The discussion I was expecting to see here (and I'm utterly amazed that it hasn't appeared, so I'm going to fix that) is this:
If the powers that be have decided that this fake speed camera is dangerous, for the reason stated, does logic not imply that therefore ALL speed cameras are dangerous, for exactly the same reason?
*steps back behind blast shield to observe*
|
If the powers that be have decided that this fake speed camera is dangerous, for the reason stated, does logic not imply that therefore ALL speed cameras are dangerous, for exactly the same reason?
tinyurl.com/ytfuhk
|
|
|
|
|
I know the road well. Attracts its fair share of "must overtake at all costs' type. NSL reasonable on this stretch in my opinion if only drivers took road conditions into account but of coure they they don't .
|
|
Why should any law abiding motorist need to brake when he/she sees a speed camera?
|
Why should any law abiding motorist need to brake when he/she sees a speed camera?
I don't know. You'd have to ask one of the many, many people who I see going along the NSL road outside my place of work at a legal speed, and suddenly slamming the anchors on and slowing to 40 (or in some cases even 30) when they see the camera.
And I mean many, I'm not exaggerating. I would estimate that when I'm following another vehicle along this road, 75% or more of the time it will slow to 40 for the camera.
|
And I mean many, I'm not exaggerating. I would estimate that when I'm following another vehicle along this road, 75% or more of the time it will slow to 40 for the camera.
Hmm... Gramatically, that's not very clear. You know what I mean though!
|
> And I mean many, I'm not exaggerating. I would estimate that when I'm following another vehicle along this road, 75% or more of the time it will slow to 40 for the camera.
And doesn't that illustrate what's wrong with many of the objections to speed cameras? An alarming proportion of the drivers out there are afraid of cameras because (a) they don't know what the limit is on the stretch of road they're travelling on and/or (b) they have no idea how fast they're actually going. To paraphrase the ABD's argument, 'speed cameras are dangerous because they make people watch their speed rather than the road ahead', when in truth anyone who isn't aware of the limit and their own speed at any time isn't fit to be a Driver, never mind a member of the Association of British ones. It's as basic to driving as steering or changing gear (or reversing into a parking space ;-) ),and if we all just did it properly, the 'safety camera partnerships' would have shelves full of empty photo albums.
|
I go past two sets of front facing Truvelo types every day. One is in a 50 limit and the other a 40. When I drive through those areas the traffic always slows down to 35/40 and 25/30 respectively. People are afraid of the zero tolerance/absolute offence nature of the cameras and won't risk a fine by driving at the actual speed limit.
Some people practically stop, and then stare at the camera as they go past - maybe expecting to see it flash!
|
|
I can see the Truvelo flash!
|
I've never seen a "dangerous" speed camera before let alone a converted bird box being dangerous. There are signs, trees, shrubs, flowers, people, houses etc. along the side of our roads so why are speed camera's any different to any of those !
Maybe it's the drivers who react badly to these things who are dangerous in the clear knowledge they are either breaking the speed limited or want to break it and don't like being caught, makes you think doesn't it !
|
|
|
|
> And I mean many, I'm not exaggerating. I would estimate that when I'm following another vehicle along this road, 75% or more of the time it will slow to 40 for the camera. And doesn't that illustrate what's wrong with many of the objections to speed cameras?
No. Quite the opposite really. If anything it proves that the speed camera is useless. Since the camera is there, and the people still clearly have no idea what speed they're doing / should be doing, the speed camera has therefore achieved absolutely nothing. Apart from to make them suddenly emergency brake in the middle of a NSL road.
I certainly agree that something needs to be done about these people's ignorance, but it seems clear that the speed camera isn't helping a jot.
|
No. Quite the opposite really. If anything it proves that the speed camera is useless. Since the camera is there, and the people still clearly have no idea what speed they're doing / should be doing, the speed camera has therefore achieved absolutely nothing. Apart from to make them suddenly emergency brake in the middle of a NSL road. I certainly agree that something needs to be done about these people's ignorance, but it seems clear that the speed camera isn't helping a jot.
