speed cameras at night?

m00nie

silverfoxdude wrote:

moonie if you were driving on a 4 lane motorway at 65 mph with no other cars on the road im sure you would slow down to 50mph at 3.30 am yeh right

oh so you know me.. thats news to me... :rolleyes:


if you cant do the time dont do the crime

silverfoxdude

I think the point we are trying to make is that the law is an !!!!!! sometimes...

I feel that the government is only interested in meeting their crime targets through prosecutions from motorists and that 'minor' offences like mine, help fund the Police Ball!! When the question comes to safety, yes we should all take more care and consider factors such as the weather, other people/drivers etc, but we are (in the majority of cases) mature safe drivers who can make safe decisions.

I know a lorry driver who travels the same road 10+ times each day. He is only allowed to travel at 40 mph on a major road and the car drivers are on 60 mph, a fast flowing busy road. He got fined and points for doing 43 mph, the police did not take into consideration that his lorry was fully loaded and the bumps in the road (due to poor maintenence) were altering his speed fractionally.

We could adopt some simple measures already in use in some other countries; they removed traffic lights, speed bumps and such like from areas that see a lot of pedestrians, this seems to be working as it ensures the driver takes more care and he then takes into consideration pedestrians and other drivers alike, by taking away the so called safety measures, the onus is on the driver to be more vigilant. Apparently this also cuts down road rage.

Motorway speeds could be raised in this day and age. A driver is usually dictated by other traffic that is present as well as the weather etc. I think its Germany that has an 80 mph speed limit on the motorway, and it seems to work over there.

And anyway, why does the government allow car manufacturers to make cars that do 140+ mph if they cant be driven over here. I assume that most of the road laws were thought up when the humble Ford Anglia did 60 tops!! lol

thegriffmiester

Whether you would or you wouldnt slow down for it at that time, moonie is right. Dont speed and you wont get caught! If you wanna keep your livelyhood, dont break the rules

Jim

Queenie

silverfoxdude wrote:

I think the point we are trying to make is that the law is an !!!!!! sometimes...
I feel that the government is only interested in meeting their crime targets through prosecutions from motorists and that 'minor' offences like mine, help fund the Police Ball!!

Ah, well my friend, there I can correct you! (How odd that you think traffic offences fund the Police Ball??? )
The Police Ball is funded by Police Officers, for Police Officers and has nowt to do with Government Funding/Speed Camera's/Local Govn't or indeed fines paid by lawbreakers - Highway/Common Law/Criminal Law incl.

Do rest assured, you're £60 fine truly isn't funding anyone's Ball

When you learned to drive, it was on condition that you obeyed the "rules of the road". Even more so when you made the choice to have driving at the core of your chosen occupation.
You chose to ignore the rules and, in your post, imply that being a taxi driver affords you a certain exemption to laws that the whole nation are subject to.
On the one hand, you feel that speed camera's are about "funding" - yet you resent the points on your license? But, speeding has always carried penalty points!! Points on your license haven't suddenly appeared with speed camera's - but then you would know that, seeing as it is your occupation.

Drivers really do need an attitude adjustment here!
Driving is a privilege and a responsibility - not your automatic right!

If you are not prepared to play by the rules of the game, in this case the Traffic Laws relating to speed, then bow out of the game with good grace. If you want the privilege of driving, then respect the rules - no one says you have to like them, but you do have to lump them; unless/until such a time as they alter.
Do bear in mind one teeny thought though ... if people didn't break the rules of speeding on a consistent and frequent basis ... speed camera's wouldn't have been invented; they would have been as much use as a chocolate fireguard! It's only *because* individuals feel that they are the exception (and that's a lot of individuals!) that the need arose for speed camera's in the first place.

I respect the fact you have not injured someone while driving/speeding - kudos! But, you cannot escape the statistics that show the majority of fatal accidents are caused by drivers travelling at speed!

Queenie

silverfoxdude wrote:

And anyway, why does the government allow car manufacturers to make cars that do 140+ mph if they cant be driven over here. I assume that most of the road laws were thought up when the humble Ford Anglia did 60 tops!! lol

Guns are made too ... but it doesn't give us the right to go around shooting people!

On a serious note: if you enjoy the challenge and thrill of driving at speed, our Country does *have* places where you can do just that - and nooooooo speeding tickets; have you considered Banger Racing? Motor Racing? Speedway?

Time and place my friend

silverfoxdude

Well you have tried to make me feel a complete and utter criminal, which I am not! I am going to close my end of discussion now.We all have valid points as far as I can see....
I will crawl back under my stone andl endeavour to stay a broad minded human being....

BenL

There was something on Top Gear a while ago about an article in one of the newspapers saying the government is thinking about keeping the £60 fine or even raising it but reducing the points to 2.

They can then catch people more times and fine them more before banning them from driving.

