Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: over50now on 07 May 2009, 20:40:21
-
Head over the parapet time.
Facts - not fiction. I teach this every day. I'm one of the trainers on the National Speed Awareness Course. The following might help us understand why cameras have been sited. Still might not like them, but might be a bit more acceptable.
The Government have an on-going 10 year road safety programme. By the year 2010, their aim is a 40% reduction in road users (drivers, riders, pedestrians (you and me)) being killed or seriously injured. Refered as KSI. Also a 50% reduction in child KSI on our roads. (Children - 15 years and under).
Prior to the year 2000, revenue collected from speed cameras went to the Government. Where it went from there ??????????????
Since 2000, as part of the Government aim, Safety Camera Partnerships (SCP) were formed. Revenue from cameras still go to the Government, in actual fact, The Department of Constitional Affairs (DCA). The SCP then present a portfolio to the DCA and claim that revenue back to spend on reducing road casualties in that SCP operating area. If the SCP have got their act together, that money comes back. Some SCP's are very good at getting it back and spend it on the three E's. Education, Engineerng and the last option Enforcement. Education is the first option. Check out what your local authority is doing to reduce casualties by checking out their web sites. See if they are doing free driver training, or financially assisted /subsidied driver training (Paid for by the revenue collected from safety cameras)
Northants for example do free training for 16 year olds before they get their licence, free training for 17/18 to 24 year olds after they pass the very basic 'L' test and free motor cycle training (no age restriction). Available for Northants residents. Courses are 1 day events at Silverstone / Rockingham.
The siting of cameras have strict criteria, as follows:-
Fixed/Static:-
Within 500 metres of the camera site, within a 3 year period there have been 8 personal injury crashes/collisions of which involved at least 4 KSI's (Northants 3 KSI's - very proactive)
Mobile:-
Within 500 metres of the camera site, within a 3 year period there have been 4 personal injury crashes/collisions of which involved at least 2 KSI's (Northants 1 KSI - very proactive)
There are occasions when Mobile cameras attend a location, this is normally as a result of a request of the local community or as a result speed issue/abuse collected data (Northants mobile can spend up to 15% of their operating time at these requested or abuse/issue sites).
Now having said all that, very basically, we wait until something happens in this country until we do something. Yep, someone or a number of someone's have died or been maimed, before something is done. This country is reactive.
Last thought, every time you see a bunch of flowers, bouquet of flowers, collection of flowers at the side of the road, what do you think has happened there? :'( :(
Next time you see a safety camera, consider what has happened there, or very nearby for the reasons for that camera to be sited. :-[
Up for discussion??????
Appreciate that not all systems are perfect.
Hope the above helps you understand this emotive subject a bit more.
-
Hmm the one on aylestone hill hereford is deffinaly a money earner
No serious accidents there ever no ones been run over there ever!
it was put there to earn cash as its a 30 and the hill is very steep so hard to keep 30mph robbing basteds!
-
tmx
When was it sited - what year was it put there?
Go on the Police web site that covers that area, follow the links. It should, and I say should give you a break down of what has happened there for the camera to be sited.
I said in my post 'Safety Camera Partnerships' formed since 2000. Prior to that, leave it to your own imagination/interpretation :-/
-
The problem is, they depend too highly on cameras & NOT Traffic Officers. Long gone are the days when you could drive only a few miles & you'd see a Traffic Car. Traffic Cars & their Officers cost money, cameras don't cost half as much.
Personally i would love to see ALL cameras removed & an officer with a speed detection device in it's place instead.
When was the last time a camera caught a drunk/drugged driver. When was the last time one caught a criminal at large (Jack The Ripper for instance), a terrorist, the list is almost endless.
I for one hate the damned things & the fist one that gives me a ticket will accidently catch fire ;)
No matter what any one says or does it will not change my mind, we got on quite well before they arrived.
-
been on my Safety Camera Partnership site and yes the camera is on there site but all it says is A465 Aylestone Hill Hereford 30mph nothing else!
it was sited just before labor banned the siting of the bloody things!
-
Hmm the one on aylestone hill hereford is deffinaly a money earner
No serious accidents there ever no ones been run over there ever!
it was put there to earn cash as its a 30 and the hill is very steep so hard to keep 30mph robbing basteds!
Just noticed and I've highlighted it.
Ask any advanced driver, there are some Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) and at least one other ROSPA Gold in OOF. what gear you should be in to help you manage and control the car to keep to 30.
Tip is 3rd gear (works for 5 speed and most 6 speed manual gear boxes) Regarding Auto boxes. Come out of 'D' (Drive) and put it in a lower gear.
Auto boxes, whilst in 'D' it's all ways looking for the higher gear, therefore looking to go faster.
Hope this tip works for you.
Modern cars like 4th gear for 35+
Modern cars like 3rd gear for 30.
I've looked at the Owners manual for my Omega (it's a 1999 - 10 years old - recocmends 3rd gear for 30 - fuel efficiency.)
-
are you for real? :-?
-
There are several arguments to this but my favourite is that if you exceed the limit you deserve to be punished. This is completely separate to arguments such as why they are there, or that they are they to make money.
If you don't like them, don't exceed the limit and they won't cause you trouble.
They are depended upon highly because of the quantity of people speeding. This wouldn't be the case if people kept to the limit, or under.
I agree that cameras are used more to catch people than TOs but again, why would this affect you if you don't exceed the limit?
I would not have a problem at all if caught speeding, whether by a camera or otherwise as it's my own choice to exceed the limit and I should take the consequences.
I agree some cameras do make a lot of money but why is that? Well it's because so many drivers speed through them over the limit. The cameras don't force drivers to do that; it's their own choice and deserve what they get in return. If anyone has a problem with cameras making money then the drivers should reduce their speed accordingly.
If you would prefer to have all cameras replaced by officers, then if caught speeding by an officer would you then go back and set fire to that officer? Probably not. Why is it different then for an inanimate object? Your fine and points would still be the same whether caught by and officer or camera.
I can't understand your argument about cameras not catching drunk/drugged drivers, criminals at large, terrorists... etc. They are speed detection devices, not criminal detection devices.
It is quite easy to be drunk, drugged, at large, or a terrorist but not exceed the limit. Detecting these crimes requires human intervention and the officer's skill in detecting odd behaviour that a camera simply can not. Surely having cameras detecting speed free up officers to detect those criminals that cameras can not.
I'm quite sure you only hate the cameras because you are more likely to get caught and fined. Well that's your own fault for exceeding the limit.
-
have a shufti at this
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=689159&mid=40987&nmt=The%20Great%20Speed%20Awareness%20Course%20Swindle
at least dick turpin had the decency to wear a mask and carry a gun.
-
have a shufti at this
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=689159&mid=40987&nmt=The%20Great%20Speed%20Awareness%20Course%20Swindle
at least dick turpin had the decency to wear a mask and carry a gun.
Speak like you find, Sassanach ;D
-
.......
Tip is 3rd gear (works for 5 speed and most 6 speed manual gear boxes) Regarding Auto boxes. Come out of 'D' (Drive) and put it in a lower gear.
