Speed Camera Warning

[John Marwood]

she trod her own path did Ging

and caddyshack is due a comeback anytime soon

( see Sunday press for details )

 

[My Name is URL]

Suddenly everything becomes clear.....

Just seen this tweeted by the council:

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/news/smartcar.htm

 

[tek-monkey]

Ah, I'm def in favour of those then!

 

[Andreas Rex]

Suddenly everything becomes clear.....

Just seen this tweeted by the council:

http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/news/smartcar.htm

How long until that story and this story (sub)merge into one?

 

[Slainte]

this was on the Stone Road today just after the speed camera and just before the junction with North Avenue and Holmcroft

 

[My Name is URL]

Ah, I'm def in favour of those then!

Agreed, frickin pees me off when people drive round talking on their phones driving like twunts.

And not wearing a seatbelt is moronic, what good reason is there for not wearing one? (thats a rhetorical question smartarses )

 

[Gramaisc]

And not wearing a seatbelt is moronic, what good reason is there for not wearing one? (thats a rhetorical question smartarses )

That won't stop me from answering it! There are people who will tell you that they fear being trapped in a burning car by a seatbelt, when they are more likely to die because they are unconcious in the burning car as a result of not having a seatbelt on. Etc.

In my youth I was a passenger in a mini-bus, which did not have belts fitted, when we had the side removed by hitting a coal lorry at 50ish. The door-post which would have had the belt attached remained stuck in the back of the lorry whilst we slowed down fairly gently in a ploughed field. I was unhurt, except for when the roof descended onto my head as it was unsupported on my side by this stage. Had I been wearing a belt, then I would probably have received considerable injuries.

Having said all that, I will always wear any seatbelt that is available, as I know that it generally stacks the odds in my favour. I am intrigued when flying that most people are desperate to undo the belt as soon as possible. I have mine on the whole time that I'm sat down. What's the hardship there?

 

[shoes]

Of course, that E pillar was never designed to hold a seatbelt mechanism and therefore would have almost certainly been strenghtened as a result of this extra responsibility, not to mention seat belts have a finite amound of strength and are designed to unravel (allbeit slowly) under massive tension. I'm no expert but I'd imagine technology has been developed now so that if enough force is placed on the belt to sustain more injury than it's preventing then it would release automatically.

Re the smart car, i'm all in favour of this. I would be willing to bet that if you took into acount drivers driving badly then speed would in fact be the cause of even less accidents than it already is. Driving safely at speed is fine, its driving badly at speed which causes accidents, however speed is of course always blamed.

Using your phone while driving is 'tarded though, and frankly if you don't wear a belt when there is on available then you should be banned from travelling in a car IMO. If you're in the front then its very dangerous, however if you're in the back you stand to end another person's life as well as your own from your own selfishness.

Also how many occurances have there been do you think of belts jamming in an accident and now allowing the user to undo them? I'd wager none to less than none.

 

[Gramaisc]

Most vehicles of the late fifties and sixties already had front seatbelt fixtures in the bodywork even though belts weren't fitted. You could retro-fit the belts yourself, if you were so inclined. Presumably the structures were intended to cope. The example I gave, where I would have received more injuries if had happened to have a belt on, was intended to show that even though I have experienced such a bizarrely unlikely event I would still always wear a belt. I would have had one on then if it had been there.

The paranoid 'trapped in a car' stuff is what you would have heard every day in the late seventies when front belts became compulsory to wear, where fitted. It was a long time after that that wearing rear seat belts became compulsory, and that was very loosely enforced.

I was merely explaining some of the deluded reasoning that some people have for not 'believing' in seatbelts and then trying to debunk it, despite having seen a rare occurance where a negative benefit would have occurred.

The catch jamming is extremely unlikely, if it has ever happened ( which I also doubt ). But that won't stop the uninformed from worrying about it, despite it being far more likely that they wouldn't be able to open the door because both their arms are broken.

It's very similar to the reaction I've heard from some smokers about being made to look at those horrible pictures on cigarette packets.

 

[John Marwood]

I was once stopped for eating a banana

And I was'nt even in my car

 

[shoes]

Most vehicles of the late fifties and sixties already had front seatbelt fixtures in the bodywork even though belts weren't fitted. You could retro-fit the belts yourself, if you were so inclined. Presumably the structures were intended to cope. The example I gave, where I would have received more injuries if had happened to have a belt on, was intended to show that even though I have experienced such a bizarrely unlikely event I would still always wear a belt. I would have had one on then if it had been there.

