Speed camera

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Hugh Jardon

tell the speedy little bugger to slow down in 30's 40's 50's cos they are there for a reason, he seems to be too new to driving to not learn from his/her mistake.


remember at 30....80% of pedestrian people survive but at 40 thenthe statistic is reversed or something like that in the tv ad.

if twas my son i would make him take the points and no argument whatsoever. needs to learn the lesson

just looking round to buy my son his first motorbike but hopefully he wont be zapped by cameras as he is only 5!

There for a reason!!!!! Often the ONLY reason is to catch more people speeding!!!!

Loads of roads have had their limits lowered way too much. Main dual lane road around here was reduced from 70mph to 30mph overnight!!! After many complaints over a 2yr period it has gone back up to 50mph - and yet 70mph was fine before.....

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

There for a reason!!!!! Often the ONLY reason is to catch more people speeding!!!!

Loads of roads have had their limits lowered way too much. Main dual lane road around here was reduced from 70mph to 30mph overnight!!! After many complaints over a 2yr period it has gone back up to 50mph - and yet 70mph was fine before.....

Bob - good news sounds like Codders believes you were right and will pay your fine and take the points for you as part of his cruisade against the incumbent government!

[Nos4r2]

Codders IS right about speed camera placement-but then so's Nasher-if 'Bob' is going so fast he can't divert his attention from the road directly ahead then quite frankly he probably got his licence in a tesco value xmas cracker and deserves to lose it. You only start learning properly once you pass your test and WHAT you learn depends entirely on your attitude.

Incidentally, the 30mph and 40mph fatality rates in that advert are IMPACT speeds and not the speed the car was doing before the driver slammed on the brakes. To hit someone at dead on 30 while in a 30 limit would take them jumping out so close in front you wouldn't have time to react. Of course, the faster you're going the longer distance it takes for you to react....

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Nasher

Take the points and shut up. 30 limits in a built up area are mostly there to protect kids that run out into the road without thinking. Bob was doing a lot more than 40 by the sound of it, so You're 'mate' Bob is a w*nk*r.

That road is clearly marked as 30, anyone who can't see the signs, or is prepared to steam past everyone else who has slowed down, is not only a complete prat, but shouldn't be allowed on the road anyway.

Whilst I agree with most speedlimits (note use of the word: most), and have converted from my admittedly extremely fast driving style to now driving most built up areas at 20, I think you're being a little harsh.

Yes, the road in question has the speedlimits extremely well marked. However, the road does not have any cars parked down the edges (which generally hide kids before they run out), the houses are set back on drives with a wide pavement in front of them, and the road is 2 lanes each way, with a central reservation. At the speed camera in question (assuming it is the one just on Northam bridge, which sounds like the most likely one) there are no houses, as it is a dual carriageway bridge.

The speed limit on that road is extremely inconsistent with speed limits on more dangerous roads, with cars parked on the road, short driveways, and even schools, and the road certainly does not drive easily at 30. Most drivers (including the police car that went past me the other day - not under lights/siren) take this road at about 40mph, and rapidly brake for the speed cameras.

To tar every single driver that exceeds that speed limit a wanker is a little strong - I agree that the speed limit should not have been broken, however if you haven't been in that area often, perhaps driving late night/early morning when their are few other cars, and fewer hazards, it would be easy to see why the road seems like a 40. Joining roads even have small slipways onto this road!

Prat, yes. Prat for speeding, prat for getting caught on a road so clearly marked. Shouldn't be allowed on the road? Well, I would qeustion that. Maybe there were no other cars around to guage speed from, and Bob was in the outside lane, giving him more time to react. There aren't any suitable crossing spaces for anyone to run over the road, and nor is there anywhere nearby kids are likely to be playing. It could have been that 40-45mph was in fact safe given available conditions, so I wouldn't judge just yet!

Tim, perhaps you could get Bob to confirm what time of day he was speeding, what speed he braked from to get to 40, and whether it was a weekend, during school hours, late night etc, and how many other cars were on the road?

Then perhaps people can reinforce the message of take the points, and stop speeding, with full knowledge of what the circumstances were. If it was past 3pm on a weekday, especially one of the wet days we've had recently, I would wholeheartedly agree with all of Nashers judgements.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Codders IS right about speed camera placement-

Except he wasn't actually talking about the position of cameras he was suggesting that speed limits were wrong in the first place - which is a quite different issue.

Since it costs the local council (or the dept of transport on trunk roads) to change the speed limit of a road, and they don't get the revenue from cameras I think it is unlikely there is a direct link. Don't get me wrong I can think of several roads where I think it would be OK to increase the limit... ...but most of them pre-date the invention of the speed camera - and quite possibly would be more dangerous than I realise.

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by Polwart

Except he wasn't actually talking about the position of cameras he was suggesting that speed limits were wrong in the first place - which is a quite different issue.

Since it costs the local council (or the dept of transport on trunk roads) to change the speed limit of a road, and they don't get the revenue from cameras I think it is unlikely there is a direct link. Don't get me wrong I can think of several roads where I think it would be OK to increase the limit... ...but most of them pre-date the invention of the speed camera - and quite possibly would be more dangerous than I realise.

Maybe the councils in Scotland aren't as bad as the southern half of the UK??? There are LOADS of roads where the speed limits have been deliberately dropped way too low.

I have to be honest and say anyone who gets zapped by a STATIC camera prob deserves it - they should be paying more attention. Sneaky hidden mobile cameras are a different story however.

I have a clean licence and it is NOT because I stick to the limits. I will sometimes drive at 2x the limit - at other times I may drive 10x under the limit - all depends on the roads and conditions!!!

