Speed Cameras part 17

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 26 Dec 2004, 02:26

In a 30 zone the CPS won't support a prosecution less than 10% in excess of the limit, at least in the area I Police. I guess this gives a small (and sensible) lee way for slight inaccuracies in speedos etc.

Post by **martyhopkirk** » 26 Dec 2004, 14:46

I have posted this before (see pic) But I do know where Shirley (((waves - hello duck))) is coming from as they are relying on people paying the fine and being ignorant (not everyone will take it to court).
I too know more than a few people who have been stung and paid up for doing 31 or 32MPH in a 30 zone - more so the people sent prosecution notices several months after a Gatso has snapped them, and paid up ( If you are not stopped and cautioned at the time of the offence the Police have just 14 working days to send you a notice of intent to prosecute). Again - the police money machine seems to be reliant on peoples blissful ignorance.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 26 Dec 2004, 21:57

Oooh, that's a bit harsh being done for 32. Still, theft is theft, be it a quids worth of sweets or hundreds from the till, and speeding is still speeding and no-one is forced to drive right up to the limit. The way those stupid speed humps are breeding in my town I tend to do 20 or less in much of the area (6 humps in 150 yards just up the road). It feels painfully slow but the shame is, the idiots that disregarded the limit before the speed humps still do now - difference is they're airborne for much of it!

Post by **martyhopkirk** » 27 Dec 2004, 01:28

Yep speeding is speeding, but how do you know if you are? What you said about innacurate speedometers - It may read 30 but if you are doing 31 or 32 you will be booked.
So whos fault is it?
Even on newer cars there can be a degree of inaccuracy. Cite Shirls Honda, cite my old ZX (over read) and if anyone remembers Top Gear when Tiff Needel was on it they did a test with 3 cars, one brand spanker (fairly sure it was a Sierra) and 2 old duffers.... all were inaccurate - though the Sierra was well weird - over read at 30, and under read at 60!
Whilst I dont condone speeding ( I live on a lane which seems to be used as a drag strip despite being rated at 30 and the worst culprits are Hutton Police - and for that reason the council wont install speed humps - yet thay have on all the other roads!)
Most (read everybody) strays over the limit at some point - quite honestly if the matrix signes are flashing 30 on the motorway how many of us slow to 30 unless we can see the build up of trafic? Have you tried slowing to 30 on the motorway? Its life threatening, yet you are breaking the law by not obaying the matrix signs...
The real soloution is not speed cameras - they have a place, of that I agree. But a bigger traffic police presence is really what is needed. As i have mentioned before if you knew the number of people who drive around whilst under the influence of drugs it really would scare you into hardly venturing out. In certain areas this is a far bigger problem than drink driving - yet the cameras do not prevent or catch them.
And just in case you were wondeing, 20K miles a year, Driving since 1984 no speeding points at all (ever) - but yes I have been tugged a few times.

beezer · Post by **beezer** » 27 Dec 2004, 05:55

In Kentucky if you are caught doing 26mph in a 25 zone you will be booked. Across the river in Ohio you could do 29mph and will not be booked. Ohio reckon that speedo error can lead to people going over but more importantly a 25mph limit will make sure nobody drives over 30mph. Makes sense to me.

AWG · Post by **AWG** » 29 Dec 2004, 15:15

Should speedhumps prevent you travelling at speeds within the legal speed limit? Travelling at 28/29 mph over many humps in my area would, I think, soon lead to damage (even tn a Citroen!). At night, in the wet many humps are invisible and often have no roadside sign adjacent and it is easy to drive over them at these speeds. To my mind this is as bad as a pothole - what chance of claiming off the local authority?

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 30 Dec 2004, 01:51

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by turbolag

I can't see why everyone bleats about camera ....
Actually, I think i've made a breakthrough. See, i've noticed that the harder I push the pedal on the right, the faster the car will go. Equally astonishing, i've noticed that if I keep the number on the speedo equal to or lower than the numbers on the big reflective signs at the roadside I don't get into trouble.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The reason I "bleat on" about speed cameras is because they have made the roads more dangerous. Not safer.
Several million other people are now doing exactly the same as you. Staring at their speedometer, completely oblivious to everything going on outside the car.
Even the government's own research into speed cameras noted that rear-shunt type accidents increase at camera sites.

