Speed Cameras

[Tetchytyke]

On the slip roads I am thinking of you have a split second to react to a car crawling along in the inside lane. Hardly "not paying attention".

You should be checking the carriageway before you accelerate.

If you don't, you're not paying attention. Simple as.

 

[EssexGonzo]

Well two points, firstly 50 is a guesstimate it was probably slower than than, certainly the closing speed was very dramatic, secondly you do not know the circumstances so the rest of your post is a bit presumptuous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---




Yes so why won't the powers that be honest and say they actually love all that revenue that comes in then? On the news the woman explaining about these new cameras was at pains to say it was about safety and not money even though she admitted they did get a lot of revenue from speed cameras. Hmmmm

Some of the forces are gradually coming out with such honesty.

Bedfordshire Police want to switch the M1 cameras from variable limit only to "always on" with little or no buffer above the limit. The Chief Constable has openly stated that his force needs the money from such a move.

Many of the M25 cameras are always on now - the ones at the side of the road rather than those above the lanes. It has changed behaviour, mine too, and I no longer go above an indicated 75mph (71 true in my car) on any motorway now. In reality, a 225 mile journey to Manchester takes me about 10 minutes longer than when I used to hammer up the outside lane where I could. And it's so much less stressful. And I'm getting 60mpg instead of 50mpg.

So congested is our small island nowadays, there's very little actual benefit to journey times from tearing up the road at 90. Urban and black spot speeding is clearly a different issue but until we have more road officers cameras are the next best blunt instrument we have. Speed is actually only "a factor" in most accidents.....the root cause is normally something else such as poor observation, driving too close to just plain old driving like a w**k*r!

I was caught last year in the average speed cameras on the QE2 bridge and opted for the speed awareness course. Yes, it's very built up area focused but it has changed how I drive, however the money is pocketed. Far more useful than hitting me with 3 points for the same money. Even some of the hardened road warriors on my course admitted that some of it had actually sunk in.

 

[Dave1987]

Yes. They should be looking at the traffic on the main carriageway before accelerating up to 70mph. If they can't see the traffic on the main carriageway then they shouldn't be accelerating up to 70mph.

If you don't like paying the moron tax then luckily it can be achieved easily by simply not speeding in the first place.

It could be a Viz Top Tip. DRIVERS. AVOID paying speeding fines by SIMPLY obeying the speed limit.

Hmmm did you read my first post??? I have a clean license. And this is not about people getting caught speeding. I have no problem with people having points on their license for doing 50 mph in a 30 zone. The point is is that the Govt and local councils pretty much want people to speed. It's got nothing to do with safety at all. They love all the revenue they get from people who get caught speeding as if no one did they would have to pay for those extremely expensive cameras with no revenue in return.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some of the forces are gradually coming out with such honesty.

Bedfordshire Police want to switch the M1 cameras from variable limit only to "always on" with little or no buffer above the limit. The Chief Constable has openly stated that his force needs the money from such a move.

Many of the M25 cameras are always on now - the ones at the side of the road rather than those above the lanes. It has changed behaviour, mine too, and I no longer go above an indicated 75mph (71 true in my car) on any motorway now. In reality, a 225 mile journey to Manchester takes me about 10 minutes longer than when I used to hammer up the outside lane where I could. And it's so much less stressful. And I'm getting 60mpg instead of 50mpg.

So congested is our small island nowadays, there's very little actual benefit to journey times from tearing up the road at 90. Urban and black spot speeding is clearly a different issue but until we have more road officers cameras are the next best blunt instrument we have. Speed is actually only "a factor" in most accidents.....the root cause is normally something else such as poor observation, driving too close to just plain old driving like a w**k*r!

I was caught last year in the average speed cameras on the QE2 bridge and opted for the speed awareness course. Yes, it's very built up area focused but it has changed how I drive, however the money is pocketed. Far more useful than hitting me with 3 points for the same money. Even some of the hardened road warriors on my course admitted that some of it had actually sunk in.