Also remember many speed limits are in themselves illegal - just rushed in to capitalise on speed cameras.

There was a case a while ago in South Wales where it was found out that about 3,000 drivers had been wrongly prosecuted. When asked if they would contact the motorists concerned they said "we will wait to see if they come forward - we don't have the resources" - they are quick enough to send out the letters in the first place though!!!

[ian parkes]

If you ask they will send you the photos no problem .

[Bilge Rat]

The photo however clear cannot be used as evidence in court, the intention of a forward facing camera is to capture the car number plate from the front..... I have a close friend who happens to be a local JP, however condeming the image is they cannot use the facial picture as evidence, even to the extent that on one occassion the photo showed a 20 stone geezer with a black shaggy beard but standing before them is a 40 year old grey haired woman, if she pleads guilty they cant question the image

[codprawn]

It is all a load of crap -they just believe it frightening and intimidating people - make them all behave like sheep. They just can't cope when people actually stand up to them.

Never paid a parking or speeding fine in my life!!!

[ian parkes]

Hey Codprawn you certainly need that atitude if you are biker in Wales .

I got nicked on my bike on a concealed mobile camera and they sent me 3 lots of pics the first lot was of a car and the actual pic of me had me being overtaken by another bike !!
I tried to fight it but would have had to go to court in Wales which would have cost me more than the fine .

[Phill27]

Im sure we've all broken the speed limit at some stage in our lives, The amount of times ive ended up in court when i managed a team of 10 reps who drove 1500 miles a week to save their licences you wouldnt believe!!!

If anyone out there says they havnt broken a speed limit im quite worried!!! Mind you how about those caravan drivers who stick to 20 miles an hour surely their a hazard when people are trying to overtake them!! I got done for that as i had to break the 30 mile an hour speed limit to get past the gits, Mind you i think the police were more concerened about the trebble stacking dinghy trailer i had on the back and one on the roof!!! OOOPPPPSSS...

Good luck Bob it comes to us all mate!!!

[SOLENTER]

Careful Chaps Am I Right In Thinking That One Of Our Number
Is The Plod ???

[widey]

www.pepipoo.com

[Nasher]

Guys

I break the speed limits with the rest of them, but 30 limits in built up areas are there to protect kids like mine and yours. There are houses all round that road.

Sorry Jimbo, but over 40 in a 30 in a built up area = Wanker as far as I'm concerned.

Nasher.

[pressman]

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Nasher

Sorry Jimbo, but over 40 in a 30 in a built up area = Wanker as far as I'm concerned.

No need to apologise, I don't take it personally!

I understand your point entirely, and can see where you're coming from. However:

Originally Posted by Nasher

I break the speed limits with the rest of them, but 30 limits in built up areas are there to protect kids like mine and yours.

So what are the speed limits you break there for? Whenever you take a decision to break a speed limit, that is down to you, and you alone. Either you are driving carelessly, or you have made a decision based on your knowledge of the road, your weather conditions, and your car's handling, as to what is and isn't a safe speed.

If there were no speed limits, would you drive below 30mph in all areas that are currently 30mph zones?

If you are involved in an accident on a road which, by your own admission, you are breaking a speed limit, and it could have been prevented by driving slower, are the kids that are potential involved in that accident any more or less important than the kids playing in the road? 30mph limits may be there to help prevent accidents in built up areas, but surely the design of the speed limits on the roads where you break the limits are designed to prevent accidents also? And surely your compelling argument of "think of the children" is just as valid on any road? In your case, it's even valid when there are no other cars involved, as you are likely to have your kids in the car.

Unfair then, to call Bob a wanker for breaking a speed limit on the grounds that it endangers others, when by your own admission you do the same. Unless of course you're saying that when you break the speed limit it's ok, because you've assessed what is and isn't a safe speed? In which case, is it ok for you to make that assessment and not Bob?

I don't break speed limits anymore. I don't break 20mph, 30, 40, 50, 70 etc, if that's what the signs say. This is because I decided my license is more valuable than a few minutes, my fuel economy is better when I do 65 rather than 90, and I have no wish to become another young driver statistic. I used to drive very fast, because I thought my reactions were fantastic and my control of the car impeccable (it still is ) and have 3 points on my license to prove it, but if you're going to not break speed limits on the grounds that it endangers people, is it really down to you to decide which are more dangerous, and dictate who is and isn't a wanker based on simply the speed limit figure, rather than the overall circumstances?

I'm not saying all speed limits are wrong/right, but if speed limits are there (note: limits not cameras) they are there because somewhere along the line someone decided they were safe, perhaps altered the flow of traffic, prevented noise, and encouraged motorists to see and plan for more hazards. So, I don't see how you can agree emphatically with one limit, but disregard others.

[Matt]

Jeezus, you're old before your time. Have you got your smoking jacket and slippers on?

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Jimbo

So, I don't see how you can agree emphatically with one limit, but disregard others.

Quite easily- there's an awful lot more to limit placement than safety. Political lobbying, sheer stupidity and revenue raising to name a few. Codders 70-30-50 limit for example, or the b-road round here that happened to pass the local MP's mother's house who kept complaining about road noise...It's dropped from NSL to 30...

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by MadMat

Jeezus, you're old before your time. Have you got your smoking jacket and slippers on?

Not yet, I'm too busy putting hot water into the Horlicks. Have to be careful though, because too much and it all spills when I'm using the stairlift...

[Hightower]

Originally Posted by MadMat

Jeezus, you're old before your time. Have you got your smoking jacket and slippers on?

I have a saying.....Endanger your own life, not some one elses!

We've all sped at some time, and will do so in the future. Accident....Fair cop! Deliberate.....W*n*er!

Take the wrap and learn from it!

The End