35MPH in a 30MPH zone

DrScotsman

KillerWatt wrote: »

If Roddy's statement about his friend is true (and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of it), then that means people are even more likely to have their eyes glued to the speedo instead of the constantly changing scenario in front of them.

Funny, you seem to have changed the distraction from your last post.

Like most here I don't intentionally flout the law

You just said people keep their eyes on the speed cameras and vans instead of the road. Driving without due care and attention, intentionally.

but it is also a fact that every day of the week I exceed a posted speed limit by a few mph.
Also like most drivers out there, the minute I see a scamera/talivan my first reaction is to look at the speedo. The very act of taking your eyes away from the road, refocusing on the dash, then looking back up and refocusing again takes almost 1 second if the boffins are to be believed (again, that sounds quite reasonable).

For a start, I've only found that 1 second quote from one single very anti-camera website. Got any more sources?

Secondly, how is it any less safe than mirrors? Blind spot?

Finally, are you telling me that your driving instructor never taught you to periodically check your speed, regardless of whether there are cameras or not? Both of my instructors taught me that. Like mirrors, it is a necessary thing to do to ensure you are going at the right speed. Don't get me wrong, 31mph isn't the end of the world as we know it, but you and I both know that many people who think they're in tune with their speed end up going far from a tiny bit above the limit. (How many times have I seen on these forums people being annoyed with those who do 35mph in both 30, 40 and even sometimes 50 limits...)

In a 60mph zone (the A31 seems to be a fave place for the scammers to hang out) that means I have just travelled a distance of 88 feet while my attention was diverted elsewhere.

I see you're trying to use big numbers to emphasise your argument but it doesn't work like that. Providing you're keeping a safe distance from the car in front (e.g. 2 second rule), you are probably a lot safer being distracted on a really straight 60 road than a 30 one in the centre of a town.

(the M11 camera is proof of that, people have been dying since that went up - yet there wasn't a single incident before it was erected).

Correlation =/= causation. I don't know when this camera went up but it sounds like you're talking about a few years. People's driving may be getting worse, there's probably more people on the M11...there are many reasons why accidents may go up while the camera is helping. It's one thing if you don't believe they help road safety, but you've hardly given anything you can call "proof".

alastairq

I have no problem with speed cameras and patrol cars, but you are very naive if you think that speed cameras are placed in areas where exceeding the limit increases the risk of an accident.

Naivety has nothing to do with it.

Higher risks can occur in the most unlikely places.....as an example, on a clear, straight stretch of road...driver thinks its ok to go faster...therefore risks increase...and accidents unaccountably [in lay terms] occur on the most wide open stretches of road.


As I said......cameras are there to enforce..

If the number of drivers observed exceeding the limit subsequently falls, then the camera is doing its job.

They are cash generators.

If one considers the camera to be a cash-cow..then so be it..so what if it is? A speed camera only becomes a cash-cow if the motorist lets it..ie exceeds the limit. This is entirely optional.....

personally, I chose not to contribute financially...so I don't exceed posted limits....I don't 'need' to,since I focus upon other driver skills to enable my average journey times to be maintained.

The people responsible for speed camera postions speed themselves,
The police speed, the judges, barristers, and all those involved with the legal process bringing speeders to court speed.

The point being?

Or are we delving into the realms of 'do as I say, not as I do?'

Of course what you say occurs...and if they get caught,they pay the price accordingly.

The occupants of a marked police vehicle are in a much better position to decide whether someone's driving is dangerous or not, whereas a camera will quite happily let a drunk drive home at 25mph.

not quite in the context I posted, however......cameras can, an do, exercise ''discretion''.....for example, they can be set to follow the ACPO guidelines....or not, as the operators chose.

The camera simply provides evidence of the offence.........whether a NIP is subsequently issued will depend on human intervention... the camera operator, for example, views all offences before issuing a NIP. [This was how it was discovered that drivers of vans whose weight, loaded, exceeded two tonnes, were ignoring their speed limits.....ie they're not subject to the same limits as cars, for example....and as a result of successful prosecutions [and drivers trying to plead that ignorance should be acceptable].....the Highway Code was amended to include non-car-derived- van limits as well. Also, the definition of what was a CDV was altered to be clearer.]

What the speed camera also does, is allow those officers parked up as quoted above, to focus on potential drink-drivers, and those failing to exercise due care......as I said, the camera allows the Police to do other work.

The only issue I have with the above, is, there aren't enough Traffic Police out there, compared to the number of road users.....I am in favour of the creation of a government-financed separate Traffic Police force....maybe an extension of the BTP or HATO system.

Then maybe, with an increased likelihood of being 'caught', drivers will learn to comply with the law?


The Daily Mail quote re-inforces my assertion that 'safety' is a banded excuse to denigrate. It's use is too shallow.

alastairq

Speed limits are in place for one reason only in my view.

It is because if we were left to our collective selves to decide what speed is safe under varied conditions on all types of roads, we, as a group could not do it. Whether out of an inability to judge safe limits or unsuitable conditions such as traffic density, weather etc, I'm not sure but it can't work.

What I disagree with is the imposition of blanket speed limits on roads that can safely traversed at 50% above that limit by any adequate motorist. And the 20 miles of main A road that is subject to a 50 limit because there is one accident blackspot in those 20 miles, address the issue?, change the junction?, stick in a mini round about? No just 1/2 the speed limit.