Crazy

m00nie

they are doing speed awareness courses now up and down the country where as you get no points if you attend a 3 hour ish course on the safety and awareness of speeding.

the £60 is still paid as this is used to pay towards the course.

they will only offer it once though but seems a great idea.

think it shows that cameras are not just there for money either as why would they bother doing these courses otherwise ?

tonys_3

Queenie wrote:

Taradiddle!!!!! Unless of course you are suggesting that all "high mileage drivers" are the only one's who abuse speed limits? There *IS* no bias with speed camera's against any particular race, creed, colour, religion, profession, or ... mileage users! They are ONLY bias towards those who EXCEED the speed limit

Equally, can you qualify your remark that *most* are inaccurate? Do you have any facts to substantiate that sweeping statement or are you merely being imaginative and "dramatic". [UNQUOTE]

It is not taradiddle-whatever that is.The average driver covers around 10,000
miles per annum.High mileage drivers do anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000
milea per annum.Logically then,that driver must go through 5 to 10 times more cameras than the average motorist.Or was that too difficult for a pedestrian to work out?It follows that he is therefore 5 to 10 times more likely to fall foul of speed cameras.

And why is it unfair?Because most speed cameras are inaccurate. And yes I do have facts to substantiate it.

A major problem with hand held cameras is that,unlike laser sighted guns,there is no little red circle to let the operator know which part of the vehicle he is aiming at.As the signal to the car and the return signal to the camera are both invisible,the operator has no idea where the signal has been.
It could quite easily have bounced off another vehicle,or a lamppost and no one would know.
Don't just take my word for it-look at https://www.safespeed.org.uk -
then look for "issues"and "not so accurate" -an excerpt
is just below.A retired Consultant Electronic Engineer says 80% of the gatso cameras are inaccurate.

NOT SO ACCURATE

Having tested the opto digital timer on a number of Gatso speed camera sites including Newtown Birmingham, Walsall and Cannock area Mr Edgar soon discovered that well over 80% of them are inaccurate, in particular there are serious timing errors between the two flashes which are supposed to flash at exactly half a second apart (500 milli seconds) thus the recorded distance a vehicle has travelled relative to the parallel road markings are inaccurate. In the tests which Mr Edgar has conducted the timings are anything but accurate, typically 0.63 seconds, needless to say this inaccuracy then reflects on the distance a vehicle has travelled thus creating the illusion (for the benefit of the prosecution) that a vehicle has travelled much faster than it actually did, for instance a vehicle travelling at 35 mph would have travelled an extra 2.03 metres when the timing between the two flashes is 0.63 seconds and that puts the vehicle in the next set of parallel line markings which are spaced 2 metres apart.
........................................................................................................
Or there is https://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=252


Speed cameras are inaccurate and prone to errors, often catching drivers who have been observing the speed limit. Although appeal mechanisms against the judgement of these machines do exist, they are expensive and weighted against the driver; the authorities prefer to believe their profitable cameras rather than their taxpayers and road users.
........................................................................................................

The BBC did a program on laser cameras and managed to get one camera to
clock a wall doing 58 mph!Had it been a stationary car in a 30 mph area,the
driver could have lost his licence since it is very difficult to contest such
claims.

Was I being Imaginative or dramatic? No. Scary, I think, that they are allowed to continue to be used.

Queenie

tonys wrote:

It is not taradiddle-whatever that is.

Psst: If you don't know what it is, how can you know it's not?

taradiddle/tarradiddle = nonsense

tonys wrote:

The average driver covers around 10,000
miles per annum.High mileage drivers do anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000
milea per annum.Logically then,that driver must go through 5 to 10 times more cameras than the average motorist.It follows that he is therefore 5 to 10 times more likely to fall foul of speed cameras.

It may be "logical" to assume so, but assumption (logically) still does not make it a fact. They would only be 5 - 10 times more likely to fall foul of speed camera's if they speed!

tonys wrote:

Or was that too difficult for a pedestrian to work out

Crikey! :eek: where did the pedestrian come from? (Hope no one was speeding when that pedestrian appeared from nowhere!!!!)

tonys wrote:

And why is it unfair?Because most speed cameras are inaccurate. And yes I do have facts to substantiate it.

Thank you for taking the time to supply that info tonys

Did the BBC say how long it took them before they "managed to find one camera to clock a wall doing 58mph"?
When did Mr Edgar carry out his study? Just how many camera's did he test out of how many in that area?
That information is just as important as the "results". If he tested 5 camera's, 80% means 4 were inaccurate. Scary stuff!
Yet, if the areas he targeted had say 400 camera's dotted around, of which he tested only 5, now the statistics shift - dramatically - because now, you're only looking at 1% being inaccurate.

As with your reasoning above about high mileage drivers: some people may "assume" it's logical that, from the quoted study, 80% of all speed camera's are inaccurate. But assumption isn't fact!

Speed camera's endeavour to tackle the problem of speeding. How would you tackle the problem of speeding/speeders?