Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::

Flyboy152

exup wrote: »

Many motorcyclists believe that if they put their lights on they will be easier to spot. Its more down to myths spouted by road safety groups and when it comes down to it there are far more important things to do when riding a bike then putting your lights on just so you think people will see you - you will get a shock.

If you have a Range Rover or any large vehilce in front you drop back so you can be seen, and more importantly - you on the motorbike can see anyone likely to pull out into your path - never assume that you have been seen.
The most important thing is taking up the road postion of where a car driver would sit in the car - which is 2/3 of the way into the lane. That is where the majority of road users look - as they expect to get eye contact with the driver of a car (a car is what most people look for coming down the road).

Bright colours (fluourescent etc) only make a difference if the weather is dull. The trick during the day is to contrast against the background, and sometimes the best colour for this is black (which is why the RAF paint their Tucano trainer aircraft black).
Reflective clothing only makes a difference at night.
Headlights cause speed judging issues, and can also cause a blend in with other lights (from cars behind). Anyone who misjudges the speed of a motorcycle (with a small frontal area and comparitively large headlight) may pull out - If asked, why did you pull out infront of a bike and cause a crash - most drivers will not admit to misjudging the speed but will simply say "I didn't see it" and people will believe them.
Headlights are most effective in faster rural areas, especially when another road user spots a following motorcyclist in their mirrors.
Other than for obvious nighttime legal requirements and at night there are that many one eyd cyclops cars going around making people think that it could be motorcycle - I think you'll find that headlights aren't really as effective as people would like to think.

As for what another poster said - that they felt motorcycles should put their lights on to help those with poorer eyesight. If their (these other road users) eyesight is that bad then they should have their eyes tested and be wearing glasses or not be on the road as they wouldn't neet the legal requirement for eyesight standards.

We have gone down the headlight route before on this forum. you need to be looking at a vehicle for its lights to be of any use in the first place. If you can see that vehicle, then whether its got its lights on or not is probably irrelevant. Saying you "can see it better with its lights on" is rubbish - you can either see it, or you can't there isn't any better or worse.

You are presumably unaware of the law regarding DRL on motorcycles then.

jase1

geordieracer wrote: »

Thats not the question though is it.. Talking about speeding here not what someone else is doing..

Stick to the thread and everything will be ok

No no no no no.

Completely unacceptable attitude.

People who think that speeding is the only dangerous practice that ever happens on Britain's roads should all be taken out and shot in my opinion.

I have had enough of bad drivers hiding behind the "but I wasn't speeding" excuse. Speeding is just one component of the problem on the roads.

Ultimately it isn't usually speeding, but speed differential that causes accidents. So someone overtaking a 40mph driver at 60 is putting himself in just as much potential danger as someone overtaking a 50mph driver at 70, if the slower driver (or in this case a psycho with no lights) decides to do something stupid. It's only the resulting carnage that is worse.

Flyboy152

jase1 wrote: »

No no no no no.

Completely unacceptable attitude.

People who think that speeding is the only dangerous practice that ever happens on Britain's roads should all be taken out and shot in my opinion.

I don't think anyone has written that at all.

I have had enough of bad drivers hiding behind the "but I wasn't speeding" excuse. Speeding is just one component of the problem on the roads.

I don't think i've heard that excuse before.

Ultimately it isn't usually speeding, but speed differential that causes accidents. So someone overtaking a 40mph driver at 60 is putting himself in just as much potential danger as someone overtaking a 50mph driver at 70, if the slower driver (or in this case a psycho with no lights) decides to do something stupid. It's only the resulting carnage that is worse.

I really have no idea what this means.

jase1

Well, how do you respond to the comment "certainly you!" given by alistairq earlier? Someone who is driving at 10mph over the (60) limit, in an overtaking manouvre, is "certainly" more to blame than someone who neglects to use their lights in the dark? Really?

alistairq is being an apologist for someone who is being a blatently careless driver, whilst with certainty putting the blame on the speeder.

If he is willing to make such a black-and-white statement on here, do you seriously think he wouldn't do the same if he was the one without the lights?

As for my comment, think about what happens when a 50mph driver pulls out directly in front of a 70mph driver on a motorway. Then think of what would happen if the 50mph driver did the same thing at 65. Which is more likely to cause an accident?