Auto boxes, whilst in 'D' it's all ways looking for the higher gear, therefore looking to go faster.
Hope this tip works for you.
Modern cars like 4th gear for 35+
Modern cars like 3rd gear for 30.
I've looked at the Owners manual for my Omega (it's a 1999 - 10 years old - recocmends 3rd gear for 30 - fuel efficiency.)
I'll try to refrain fom using a certain phrase, but condecending is one of the words! :-X
We have 4 in Bury. Two of them were certainly put up without the number of casualies/fatalities - either end of a dual carriageway at the same time as the 40 limit was reduced to 30 .... discuss!
Another camera was put up after just one fatality, the parents of the girl campaigned to get it errected ...... not trying to be cold hearted ( I would never ever want to be in their shoes0 but she was at paraletic & fault. The driver wasn't proscecuted as far as I remember.
The fourth is just before a waste of space bus lane which causes more problems than we ever had before the thing was put in, because the road isn't marked out with any kind of priority so the buses bully their way back in again!
-
I do alot of driving across the country here and I know of only three speed cameras. None of which actually work. ;D
And on most roads that are tolled over here, there is almost no chance of comming across a copper (I haven't come across any on a toll motorway) because they don't want to pay. ;D ;D
So you're all welcome to come over and drive as fast as you like ;D ;D
-
what gear you should be in to help you manage and control the car to keep to 30.
Dunno about you, but I find it more conducive to road safety to look at what's going on in front of me (which is forever changing by the way), rather than have to worry about whether I've momentarily hit 33mph which will earn me 3 points and a £60 fine....which arrives 2 weeks AFTER my so called example of dangerous driving.
As for cameras only being sited at accident blackspots, all I can say to that is 'dangle berries'.
A3 Tolworth.....nothing happens for years....cameras appear (and speed limit is artificially reduced at the same time)....god knows how many accidents since their arrival......yeah, that's road safety alright!
If you are really interested in road safety and saving lives, why don't you put a camera outside my son's school?
I'll tell you why, it's because you know full well you won't catch anybody because people slow down by default for that kind of scenario (and therefore, there is no money to be made).
-
There are several arguments to this but my favourite is that if you exceed the limit you deserve to be punished. This is completely separate to arguments such as why they are there, or that they are they to make money.
If you don't like them, don't exceed the limit and they won't cause you trouble.
They are depended upon highly because of the quantity of people speeding. This wouldn't be the case if people kept to the limit, or under.
I agree that cameras are used more to catch people than TOs but again, why would this affect you if you don't exceed the limit?
I would not have a problem at all if caught speeding, whether by a camera or otherwise as it's my own choice to exceed the limit and I should take the consequences.
I agree some cameras do make a lot of money but why is that? Well it's because so many drivers speed through them over the limit. The cameras don't force drivers to do that; it's their own choice and deserve what they get in return. If anyone has a problem with cameras making money then the drivers should reduce their speed accordingly.
If you would prefer to have all cameras replaced by officers, then if caught speeding by an officer would you then go back and set fire to that officer? Probably not. Why is it different then for an inanimate object? Your fine and points would still be the same whether caught by and officer or camera.
I can't understand your argument about cameras not catching drunk/drugged drivers, criminals at large, terrorists... etc. They are speed detection devices, not criminal detection devices.
It is quite easy to be drunk, drugged, at large, or a terrorist but not exceed the limit. Detecting these crimes requires human intervention and the officer's skill in detecting odd behaviour that a camera simply can not. Surely having cameras detecting speed free up officers to detect those criminals that cameras can not.
I'm quite sure you only hate the cameras because you are more likely to get caught and fined. Well that's your own fault for exceeding the limit.
I am a very carefull & considerate driver whom sticks to the limits 99% of the time. How ever, me being human off flesh & blood, i make mistakes. We all exceed the limit, be it on purpose or un-intentionally. The only time i ever exceed the limit intentionally is on the motorway. So long as the conditions are good then why not :-/
I prefer the old way of an officer & not some bloody machine, that i see as being there just for money. Cameras don't save lives, it's been proven year in year that they don't, but the authorities have their heads so far up their own backsides. All they see is money, lives do not matter any more. It's all about money.
A totally different subject & off topic, but the Irac war isn't about weapons of mass destruction, the freedom of the Irac people, it's about OIL. This is just a example.
We've saved £XXXXX's this year by not having more police officers & we've collected £XXXXXX's in fines.
Cameras also don't catch cocks that drive like idiots, yes you mister BMW driver that undertook three cars on the A38 last night, because you couldn't wait an extra few seconds. What he did was extremely dangerous.
-
Well some think I'm being condercending, some are asking 'am I for real'
That wasn't my intention. Devils advocate springs to my mind.
Reflection time for some of us.
Have we been caught by these cameras and feel p*&sed off.
Ask - why did I get caught.
Got a discussion going. Got some of us thinking.
It might not be you who kills or maims someone.
"Sorry I ran over your relative, sorry I didn't stop in time" "I was only doing 34, I knows it's a 30 but my car doesn't like doing 30".
or is it "I don't like doing 30"
Devils advocate. Job done.
-
Have we been caught by these cameras and feel p*&sed off.
Never been caught by a camera in my life, and I exceed the posted limit at least once a day without fail.
The reason cameras pi$$ me off is because they get sited where the powers that be know full well people will drive according to the conditions, rather than some bull$hit artificial limit.
See my post above about siting cameras outside schools...you know full well they don't get sited in those sort of locations because people always drive under the limit in that scenario which means you don't have a job.
-
Today on 5 mile stetch of dual carriageway, I saw a discreetly parked speed camera van. This was at the end of a long climbing bend. You cannot see this van until it is almost to late, it is only 1.4 miles into this 5 mile stretch.
Before you hit this stetch in the middle of nowhere you have had to queue through a frustrating ring road and this is the first point you can excede 25 mph at peak times, I am sure they don't park it here just to make money (this was at peak time) >:( >:(:-X :-X :-X :-X
-
I'm a big fan of the 20mph limit on housing estates & through town centres, so long as they're in the right places. I travel along some roads & i think what the kcuf where thet thinking what they decided this low limit & also why is this high, when it should be lowered. We can all think of a road like this.
Driver's tend to decide their own speed, we are not all idiots who can't think. Though we are all being treated as such.
Yet again, it's the minority that nak it for the majority.
-
I'm a big fan of the 20mph limit on housing estates & through town centres, so long as they're in the right places. I travel along some roads & i think what the kcuf where thet thinking what they decided this low limit & also why is this high, when it should be lowered. We can all think of a road like this.
Driver's tend to decide their own speed, we are not all idiots who can't think. Though we are all being treated as such.
Yet again, it's the minority that nak it for the majority.
Agreed :y
-
Love this - discussion time.
Probably got a warning sign before the school. Proactive
Most other warning signs and road markings are reactive.
More paint - more signs - more enforcement
Drivers are getting it wrong.
