Done for speeding by mobile camera

[Flyer]

Hmm, to post or not to post? Ah, what the hell

I'm unashamedly with Greg here, although I don't believe that I "have the right to drive at whatever speed (I) like" (and I'm sure neither does Greg).

The problem is that the authorities can measure speed and so penalise drivers for exceeding an arbitrary limit, one that has in all likelyhood recently been reduced. And where does a camera get placed?

What about real problems that can't easily be measured by a device? Careless driving? Tailgating? As speed cameras proliferate, police numbers have been reduced, so the drivers who are causing problems are not being tackled.

I drove to Santa Pod on Saturday, a place I had not been to before. What an awful journey. The M42 is a joke. Whoever designed that stretch wants shooting. It is easily the most dangerous road I've ever driven on, due to the variable speed limits and the constant fear of being picked up on the speed cameras, even when you think you are driving at the speed limit. Not to mention the bunching of cars as all the drivers try to keep to the same speed. Madness. But [probably] no driver exceeded the speed limit, so everybody was perfectly safe

Further on, I was driving along an S/C NSL behind a car doing 50ish; we approached a bend where the driver braked hard to reduce his speed to exactly 30. Still in an NSL remember. As we rounded the bend, there was a couple of 30 signs and a village up ahead on a straight road. And what do you know, a speed camera van parked up at the end of the straight, clearly targeting drivers who come around the bend and haven't bled enough speed off before reaching the 30 (which was some way out of the village). I was lucky. I was behind a local who knew it was there. If he hadn't have been there, without braking very hard, there is no way I would have bled enough speed off.

Technically, I was breaking the law and no doubt several of you would be saying that I deserved it. Realistically, any driver who uses that road, and doesn't know about the sneaky placement of the camera van, is likely to hear the dull thud of an envelope from the friendly camera partnership. And there are many, many roads like that.

I exceed the speed limit on every journey I make. I'd wager that most drivers do (there are exceptions of course). But I also drive below the limit (sometimes considerably) when it is appropriate.

 

[andy_k]

we have one camera in the town, before it was installed (following a long campaign to get one) there were five serious crashes - four were fatal in a couple of years all on a 400 metre stretch of dual carriageway with a 40mph limit.

Since the camera was fitted (march 2005) ........not a single accident

but of course they don't work do they? they don't make the roads safer and they don't save lives.

andy

 

[Swiss Toni]

If you think of a camera as a hazard like any other (junction, driveway, school, another vehicle, pedestrian...) then driving in a way that deals with hazards is just improving your skill?

Surely not recognising the hazard is the issue?

 

[219]

If you think of a camera as a hazard like any other... then driving in a way that deals with hazards is just improving your skill?

Surely not recognising the hazard is the issue?

A hazard is defined in Roadcraft as 'anything which contains an element of actual or potential danger' .

Apart from the possibility of wrapping your car round the pole and doing yourself some damage , I fail to see the danger presented by the camera .

Of course , other peoples' panic reactions might well present a danger .....

 

[Swiss Toni]

A hazard is defined in Roadcraft as 'anything which contains an element of actual or potential danger' .

Apart from the possibility of wrapping your car round the pole and doing yourself some damage , I fail to see the danger presented by the camera .

Of course , other peoples' panic reactions might well present a danger .....

Treat it as a hazard and you can't go wrong then.

 

[dagd]

Treat it as a hazard and you can't go wrong then.

Most hazards can be seen, except maybe ice, but you can anticipate this with experience.

I have no problems with speed limits or even cameras, as long as they are used sensibly. I don't think that nicking someone for doing 34 in a 30 at 2.30 in the morning on the A30 (no houses, shops) where there is an incline is solving the problem, it is just winding people up more. There's no doubt that some cameras sensibly placed reduce acidences, however, I'd like to see the statistics for the whole country before being convinced that they are not money making machines!

 

[prprandall51]

Further on, I was driving along an S/C NSL behind a car doing 50ish; we approached a bend where the driver braked hard to reduce his speed to exactly 30. .....
If he hadn't have been there, without braking very hard, there is no way I would have bled enough speed off.

Hi Flyer, sorry to pick on you, but have you tried braking from 50 to 30 recently in your CLK Sport (with its state of the art braking system)? We aren't exactly talking about bringing an artic down from 80 to a standstill here.

Can the bend have really been that tight and the 30 sign so closly positioned after the bend that you really had to brake hard to bring your speed down? If so, you must have been going into the bend knowing that you couldn't stop in the road space you could see.
I would suggest that almost any modern vehicle (even an artic, I'll wager) can drop from 60 to 30 in the time and distance that the visibility of a 30 sign provides so long as the driver is driving sensibly (i.e. with due regard to potential hazards) in the first place.

I think this is how most people perceive these pesky mobile cameras: Always set up round a blind bend, always where the 30mph sign is hidden, always out to catch people speeding. Why not slow down for the blind bend, which is a hazard and may conceal a school party of kids sitting in the middle of the road?