Variable speed limits are the only way to go in my view otherwise we will forover have these blanket impositions

Your impressions as to the reasons for the existence of speed limits, and their value, is a commonly-held one.....but,IMHO, is misguided.


Speed limits are not targets.

They are simply what it says on the tin...a maximum limit, permissible by law.

They are not intended to bear any reflection upon what is a safe speed to be proceeding at.

That safe speed will depend on a huge number of varying factors....and itself will vary, metre by metre. This you acknowledge.

Yes, you are right, too many road users are unable to judge what may be the best speed for a situation..and this will vary from driver to driver, rider to rider.

{advisory speeds are frequently used, and are of more use as a guideline for the less experienced driver/rider.}

For sure, changing the driving environment may assist in reducing accidents in specific areas......but this only goes to re-enforce the lack of skills required of individual drivers....and provides no guarantees.

The way to reduce the risk of accidents is to educate road users.

Whether this is achieved using carrots or sticks really doesn't matter to me.

When viewing the purpose behind a speed limit, it is well to remember that, as a casual observer, one simply travels a particular stretch of road fora brief moment in time. The situation that exists seconds in front, or behind..or, even hours or days away, may well be vastly different.

Speed limits are only altered after extensive gathering of evidence.......from all affected sources.

Variable speed limits have been suggested..and are in use on major highways....but, to be honest, they involve huge expense, and are, for regular users, very confusing.

This country has a very simple system of speed limits...and very generous one's too. Keeping things simple allows better compliance.

Happychappy

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Why were the official guidelines (10% +2mph) ignored in your case?


Not doubting, just genuinely curious.

Because saying in the pub, "I was done at 45 in a 30" doesn't have the same ring to it.....normally followed by "should be out catching burglars" happy days

Paradigm

I don't have a problem with cameras in general. I would think most motorists recognise the need for speed limits & the need to effectively police them.

IMO the publics perception of many speed cameras (particularly mobile) is one of money making & not "effective policing" due to them being sited in areas with little or no history of accidents, hidden behind road signs & the council suddenly dropping the limit on a perfectly safe road for no real reason then sticking a camera there!!

In my area it was common to have mobile scamera vans painted with flourescent blue & yellow markings parked in clear view, they even used to put signs some 1/2 mile before the van informing you they were operating. A one eyed mole in sunglasses couldn't miss them!

The result was everyone stuck to the limit... luvly jubbly you might think. Everyone driving safely, mission accomplished.

There was, however, one tiny problem..... they were so obvious they rarely caught anyone!

Move forward to the present day... the vans are now plain white, parked in a slightly different place so they can't be seen & no warning sign!

Now I could be accused of being a little cynical here but is this a move forward in road safety or more a money making exercise? I personally think the latter.

Strider590

KillerWatt wrote: »

Also like most drivers out there, the minute I see a scamera/talivan my first reaction is to look at the speedo. The very act of taking your eyes away from the road, refocusing on the dash, then looking back up and refocusing again takes almost 1 second if the boffins are to be believed (again, that sounds quite reasonable).

And when you hit the brakes, the guy behind also looks down at the speedo at hits his brakes and before you know it, youve got your rear end smashed in because he was looking at his speedo and NOT the road.

Speed camera's may have a purpose of law enforcement, but that is not what they're used for..... They're used to generate as much revenue as physically possible! To the point where most of us can predict where a speed camera is likely to be.... on the brow of a hit on a long straight and safe road.

The most effective road law enforcement is the presence of patrol cars, these do actually catch the bad drivers!
I lose count how many times ive seen a BMW or Merc driver (who's been driving like total pillock), come up and tailgate an unmarked car, two minutes later he's in the crap and im thinking "GOOD JOB"!

That's law enforcement! NOT camping at the side of the road catching unsuspecting law abiding citizens who are traveling a few MPH over the limit because they just exited a NSL zone or they're keeping up with the flow of traffic instead of eyeballing their speedo all day long.....

mackemdave

I had to go on a speed awareness course for 34 in a 30 last year.....They run special courses for the younger generation who are caught,so maybe you will get invited to one of these rather than getting 3 pts............

DrScotsman

mackemdave wrote: »

I had to go on a speed awareness course for 34 in a 30 last year.....They run special courses for the younger generation who are caught,so maybe you will get invited to one of these rather than getting 3 pts............

This made me laugh; when my dad went on a speed awareness course he told us it was a room full of men about his age (50).

Not saying you're wrong (obviously us younger drives ARE a bigger risk), just thought I'd share my anecdote

delirious

After checking my speed with my satnav, I was doing about 32 (when I was driving at 35MPH according the speedo).

I'm not saying this wasn't my fault and I am prepared to accept any consequences.

Re the speed awareness courses, will that be an option given to me by the police or do I have to request it if I get a letter?

Paradigm

delirious wrote: »

After checking my speed with my satnav, I was doing about 32 (when I was driving at 35MPH according the speedo).

I'm not saying this wasn't my fault and I am prepared to accept any consequences.

Re the speed awareness courses, will that be an option given to me by the police or do I have to request it if I get a letter?

I doubt you'll get anything at all at that speed, it's possible but unlikely.

If your area runs a SAC they will offer it to you.

Just wait & see if anything drops through the door