Does every bend, junction roundabout have a warning triangle before it. If it does, it's got crash/incident history.
Replies please :y
-
Love this - discussion time.
Probably got a warning sign before the school. Proactive
Most other warning signs and road markings are reactive.
More paint - more signs - more enforcement
Drivers are getting it wrong.
Does every bend, junction roundabout have a warning triangle before it. If it does, it's got crash/incident history.
Replies please :y
Today on 5 mile stetch of dual carriageway, I saw a discreetly parked speed camera van. This was at the end of a long climbing bend. You cannot see this van until it is almost to late, it is only 1.4 miles into this 5 mile stretch.
Before you hit this stetch in the middle of nowhere you have had to queue through a frustrating ring road
None of the above
-
Yet again, it's the minority that nak it for the majority.
And the minority are......unregistered sheds, and TWOC'd motors....where in both cases the driver won't give a toss because a camera will never bring them to book.
Replies please :y
I've replied 3 times now, I'm still waiting for you to address those replies.
-
Love this - discussion time.
Probably got a warning sign before the school. Proactive
Most other warning signs and road markings are reactive.
More paint - more signs - more enforcement
Drivers are getting it wrong.
Does every bend, junction roundabout have a warning triangle before it. If it does, it's got crash/incident history.
Replies please :y
No, you can have too much information which confuses people.
Like i said- let people make up their own minds. We're not sheep (though they think we are).
We are supposed to be the masters & the government is our servant. Some where this has been forgotten.
-
Sorry Kich the Mule. Refereing to an earlier reply about travelling velocity outside schools
-
Yep, the answer is minority, messing up for the vast majority of decent law abiding citizens.
Trying to keep up with the discussion points without speeding ;D ;D
-
......
Trying to keep up with the discussion points without speeding ;D ;D
Ha de oppsin' ha :-X
-
Well, stirred things up a bit.
Now knackered, going to switch off now.
If I have offended anyone, apologise for you.
Did say on my original post - emotive subject.
Thanks everyone for their interest. Good old moan and discussion :y
-
Another thing we've all done= what's the speed limit on this road, i missed the sign as i entered the limit, because i was destracted by a child, bicycle, horse, etc. You where destracted because there was far more important things to consider, keeping the child, horse rider alive. Then you're thinking " why's this guy right up my chuff, should i be going faster", but yes i should, it's a forty limit & they haven't put repeater signs up like they should.
I see we're being penalised for the authourities mistakes, they build a new road & then put up a camera (cameras are only being placed in accident black spots) so they build accident black spot into new roads, well who's fault is that :-? ::)
-
Sorry Kich the Mule. Refereing to an earlier reply about travelling velocity outside schools
How about a reply to my point about these vans, I have more examples :y
-
'dangle berries'
safety SCAMeras the lot of them :-X
-
the arguement that cameras are only placed in accident blackspots is pure fantasy, ie batheaston bypass,brand new road built across a greenfield site complete with SPEED camera(you cant measure safety)presumably the cows were moving to fast.
-
i will elaborate ;)
how can making people slowing down for fixed cameras do any good when you can speed back up again straight after???
i used to commute to Coventry every day and the A45 from the M42 in was a race track - hammering along, slow down, speed up etc.
no point if you know the camera is there. ::)
as for mobile vans they are completely a scam, there is one round the corner from my house on a nice wide road that should really be a 40 limit not 30 (soon to be bloody 20 i expect) and they try and hide the van just round the corner to catch people, how is that improving safety??
?
IT'S NOT IT'S JUST MAKING MONEY
>:(
-
'dangle berries'
safety SCAMeras the lot of them :-X
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :y :y
-
Yep, the answer is minority, messing up for the vast majority of decent law abiding citizens.
And as I said, the minority are unregistered sheds and TWOC'rs....both of which never get brought to book by a camera.
Trying to keep up with the discussion points without speeding ;D ;D
I've kept with the program 3 times so far, and you have conveniently avoided answering all the points I have raised.
Are you going to attempt to answer them, or are you just going to hope that nobody reads my thoughts and starts realising for themselves that you don't have an answer for any of them?
-
oh yeah ps
SPEED doesn't kill people - BAD DRIVINGdoes - police's own statistics prove this but that don't earn revenue ;)
-
oh yeah ps
SPEED doesn't kill people - BAD DRIVINGdoes - police's own statistics prove this but that don't earn revenue ;)
Enough said I think :y
-
even this bloke (by his actions) thinks its b@llshit
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241648025
-
even this bloke (by his actions) thinks its b@llshit
http://www.omegaowners.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241648025
Nice :y :y
-
I thought Jackanory finished years ago, am i reading this correctly. :o
Money making speed cameras nothing else. >:(
-
Hi Killer Watt,
No intention of conveniently avoiding an issue.
remind me what your points are, and I will do my best to come up with an answer. Maybe not what you want to hear though.
My intention of making this post was to get a discussion going. Devils advocate.
From the posts, it has certainly done that!!!!!!!!!!
What was on telly last night ;D
-
remind me what your points are, and I will do my best to come up with an answer.
Read back, they start on page 1
-
Head over the parapet time.
Facts - not fiction. I teach this every day. I'm one of the trainers on the National Speed Awareness Course. The following might help us understand why cameras have been sited. Still might not like them, but might be a bit more acceptable.
The Government have an on-going 10 year road safety programme. By the year 2010, their aim is a 40% reduction in road users (drivers, riders, pedestrians (you and me)) being killed or seriously injured. Refered as KSI. Also a 50% reduction in child KSI on our roads. (Children - 15 years and under).
Prior to the year 2000, revenue collected from speed cameras went to the Government. Where it went from there ??????????????
Since 2000, as part of the Government aim, Safety Camera Partnerships (SCP) were formed. Revenue from cameras still go to the Government, in actual fact, The Department of Constitional Affairs (DCA). The SCP then present a portfolio to the DCA and claim that revenue back to spend on reducing road casualties in that SCP operating area. If the SCP have got their act together, that money comes back. Some SCP's are very good at getting it back and spend it on the three E's. Education, Engineerng and the last option Enforcement. Education is the first option. Check out what your local authority is doing to reduce casualties by checking out their web sites. See if they are doing free driver training, or financially assisted /subsidied driver training (Paid for by the revenue collected from safety cameras)
Northants for example do free training for 16 year olds before they get their licence, free training for 17/18 to 24 year olds after they pass the very basic 'L' test and free motor cycle training (no age restriction). Available for Northants residents. Courses are 1 day events at Silverstone / Rockingham.
The siting of cameras have strict criteria, as follows:-
Fixed/Static:-
Within 500 metres of the camera site, within a 3 year period there have been 8 personal injury crashes/collisions of which involved at least 4 KSI's (Northants 3 KSI's - very proactive)
Mobile:-
Within 500 metres of the camera site, within a 3 year period there have been 4 personal injury crashes/collisions of which involved at least 2 KSI's (Northants 1 KSI - very proactive)
There are occasions when Mobile cameras attend a location, this is normally as a result of a request of the local community or as a result speed issue/abuse collected data (Northants mobile can spend up to 15% of their operating time at these requested or abuse/issue sites).
Now having said all that, very basically, we wait until something happens in this country until we do something. Yep, someone or a number of someone's have died or been maimed, before something is done. This country is reactive.
Last thought, every time you see a bunch of flowers, bouquet of flowers, collection of flowers at the side of the road, what do you think has happened there? :'( :(
Next time you see a safety camera, consider what has happened there, or very nearby for the reasons for that camera to be sited. :-[
Up for discussion??????
Appreciate that not all systems are perfect.
Hope the above helps you understand this emotive subject a bit more.
First highlight, the speed camera in Bishopstoke Road Eastleigh has only ever had 1 known fatality but they still put a camera there !!
Second highlight, I suspect someone has been fly tipping, let's be honest if I put my garden rubbish at the side of the road I would be considered a fly tipper. why are these flowers considered any different ?
Lastly I don't speed, because I refuse to fill gordon browns pockets anymore than I have to.
At first I fully supported speed cameras, but now I see them for what they realy are. They do not stop speeding anywhere else except where they are sited, bring back Police on the roads to appear anywhere anytime.
-
Speed cameras create a lot of small prangs, where first car breaks while second car checks their speed.
"Sorry I ran over your child I was too busy checking my speed"
Speed camera operative - I nearly hit one once - I had no choice.
Fast and very busy DC (A30), I was in inside lane towing, following a lorry, I was being overtaken by a stream of traffic. First rule of towing, do not overtake lorries while going down hill.
Talivan parked on the side of the road partly still on the road, it moved when I went past, as did my caravan - the gap was a couple of inches!
If the caravan had swayed the other way - possible dead camera operator due to stupid parking. If a lorry had hit it - definate game over.
They had parking places on the A30 - mind you the lorry nearly had it too!
-
I will never be convinced that all cameras are "safety cameras" as where I live they seem to placed where there has never been an accident, one is placed in the middle of a long section of country road the only safe place to overtake. they are cash cows without a doubt. As for those sneaky gits in the camera vans don't get me started! >:(
-
I will never be convinced that all cameras are "safety cameras" as where I live they seem to placed where there has never been an accident, one is placed in the middle of a long section of country road the only safe place to overtake. they are cash cows without a doubt. As for those sneaky gits in the camera vans don't get me started! >:(
and those who think otherwise are deluded or niave! :-X :-X
-
If the cameras were truly about road safety, then why the fook isn't there one outside my kids school?
I'll tell you why....it's because those that generally abide by the law (who do occasionally blip over) already drive at way below the 30 limit outside of schools because thats what the conditions dictate (ergo, no money to be made).
The non law abiding (TWOC'rs, unregistered, pi$$heads, etc) don't give a toss for cameras...because they know full well they won't get the NIP in the first place.
To the "pro" camera brigade....start putting them outside schools, hospitals, etc and I will quite happily believe that it is all about safety.......but while you put them (behind signs and bushes) on dual carriageways and then artificially lower the limit.....don't think for one minute I'm the sort of c*nt who will swallow your bull$hit.
-
If the cameras were truly about road safety, then why the fook isn't there one outside my kids school?
I'll tell you why....it's because those that generally abide by the law (who do occasionally blip over) already drive at way below the 30 limit outside of schools because thats what the conditions dictate (ergo, no money to be made).
The non law abiding (TWOC'rs, unregistered, pi$$heads, etc) don't give a toss for cameras...because they know full well they won't get the NIP in the first place.
To the "pro" camera brigade....start putting them outside schools, hospitals, etc and I will quite happily believe that it is all about safety.......but while you put them (behind signs and bushes) on dual carriageways and then artificially lower the limit.....don't think for one minute I'm the sort of c*nt who will swallow your bull$hit.
Easy Killer watch the BP. This is not about placing cameras for reasons of safety per se but more about the application of ill thought out legislation in the most cost effective way possible and dressing it up so a gullible populace thinks that it's being done for their own good ::)
I have driven at class 1 level so am well aquainted with making due progress but have to say that I keep to limits now. I'm too busy looking out for the idiots who are driving when chatting - either in person or on the cell 'phone, reading, looking at everything but the road, fiddling with music controls or worse, applying make up, scratching their arses or worse, or generally being in a place other than behind the wheel of a lethal weapon.
I have of course the perfect antidote to this frenzy - the Toyota Prius- try one, your tension will melt away and you will be imbued with a wonderful sense of wellbeing :)....honestly :y
-
I think it would require a serious amount of brainwashing to convince an inteeligent person the the scameras have a serious purpose with regard to road safety.It is an industry,simple as that.They are not placed only where deaths have occured,this is a myth.they are not placed where they can best prevent accidents,they are placed where they are most likely to generate most revenue.
The camera at the bottom of the M11 has generated more than any other camera in the country(well over a million quid) accidents at the site have risen since its installation and the relevant authourities are aware of this but refuse to discuss removing it.
There was a dreadful case a year or so ago when a motorcyclist slowed on the approach to a camera but the car driver behind didnt,he ploughed into the back of the motorcyclist and killed him.
-
I think it would require a serious amount of brainwashing to convince an inteligent person the the scameras have a serious purpose with regard to road safety.......
It seems like at least one has been brain washed then! :-/
-
Well stirred it all up. Some of the comments got a bit personal, don't mind being insulted - got broad shoulders.
The system isn't perfect.
If you are really interested in road safety and saving lives, why don't you put a camera outside my son's school?
I'll tell you why, it's because you know full well you won't catch anybody because people slow down by default for that kind of scenario (and therefore, there is no money to be made).
[/quote]
slow down by default so that don't hit someone or something.
This subject could go on and on and probably will..........
It's emotive........... Two sides or more to every discussion.
Once again, Thanks to everyone who has contributed and to everyone who has been following this thread
Did say in first post 'head over parapet'
Pro cameras bridgade, not either way bridgade or totally against cameras bridgade, hopefully it got us thinking
-
slow down by default so that don't hit someone or something.
They actually slow down by default because that is what the conditions permit, and anybody with at least one brain cell knows that.
The only people who won't slow down are the TWOC'rs, uninsured, unregistered, drunks, etc.......the very people who the camera won't catch anyway.
This subject could go on and on and probably will..........
Too right it will, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my earlier comments that started on page one...although I know full well you won't have an answer for them no matter how long you leave it.
hopefully it got us thinking
No need to think, I and plenty of others know that cameras are just a cash cow.
-
I only wonder who over50now really is, and why stir so much trouble if the intent is truely honourable ???????
-
I only wonder who over50now really is, and why stir so much trouble if the intent is truely honourable ???????
What are you suggesting............. :D :D :D
-
Nope, joined in january, so not who I was thinking of ::) ::)
-
what pi$$es me off is the frigging cretins who are going at 40mph in a 50 limit, get close to the camera then hit the brakes. >:( >:( >:(
-
what pi$$es me off is the frigging cretins who are going at 40mph in a 50 limit, get close to the camera then hit the brakes. >:( >:( >:(
They were probably quite sensible drivers before scameras appeared, and if they've been caught unawares then that is more than likely the reason they appear to be driving like a c*nt.
