to go on other efforts to reduce traffic accidents.

The Police only get part of the fine though, the rest still goes to the treasury.

but how do YOU know that the conditions are suitable for driving at 160Kph

I expected this replie, so I'll explain a bit.
My car is one of the more expensive models. Pushing it to 160 Kph is not pushing it's limits (200 Kph+ would be). 160 Kph still leaves enough headroom to rule out mechanical failiure because of pushing the car to (past?) it's max.

The road certainly wouldn't be closed to all other traffic, but I'm talking about the interstate (motorway) here. It's not like there are intersections, cyclists, pedestrians, ... there. Furthermore I specified that I only do this past a certain hour, say 23.00hrs or so. At that time there's almost no traffic on those roads. When driving 50km, I'll be lucky in passing 5 to 10 vehicles. (which are mostly trucks that ride at the first lane - keep in mind that these are 3-lane motorways)

The only danger I see is that I could hit an object on the road that fell off a truck or something. However, if I was riding at the legal speed (120 Kph) I would probably also hit it since the motorways aren't illuminated between 00.00hrs and 06.00hrs in Belgium.

They are allowed to spend some of it on maintaining the cameras and installing new ones. The rest is supposed to go on other efforts to reduce traffic accidents.

Ah! That's actually a good thing!

Over here, all the money goes to treasury...

The only danger I see is that I could hit an object on the road that fell off a truck or something
That's the type of thing I was thinking of. One just doesn't know what's in the road ahead [goonshow.voices(moriaty)it is a head![/goonshow.voices(moriaty)]

...how do YOU know that the conditions are suitable for driving at 160Kph?

I would guess that if I were on a properly maintained limited-access road with multiple lanes in each direction and guardrails or a center median separating me from oncoming traffic and as far ahead of me as I could see there were no other cars traveling my direction... I would certainly have no difficulties driving my Porsche (930 Turbo Carrera) at 200 KM/Hour and feeling perfectly safe in the process.

tanstaafl.

Pushing it to 160 Kph is not pushing it's limits

Some of the guys in this thread would crap themselves on an average journey on the M4. 160kph (100mph) is pretty much the average speed in nose to tail traffic. It's a real pain getting stuck behind them all

Rob

160kph (100mph) is pretty much the average speed in nose to tail traffic. It's a real pain getting stuck behind them all


Amen to that, 12 years ago, I was diagnosed with a chronic illness, the specialist said, you're obviously in a stressful job, if you could cut down on the stress, it would certainly help.

I decided that the only thing that I could think of was to always drive within the speed limit, leave the recommended space behind the car in front, let people out at junctions and back off when confronted with idiots.

I can't say I get anywhere any later, but I'm certainly fresher, the only downside is all the rude bastards that sit on my tail!

Actually i have slowed down a bit since i got an empeg i have slowed down a bit it is defiantly makes chilling at out at 80mph far easier.

Nope it's true.

Certainly is. This is a picture of the speed camera just outside empeg Towers: