Speeding? Manned equipment.

Jamie_Carter

arcon5 wrote: »

I once got caught doing 34 in a 30 past a fixed camera - one which I at the time drove past about 10+ times each working day. That was annoying. Some of these vans try their best to not be seen so I could forgive somebody for missing these more than the static ones. Often what happens is locals learn over time where they usually park and watch out for them - but now and again they throw a spanner in the works and shuffle about. They call it a 'road safety partnership' - I call it trickery. But ultimately it's hard to argue either way since technically the speed limits are in place and need abiding by! Even if in some areas it is safe enough to drive slightly faster.

I call it catching you out for breaking the speed limit.


If the same locations are always used, then all people will do is slow down in those locations, and then speed up again. But if you don't know where they are then you are more likely to obey speed limits all the time... mission accomplished.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Or, get rid of all the speed cameras. Then there would be no speed cameras.

And 1000's more people killed on the roads.

Jamie_Carter

AdrianC wrote: »

There's just the small detail that speed in excess of the limit really isn't a great contributor to collisions and injuries. The DoT released Police figures a few years back - it was less than 10%. Excessive speed for the conditions but within the limit was a much, much higher percentage.

It isn't practical to have variable speed limits on all roads, so generic ones have to be used.


It seems that many people either can't judge safe road speeds in different conditions, or they massively over estimate their own driving skills. Which as I said, is why we needs generic speed limits.

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, and apart from that, if they removed all the cameras, how would they replace the income?

Or if the cameras did what they are intended to do, and stopped people speeding, then how would they replace the income?? It isn't our problem.

AdrianC wrote: »

Personally, my big objection to cameras is that they don't do anything about the serious problems on the roads - poor observation, primarily. If anything, they exacerbate the problem, compared to proper traffic policing with real live stripy Volvos. But, again, they're expensive. <shrug>

In theory they should teach people to be more observant. Because if people were more observant then they wouldn't get caught by the cameras.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Correct. While continuing my new life of crime as a speeder, I shall in future be looking out for hidden detector vans, rather than nuns with kittens, kids on bikes etc.

Law of Unintended consequences.

So it will teach you to be more observant then??


Or maybe you should observe the speed limit.

Froggitt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And 1000's more people killed on the roads.

Wrong.


Because drivers would be concentrating on looking for nuns/kittens/kids etc, rather than concentrating on looking for camouflaged speed camera vans.


Therefore fewer people killed.

Jamie_Carter

Froggitt wrote: »

Wrong.


Because drivers would be concentrating on looking for nuns/kittens/kids etc, rather than concentrating on looking for camouflaged speed camera vans.


Therefore fewer people killed.

No. they would be concentrating on the road and it's surroundings, as they should do.

AdrianC

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It seems that many people either can't judge safe road speeds in different conditions, or they massively over estimate their own driving skills. Which as I said, is why we needs generic speed limits.

That logic only works if these generic speed limits are set at a level that's guaranteed to be appropriate for all - or even the vast majority - of conditions. Are you suggesting that's the case...?

Let's not forget that the default urban 30 was set in 1934, the default 70 motorway in 1965 in response to a series of big collisions in heavy fog, and the lower default for single carriageways was brought in through the early '70s energy crisis...

In theory they should teach people to be more observant.

Be nice, wouldn't it?

Froggitt

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

No. they would be concentrating on the road and it's surroundings, as they should do.

Unfortunately not.


If they thought there was a hidden speed camera van at every turn, human nature is such that the vans is what the would be concentrating on looking for, leading to many more deaths on the roads.

Froggitt

Obviously not.


So now, as well as looking out for nuns/kittens/kids, you want me to look at my speedo how often......every 5 seconds/10 seconds......


I drive at a safe speed for the road and the conditions. I have never had an accident, insurance claim, or a speeding ticket (until now) in thirty years.


My driving record is a direct result of how I drive. I would rather carry on my current driving "technique" than reduce my effectiveness as a driver by looking out for speed vans and speedos.

AdrianC

Scrootum wrote: »

If you just stick to the limit, there is no need to be looking out for cameras. Or is there something I am missing here?

Just the subtle detail that all drivers should be looking out for HAZARDS at all times, whether driving within the speed limit or not. Vans parked at the side of the road are a hazard, no matter what they contain. They might pull out. Somebody might be behind them.

If the OP didn't see the van, what other hazards didn't he see?

And, yes, of course all drivers should know what speed they're doing. Maybe not to the exact digit, but pretty bloody close, without looking at the speedo - let alone every couple of seconds. How else do you know what your stopping distance is?