-
oh yeah ps
SPEED doesn't kill people - BAD DRIVINGdoes - police's own statistics prove this but that don't earn revenue ;)
If you want to be scientific (?) acceleration kills people not speed.
The 'speed kills' argument came out of a sound bite from decades ago, where a simple catchy slogan can have beneficial effects on people. It was never true, but by its use at the time, undoubtedly lives were saved.
Unfortunately we don't tend to think too carefully about what we say these days, we just look to provide an effect. So the falsehood is regurgitated over and over again.
If speed really killed we would not have any astronauts returning from space. ;D
-
If the message is going to be anything, it should be "The inappropiate use of speed MAY kill"
Alas that message wouldn't have the "demonising" effect that the current trash does.
-
I always thought that the rexpression 'Speed Kills' came from the misuse of Amphetamines :-?
-
I always thought that the rexpression 'Speed Kills' came from the misuse of Amphetamines :-?
Only if they've been cut with too much strychnine ;D
-
Hi Killer Watt,
Looked at your issues from page 1. I think that throughout the tread, that everything has been answered.
Other OOFers, It was an honourable attempt to get a discussion going, after all, this part of OOF is 'General Chat'
Several opinions have been voiced, which we are all entitled to. Sometimes a good old discussion is good but I don't think I'll contribute again tho, bit sad about that
-
I do alot of driving across the country here and I know of only three speed cameras. None of which actually work. ;D
And on most roads that are tolled over here, there is almost no chance of comming across a copper (I haven't come across any on a toll motorway) because they don't want to pay. ;D ;D
So you're all welcome to come over and drive as fast as you like ;D ;D
Funnily enough, that's exactly what I'm doing. ::)
Kevin
-
Oh, I brought a couple of friends along...
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/kjwood/Car%20Pictures/DSCF3022Small.jpg)
Kevin
-
oh yeah ps
SPEED doesn't kill people - BAD DRIVINGdoes - police's own statistics prove this but that don't earn revenue ;)
If you want to be scientific (?) acceleration kills people not speed.
The 'speed kills' argument came out of a sound bite from decades ago, where a simple catchy slogan can have beneficial effects on people. It was never true, but by its use at the time, undoubtedly lives were saved.
Unfortunately we don't tend to think too carefully about what we say these days, we just look to provide an effect. So the falsehood is regurgitated over and over again.
If speed really killed we would not have any astronauts returning from space. ;D
if you want to be really scientific : deceleration kills (ie when you hit a tree) ;)
-
..... : deceleration kills (ie when you hit a tree) ;)
abit like when you fall ........ it's not the fall that hurts, it's the sudden stop at the bottom!!! ;D ;D ;D :y
-
Hi Killer Watt,
Looked at your issues from page 1. I think that throughout the tread, that everything has been answered.
With all due respect, you haven't answered jack s**t.
Sticking to an arbitary number does NOT make for a safe driver....driving according to the conditions however does contribute towards road safety.
If I told you that in a 5 mile journey I took my eyes off the road for a second 3 times in that journey to look at a bit of pussy, you'd be thinking I was some sort of c**t (and rightfully so).
If however I told you that I took my eyes off the road for a second (because thats how long it takes) to ensure I was doing 30mph bang on the money for that same journey, do you really believe that makes me so much safer?
-
Oh, I brought a couple of friends along...
(http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/kjwood/Car%20Pictures/DSCF3022Small.jpg)
Kevin
Looks familiar Kevin,my dad worked there for 25 years and I grew up about 2 miles up the road. :)
-
I do alot of driving across the country here and I know of only three speed cameras. None of which actually work. ;D
And on most roads that are tolled over here, there is almost no chance of comming across a copper (I haven't come across any on a toll motorway) because they don't want to pay. ;D ;D
So you're all welcome to come over and drive as fast as you like ;D ;D
Funnily enough, that's exactly what I'm doing. ::)
Kevin
Need to be careful in Norn Irn though,specs cameras springing up all over the place. :y
-
Hi Killer Watt,
Looked at your issues from page 1. I think that throughout the tread, that everything has been answered.
With all due respect, you haven't answered jack s**t.
Sticking to an arbitary number does NOT make for a safe driver....driving according to the conditions however does contribute towards road safety.
If I told you that in a 5 mile journey I took my eyes off the road for a second 3 times in that journey to look at a bit of pussy, you'd be thinking I was some sort of c**t (and rightfully so).
If however I told you that I took my eyes off the road for a second (because thats how long it takes) to ensure I was doing 30mph bang on the money for that same journey, do you really believe that makes me so much safer?
Just a quick question - why would you have to check your speedo to ensure you were doing exactly 30?
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. if you insist on driving at exactly the limit, then you - and you alone - are creating a situation where the chance of you veering over that limit are far greater than if you were driving slower.
I'm sure that if you were driving slower then an increase in speed would be more apparent.
I'd have to leap in and say, also, that this is a legal matter. The camera is there to enforce an existing law - the speed limit on the road - therefore, surely, the limit is the issue here, not the device used to enforce it, whether a police officer or a static camera.
To add a point about your earlier question about siting cameras outside schools - surely you've answered it yourself. If people are already slowing by default outside a school, why would a camera be required to enforce that limit? Can you tell me how many schools in the country actually DO have cameras outside them?
Devils' advocate - as over50now was. ;) I absolutely respect your right to your opinion!
-
.......
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. .......
According to my daughter's BSM driving instructor , you're expected to drive to the limit set ...... whenever possible.
-
.......
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. .......
According to my daughter's BSM driving instructor , you're expected to drive to the limit set ...... whenever possible.
Correct :y
To keep good progress or whatever they call it
-
.......
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. .......
According to my daughter's BSM driving instructor , you're expected to drive to the limit set ...... whenever possible.
Correct :y
To keep good progress or whatever they call it
Maintaining progress! That's it! :y :y :y
-
.......
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. .......
According to my daughter's BSM driving instructor , you're expected to drive to the limit set ...... whenever possible.
Sorry - is that really the case? That you are expected to drive exactly at the limit?
I don't deny that the BSM driving instructor said that - but that sort of advice is ridculous and dangerous, especially when taught to learners. How on earth would they be qualified to judge when it is safe to drive to the limit set? And surely TO the limit set can mean at any reasonable speed up to the limit set?
-
.......
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. .......
According to my daughter's BSM driving instructor , you're expected to drive to the limit set ...... whenever possible.
Correct :y
To keep good progress or whatever they call it
Maintaining progress! That's it! :y :y :y
Granted - yes - that you are expected to maintain progress, but that doesn't, under any reasonable examination, mean that you should do exactly 30 in a 30 zone. You could do 25, still maintain good progress, and be a safe driver.
