Concealed Speed Cameras!

[dysfunction]

Yes I was speeding and I accept. I also accept that I have to pay the consequences of speeding.

The point I am making is that I was under the impression that speeding cameras had to be perfectly visible....and thats why they are all painted yellow....so how can they using hidden ones?

I now see that this is not the case...

 

[nath]

Just to make sure you know, I wasn't having a go at you dys.

Tom - you raise some interesting questions - and it's a valid point, when do you stand up and say no.

Point is, I don't think the speed limits are unjust, and as such I don't think fining people for breaking them is a big deal.

 

[Jonaldo]

Tom, to critisise the system so much, surely you would have to have an alternative answer? Obviously just doing away with speed limits would be chaos and to be honest I'm not sure how else they can police speed limits. It wouldn't be finiancially viable to have traffic police on every road at every hour so unfortunately I think cameras are the only way to go and it would be impossible to capture an image of the driver of every speeding car I think, and there would certainly be ways to avoid having your picture caught on camera.

 

[nath]

I bet you wouldn't say that people who didn't pay their poll tax bill because it was unfair, and who were later fined and even jailed, shouldn't moan? At what point does a law-abiding citizen have the right to disobey an unjust law?

Your opinion on people in the armed forces seemed to be completely the opposite to this though - I seem to remember something about a greek soldier who got thrown in jail which you would have been all for had he not been drafted...

 

[JingleBells]

The biggest problem with concealed speed cameras, is the fact that they can't be preventing an accident, as you don't know they are there, and don't slow down. They are revenue generating rather than accident preventors, which is what I thought speed cameras were for.

 

[nath]

That's one way of looking at it. How about - you never know where they are and as such you will feel compelled to not speed anywhere because of that. If you can see a speed camera, you just slow down for it, then speed up after.

 

[Paradroid]

The biggest problem with concealed speed cameras, is the fact that they can't be preventing an accident, as you don't know they are there, and don't slow down. They are revenue generating rather than accident preventors, which is what I thought speed cameras were for.

Then in the larger context they could be seen as an educational tool...for tools. (But only once they stop advertising them, and, have them on every road)

Am I right, or am I right?

 

[GekuL]

Since when could people decide which laws they had to follow?

You can ignore the speed limits if you don't agree with them, but don't complain if you get caught. What does it matter how you were caught? How does that change the fact that you were breaking the law? I can understand trying to get out of a charge, but also understanding that you are in the wrong (as dyfunction is doing). I can't understand why people think this is an area where they can ignore the rules.
Ofcourse, if they're that much of a problem, those who don't agree with the limits can choose not to use the public roads. Maybe build some of their own?

 

[Athena]

I was under the impression that speed cameras were required to be clearly visible by Law? I’m guessing this is incorrect?

I was caught speeding at 42mph in a 30 zone on a dual carriage way at roughly 5am.
1. It was a dual carriage way
2. There were no 30mph warnings and
3. It was before 5 in the fucking morning and there was ZERO traffic.

Had it been later… 6 or 7 am onwards then fair enough, city traffic rears its ugly head about then but 5 IN THE MORNING!!??

Don’t some areas in the country have speed restrictions dependant on time? Quite frankly these should be introduced.

I’m an advanced driver and I’m not a speed freak but 12 mph over the speed limit at 5am is too fucking much tbh.

 

[lecter]

Speed cameras are in the main counter productive. With the widespread proliferation of them, for instance there are 63 in a 5 mile radius of Reading town centre it has the effect of concentrating the accidents to where the cameras arent rather than stopping accidents altogether. People learn where they are and happilly speed between them; knowing the chances of getting caught are slim. Only once have I been flashed and that was when I was over 100 miles from home in a strange place.

 

[d1m3b4g]

I think personally I agree with everything Tom has said in this thread.

I dont have a problem with speed limits, but thats a far FAR too general approach.

You cant just have a be all and end all stand point on these sort of things, there are many factors to consider.

The time of day, the width of the road, the surroundings, the fact the government IS ripping people off with speed cameras, how far technology has come with cars etc...