That's my point!! They want to catch people speeding and they actually want people to speed because of the revenue it brings in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You should be checking the carriageway before you accelerate.

If you don't, you're not paying attention. Simple as.

Hmmm you've clearly never driven on the A12 or A46 near Warwick. If you did that you would cause a mega mega pile up coming off some slip roads. You simply cannot "check the carriageway before you accelerate".

 

[90019]

On the slip roads I am thinking of you have a split second to react to a car crawling along in the inside lane. Hardly "not paying attention".

You don't just blindly accelerate down a slip road, especially if the visibility is limited.
You also don't come to a stop and have a look. You should choose a speed that allows you time to check while still giving space to accelerate to merge.

You should never drive on a road at a speed thay doesn't allow you to stop in the distance you can see (half the distance on a single track road, obviously).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmmm you've clearly never driven on the A12 or A46 near Warwick. If you did that you would cause a mega mega pile up coming off some slip roads. You simply cannot "check the carriageway before you accelerate".

i have driven parts of the A46, including doing so in a 3cyl Polo which is somewhat slow to accelerate.
I've never been in a situation where I've caused a mega mega pile up...

 

[Antman]

'more dangerous' than who?



'makes drivers behind take risks'? Aren't they in control of their car or their actions? If the answer to either of those no, then they shouldn't be driving.



I do agree with those two statements but more because there is an expectation by other road users that vehicles will be keeping generally within the 30mph, especially pedestrians. If you hit one of those, it might make a mess of the front of the car but chances are that at 30mph, the other party won't be going anywhere (ever again).
On a motorway, all users are in vehicles so have a similar stake in their own safety as the others that they may involve in an incident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes it's a 'pr*tt' tax. Every driver knows what speed limits are* yet they still take the risk of getting caught. Then when they do get caught there is an indignation that the setup is just a cash generator, forgetting that they willingly provide the fuel.

* Excepting the situation where the speed limit signage is not in accordance with legal requirement which if contributory to the transgression, usually results in withdrawl of the penalty. The fact that a camera is not visible or painted the wrong colour is of course nothing to do with why the driver is breaking the speed limit but the politics of driving prosecutions seem to have made this 'unfair' on the poor law breaking driver.

I suppose you have never exceeded a speed limit? You're self righteousness is unreal

 

[tony_mac]

Isn't the revenue from speed cameras passed directly to central government rather than being kept by the local police force?

So the local police don't benefit from catching speeders (who are not as bad as those who drive too slowly, i.e. 30 mph in a 50 zone)

The relevant police force does get a kickback (£35) from the cost of a Speed Awareness Courses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11980318/Speed-awareness-courses-could-invalidate-insurance.html

It used to be the case that most speed limits were 70,60, and 30, and you could tell which it was by looking at the road. (And this is mostly true in some other countries).
Now, it's much more difficult - speed limits can change every mile or two, and are often not related to the layout of the road, but are set due to local politics. So you have to constantly be looking for signs and keeping track of the current limit.
It's not surprising that if you go past dozens of changes in speed limit in a day that you might miss the occasional one. And the speed trap will often be just inside the limit, before you get a chance to see any repeaters.

Even careful drivers trying to stick to the limit can get caught out. Everybody makes an occasional mistake, particularly if there happens to be other hazards that are momentarily more important than looking for signs.

Driving too slowly is only unsafe when other drivers are impatient or unobservant. If everybody was driving slower, there would inevitably be fewer accidents.

 

[Dave1987]

You don't just blindly accelerate down a slip road, especially if the visibility is limited.
You also don't come to a stop and have a look. You should choose a speed that allows you time to check while still giving space to accelerate to merge.

You should never drive on a road at a speed thay doesn't allow you to stop in the distance you can see (half the distance on a single track road, obviously).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


i have driven parts of the A46, including doing so in a 3cyl Polo which is somewhat slow to accelerate.
I've never been in a situation where I've caused a mega mega pile up...