I really don't get this problem that people have with sticking to a legal speed limit. I freely admit that I don't all the time, but if I get caught breaking the limit by either a copper or a speed camera, then I suck it up as a fair cop and pay the fine and take the points. It's nobodies fault but my own.
Incidentally, the last time I got caught speeding was 18 months ago, by a cop with a camera, doing 35 in a 30 zone. it was a fair cop.
-
....... Cut Short .......
To add a point about your earlier question about siting cameras outside schools - surely you've answered it yourself. If people are already slowing by default outside a school, why would a camera be required to enforce that limit? Can you tell me how many schools in the country actually DO have cameras outside them?
Devils' advocate - as over50now was. ;) I absolutely respect your right to your opinion!
We've got one just down the road... It's on the A12 in a stretch of Dual Carriageway which has a 40 Limit... The mobile van is there very frequently, and rightly so IMHO as people come through there at approaching double the limit sometimes >:( >:( >:(
-
We've got one just down the road... It's on the A12 in a stretch of Dual Carriageway which has a 40 Limit... The mobile van is there very frequently, and rightly so IMHO as people come through there at approaching double the limit sometimes >:( >:( >:(
That's exactly why speed cameras and mobile vans exist. To enforce the law on people who believe that they can do exactly as they please, wherever they wish, with no thought to the consequences. If a camera saves even one life because someone re-considers their speed for even a moment, then regardless of how much money that camera has made, it's worthwhile.
-
We've got one just down the road... It's on the A12 in a stretch of Dual Carriageway which has a 40 Limit... The mobile van is there very frequently, and rightly so IMHO as people come through there at approaching double the limit sometimes >:( >:( >:(
That's exactly why speed cameras and mobile vans exist. To enforce the law on people who believe that they can do exactly as they please, wherever they wish, with no thought to the consequences. If a camera saves even one life because someone re-considers their speed for even a moment, then regardless of how much money that camera has made, it's worthwhile.
I agree completely... :y :y :y
-
Just a quick question - why would you have to check your speedo to ensure you were doing exactly 30?
Because these days, a 3mph over drift (which can happen all too easily) can mean a £60 fine and 3 points.
In days gone by, a police officer was more than capable of deciding whether your driving manner presented a danger to others regardless of where the needle was pointing, and you would be stopped THERE & THEN and have the error of your ways pointed out to you if you were deemed a hazard.
These days, an automaton decides automatically that you are a danger (whether you are or not) based simply on a number, and sends a fine out 2 weeks AFTER the event (shut the stable door after the horse has bolted anyone?)
In the meantime, the people who present a REAL danger to others (pissheads, uninsured, unregistered, TWOC'rs, etc) will NEVER be caught by the camera.
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. if you insist on driving at exactly the limit, then you - and you alone - are creating a situation where the chance of you veering over that limit are far greater than if you were driving slower.
I have a tendancy to drive according to the conditions I am presented with, while also attempting to make progress as safely as possible and not cause obstruction to others.
There are more than enough distractions out there already, without having to worry about whether there is a camera around the corner that will issue an NIP because I drifted over the limit slightly on a downhill slope.
I'd have to leap in and say, also, that this is a legal matter. The camera is there to enforce an existing law - the speed limit on the road - therefore, surely, the limit is the issue here, not the device used to enforce it, whether a police officer or a static camera.
See above.
Real live police officers make decisions on what they see, not an arbitary figure.
-
Of course the cameras only get you for exceeding the given limit. Camera or no camera, if you have exceeded the limit you have broken the law. What we are really debating/questioning are 2 things-1)are the cameras really there for the sole purpose of road safety ?(highly doubtful as speed-the only factor they detect-is only part of this equation ) and 2) are the limits set on certain stretches of road actually reasonable? With 9 points I'm very mindful of my speed now ::), but on more than one occasion in the past when being stopped by an officer for speeding , the first words out of the officer's mouth have been "I cannot say you were driving dangerously but you were driving over the limit.."Says a lot that doesnt it? As said here many a time, safe driving involves 3 key factors-enviroment( road conditions/ visibility/ volume of traffic/ nature of hazards etc), ability of the driver and abilities of the vehicle concerned. The law-as ever-has to make a general rule suitable for the mean factors.
-
Of course the cameras only get you for exceeding the given limit. Camera or no camera, if you have exceeded the limit you have broken the law. What we are really debating/questioning are 2 things-1)are the cameras really there for the sole purpose of road safety ?(highly doubtful as speed-the only factor they detect-is only part of this equation ) and 2) are the limits set on certain stretches of road actually reasonable? With 9 points I'm very mindful of my speed now ::), but on more than one occasion in the past when being stopped by an officer for speeding , the first words out of the officer's mouth have been "I cannot say you were driving dangerously but you were driving over the limit.."Says a lot that doesnt it? As said here many a time, safe driving involves 3 key factors-enviroment( road conditions/ visibility/ volume of traffic/ nature of hazards etc), ability of the driver and abilities of the vehicle concerned. The law-as ever-has to make a general rule suitable for the mean factors.
That's at least 5................. :D :D :D
-
sorry, got carried away.... ;D
-
Of course the cameras only get you for exceeding the given limit. Camera or no camera, if you have exceeded the limit you have broken the law. What we are really debating/questioning are 2 things-1)are the cameras really there for the sole purpose of road safety ?(highly doubtful as speed-the only factor they detect-is only part of this equation ) and 2) are the limits set on certain stretches of road actually reasonable? With 9 points I'm very mindful of my speed now ::), but on more than one occasion in the past when being stopped by an officer for speeding , the first words out of the officer's mouth have been "I cannot say you were driving dangerously but you were driving over the limit.."Says a lot that doesnt it? As said here many a time, safe driving involves 3 key factors-enviroment( road conditions/ visibility/ volume of traffic/ nature of hazards etc), ability of the driver and abilities of the vehicle concerned. The law-as ever-has to make a general rule suitable for the mean factors.
Completely agree Jerry,and in my experience most experienced police officers recognise the generality of the law and will use their own judgement as to wether they consider prosecution the most appropriate response,taking all factors and conditions into account,which cameras dont.
That said I wouldnt have a problem with 20mph limits outside schools,say from 8am until 5pm and wouldnt mind them being enforced by cameras,but if they did put a camera outside every school I would bet my last quid that they would be in operation 24/7 365 days of the year because I remain completely convinced that they are primarily there to bring in cash,which is probably why the chief executive of the company which operates the cameras was caught at 102 mph recently,he is a businessman not a road safety zealot.
-
Sorry for the length of this reply - I thought I'd do you the justice of explaining my thoughts on these points.
Just a quick question - why would you have to check your speedo to ensure you were doing exactly 30?
Because these days, a 3mph over drift (which can happen all too easily) can mean a £60 fine and 3 points.
In days gone by, a police officer was more than capable of deciding whether your driving manner presented a danger to others regardless of where the needle was pointing, and you would be stopped THERE & THEN and have the error of your ways pointed out to you if you were deemed a hazard.
