Some statistics

[Burple]

I think This (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1002.asp) is pretty disgusting!

The point made about being on 9 points is very valid. Every white van DOES become a risk, a couple of mph over the limits is all to easy to slip up to, especially when there are several other cars around not being driven particularly sensibly..

[Crombers]

Jeremy Clarkson 0 Points (good guy)
Stephen Ladyman 9 Points (w@nk)

"Just eight percent of license points came from tickets issued by a police officer"
Says it all really :(:disapprove:

[duncan]

Here's some more statistics for you:-

The number of people killed in road accidents in Scotland in 2004* was 306, 25 (8%) less than in 2003. The 2004 figure was the second lowest for more than 50 years.

*The last set of figures online

There's a lot more here :- Link (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/23140138/0)

Yes, cars are getting safer, but then, there are more of them.
And as the police said about the chav with the polyfilla case, a car is a dangerous lump of metal.

And by the way, I'm just playing devils advocate. There, IMHO, is no substitute for road policing. Cameras rarely catch the dangerous drivers.

[Burple]

quote:

And by the way, I'm just playing devils advocate. There, IMHO, is no substitute for road policing. Cameras rarely catch the dangerous drivers.


Good man ;):D:D It's not my turn this time :D:D:D:D

Cameras CAN'T catch the real dangerous drivers. It's Unpossible. ;) they take to snapshots of the same piece of road, with cars in different positions. The only thing they can tell is if you're going too fast. And they have to be properly calibrated to do that. The ones who are dangerous are the tailgaters, one's who aren't paying attention, drunks,the ones who are reading whilst driving;) etc.
There's no way any advocate of speed cameras can justify that they are 'Safety' cameras. People generally see them at the last minute and slam on their brakes. Is that the safety they want? In time the camera locations beome well known. So, there's a stretch of road maybe 100m long in which people slow down, drive at the speed limit, then speed up again.

And if the Minister who is responsible for the speed camera network uses a speed camera detector himself, what does that tell you about his driving habits? Now try to convince us that the government takes this seriously and speed cameras are there for a greater purpose than to generate revenue.

[duncan]

quote:Originally posted by low_n_loud1

[quote]

There's no way any advocate of speed cameras can justify that they are 'Safety' cameras. People generally see them at the last minute and slam on their brakes. Is that the safety they want? In time the camera locations become well known. So, there's a stretch of road maybe 100m long in which people slow down, drive at the speed limit, then speed up again.



I hear you, Ewan!
I was driving through Fife a few weeks back, when a Volvo decided to overtake. I had the Cruise Control set to 70, (I had already passed a Safety Van) and within 300 meters of him pulling in in front, the Volvo hit the brakes, down to way lower than 70, forcing me to overtake him, in a quick manoeuvre.

Why? Another "Safety" van. :mad: That kind of driving, is more dangerous than sitting a few MPH above 70, yet he wouldn't get done.