Flyboy152

jase1 wrote: »

Well, how do you respond to the comment "certainly you!" given by alistairq earlier? Someone who is driving at 10mph over the (60) limit, in an overtaking manouvre, is "certainly" more to blame than someone who neglects to use their lights in the dark? Really?

alistairq is being an apologist for someone who is being a blatently careless driver, whilst with certainty putting the blame on the speeder.

If he is willing to make such a black-and-white statement on here, do you seriously think he wouldn't do the same if he was the one without the lights?

As for my comment, think about what happens when a 50mph driver pulls out directly in front of a 70mph driver on a motorway. Then think of what would happen if the 50mph driver did the same thing at 65. Which is more likely to cause an accident?

That's a bit like the difference between jumping out of a thirty storey window and jumping out of a twenty storey window.

jase1

> That's a bit like the difference between jumping out of a thirty storey window and jumping out of a twenty storey window.

Nonsense. The ability to lose 5mph quickly is much easier than for 20mph.

How convenient that you didn't answer the direct question.

alastairq

Strider590 wrote: »

^^ Another one who thinks overtaking is a crime.

what? Me?

I do it all the time...mainly because people actually tend to travel more slowly than I want to...but I don't gripe about their [lower] speeds, I just get on with it,,and overtake.....within the speed limit, within the law regarding road signs, and ensuring I give the overtaken vehicle due clearance..not just alongside, but in front as well....I never 'follow' closely behind another overtaking vehicle..and I don't bother overtaking if it will not be of benefit to me...or the vehicle behind me....or if it may mean I would have to exceed the posted limit to overtake within the free space available to me.


Therein lies the difference between me...and a lot of others..but hey ho, its my job, after all.

alastairq

Well, how do you respond to the comment "certainly you!" given by alistairq earlier? Someone who is driving at 10mph over the (60) limit, in an overtaking manouvre, is "certainly" more to blame than someone who neglects to use their lights in the dark? Really?

alistairq is being an apologist for someone who is being a blatently careless driver, whilst with certainty putting the blame on the speeder.

If he is willing to make such a black-and-white statement on here, do you seriously think he wouldn't do the same if he was the one without the lights?

Apologising for no-one, sorry....

Simply pointing out the fact that deliberately exceeding the speed limit is certainly increasing risk levels.

The poster concerned felt that simply exceeding the speed limit, overtaking in the process, is actually justifiable....simply because no-one is bringing to book someone who happens to have forgotten to turn on their lights......or...as I pointed out, would not necessarily be present on a parked vehicle.

But hey ho, it needn't be an oncoming vehicle without lights.

It could be any large or small obstruction, unlit.

The poster, by increasing speed disproportionally to the limit, is deliberately reducing the time they have to respond to an unlit obstruction.

And whilst the poster is busy increasing the risk levels, not just to themselves [which may be deeemed acceptable to them] they also do likewise to those other road users surrounding the poster.....whether theythemselves find such an increase in risk also acceptable....or not....

but one thing I'm not doing, is issuing blame.

That I leave to the insurance companies.......and I have been known to do very nicely, thank you, out of insurers and their apportioning of blame..against those with unrealistic ideas of what is safe and acceptable.

alastairq

If he is willing to make such a black-and-white statement on here, do you seriously think he wouldn't do the same if he was the one without the lights?

Interesting comment....certainly I would be asking the question, if the overtaking vehicle had not been exceeding the speed limit, would they have in fact had sufficient time to cope with the unlit vehicle? And what if, it had been an unlit cow?

Cow's fault?

Or the fault of the speeding motorist, who is desperately trying to justify their flouting of the law......especially where everybody else has to ensure the speeded can flout the law with 'safety'?

People want to exceed the speed limit.....not because they have to, but because it suits them to do so.
It is an entirely selfish act.......

and if other road users conspire to make life ever more difficult for the speeder, why should they always be the ones vilified?

Just because the speeder wishes to speed?

** speed/speeder,= exceeding posted speed limit.

Stephen_Leak

:money:

Lum wrote: »

The guideline still exists, it's set by ACPO and recommends that prosecutions start at 10%+2, namely 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 etc.

However it's just a guideline, and not even a government guideline, so the camera partnerships can enforce at any speed they want, even 31 in a 30.

And, as more drivers obey the limits and the pratnerships get more desperate for revenue, expect more of this - and worse.

All you can do is look on it as yet another form of indirect taxation.

However, when renewing my insurance this year using Martin's system, I couldn't help but notice the questions about any speeding offences now including speed awareness courses.