We are clearly going to have to disagree and leave it there here because some of your point are a bit ludicrous. There is a slip road on the A46 at Warwick where you need to up to speed on the slip road before joining. You get literally a second or two to spot a gap and join. If you are unlucky enough to have a lorry or slow moving car in the inside lane you have to squeeze in or slam the brakes on simple as.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The relevant police force does get a kickback (£35) from the cost of a Speed Awareness Courses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11980318/Speed-awareness-courses-could-invalidate-insurance.html

It used to be the case that most speed limits were 70,60, and 30, and you could tell which it was by looking at the road. (And this is mostly true in some other countries).
Now, it's much more difficult - speed limits can change every mile or two, and are often not related to the layout of the road, so you have to constantly be looking for signs and keeping track of the current limit.
It's not surprising that if you go past dozens of changes in speed limit in a day that you might miss the occasional one. And the speed trap will often be just inside the limit, before you get a chance to see any repeaters.
Even careful drivers trying to stick to the limit can get caught out. Everybody makes an occasional mistake, particularly if there happens to be other hazards that are momentarily more important than looking for signs.

Driving too slowly is only unsafe when other drivers are impatient or unobservant. If everybody was driving slower, there would inevitably be fewer accidents.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Driving very slowly can be every bit as dangerous as driving very quickly.

But this thread is not about that it is about speed cameras.

 

[AM9]

I suppose you have never exceeded a speed limit? You're self righteousness is unreal

I received an sp30 (speeding offence) in 2006 on the A36 Warminster bypass from a Police Camera van parked by the roadside, 69mph on a 60mph road. It irked at the time but I just got on with it. My resolve was 'do the crime, pay the fine'. I'd rather the money went to public funds than to some profit seeking commercial outfit.
None since then, - I rarely exceed the speed limit on NSL roads and never in a 30 limit, (see my words on that in post #16).
I frequently use cruise control, especially when passing trough contra-flows. It's incredible how fast some drivers want to go. Either they are all very important or extremely selfish/stupid.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So you have to constantly be looking for signs and keeping track of the current limit.

Unfortunately, good observation is a requirement for safe driving. Excessive speed in untrained drivers is dangerous, yet there are a very large number of drivers who speed and drive very dangerously.

 

[tony_mac]

Unfortunately, good observation is a requirement for safe driving. Excessive speed in untrained drivers is dangerous, yet there are a very large number of drivers who speed and drive very dangerously.

Excessive speed is still dangerous, regardless of the drivers training.

There is always a limit to how much people can observe at once. If you come across an unstable cyclist, a motorbike, a wandering horse, a junction, a hole in the road, and a speed limit sign all at the same time, then I think one of those is less important than the others.
For example, we don't have adverts on motorways so that people can better focus on the road. The same could be said for frequent, unnecessary changes in speed limits.

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. Driving very slowly can be every bit as dangerous as driving very quickly.

Can you give an example where driving slowly (and carefully) would cause a danger that is not due to other drivers being unobservant or impatient?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you are driving with a good level of observation, in the correct position, at the correct speed and in the correct gear then you should never just unexpectedly 'come across' a hazard.

 

[Dave1987]

Can you give an example where driving slowly (and carefully) would cause a danger that is not due to other drivers being unobservant or impatient?

I recall an incident where one driver was stopped by the police doing 10mph down the Motorway a few years back. Are you seriously saying driving very slowly down the motorway is safe?

 

[AM9]

Excessive speed is still dangerous, regardless of the drivers training.

There is always a limit to how much people can observe at once. If you come across an unstable cyclist, a motorbike, a wandering horse, a junction, a hole in the road, and a speed limit sign all at the same time, then I think one of those is less important than the others.
For example, we don't have adverts on motorways so that people can better focus on the road. The same could be said for frequent, unnecessary changes in speed limits.

If you are driving in an environment where there are too many things around you to take in, then you are driving too fast. Driving slower in those circumstances not only allows you to take events in and react accordingly, - it also means that if you do need to stop to avoid something in an emergency, you will be more successful in your effort. If you are confused about the speed limit, then reduce your speed to the lowest likely speed, - that way you will most likely avoid a prosecution. .