These days, an automaton decides automatically that you are a danger (whether you are or not) based simply on a number, and sends a fine out 2 weeks AFTER the event (shut the stable door after the horse has bolted anyone?)
In the meantime, the people who present a REAL danger to others (pissheads, uninsured, unregistered, TWOC'rs, etc) will NEVER be caught by the camera.
Er... I think you've missed my point. The limit is a limit - i.e. a maximum speed at which you can travel in a particular area. Your 3 mile overdrift (which as you have said, can happen too easily), would be an 8 mph overdrift if you were doing 25. If you can't correct that level of 'overdrift' then you really aren't paying attention.
The automaton is not deciding automatically that you are a danger, it is deciding automatically that you are breaking the law. Regardless of your ability to drive safely or otherwise, you are breaking the law. It really is that simple!
You are being fined in order to punish you for breaking the law. The fact that the possibility of a fine and three points exists for brekaing the law and being caught by a camera is supposed to act as a deterrent. In that regard, it's not shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, as it's giving you a chance to retain your licence and learn from your error.
The real dangers (pissheads, etc), as you put it, are more likely to be caught as there are now more officers available to catch them by moving around and stopping drivers in many different locations, rather than being forced to remain in one place. That role is accomplished by the camera.
Why not do 25? or 20? The speed limit is precisely that - a LIMIT. if you insist on driving at exactly the limit, then you - and you alone - are creating a situation where the chance of you veering over that limit are far greater than if you were driving slower.
I have a tendancy to drive according to the conditions I am presented with, while also attempting to make progress as safely as possible and not cause obstruction to others.
There are more than enough distractions out there already, without having to worry about whether there is a camera around the corner that will issue an NIP because I drifted over the limit slightly on a downhill slope.[/quote]
My point raised in the earlier message still stands. You have a tendancy to drive according to the conditions presented, granted. I have no doubt that you are a safe and observant driver, and skilled in this regard - I would posit that most of us on this forum are, as we are fans of omegas (any many other cars!).
Remember that as well as your attempts to make progress as safely as possible and not cause obstruction to others, you have an absolute obligation to obey the law. That takes precedence over all other obligations. If you are a safe and observant driver, you will note the conditions around you (including the speed limit), and adjust your speed - constantly - accordingly. Including your absolute obligation to obey the law.
Also, the point about a 'camera being around the corner' just doesn't ring true. I recall an argument on top gear about this years ago - the cameras are signposted with warning signs, painted bright orange, and their locations are listed on the internet for all to discover. They are hardly hidden! I've never once been surprised by a speed camera when I've been paying attention to my driving - it's only when I haven't been paying attention that the camera has caught me by surprise, and in that instance, i'd rather it was a camera than a child running out into the road.
I'd have to leap in and say, also, that this is a legal matter. The camera is there to enforce an existing law - the speed limit on the road - therefore, surely, the limit is the issue here, not the device used to enforce it, whether a police officer or a static camera.
See above.
Real live police officers make decisions on what they see, not an arbitary figure.[/quote]
And please see my points above. I believe this has been covered already. The speed limit is a legal limit. If an officer chooses to let you off or just caution you, it doesn't mean that you haven't broken the law - merely that he / she has chosen not to book you for it. On another day, in exactly the same conditions, another officer may choose to enact the law.
The speed limit is not an arbitrary number, made up by anybody who chooses it - it is a legal requirement that is clearly signposted and based on road conditions and areas that have been explained in the highway code for many many years. You are expected to know the limit and respect it, especially when in control of a vehicle that has the ability to kill or seriously injure people when you believe that your ability to drive safely justifies you breaking the speed limit - whether it's drifting over the limit on a downhill stretch or otherwise.
I think i've said enough on this point - for now, anyway! :y
-
Dont think anyone is denying that speeding is breaking the law, we're just questioning how "reasonable" the limits are-and I am sure that most of us would be just as happy to lower limits on certain roads as we would to raise them on others...
-
exceeding the posted limit is in breach of the law,no argument there.
Wether this constitutes a danger to anyone is a completely different matter. ;)
-
Thats exactly the point Albitz :y
Mind you, this could just run and run couldnt it mate -oh it has! ;D ;D
-
It's late, I'm tired, and going to bed. :)
I absolutely agree that the limit is the problem here, not the camera used to enforce it. I would be entirely happy with all built up areas (esp. around schools) being 20mph, and the motorway limits being raised to 80 / 90 mph between, say, 11pm and 5am, for example.
However a lot of the posts refer to cameras purely as money making machines, which I think is unjustified. They only make money from someone who isn't paying attention. If you are, then you aren't at risk of paying out!
Now - bed. ;)
-
Goodnight mate-think youre right, its that time now :y
-
It's late, I'm tired, and going to bed. :)
I absolutely agree that the limit is the problem here, not the camera used to enforce it. I would be entirely happy with all built up areas (esp. around schools) being 20mph, and the motorway limits being raised to 80 / 90 mph between, say, 11pm and 5am, for example.
However a lot of the posts refer to cameras purely as money making machines, which I think is unjustified. They only make money from someone who isn't paying attention. If you are, then you aren't at risk of paying out!
Now - bed. ;)
I agree with you up to a point,but there is still the problem of someone who is paying attention and slows on the approach to a camera but the person behind not paying attention and piling into the back of them,like the motorcyclist I mentioned in an earlier post,who was killed in exactly this scenario.
-
It's late, I'm tired, and going to bed. :)
I absolutely agree that the limit is the problem here, not the camera used to enforce it. I would be entirely happy with all built up areas (esp. around schools) being 20mph, and the motorway limits being raised to 80 / 90 mph between, say, 11pm and 5am, for example.
However a lot of the posts refer to cameras purely as money making machines, which I think is unjustified. They only make money from someone who isn't paying attention. If you are, then you aren't at risk of paying out!
Now - bed. ;)
I agree with you up to a point,but there is still the problem of someone who is paying attention and slows on the approach to a camera but the person behind not paying attention and piling into the back of them,like the motorcyclist I mentioned in an earlier post,who was killed in exactly this scenario.
A good number of years ago on a motorway up in the Highlands ... can't remember now which it was ...... we were all 'making progress' All of a sudden the 1st car braked hard, so we all obvious slammed on brakes too. First driver had slowed because of ta speed camers fastend to the back of the road sign!! >:( >:(
I doubt that was a revenue earner either ....... :-? :-X
-
"If you take the course can you get a 2nd ticket can you apply for yopur money back under the defective sale of goods that it did not work ? "
C&P'd from the linked forum, thought this comment was gr8 ;D
-
I agree with you up to a point,but there is still the problem of someone who is paying attention and slows on the approach to a camera but the person behind not paying attention and piling into the back of them,like the motorcyclist I mentioned in an earlier post,who was killed in exactly this scenario.