Stuart McB · Post by **Stuart McB** » 30 Dec 2004, 12:15

Got stuck behind 'Mr. Safety' [}:)] this morning. 0500hrs country lane 30Mph and down to 25 on the bends. This guy was even on a MOTOR BIKE!!!! when we got on the main road again he stuck to the speed limits with an incessant accuracy. We got to a 40 zone he sped up to just 40 and then down to 30 in a 30 zone, bit of double carrige way (not dual) with a 50 zone and we got to 50mph, over took him at 53mph. I know it's speeding and we shouldn't go on, but at 5 o'clock in the morning, middle of nowhere on a motor bike.....AAARGH!!!!. Now calmed down as at work and no body's turning up until at least 9am [:D]. And before I forget the wife was telling me that the fastest 'untraced' (by the courts & camera partnership)speeder in the west Mercia area was 129MPH on a motor bike through a small vilage with a 30MPH limit, thats Blakedown for those who know it.

weety · Post by **weety** » 31 Dec 2004, 23:29

Someone wise once said that someone driving ten miles an hour slower than you want to go is driving to slow, and someone driving ten miles an hour faster than you want to go is driving to fast.
I cant remember where i read that but i it made me think

Unimog · Post by **Unimog** » 01 Jan 2005, 19:59

Posted by martyhopkirk <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Shame - I used to enjoy their camera control antics.....
Its an interesting fact that the average motorist checks their speedo 3 times when passing a fixed camera - taking their eyes off the road for anything upto 42 feet at 30mph.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well putting a poster up like the "Hello Boys" one, has actually had the same effect as a camera, and it's a lot cheaper.
Note:- the ladies slow down for it as well as the men, as they also want to look at it!
Also these methods used to attend to the explosion in the camera population are showing the authorities what most of us think of them, but what only a few of the general public are crazy enough to do, what is obviously criminal damage.
There are more traffic cameras here than any other country, even the country where it was invented by a rally driver to measure stage times.
We should have proper policing carried out by the police, and not by technology sitting on poles everywhere.
There was a story in the papers a while ago, about inflatable police cars being placed on motorway bridges to slow traffic down, and it did work.
The police have also cut back on the traffic police, who are more conversant with motoring law than the normal panda car driver.
As driving standards have got worse, it would be more inteligent to retain these specialists in what they do best, and drivers would drive with more care, because they will not know where to expect a traffic car. While everyone tends to learn camera locations.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 01 Jan 2005, 20:01

[quoteSeveral million other people are now doing exactly the same as you. Staring at their speedometer, completely oblivious to everything going on outside the car.
Even the government's own research into speed cameras noted that rear-shunt type accidents increase at camera sites.
[/quote]
Well, that's a wide ranging reply.
OK, lets be looking the looking at the speedo one. All drivers have a responsibility to monitor their speed, as well as look out the windows & scan for other roads users, signs, hazards etc. It's a multi tasking thing and we all have to do it. Some are careful, alert and considerate drivers and are able to do this, although to do it effectively requires some discipline and practiceto achieve fully and maintain. In the '80s, research conducted by Suzuki (if I recall correctly) found that an alert and skilled driver is able to maintain correct speed very effectively, whilst looking less at the speedo than the average motorist. It was never concluded for certain why but the favourite theory was they were simply more alert and in tune to their driving and the brain could monitor a change in speed by the attendant rise in engine tone. Many of us, and i'm pretty bad for this, rarely hear the engine over the latest album by 'ZThe strokes' etc. Second theory was an alert drivers brain could judge speed by the rate at which familiar objects increased in size as we approach.
There is little doubt that overall speed detection systems have saved lives. Conversely, there are no doubt local quirks where for some prevailing reason or other the cameras don't work, but pretty much by and large they do. For example, a notorious stretch of road I police (The A43 dual carriageway) was averaging 3 deaths a year along its 2 mile length. In the 3 years since 4 cameras were installed the death rate has been zero and injury RTCs have fallen by 2 thirds. Something is making drivers suddenly obey the 50 limit pretty rigidly on this road and if it isn't the cameras that have banished the suicidal, and often 3 figure speeds people were travelling at here, then I don't konw what it could be. The drop off in the figures corresponds to the very week the cameras were (very publically) installed.
The Governments statistics on non injury RTCs at current camera sites are, by their own admission, inclonclusive and should not be used for long term analysis of rates of accidents 'caused' by camera installations, simply because non injury RTCs were never monitored at these sites before cameras were installed, making it difficult to draw a cionclusion about what the cameras have done as it wasn't accurately known before.
In any event, the cameara themselves don't cause these collisions - it's the drivers. If someone is entering an area at unlawful velocities and then suddenly realises they need to brake to avoid getting snapped (although they had ample opportunity to do so at the signs denoting the entrance to the limit) then they are at fault. Similarly, anyone blithely sailing into the rear of such a car is also at fault for failing to observe one of the most fundamental precepts of the road (and indeed, self preservation...) which is 'drive at a speed/interval which allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear'. I emphasise the word 'see' because most drivers can see, but fail to actually 'look' effectively.
Your argument that cameras (and not the drivers) cause these accidents would be fantastic if ever proven beyond reasonable doubt - the Government could then make them totally covert (like parts of Europe) so people would never see them, never brake like eejuts, and never get rear ended. Then, before long these speeding pilots would accumulate enough points to be banned and the world would be a much safer and less frenzied place. It's really not much different from any other lawbreaker being caught on camera - they all have a good b1tch about the unfairness of it all.
When it comes down to it, i've done my 23 mile mile journey to work in Porches 928 S2s, integrales, BMW750s etc and it always takes 35 minutes, or within 60 seconds each way (accidents or other unforseen events notwithstanding). My humble 406 HDi driven at scrupulously lawful speeds does the same journey in the same time as the other hyper cars ever did, so why waste the fuel and endanger myself and others by speeding?
Weety's most recent comment sums the whole thing beautifully. When it comes down to it people speed because of an atavistic desire to enforce their will on others, hence the annoyance caused when they get stuck behind someone obeying the law.
As much as you're able, stick to the limit. The additional concentration required will quickly become second nature and you will automatically become a more alert (and hopefully, considerate) driver. Your journeys won't take any longer and the ammount you spend on tyres and brakes will also reduce. Best of all, you won't arrive stressed, wound up and snarling and your conscientious new driving skills could just save a life...perhaps even your own.

