Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jjleonard]

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.

[Lazydocker]

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...  

[KillerWatt]

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.

[jerry]

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.

[Vamps]

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.................

[jerry]

sorry, got carried away....

[albitz]

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.

[jjleonard]

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!  

[jerry]

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...

[albitz]

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.

[jerry]

Thats exactly the point Albitz

Mind you, this could just run and run couldnt it mate -oh it has!

[jjleonard]

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.  

[jerry]

Goodnight mate-think youre right, its that time now

[albitz]

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.

[Andy B]

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 .......  :-?