Speed limits are not optional, I dont see the problem with any speed cameras.
Far better than inverted potholes.
|
|
I wonder why the local MP is frothing at the mouth? Still, he/she is in the perfect position to get the speed limit increased! Ah, what's that I hear, they don't want to change the speed limit, just remove the detection equipment...
|
|
|
I agree with your sentiment - my only problem is with the fairness of it all. I got caught a few years ago doing 41 in a 30. Mind you it was one of those dual carriageway 30 mph zones with no drive access etc, but nevertheless a fair cop. It was a covert operation and I never saw the camera.
Trouble is I now drive along there at 30mph and get others driving up my backside trying to 'encourage' me to go faster or get overtaken by cars doing my 41 and a bit!!
Where are the covert camera's then I ask!
Regards.
FTF
|
|
|
|
Covert speed cams no worries, as long as they are in REAL danger spots!
The standard speed cams must be oe visible so people ne to the area slow down as the area is a so-called dessignated 'accident' blackspot.
The new samller yellow cams - they should have a larger yellow plate fitted lower on th pole so it's eaier for drivers to spot if cams are rally there to stop serious accidentsas opposed to astealth tax!!!
R you worries about your post, lol.
|
|
The requirement for cameras to be marked was withdrawn some time ago!
|
I'm not a fan of cameras, being known to occassionally stray off the straight and narrow myself.
However, as someone once remarked to me, "Speeding fines are a tax on stupidity". I couldn't really come up with a counter argument.
|
...I wonder why the local MP is frothing at the mouth?...
Must have been worried about being snapped speeding while on the mobile. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps covert cameras should be a standard feature in residential areas - that way there wouldn't need to be many to act as a deterrent, and the 'inverted potholes' could be got rid of.
Edited by Manatee on 04/10/2009 at 20:44
|
|
Yep, can't argue with that at all. Common sense, really.
|
A tax on stupidity sums it up perfectly. A cull on the number of people with driving licenses who think the law only applies when they can see a form of law enforcement sounds like a jolly good way to get more people on public transport as our caretaker government wants and reduce congestion at the same time.
Not only should they be covert, but after they catch you, a sign with your reg number should pop up saying 'Gotcha!' - would save the two week odd wait to s=find out if you got caught eh :-)
|
what a marvellous idea......so up until now, the unaware get done with overt cameras, allowing the aware to get away with it, because they're taking note of their surroundings and adjusting their speed to the circumstances
now with this idea, you'll have everyone mimsing all of the time....(with speed limits set nowadays to a lowest possible denominator)
there'll be no room for any individual judgement... meaning that capability goes completely out the window (individual judgement)...so you'll have a nation of slack jawed incompetents pootling around in a total day dream...but that will be alright because they won't be breaking a speed limit....they will of course carry on driving into things and having accidents, because they won't be used to paying any attention to changing circumstances
and the ones that really need looking at will continue to speed, because they won't be registered
ho hum....we're virtually there any way aren't we
|
|
Sounds a bit like that silly horsebox that North Wales Police had.
|
|
|
what a marvellous idea......so up until now the unaware get done with overt cameras allowing the aware to get away with it because they're taking note of their surroundings and adjusting their speed to the circumstances there'll be no room for any individual judgement... meaning that capability goes completely out the window ...but that will be alright because they won't be breaking a speed limit.... because they won't be used to paying any attention to changing circumstances
Westpig..... we really need more Police Officers with your views!
so much sense spoken (typed) in your post....
Westpig for the top police job.... you would get my vote!
|
I'd do things slightly differently:
Overt, signed cameras - penalties as today
Covert cameras, sliding scale - first 10mph over the limit, 2 points and a smaller fine, 10 - 20 mph as normal camera penalty, but more than 20 mph over the limit, double the penalty, so at 90 mph recorded on an NSL dual (at least 95 on the clock) it's a big fine and six points.
Sounds harsh, but it hits those who are using the roads when they should be on a race track.
Edited by oldnotbold on 04/10/2009 at 22:52
|
|
|
|
>>now with this idea, you'll have everyone mimsing all of the time....(with speed limits set nowadays to a lowest possible denominator)
Note that I suggested covert cameras "in residential areas" i.e. where few would argue with a low limit, and to replace road obstructions.