 

[Dave1987]

I received an sp30 (speeding offence) in 2006 on the A36 Warminster bypass from a Police Camera van parked by the roadside, 69mph on a 60mph road. It irked at the time but I just got on with it. My resolve was 'do the crime, pay the fine'. I'd rather the money went to public funds than to some profit seeking commercial outfit.
None since then, - I rarely exceed the speed limit on NSL roads and never in a 30 limit, (see my words on that in post #16).
I frequently use cruise control, especially when passing trough contra-flows. It's incredible how fast some drivers want to go. Either they are all very important or extremely selfish/stupid.

You see I have never been caught speeding, and have a completely clean license. I have no issue with drivers who barrel through 30 mph zones at 50 getting points on their license or even getting banned. What does annoy me is the way that the police/government/councils won't admit that they like people getting caught speeding as it brings in so much money for them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you are driving in an environment where there are too many things around you to take in, then you are driving too fast. Driving slower in those circumstances not only allows you to take events in and react accordingly, - it also means that if you do need to stop to avoid something in an emergency, you will be more successful in your effort. If you are confused about the speed limit, then reduce your speed to the lowest likely speed, - that way you will most likely avoid a prosecution. .

So I presume you would advocate we all drove around at walking pace with a man with a red flag in front just in case? :roll:

 

[miami]

Hmmm you've clearly never driven on the A12 or A46 near Warwick. If you did that you would cause a mega mega pile up coming off some slip roads. You simply cannot "check the carriageway before you accelerate".

What would you do if there was a tailback, and rather than a lorry at 50 its nose to tail coaches at a standstill?

 

[AM9]

You see I have never been caught speeding, and have a completely clean license.

So what? I was putting Antman right on his supposition.

I have no issue with drivers who barrel through 30 mph zones at 50 getting points on their license or even getting banned. What does annoy me is the way that the police/government/councils won't admit that they like people getting caught speeding as it brings in so much money for them.

They don't need to. Bad driving, including speeding spoils and destroys a lot of lives in this country. Anything that deters drivers from speeding can only be a good thing, and the cash collected helps defray the costs of administering that process and some small part of the costs of helping the unfortunates that they affect. As long as there are careless drivers around, they can look after the cash side of things. Evidence in Oxfordshire when they turned off all cameras, was that speeding increased 88% and deaths and injuries across the county rose. Eight months later they switched them back on again. So the message is, if the cameras are there, use them because they work.

So I presume you would advocate we all drove around at walking pace with a man with a red flag in front just in case? :roll:

Well it might reduce the death toll of innocent people but hurt a lot of red flag carriers. Apart from that, your comment denoted as frivolous by the smiley is clearly an exaggeration, in practice there isn't much difference in a speed where things are likely to happen quicker than normal reaction times can handle and a speed where most drivers could see events as they are occuring and take simple avoiding action that doesn't have further unintended consequences on other users. Ability to handle unexpected hazards follows an avalanche characteristic, where just a little more activity quickly overloads the available capacity. That's when drivers snap.

 

[EM2]

They love all the revenue they get from people who get caught speeding as if no one did they would have to pay for those extremely expensive cameras with no revenue in return.

If no-one was speeding, there'd be no need for cameras.
Oh, and I drive on the A12 a lot, and have never caused a mega mega pile-up when I check the carriageway before I accelerate.

 

[ed1971]

I have travelled on motorways lots of times late at night. During these hours, maintenance is often carried out resulting in a lane or two being closed for a short stretch. In such circumstances a temporary speed limit, often 40mph will be in force to protect the workers as indicated on the matrix signs. It really annoys me how many motorists ignore the limits, with blatant disregard for the the lives of workmen. Only two weeks ago under such circumstances, I had a lorry at the back of me on the M6 trying to bully me into going faster, so I went a little slower and made him wait.

In my opinion any motorist caught doing this should have the book thrown at them; they cannot claim ignorance as the matrix signs are there for all to see.