Point taken. This is a needless waste of life, and in this instance that waste of life was caused by two things:
1) lack of attention by the person behnd, who didn't slow
2) the speed camera
however - I go back to my earlier point. The speed camera was placed to enforce the speed limit in place on the road. The motorcyclist had to slow to get to the speed limit and ensure that he wasn't flashed by the camera, the driver behind wasn't paying attention and therefore killed the motorcyclist. This could have been easily caused by any other road obstacle - imagine if the motorcyclist had to slow abruptly for a rock in the road or some other blockage - the result would, unfortunately, have been the same.
I'm not saying that the motorcyclist was speeding - he could well have been entering a village where the limit dropped from, say 60 to 30, in which case he would have slowed anyway.
The mitigating factor here is the driver behind, not the presence of a camera or otherwise.
-
A good number of years ago on a motorway up in the Highlands ... can't remember now which it was ...... we were all 'making progress' All of a sudden the 1st car braked hard, so we all obvious slammed on brakes too. First driver had slowed because of ta speed camers fastend to the back of the road sign!! >:( >:(
I doubt that was a revenue earner either ....... :-? :-X
Granted, that probably was a revenue earner. There were bad times before new speed camera legislation was introduced to avoid that very practice. You mention that it was a 'good number of years ago', and that is the point - how many speed cameras have you not seen since? I have never once been caught out by a speed camera, speeding or otherwise, when I have been paying attention to the road.
Anyway, I'm in danger of constantly repeating myself, so I'll avoid further posts on thsi subject unless the conversation requires it. I think I've made my point clear by now! :y
-
The 'government' do not build speed cameras to make money.
They get more money from Simon Cowell's income tax, than they do from speeding offences.
Councils build them, as they do get cash from them.
-
Think I've been lasered today was travelling behind Reginald Molehusband in a 40 doing 27, I overtook him on a very straight road, as I was at the side of him silly old sod decided to accelerate upto 40 ish, so, had to get past, or, brake and slot back in, as far as I could see, I was past the point of no return :-/
Gassed it up and got by, about 45 on the clock, eyeball to eyeball with a laser van :o decelerated down, not sure if I was quick enough though.
Oh! well... should I plead that I'm going to be an MP and it'll all go away....
Comments greatly appreciated :-/
-
From what you describe it sounds like Reginald should be charged with driving without due care at the very least,and you did the intelligent thing in the circumstances,BUT cameras and hand held devices used by people who want to got some notches on their belt so to speak dont take account of circumstances like this in the way that an experienced cop would,what you describe demonstrates perfectly to me why these things are not connected to road safety but controlling easy targets and taking their money from them. >:( >:(
If you recieve a NIP,I think you should consider challenging it with the help of a solicitor. :y
-
Point taken. This is a needless waste of life, and in this instance that waste of life was caused by two things:
1) lack of attention by the person behnd, who didn't slow
2) the speed camera
We are all guilty of momentary lapses in concentration, but the simple facts are thus....
No camera = motorcycle would not have braked for no apparent reason = car behind would not have piled in to it.
however - I go back to my earlier point. The speed camera was placed to enforce the speed limit in place on the road.
Rubbish.
We are constantly having it hammered down our throats that cameras are there for our safety....that particular camera was placed on a stretch of motorway where it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference whether someone was driving at 70mph or 77mph (other than to their wallet and license).
Even traffic cops themselves openly admit they won't bother with you unless you are in excess of 80mph on a motorway (conditions permitting), so why some continue to believe that a camera knows better than a trained human being is beyond me.
One thing I do know for sure....fook living in the same world as the individual that believes a camera will solve a problem.
This could have been easily caused by any other road obstacle - imagine if the motorcyclist had to slow abruptly for a rock in the road or some other blockage - the result would, unfortunately, have been the same.
I have ridden at competition level since the age of 9, and legally since the age of 16 on a public highway....attaining a full motorcycle license 10 days after turning 17 and jumping straight on to a GSX750.
If I (or anybody I know) had encountered an obstacle on the road at motorway speeds, we sure as $hit wouldn't be putting the anchors on.....trust me on that one.
I'm not saying that the motorcyclist was speeding - he could well have been entering a village where the limit dropped from, say 60 to 30, in which case he would have slowed anyway.
He wasn't entering anything, he was on a bloody motorway!
-
Think I've been lasered today was travelling behind Reginald Molehusband in a 40 doing 27, I overtook him on a very straight road, as I was at the side of him silly old sod decided to accelerate upto 40 ish, so, had to get past, or, brake and slot back in, as far as I could see, I was past the point of no return :-/
Gassed it up and got by, about 45 on the clock, eyeball to eyeball with a laser van :o decelerated down, not sure if I was quick enough though.
Oh! well... should I plead that I'm going to be an MP and it'll all go away....
Comments greatly appreciated :-/
Nothing in the post YET! :-/
-
Think I've been lasered today was travelling behind Reginald Molehusband in a 40 doing 27, I overtook him on a very straight road, as I was at the side of him silly old sod decided to accelerate upto 40 ish, so, had to get past, or, brake and slot back in, as far as I could see, I was past the point of no return :-/
Gassed it up and got by, about 45 on the clock, eyeball to eyeball with a laser van :o decelerated down, not sure if I was quick enough though.
Oh! well... should I plead that I'm going to be an MP and it'll all go away....
Comments greatly appreciated :-/
Nothing in the post YET! :-/
Think you'll just have to wait and see whether anything comes through the post, anyway you could've always stopped and asked the bloke in the van :y
-
Think I've been lasered today was travelling behind Reginald Molehusband in a 40 doing 27, I overtook him on a very straight road, as I was at the side of him silly old sod decided to accelerate upto 40 ish, so, had to get past, or, brake and slot back in, as far as I could see, I was past the point of no return :-/
Gassed it up and got by, about 45 on the clock, eyeball to eyeball with a laser van :o decelerated down, not sure if I was quick enough though.
Oh! well... should I plead that I'm going to be an MP and it'll all go away....
Comments greatly appreciated :-/
Nothing in the post YET! :-/
14 days is the limit, after that they are f**ked for getting you in to court.
There are one or two exceptions where the law allows for longer time, but if the car is registered in your name and your address is correct, then 14 days is the limit (plus a day or two for posting).
-
On my daily route to and from work, in a couple of villages there are several speed warning signs that flash if you you are breaking the limit. These appear to be just as effective as speed camera's but without the pain of points and a fine, as the traffic does seem to slow down to the limit when they flash.
To be honest, I don't know why more local authorities don't install more of these instead of the far more expensive cameras. But then that's far too simple and they wouldn't get any revenue! ::)
-
Think I've been lasered today was travelling behind Reginald Molehusband in a 40 doing 27, I overtook him on a very straight road, as I was at the side of him silly old sod decided to accelerate upto 40 ish, so, had to get past, or, brake and slot back in, as far as I could see, I was past the point of no return :-/
Gassed it up and got by, about 45 on the clock, eyeball to eyeball with a laser van :o decelerated down, not sure if I was quick enough though.
Oh! well... should I plead that I'm going to be an MP and it'll all go away....
Comments greatly appreciated :-/
Nothing in the post YET! :-/
Nothing yet! Proves the brakes work on my Transit Connect ;D ;D ;D ;D