People NEED to use their cars, the goverment know this... public transport is simply NOT an option for me or many people like me who travel to work on the roads. Top gear prooved that speed cameras are not there to cut down on accidents, they took the 15 most major black spots of accidents in the uk and investigated how many of them had a "safety" camera installed, think it was a grand total of 0 or 1. They are there to make money in the majority, that is pretty clear to see.

Its all very well to say "these are the laws" and you've broken them etc, but surely it makes more sense to analyse the laws and see if they still make any sense for this period in time? They clearly need some alteration to stop penalising people who really do very little wrong.

I noticed how speeding got compared to crack and this was defended by Will until it was promptly pointed out that smoking weed wasnt legal, after that he promptly shut up. That is because as everyone knows, there is nothing wrong with smoking a bit of weed. Whats that? The laws need changing there? Yes, thats right they do.

So we have a conflict of interest here... I'm guessing that will isnt either a regular driver and thus doesnt really understand what we motorists are talking about (which seems the case for anyone daring to defend hidden speed cameras) or actually doesnt mind having double standards on issues that are deemed illegal. Which seems a lot more likely.

The same thing happened to me, as one chap put it on this thread. A stretch of road, the a34 was having major work done to it, in the day a sensible 40mph speed limit was imposed and obviously helped to stop workers getting killed. Makes perfect sense.

Come around 7pm rush hour almost over, and the workers have gone home and cleaned up the cones etc, still 40mph speed limit. Why? Could it be to prevent accidents to the workers that arent actually there? To ease the traffic that isnt actually on the road at that time of day? Or to make money?

Regardless I saw the flash go off on a guy doing 60 odd mph just up ahead of me (I was doing about 80 or something, normal for a 3 lane road with sod all traffic on it) so I slowed down to the 40mph... couldnt believe that was still in force at that time of night and I wouldnt have blamed the guy getting out his car and taking it out on the camera either.

What is it with the attitude amongst some people ...

"If you're speeding and you're nicked, then it's fair cop guv"

How would you feel doing 8 mph over the set "limit" when the conditions meant you could safely traverse the road at say double the speed limit without any problems. Its a cop, but its not a "fair" cop in the slightest... Limits are there for reasons granted, but it seems common sense doesnt depict what law is set in the first place or how it is interperated or enforced.


Also

"Dunno about UK but in Denmark, number 1 cause of death is speeding, so my statement that speeding kills is pretty fair"

1) Who told you this, what source
2) did you ever consider the figures were some how suggested in a way that bends the truth. As in a certain percentage of motorists that were eating a burger, or talking on their phone, driving with their feet etc were actually over the limit at the time of an accident, so therefore its "speeding" that consituted the accident. Nothing to do with driver negligence or anything.
3) How many speed cameras do you have out there to catch people.
4) Do you not agree that with all the factors of modern day life speed limits should be increased to suit the conditions?

Dime

 

[Will]

I noticed how speeding got compared to crack and this was defended by Will until it was promptly pointed out that smoking weed wasnt legal, after that he promptly shut up. That is because as everyone knows, there is nothing wrong with smoking a bit of weed. Whats that? The laws need changing there? Yes, thats right they do.

So we have a conflict of interest here... I'm guessing that will isnt either a regular driver and thus doesnt really understand what we motorists are talking about (which seems the case for anyone daring to defend hidden speed cameras) or actually doesnt mind having double standards on issues that are deemed illegal. Which seems a lot more likely.

Nah, you read me wrong. I took a pop at Cyfr for using the phrase "real criminal". Nothing to do with crack.

As for smoking weed, I'm happy to admit its illegal. If I get busted, I'll accept it. I don't respond to these threads because I get too easily annoyed about drivers. Stupid drivers who overtake too close to prove their Grand Prix skills, while driving too fast, as well as stupid drivers who overtake me and turn left in front of me, shit like that.

So I keep out of these threads for a reason.

 

[d1m3b4g]

Well yeah, we all feel that one man :| I apologise if i read it wrong.