 

[fowler9]

I really don't care if the police or local council like making money from irresponsible drivers. What difference would it make if the police came out and said "Yeah, we are made up they make it easy for us". I live in a 20 zone and the sound when someone flies over the bridge by West Allerton station and smashes in to a stopped car at the junction by mine is sickening. Normally happens at school dropping off or picking up time. The speed limit is just that, a limit, not an instruction. Driving slowly is only dangerous if you have an idiot behind you driving too fast.

 

[tony_mac]

If you are driving with a good level of observation, in the correct position, at the correct speed and in the correct gear then you should never just unexpectedly 'come across' a hazard.

While I'm not really sure what point you are making, that all sounds a little too perfect. We have to assume that ordinary people are not perfect all of the time.

A hazard still requires attention, regardless of how far ahead you saw it. It's also impossible to predict everything that might happen; apart from anything else there are some crazy people out there!

 

[Antman]

I have travelled on motorways lots of times late at night. During these hours, maintenance is often carried out resulting in a lane or two being closed for a short stretch. In such circumstances a temporary speed limit, often 40mph will be in force to protect the workers as indicated on the matrix signs. It really annoys me how many motorists ignore the limits, with blatant disregard for the the lives of workmen. Only two weeks ago under such circumstances, I had a lorry at the back of me on the M6 trying to bully me into going faster, so I went a little slower and made him wait.

In my opinion any motorist caught doing this should have the book thrown at them; they cannot claim ignorance as the matrix signs are there for all to see.

I don't disagree with you but many people ignore matrix signs because the highways agency 'cry wolf' far too often, I'm sure we've all seen warning of some incident ahead only to subsequently find that there is no incident. If drivers see a clear motorway ahead then they are unlikely to take much notice of matrix signs

 

[fowler9]

I don't disagree with you but many people ignore matrix signs because the highways agency 'cry wolf' far too often, I'm sure we've all seen warning of some incident ahead only to subsequently find that there is no incident. If drivers see a clear motorway ahead then they are unlikely to take much notice of matrix signs

I don't follow. How would you feel if train drivers ignored instructions because they thought they knew better. I really am baffled. Why when people get a driving license do they suddenly think they are a transport genius? Why do people feel that they know better than everyone else all of a sudden. It is frankly laughable.

The highways agency cries wolf! With your extensive training I guess you can assure us that the powers that be are talking ****. Ha ha.

 

[miami]

Matrix signs are usually advisory only, only if there's a red circle around it is it compulsory.

There's a big difference between roadworks when there are people on the carriageway working, and those when they leave cones up for the night when no one is working. Or the weekend. Or they leave 15 miles of cones and cameras with the nearest worker 10 miles away.

 

[Antman]

I don't follow. How would you feel if train drivers ignored instructions because they thought they knew better. I really am baffled. Why when people get a driving license do they suddenly think they are a transport genius? Why do people feel that they know better than everyone else all of a sudden. It is frankly laughable.

The highways agency cries wolf! With your extensive training I guess you can assure us that the powers that be are talking ****. Ha ha.

What a ridiculous comparison!

If the highways agency leave signs on long after an accident or obstruction has cleared then drivers aren't going to take much notice of them are they? It's obvious to the police but clearly not to you:roll:

 

[LowLevel]

I've been done and had to go on a speed awareness course for failing to rein it in enough going down a hill where the limit dropped from 40 to 30 and got pulled by a real live copper with a speed gun stood on the side of the road. The course was useful and thought provoking and it was my own fault, such is life and it goes on - I've never felt even slightly resentful about it because I was caught bang to rights.

However I still get irritated by the 'the speed limit isn't a target' ****s. It is good practice to drive at the limit where it is safe to do so. When I'm heading to work on a Sunday morning I do not need to spend 10 miles on a road with few safe opportunities to overtake following someone doing 40 in a 60 (with the odd inevitable spell of 40 in a 30!!!) because they're not in a hurry in their own little world. If you can't 'make progress' appropriately as they say in your practical driving test these days without delaying other motorists you shouldn't be on the road.

If you're a nervous driver you shouldn't be on the road regardless.