That's probably the best argument against speed cameras I've heard.
Less cameras, more education, please.
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
>> That's probably the best argument against speed cameras I've heard. Less cameras, more education, please.
It's not exactly anti-speed camera, since the cameras would still be useful to catch those who speed wilfully in theory. But it does make the point that cameras aren't the 'solution' which is forced down our gullets by the pro-camera lot.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is clearly poor signs, I've been on quite a few fast roads that don't seem to have speed signs on them, it's ok you are familiar with the area, but for strangers it can be a nightmare. Especially fast dual carriageways through towns, like the one through Stoke. I think there should be a speed repeater at least 50 yards before a camera.
|
The problem is clearly poor signs, I've been on quite a few fast roads that don't seem to have speed signs on them...
Sorry Doug, that won't do: no signs, no streetlamps = NSL and every driver ought to know that, same as the rule that no signs with streetlamps = 30mph. In any other case, there are repeater signs, such as NSL repeaters on lamp-posts on illuminated dual carriageways. (Lit motorways have their own rules.)
If you do want confusion, though, try the A444 north of Nuneaton, where a twisty section has prominent combined NSL / camera warnings and, now, big 50 markings on the road surface.
|
Two points (new to the forum so gently please, guys):
Firstly, some stretches of road have so many signs that some drivers already are suffering from information overload. we even have some roads boasting countdown signs to tell you there are signs ahead! Coming into Wells there are three x one hundred feet countdown signs to tell you that there is a 30 sign coming up. Some places leave 'new limit in force' signs up for years on end.
Secondly, why are transport authorities able to build 'unsafe' dual-carriageways? I refer to roads like the Batheaston bypass which is a new dual carriage way, almost straight for a couple of miles or more. The speed limit on a dual carriage way - 70mph. Speed limit on this magnificent piece of construction - 50mph. OH, and there's a nice juicy camera under the bridge.
|
Actually you make a couple of good points scorpio, and welcome to the forum. I agree that on some roads there is sometimes too much information to take in, for example, approaching a roadabout with multiple signs and road markings whilst at the same time watching for traffic behind, alongside and on the roundabout.
Your second point, I wonder, perhaps they are trying to ensure the new road stays an accident and death free zone rather than waiting for an accident/death to occur they have choosen to take preventative action instead, and I'd vote for that any day, and consider the environmental benefits of driving at 50mph rather than 70mph.
In the light of scorpio's first point, is there a case for having a GPS speed detector camera or lazer detector in a car to act as an audio information warning mechanism whilst someone is visually processing all the road sign information ?
|
Two points (new to the forum so gently please, guys):
Blimey, what a load of rubbish. ;) Okay, just kidding.
Actually I think you make some very very sensible points. I have heard of experiments whereby removing signs and markings improves driving standards. I sometimes find myself confused by the huge number of signs, and road markings, and it must cause accidents due as you say to information overload. While searching the signs to understand how to get through the obstable course you miss the cyclist in your path.
I was twice nearly done by a speed camera in Dunstable (doing 40 in 30) and yet I try to observe non motorway limits. The reason was that the 30 signs were at the entrance to a roundabout. My attention was on other vehicles and lane markings in order to position my car correctly, and effect an exit safely. The 30 signs should have been well before the hazard (roundabout) or after it. If driving at more than 30 mph is indeed dangerous, then the correct approach is to make sure that the limit is well marked. Surely the idea is to ensure safe driving not revenue collection!
|
|
I would have thought it was dangerous to exceed 30 mph while negotiating an urban roundabout, especially if there is other traffic requiring your attention!
|
I would have thought it was dangerous to exceed 30 mph while negotiating an urban roundabout, especially if there is other traffic requiring your attention!
I doubt he was doing over 30 on the roundabout itself, but if he has missed the sign saying that a 30 zone has started, then he's going to exceed the limit on the other side of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