I suppose it would creep though, you might have a point.
|
As you all seem to be in favour of this ever increasing "Big Brother" society we seem to getting, I have a better idea for you.
Every speed camera should have a machine gun mounted in it. Break the law and you get shot.
Darwinism at its extreme.
Then we can all drive along like automatons except politicians, who will be in bullet proof cars of course.
|
|
|
really this is nonsense
given the number of people who drive an inch from the car in front who are never brought to book
or the thousands of foreign students driving on foreign licences with no clue how to drive safely in the UK
or the millions of pensioners especially in places like Bexhill without the basic ability to turn their heads or control a car within basic parameters
a few people going a few mph over an arbitary limit on an empty dual carriageway is NOT something that should be a priority
im sorry its nonsense
|
I'm not opposed to speed cameras, whether static or police operated, either.
I think a distinction should be made in the use of marked and covert cameras though.
It's fair enough for the marked cameras to be used to enforce the ACTUAL limit, within a margin of error, as they do now.
However, covert cameras would be most justifiably used for catching serious speeders, people driving at considerably over the limit, as it seems was the case described above.
|
|
|
|
|
>>allowing the aware to get away with it, because they're taking note of their surroundings and adjusting their speed to the circumstances<<
No, they are adjusting their speed for the 20ft distance past the camera and then they do what they like whether or not it is actually safe by the judgement of the level headed person you hope is behind the wheel but unfortunatly often is not. I dont have a rose-tinted opinion of the capabilities of the majority.
Ive have never understood this notion that driving above the speed limit suddenly makes you Scumacher-esq. Your just driving faster, not better. It is perfectly possible to drive at or below the limit without falling asleep or driving into things and to argue that we should be encouraged to disregard the limit and go with what we all think individually is right for us would hardly increase road safety.
I had a yellow Punto near on rear-end my car this morning after I had pulled onto teh main road because he disregarded the 30 limit past the end of my road and thus his closing speed on a blind junction was too much for safety, but HE obviously thought it was safe and HE is one of those random people you have so much misplaced faith in - the rather animated gesticulations of his terrified female passenger and his subsequent backing right off and sticking to the limit suggest I was not the only one who was not entirely convinced about how he was going about his speed regulation.
People are invariably need saving from themselves unfortunatly and I see too many irratic and downright stupid driving on the roads without the notion that these people should be given free reign.
Far better to campaign for more intelligent speed limits than suggest people disregard the law.
>>so you'll have a nation of slack jawed incompetents pootling around in a total day dream<<
I assume this also includes Police Officers who drive at the speed limit then, unless of course they receive special training for mimsing?
|
Visible speed cameras are useful in one way: they reveal what utterly hopeless speed awareness a majority of drivers have. It's fairly unusual, when passing a speed camera on a busy road with say a 50 limit, like the A3 Kingston Bypass, not to be forced down to a real 45 or even 40 when these nursery-school graduates with virgin licences see one, and are in a majority as they so often are. .
How pathetic people are. And they're all bristling at the thought someone might want them to get out of the damn way too.
Bristle away chums. You're in the damn way. Grow up for heaven's sake.
|
Covert camera
Illogical, if that road is dangerous at anything over the speed limit then the operators of the camera are being reckless and mercenary in allowing drivers/riders to speed so as to prosecute and fine them.
Overt camera
Makes sense, it reduces the speed of traffic because drivers see it and only catches the blatant law breakers.
How appropraite speed limts are at different times of day, traffic levels, weather etc is a factor as well. It is clear that on some, say, 30 limit roads 15 mph can be reckless at some times and 45 quite safe at others though in this technological day and age we still have to put up with flat speed limits.
|
It makes no sense to me to use cameras and fines by post to enforce speed limits. If speeding is as dangerous is the authorities say, then speed traps should be manned and offenders should be pulled over immediately, otherwise you're letting them continue their possibly dangerous behaviour blissfully unaware they've been caught until a NIP drops through the post up to 14 days later. And of course by pulling people over there's no chance that drivers can deny who was driving.
Many years ago I got pulled over by a manned speed trap for speeding in a 30 zone, and the experience of being dealt with there and then by a Police officer certainly slowed me down after that.