I am by no means perfect and sitting in judgement here. I sometimes sail through 30mph signs at way over the odds, shedding speed massively. But the only time it happens is when the following two factors are combined:
(a) I was doing way over the speed limit of the limit area I am just leaving (in this case always an NSL) since I can shed 60 to 30 quite quickly and safely - like every other modern vehicle on the road - and
(b) I haven't been paying attention.

The two together mean I am driving sloppily and inconsiderately and even dangerously. But if I get done by a camera in a thirty, I would say its a fair cop.

Philip

 

[BTB 500]

Almost all mobile speed traps are set up in 30's and 40's. With very few exceptions, a 30mph area is fully built up and, if not, is always adjacent to a bulit-up area. Approaching a 40 is always an indication of an urban area or the outer approach to one. If you are speeding in a 30 or a 40 area, you are, almost without exception, driving past people's homes with the inherent dangers of children, the elderly or pets or other vehicles performing slow, hazardous manouevres. That's why they are 30/40mph zones.

Whilst all that is generally true, it's the exceptions that wind people up.

Where I used to live a new by-pass was built, running between two roundabouts. It was given a 30 limit, right from the start. Naturally there were no properties fronting onto it, and IMO a 40 limit would have been totally appropriate (from the roundabout the next road has a 50 limit, and that has a number of side turnings). The by-pass comes down a gentle hill, and guess what ... a mobile speed camera is often sited on the down slope. I lived a couple of hundred yards away for 15 years and don't recall a single accident there.

And I agree that an issue with fixed cameras is people over-reacting ... it is quite common for people to brake hard to well below the limit when they see them, which is pretty annoying if you're driving legally!

 

[Rose Chap]

Rant

Reading these threads is getting frustrating.

I think fundamentally what this boils down to is whether as an individual you're happy about automated passive surveillance, whether it be in this case a speed camera, or whether its an ID card, or congestion charges, or having your DNA held on a central database being referenced every time there is a crime.

Like ID cards, bans on anything the masses disagree with, and a bloated civil service, speed cameras are indicative of the wrong kind of government policy. A policy based on the assumption that people can't be trusted to do their own thing and need constant monitoring and dedicated laws to make sure they live their life in boundaries set by the state.

 

[andy_k]

A policy based on the assumption that people can't be trusted to do their own thing and need constant monitoring and dedicated laws to make sure they live their life in boundaries set by the state.

which sadly these days they can't.

Reading these foruims it's very obvious that if it were left to people to do their own thing they would do exactly that and rather than abide by the laws they would simply please themselves - isn't that called anarchy?

Like policing, the enforcement of the law reflects the way the laws are obeyed. If we lived in a 100% law abiding utopia there would be no need for laws, if there were no armed criminals then the police would not need to carry guns, if everyone was reasonable there would be no need for defined boundaries and if everyone drove sensibly at all times there would be no need for speed limits let alone speed cameras.

We've kind of brought all this nanny state stuff on ourselves

Andy

 

[Shude]

If nobody broke the speed limits (it really is quite easy - but if you find it difficult all you need to do is drive like there's a police car behind you ) for a month then the cameras would be redundant. They would be costing money rather than earning it and they would soon dissappear but whilst there are people daft enough to drive past big yellow boxes on poles at the side of the road faster than they are supposed to they will remain. Novel idea huh? Civil obedience to get results

I'm with Andy on this one, everyone should be behind this! Cameras cost thousands per month to maintain, if they caught no-one they would quickly be turned off or dismantled to save costs.

 

[GregE240]

Well, I think its an infringement on civil liberty. Its clear that some people on this thread want to go back to the days of a man walking in front of your car waving a red flag. All this talk of anarchy is frankly, the stuff of fairy tales.

The motorist is being picked on because they are an easy target. Yet in council estates certain people run riot. Why? Lack of policing and simple economics. Why the hell attempt to uphold law and order, which costs money when you could go out and fleece a few motorists for exceeding the speed limit by several miles per hour?

Given outspoken little Hitlers like Brunstrom and his successor Hughes, small wonder. And what have they achieved? They've raised a few sheckles and prevented a few stupid people who walked out in the road from being killed, but in the main they have utterly alienated the police force from the public. They should be proud of that.

Its awful, it stinks, and its yet another unwarranted intrusion into our personal lives by this vomit inducing Government.

 

[andy_k]

Well, I think its an infringement on civil liberty.

You have a point, expecting people to obey laws is totally unreasonable

Its awful, it stinks, and its yet another unwarranted intrusion into our personal lives by this vomit inducing Government.

Although we are told to keep politics off the board - I think you'll find it was the "other lot" which gave us cameras back in the early 90s

from Direct Line's site

"Speed cameras are triggering a nationwide surge in the number of drivers on the brink of being banned, with close to a million* Brits one conviction away from losing their licence, according to research by Direct Line.