Post by **martyhopkirk** » 01 Jan 2005, 20:32

I do love a healthy debate[;)]
How about a little twist involving medical research into why its a bl00dy stupid idea to let humans loose in cars in the first place.....
Have a look on t'internet and I am sure you will find some research done a year or three back about how it is not possible to concentrate on everything you should be concentrating on when drivig. The human eye only picks up about 5 items at a time of moving detail. In order to observe everything you should do you really need to be picking up 16 - 18 items. Which is why people say "sorry I didnt see you!" Its true, they probably didnt. Couple that with having to think about what speed you are doing..... Its a wonder there are not more accients.
Ahh roll on the days of automated cars or personal people transporters, where the driving is done for you by computer.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 01 Jan 2005, 20:36

I think you're right, Marty. Doesn't the human brain have the equiavalent of only 7 memory registers - if an 8th item pops into your consciousness, one of the others pops out.
I can't wait until there's a proper automated car - i'll save a packet when I sack the chauffer!
Anyway, you all saw what happened to that automated Audi on 'I, Robot' didn't you? And that's a quality Ger-her-man car. Imagine how bad a 300k mile French version will be[:D]

Stuart McB · Post by **Stuart McB** » 01 Jan 2005, 20:54

Ok then, what about the signs that some forces put up by speed cameras? We've all seen them "14 seroius accidents here in 2 years!!" By me a local man was so appaled at a camera being put outside his house (by his drive) that he challenged the local camera partnership and Police to reveal the details of the '14 serious accidents'. Result not one in volved a death, perdesrian or a seroius colission with damage over £500. In fact in only 2 of the 14 accidents had the Police and or emergency service been called out. The end result was the camera and signs were removed and the local camera partnership had to place an retraction statment in the local rag. Needless to say they put it in the rag with the smallest curculation. I think that we're all as bad as each other. You see the cops driving around with no seat belts on and parking on double yellow lines and racing every where (without the lights and horns on) so we all think if they can ... we can.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 01 Jan 2005, 21:05

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Stuart McB

NO THE POLICE CAN'T PARK ON DOUBLE YELLOW LINES UNLESS ON AN EMERGENCY CALL and then it must not restric trafic flow or impeade the highway. This dose not include ENQUIRES etc. POLICE IN SECTOR PATROL CARS MUST WEAR SEAT BELTS WHEN ON PATROL. Read it on the West Mids Police webb site and have several mates in the job.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Section 87 of the Road Traffic Act allows for a suitably qualified Police Response Driver to ignore road markings, speed limits, signs, traffic laws etc where it is operationally expedient to do so. You do not have to be on an emergency response to park on the proverbial double yellow, although care is needed as you may have to justify your actions in the event of a complaint. Is it an emergency to stop at 123 Cleo Lane on the double yellow to make an enquiry about a missing person? Probably not, but likewise, the parents of that missing 12 year old won't want you farting about for 1/2 an hour trying to find a legit space. This is why the exemptions exist.
It is customary, and sensible, to park safely and not impede the flow of traccic but we can if justified and the situation requires it - it does not have to be a grade 1 emergency response job, but it all comes back to the magic 'J' word.
Unmarked vehicles are also exempt from the parking regs and local forces usually have an arrangement or other with the Council so the parking attendants are able to recognise these cars (usually a HO vehicle logbook left visible on the dash, or similar). Parking on a no waiting zone outside a school to get to the chippy, however, is a big no no (although, no doubt it happens - just like the civilian drivers that do it).
Ditto with seatbelts - section 87 provides an exemption for drivers of emergency vehicles, although many forces (including West Mids, and my own) have their own policy, not law, that states you damn well will. Personally, unless transporting a prisoner, I always belt up.