If I got a fine through the post up to two weeks later it would annoy me rather than educate me, and I think education should be the prime motive, not punishment.
|
"Essex spokesperson says that as there is an issue with certain bikers meeting on this night of the week, speeding and riding dangerously.....it is a proportionate response."
I thought that camera vans photographed/detected oncoming vehicles? If this is the case, and with motor bikes not having front number number plates I can't see the point!
|
I thought that camera vans photographed/detected oncoming vehicles? If this is the case and with motor bikes not having front number number plates I can't see the point!
I've often wondered that as well. I've also seen quite a few motorbikes where the rear number plate is noticeably smaller than usual. The actual size of the plate is small, and the typeface is obviously even smaller, about the size of a postcard. Are those things legal?
|
There was an interesting article in last week's Autocar magazine about the truth about whether speed is "the single biggest contributory factor" in injury accidents, and how the DfT may have massaged the statistics in their attempt to prove they've achieved their aim of halving the number over the last decade through the use of scameras.
Couldn't find it on their website during a brief look-see just now. Might try and post a few salient points from it when I can next access my paper copy, unless anyone else can get there in the meantime.
Ultimately it looked as though this simplistic blinkered approach of "safe = not exceeding posted speed limit", whilst decimating human-police patrols, might actually have started turning the flattened-out curve upwards...
|
But speed IS the single biggest contributary factor - if we were all stopped then there would be no crashes!
(On a serious note to your post, statistics can be made to prove anything, that doesn't make your view or theirs wrong... just looked at from a different angle... just like the earlier post advocating more flexibility on speed limits... ok if everyone has the same driving skill level, but in reallity impossible to work.)
Edited by b308 on 05/10/2009 at 14:27
|
Use this stretch of road regularly and can't say I'm surprised that the police are doing this.
If they catch anyone like the five bikes that passed me on that stretch a couple of weeks back then they won't be getting a NOIP and the chance of taking a fixed penalty, they will be going straight to magistrates for serious fine and a ban.
I was travelling at about 72-75, according to sat-nav, when their lights appeared behind me in the outside lane as I was overtaking, I pulled back into lane 1 and they steamed by at a very quick rate of knots, I would suggest they were well over 100 probably nearer 120, possibly even more. They were riding very close to each other and if someone were to do something silly in front of them, or not be aware of them until the last minute and panic a little, and thus doing something stupid, there would be a high risk of some serious carnage. If the police are aware of this and have evidence that it is happening on a regular basis then the are duty bound to try and do something about it, if they didn't then imagine the uproar when something tragic happens and they say,'oh, yes, we knew that was likely to happen.' They'd be hung out to dry.
If these guys want to ride at the sorts of speeds I witnessed then they should go and find a track day, I'm certainly not an advocate of mimsing around but these bikers were OTT IMHO.
Bear in mind that the A127 already has a section of NSL average speed cameras between Basildon and Rayleigh and then 50 mph average speed cameras from Rayleigh the rest of the way to Southend then it will only be a question of time before the whole road has them if something were to occur. Of course, the fact that the average speed cameras don't affect the bikers because they don't have a front number plate won't stop Essex County Council......
|
|
Well yes it seems like riding at 100 mph is a bad thing, but apparently, according to many, this is perfectly ok if THEY think it is safe and we are to rely on that alone. Ho-hum.
|
Well yes it seems like riding at 100 mph is a bad thing but apparently according to many this is perfectly ok if THEY think it is safe and we are to rely on that alone. Ho-hum.
Stu,
I can only presume that's aimed at me..if so...it's a misrepresentation of what i've (constantly) stated.
Either you know that and my response isn't going to make any difference..or... you don't know my point, in which case i'll try again.
If you drive down your local roads, 30mph limit, built up area etc, it MIGHT be o.k to do so at 50mph on some occasions...e.g. 0500 on a fine summer's morning. On that same day at 0830, it may well be unsafe to do 20 mph. The driver would have to make an informed decision on each and every occasion, constantly monitoring and willing to change it....NOT...drive down it automatically at 30mph regardless....which is what many do. I am not saying that 50mph is o.k. in all 30 mph limits either, far from it, i'm saying be aware of your surroundings and adjust your speed to the circumstances.