Convictions have dramatically increased in the last five years and the number of drivers with three points on their licence has increased by seven per cent just in the last two years. One in 10 (14 per cent) of the drivers with nine points on their licence would lose their jobs if their licence was taken away, over 125,000 people across the UK.

Despite speed cameras only being launched 13 years ago, 92 per cent of those receiving motoring convictions in the last two years are for speeding and fines can be as much as £2500 for a first time offence. Within the past 12 months motorists have paid out over £121 million** in speeding tickets.

Yet, motorists are cynical about the rise in speed cameras, and their subsequent fines. Six in 10 (61 per cent) believe they are revenue raisers and one in 10 (11 per cent) think that they are there to pay for the bonuses of local authority workers.

Overall 4.8 million (16 per cent) drivers now have penalty points on their licence, however despite the risk in getting caught by cameras motorists say they are failing to deter them. Over half claim that speed limits (56 per cent), cameras (57 per cent) and fines (74 per cent) have no impact on their speedometer.

In addition to knowingly flouting the law, many motorists have no idea what the speed limits actually are. Direct Line research reveals that despite 93 per cent of motorists claiming they have a sound knowledge of speed limits, in reality only half of all UK motorists are unable to correctly identify the limit on a dual carriageway (70mph)."

I find the last two paragraphs really scary. Just how stupid do you have to be to accept that the cameras are going to catch you that you will continue to drive at whatever speed you like?

As for not knowing the speed limits, well I'm sorry, if you use that as a defence when stopped then you should be forced to take another test before being allowed back on the roads

Andy

 

[Flasheart]

Well, I think its an infringement on civil liberty. Its clear that some people on this thread want to go back to the days of a man walking in front of your car waving a red flag.

I find its an infringement of my civil liberties to not be allowed to go out and drink and drive - why shouldn't i?

No one has said go back to the days of walking in front of your car waving a red flag.... all theya re saying is obey the laws of the land.

 

[dagd]

I find its an infringement of my civil liberties to not be allowed to go out and drink and drive - why shouldn't i?

No one has said go back to the days of walking in front of your car waving a red flag.... all theya re saying is obey the laws of the land.

Does that include hogging the middle lane Flasheart. or was that someone else?

 

[dagd]

If the Government (any of ‘em) were serious about speeding and reducing speed, why do they allow cars to be sold that can exceed the limit? (mine can do over twice the motorway speed! as can many others), why don’t they enforce speed limiters or governors (as on lorries) to keep the speeds down? It’s estimated that if all drivers stuck to the 70mph and other speed limits, then almost a third of fuel could be saved! This would address the green issue as well, so why don’t they do it? I think we all know why!
With the current technology, it would be possible to reduce the speeds automatically when approaching 30 MPH zones (or any other) by having sensors in the cars and transmitters on the roadside. Why don’t they introduce this on all new cars? The answer is the same for the above!
I read in a paper (so it must be true), that those flashing speed detection sign ‘reduce you speed to 30’ are more effective than cameras, in fact the only speed camera in my area has been replaced by one, so full marks to the local Bill!:bannana:

 

[Flasheart]

Oh very good.

You will be pleased to know that i am a chastened invidual by your wit and repartee. Also glad to note you are perfect.

I have never claimed to be perfect - however i do find it remarkable those that believe speeding should be allowed.

 

[GregE240]

I find its an infringement of my civil liberties to not be allowed to go out and drink and drive - why shouldn't i?

No one has said go back to the days of walking in front of your car waving a red flag.... all theya re saying is obey the laws of the land.

Why shouldn't you indeed.

Although bear in mind that IF you feel it necessary to go out and have a skinful, there IS a chance that it will impede your reflexes and your ability to drive. IF you are caught, or cause an accident, you WILL be prosecuted, you WILL have a criminal record and theres a good chance you'll serve a custodial sentence.

And thats the same as being 6mph over the limit, is it?

I'll let you into a secret - I regularly speed. Not past schools when kids are leaving, but on motorways, and usually into 3 figures. Its my risk and I choose to do this. If I drove everywhere at 70mph (and I'm quite certain you do Flasheart - all of the time), then frankly I'd never get anywhere.

 

[Flasheart]

With the current technology, it would be possible to reduce the speeds automatically when approaching 30 MPH zones

Believe it or not the technology already exists, its called a brain and the ability to read signs.

 

[Flasheart]

I'll let you into a secret - I regularly speed. Not past schools when kids are leaving, but on motorways, and usually into 3 figures. Its my risk and I choose to do this.

But its not your risk. What if you have a blow out at 100 mph plus. That is an awful lot of energy. Should you crash into another car, take someone elses life? That is a risk you are prepared to accept? Should you get caught driving like that then you will lose your license.

Good for you not speeding past a school when the children are coming out, what about when they are arriving, or leaving late.