The paranoid 'trapped in a car' stuff is what you would have heard every day in the late seventies when front belts became compulsory to wear, where fitted. It was a long time after that that wearing rear seat belts became compulsory, and that was very loosely enforced.

I was merely explaining some of the deluded reasoning that some people have for not 'believing' in seatbelts and then trying to debunk it, despite having seen a rare occurance where a negative benefit would have occurred.

The catch jamming is extremely unlikely, if it has ever happened ( which I also doubt ). But that won't stop the uninformed from worrying about it, despite it being far more likely that they wouldn't be able to open the door because both their arms are broken.

It's very similar to the reaction I've heard from some smokers about being made to look at those horrible pictures on cigarette packets.

Fair comments, and I do agree with your that there is no (to my knowledge) valid reason for not wanting to wear a belt, let along not actually wearing it.

You're extremely lucky to have survived that incident (to use correct terminology) by the sounds of it!

 

[Gramaisc]

Indeed, we hit the rear corner of an articulated lorry full of coal. The corner must have been just a few inches inside the van. It shattered the (toughened) windscreen, tore out the front door-post, removed the whole door, including the arm-rest that I was leaning on. It then removed the whole top of the side and the one-piece rear door, with its associated near-side post. This left only the remains of the shattered windscreen supporting the roof and that couldn't contend with the deceleration as we burrowed into the field, so it fell out forwards and the roof then slowly descended onto me. I emerged completely unscathed from a vehicle that was three-quarters destroyed. At best, the belt would have given me severe bruising. At worst, it could have moved me just enough to introduce my head to the back of the lorry, there can only have been an inch or two of clearence as I went past it.

Despite all that, I will always wear a belt. It amazes me that it took a good thirty years from belts being available to full compulsion in wearing them to arrive.


I also like to avoid the use of "accident", with its implication of helplessness in the face of divine intervention.

 

[Gramaisc]

Anybody moving to Swindon?

 

[henryscat]

Bloody horrible place....

No justification for removing speed cameras. Interesting that the leader of Swindon Borough Council served a 3 month driving ban after clocking up 12 points for speeding. No vested interest there then...

Anybody moving to Swindon?

 

[Gramaisc]

They seem to have been paying £350,000 a year to run only five fixed cameras. That seems a lot of money to me - £1,350 per camera per week.

 

[The Stafford Beast]

I think those motion-activated speed boards are a great idea, as they always make me check my speed, even though no action will be taken even if I was speeding.

Trouble is... you'd get stupid boy racer chav -types using them to YouTube themselves going at stupid MPH. To combat this, if someone's going 10MPH over the limit, I reckon it should just flash up belittling words, such as "TOSSER" or "KNOB", rather than the speed.

...on a serious note, to combat chav YouTubers, they could just show the speed up to 10 MPH over the limit, then be blank afterwards as it has obviously failed to work in that instance.

 

[Gramaisc]

In some villages in Spain they have speed detectors which trigger traffic lights against you if you are way over the limit, thus wasting the time you have 'saved'.

 

[tek-monkey]

In some villages in Spain they have speed detectors which trigger traffic lights against you if you are way over the limit, thus wasting the time you have 'saved'.

That is a genius idea! I'm sure Darshiva said the lights in Germany were timed to make speeding pointless too, as they naturally flowed at the speed limit.

 

[Gramaisc]

If they did it in Stafford you'ld have to take a packed lunch to get across town.

In the Franco days the coppers would let your tyres down if they thought you needed a proper lesson.

 

[henryscat]

Sounds very high to me as well - it doesn't bear any relation to the last set of accounts I can find online for the Swindon/Wiltshire safety camera partnership..... Putting the figures aside they also fail to mention that the income from fines is used to pay for cameras. If the cameras are switched off, that income stream goes and that's money they haven't got to spend on road safety. So, if the council are going to spend 350k a year on road safety measures, that's either coming out of another budget or a council tax increase.

They seem to have been paying £350,000 a year to run only five fixed cameras. That seems a lot of money to me - £1,350 per camera per week.