It remains 100% illegal to drive at 50mph in a 30mph limit and any miscreant runs the risk of being prosecuted for it, however i'd like to see a fair and balanced result without any hysteria attached to it or the loaded penalty that doesn't take into account the far more dangerous offences committed on our roads.
The same principle applies at all speeds, up to a point i.e. really excessive speed is always going to have its' acute dangers.
|
Ahaa ! A law breaker.
72 - 75 is breaking the law. I suggest that you go straight to a Police Station and confess your crime and ask to have a fine and 3 points.
You are now a criminal.
|
72-75 on Sat Nav is probably not speeding, actually! My sat nav tells me that my speedo over-reads by 3 mph right across the speed range so 73 speedo indicated is just legal
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 05/10/2009 at 19:03
|
|
ravenger - have you tried pulling over a bike doing over a ton? If you think about it, it's impossible and not a little bit dangerous. Ever tried catching one up? Almost as bad.
|
ravenger - have you tried pulling over a bike doing over a ton? If you think about it it's impossible and not a little bit dangerous. Ever tried catching one up? Almost as bad.
I understand, but in that case they'd still be better off pulling the bikers over later when they've slowed down rather than letting them continue on blissfully unaware.
A ex-colleague of mine had experience of this - he rode at up to 150mph on the M1 on his Fireblade. The police had to send the helicopter after him. He only knew he'd been followed when they caught him coming of the motorway. He got six weeks in prison!
|
He said according to his satnav his speed was 72 -75. The speed displayed on his satnav is probably quite accurate.
If he had said according to his speedo, then I would accept your argument.
I now wait for a correction to his statement so as not to incriminate himself.
|
Mr T - you are completely correct! I mis-read the post. 72-75 on sat nav is 72-75 in the real world. However, it might not trigger a prosecution if the ACPO guidelines of limit +10% + 2mph are applied ie 79 in a 70. They are only guidelines though!
|
drove along that section of the 127 a few times today, where is this hidden camera then? i didnt see it
|
drove along that section of the 127 a few times today where is this hidden camera then? i didnt see it
Don't worry, the NIP will give the precise location when you get it.
|
you assume i have legit number plates on
|
Didn't say that I was an angel!
I tend to drive according to Westpig's philosophy of driving according to the prevailing road conditions.
The point I was mainly trying to make is that the main risk, in my opinion, is that these sorts of speeds cause excessive closing speeds which many road users will not be expecting and therefore create an inherently high risk of an incident occuring with the attached consequences of high speed collisions involving bikes. If you are on a NSL road travelling at, about, the NSL you may well not be looking for someone closing on you at an additional 30-50 mph. For instance you may well be glancing in your rear view mirror every, say, 30 seconds, a bike half a mile behind travelling at 90 will be seen three times and the speed assessed by the driver in front, the same bike travelling at 120 might only be seen once, if at all, before he is on your rear bumper. If a biker hits you in that scenario he hits the car at 50 but will hit the road at 120, not a pretty outcome I would suggest, probably perfectly routine on a track, we see them every week on MotoGP, but on a road with all the associated street furniture about?
As regards the camera, it is normally a van set up in standard Gatso mode, photographing the rear of offenders and parked up 90% hidden behind a bridge support so not visible, easily, to oncoming traffic.
It also does a similar thing on the westbound A127 just west of the A130 junction, this is a 50 limit with average speed cameras but the first camera and, strangely, last of the 50 limit before it increases to NSL average is a couple of hundred yards after the slip road. A lot of people join the prevailing traffic, sitting at a steady 50, at silly speeds knowing that they don't have to slow because they can't break an average speed limit by going past only one camera.........
|
For instance you may well be glancing in your rear view mirror every say 30 seconds ....
you are joking I hope?
if you only look in your mirrors every 30 seconds then you are missing loads if important information.
30 seconds after all, is 1/2 a mile @ 60mph!
is it only me, that constantly cycles my eyes?
look forward, righthand mirror, forward, lefthand mirror, forward, speedo, forward, centre mirror, that kind of thing... I also look over my shoulder before lane changing.. thats a habit Ive always had.
I also look as far forward as visibility allows, some people I know look only at the car in front.. they scare me!
I find that by doing that, I can often react before the car in front of me, and only need to lift the throttle, rather than braking.
that I find makes for a for less stressful journey.
|
|
|
|
|
