Big Brother is watching you
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 If I ate cornflakes I would have choked on them yesterday. According to a front page headline in the Daily Telegraph, a report by the Sustainable Development Commission (whatever that is) wants ministers to introduce average speed cameras nationwide "to ensure that motorists stick to the 70mph limit". This, they claim, will cut carbon emissions by 1.4 million tons a year.
I don't give a toss if it cuts carbon emissions by 10 million tons a year. (Where do they get these figures from anyway?) The thought of having to drive at an average speed of 70mph on Britain's motorways is too painful to think about.
I have written about this before but it bears repeating that on some stretches of motorway - and at certain times of day - the speed limit should be increased to 80 or even 90mph. Instead of variable, sensible speed limits that take into account road conditions and the capability of the average modern car, we are stuck with a national speed limit that was introduced in the 1960s when the average family saloon could barely do more than 70mph anyway.
We have far too many speed cameras already. The majority should be restricted to accident black spots (remember them?). Average speed cameras are even worse. They have their uses (around roadworks, for example, and in congested periods where it reduces the concertina effect caused by vehicles braking at high speed), but all the time? I can't think of anything worse.
In fact, there's something about average speed cameras that remind me of Orwell's 1984. (I know this is an over-used analogy, but stick with me.) Unlike ordinary speed cameras (which are bad enough), you can't escape average speed cameras. Your every move is monitored. Every time you accelerate above the speed limit you then have to drop below it to compensate because you know your average speed is being calculated.
Big Brother is watching you. That's how it feels.
Just as the smoking ban has ruined the quality of some people's lives, the blanket introduction of average speed cameras would have a similar impact on mine. I'm not joking. I love driving and I love my current car and the thought of having to pootle along for mile after mile is my vision of hell.
Personally, I think it's dangerous. Like many cars today mine has cruise control and I have noticed that if I switch it on and "drive" at 70mph (a ridiculously slow speed on three or four-lane motorway with little traffic and good visibility) there is every chance, on a long journey, that I will get so bored travelling at the same speed that I will eventually fall asleep.
The fact is, like millions of other drivers, I don't abuse our roads or other drivers. I passed my test in 1977 when I was 18 and I have never had a single conviction or penalty point on my licence despite the fact that I have regularly exceeded the speed limit.
If the Sustainable Development Commission get their way that could all change because it will be almost impossible not to fall foul of those Big Brother style average speed cameras.
Yesterday afternoon, on Five Live's Drive programme, presenter Peter Allen laughed when he interviewed the man from the SDC. Clearly, he thought the guy was mad to suggest there was public support for such a move.
Unfortunately, with campaigners like this on the loose, it's no laughing matter.
Photo: clearlicence.co.uk
Reader Comments (6)
I had a look at their website and it is us taxpayers as usual paying for these cretins. It appears they have 11 commissioners and want to appoint another four at the rate of £230 per day. You only have to work two days a month so I might apply since all I have to do is make up nonsensical ideas that sound green.
It is all part of Stalinist Labours evil attempt to criminalise the whole population.
God they are so stupid it beggars belief.
I hardly know anyone who does not have points on their licence nowadays.
And the biggest LIE of all is that they save lives .
They do not.
They ruin lives.
People have lost their jobs because they have been unlucky enough to be caught 4 times in three years.
Usually in these cases they are only a few mph over the limit on each occasion.
I see some terrible driving whilst travelling which I do every day.
I mean reckless driving ,for example;
Tailgating is a terrible problem nowadays,
I have even seen some ,whom I would describe as maniacs overtaking round blind bends or overtaking in front of oncoming traffic hoping they can nip in again.
Seeing those idiots could put you off driving for life.
These are the examples of driving that causes accidents not speed.
never see a police patrol around to stop those though do you ?
Too busy putting films in bloody "thief" cameras.
Just another job creation scheme by the "new moron" party.
AAAAGH they make me so angry !
Stupid, stupid, people.
Seeing those idiots did put me off driving for life. Now all I have to do is be ready to leap out of the way whenever a driver decides to be "pedestrian blind". The problem is that the restrictions that make sense where cars share the space with people on foot are being mindlessly applied to roads designed to accomodate only motor vehicles. Motorway speed limits should, as Specky points out, reflect the driving conditions and the nature of the traffic.That would make them safer, just reducing speed on motorways won't.
Let me start off by stating Richard Hammond of Top Gear's idea that we should also get positive points on our drving licence. I assume what he means is that, for example you might get a point on your licence for every accident free year you have and if you get a 3 point penalty it will be deducted from your positive points. So 10 years good driving = 10 points, minus 3 if caught speeding.
According to http://www.speedcameras.org/ according to "police data exceeding the speed limit is the cause of only 4% of accidents....Speed cameras and the Safety Camera Partnerships are not the answer and do not work as the facts we present here prove." Hardly convincing argument for is it?
I am tempting providence here but I have 25 years no claims bonus and I drive at a speed that I think is safe. Some councils have 20 MPH speed limits on residential side roads, I put my car into 3rd gear and trickle along on tickover with my foot resting on the brake pedal. That is 15MPH. Also as an ex motorcyclist I know in the wet how slippery white lines and man hole covers are, so my speed is often 10 MPH less than the legal limit.
However late at night, on quiet roads, empty motorways I will do speeds well in excess of 70MPH. I have cruised at 120 mph on an early Sunday morning from Birmingham to London, and exceeded it for stretches where I had 3 lanes to myself.
When I am drving at high speed I am looking at my braking distance or the horizon. If I see a brake light go on 400 yards ahead of me I immediately lift off on the throttle, move my foot to the brake, check my rear view mirror to see who is behind me if I have to jam on the anchors. I also familiarise myself to put the hazard lights on. I drive mostly with the window down to let the smoke and often put my right arm out to indicate I am slowing down.
We can summarise that this is a lesson in criminalising the majority and raising revenue, not about saving lives.
I heard the Peter Allen (cut short) piece on the radio. Not only did he laugh, he also pulled the spokesman up on the comment "drivers are welcoming moves such as this" or words to that effect.
Allen asked if the spokesman had asked them, to which he replied with a very weak "err, no".
They're nuts.
Since Nu Labour have got in they have used "the law" and the Police as a form of taxation and as their own private Gestapo.
Take speed cameras: before the local authority got to keep the fines, as soon as it became obvious that the cameras were a licence to print money - behold! - the Treasury take the cash.