Anyone driving on a dual carriageway or motorway slowly enough in a car as to require full size lorries to pull out and overtake should be shot unless they have a good reason, such as driving on a space saver tyre.

I have no issues at all with anyone choosing to stick rigidly to the speed limit as I generally do myself as it's unreasonable to expect someone to break the law. Learners, goods vehicles, people towing - all perfectly reasonable to travelling more slowly than you expect.

Dawdlers and the terminally unconfident - unacceptable.

 

[muz379]

I've been doing 70 mph down a dual carriageway once and came up on someone crawling along. The closing speed was very dramatic, fortunately the outside lane was empty so could get round them otherwise I would have had to break harshly. Driving slowly on a trunk road can be as dangerous as excessive speed.

Presumably then if this was a stationary obstacle like a broken down vehicle or a pedestrian and there was not a clear outside lane you would have smashed into said obstacle .

But of course that would have been the obstacles fault and nothing to do with you driving beyond a distance you could see to be clear .

Its idiots like you who think that because the limit is 70 , you MUST drive at this .

 

[Dave1987]

Presumably then if this was a stationary obstacle like a broken down vehicle or a pedestrian and there was not a clear outside lane you would have smashed into said obstacle .

But of course that would have been the obstacles fault and nothing to do with you driving beyond a distance you could see to be clear .

Its idiots like you who think that because the limit is 70 , you MUST drive at this .

Wow how very self righteous of you. I drive at 70 because that is the speed limit. I have only ever been involved in one accident and that was because someone hit me. I'm clearly doing something right so please don't call me an idiot. And again this thread is about speed cameras revenue. But I'm sure you are the model perfect driver.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've been done and had to go on a speed awareness course for failing to rein it in enough going down a hill where the limit dropped from 40 to 30 and got pulled by a real live copper with a speed gun stood on the side of the road. The course was useful and thought provoking and it was my own fault, such is life and it goes on - I've never felt even slightly resentful about it because I was caught bang to rights.

However I still get irritated by the 'the speed limit isn't a target' ****s. It is good practice to drive at the limit where it is safe to do so. When I'm heading to work on a Sunday morning I do not need to spend 10 miles on a road with few safe opportunities to overtake following someone doing 40 in a 60 (with the odd inevitable spell of 40 in a 30!!!) because they're not in a hurry in their own little world. If you can't 'make progress' appropriately as they say in your practical driving test these days without delaying other motorists you shouldn't be on the road.

If you're a nervous driver you shouldn't be on the road regardless.

Anyone driving on a dual carriageway or motorway slowly enough in a car as to require full size lorries to pull out and overtake should be shot unless they have a good reason, such as driving on a space saver tyre.

I have no issues at all with anyone choosing to stick rigidly to the speed limit as I generally do myself as it's unreasonable to expect someone to break the law. Learners, goods vehicles, people towing - all perfectly reasonable to travelling more slowly than you expect.

Dawdlers and the terminally unconfident - unacceptable.

Wish there was a like button. Good post.

 

[anme]

(who are not as bad as those who drive too slowly, i.e. 30 mph in a 50 zone)

That's the most moronic post I've ever read on these forums.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If driving behind a slow vehicle makes you so frustrated as to be a dangerous driver, you are not psychologically suitable to drive.

Would you find it acceptable if a train driver sped through yellow signals because they were frustrated by a slow running train in front?

 

[Antman]

That's the most moronic post I've ever read on these forums.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If driving behind a slow vehicle makes you so frustrated as to be a dangerous driver, you are not psychologically suitable to drive.

Would you find it acceptable if a train driver sped through yellow signals because they were frustrated by a slow running train in front?

It's your comment that is moronic!

If you drove at 30mph in a 50mph zone without good reason on a driving test you would fail for failing to make sufficient progress. It's the person who isn't capable of keeping up with the general flow of traffic that is unsuitable to drive and quite honestly the train driver comparison is even more moronic;

 

[Aldaniti]

Speeding drivers kill. Drunk drivers kill. Dangerous drivers kill. Diesel drivers kill far more.....