Like today a guy in a lexus got angry at me for daring to drive past him so shot down a road that was closed on one side to swerve right back in infront of me where the 2 lanes merged...

Thing is you see it so often I dont get mad anymore, I expected it and just slowed down.

As for "real criminal" its a bit of an oxymoron, if something is illegal its illegal as far as the law goes... but I do understand what is meant by it. There are obviously degrees of what is considered a serious crime and a more minor one or every crime would carry the same sentence... Still its odd that fucking a dog will get you a life sentence but death by dangerous driving wont.

 

[Driwen]

4) Do you not agree that with all the factors of modern day life speed limits should be increased to suit the conditions?

The speed limits are abit lower compared than in my country(netherlands) where its 62 or 74(100kmph,120kmph), allthough not much and you cant have 62 or 74 as limits. And you cant just claim that because the car can now break in less space the speed limits should be improved, as for one the other car has that same "advantage" so while driving on a motorway you will still need to keep the same distance. And in my country people already keep to little distance to other cars at our current speed limits (on the motorway) and I think they will keep less distance relatively with higher limits (making it unsafer)
Now for other roads, the being able to break faster and having better headlights might be reason enough to increase the speed limit abit, but that isnt something I can judge. And about the night time speeds, its to few people who suffer from this probably to make changes to it.

Ow and with the general publics reaction time being 0.5 seconds (when driving a car and not knowing something will happen and pressing a key on your keyboard) and wanting to keep some extra distance for safety (the other car might break faster/hit other cars and come to a complete still(?right word?)). So 2 seconds or 1.5 seconds should be best, which means 100 feet or 75 feet at 70 mph.
Atleast the 2 seconds is something we have here as a general rule and its also easier to remember than x distance between cars at speed y.

 

[Trem]

Ultimately I still think that going slow causes more problems than going fast.

Going slow down a sliproad to get into the main traffic causes accidents, going slow where its not needed causes accidents due to people trying to overtake stupidly.

 

[Jonaldo]

What is the amount of leeway (?correct spelling? one of those things you say a lot but never write) that is actually allowed when it comes to speeding? Is it about 5 mph or something, the amount that you are allowed due to the accuracy of their readings not being 100% or your speedo being slightly out?

 

[old.user4556]

What is it with the attitude amongst some people ...

"If you're speeding and you're nicked, then it's fair cop guv"

How would you feel doing 8 mph over the set "limit" when the conditions meant you could safely traverse the road at say double the speed limit without any problems. Its a cop, but its not a "fair" cop in the slightest... Limits are there for reasons granted, but it seems common sense doesnt depict what law is set in the first place or how it is interperated or enforced.

Of course it's a fair cop, the speed limits are blatantly posted; if you decide to go and conciously break that posted speed limit and you're caught; tough shit mate. Who gives you the right to decide on what's a safe speed or not anyway? Where are your accident statistics for said stretch of road?

The stretch of road i was nicked on was posted a 40 - of course the 40 limit was absolutely ludicrous, but i chose to break it and was busted - fair cop.

I also think that some speed limits are retarded and that it would be probably be safe to raise motorway limits at night (perhaps 90 mph during the night, ending that speed at 6am?). However, then you take the argument elsewhere - all the people (such as yourself) that say "i was only doing 8 mph over" will be the same people that say "i was only doing the 90 mph 2 minutes past the speed curfew, how unfair, boo hoo".

There is a speed limit, break it and pay the price. Shite? You bet, but what are you going to do.

 

[old.user4556]

What is the amount of leeway (?correct spelling? one of those things you say a lot but never write) that is actually allowed when it comes to speeding? Is it about 5 mph or something, the amount that you are allowed due to the accuracy of their readings not being 100% or your speedo being slightly out?

iirc, 10% + 2 mph over; so the police aren't likely to pull you for doing 35. My mate was stopped for 39, but received a stern caution.

G

 

[Driwen]

I also think that some speed limits are retarded and that it would be probably be safe to raise motorway limits at night (perhaps 90 mph during the night, ending that speed at 6am?). However, then you take the argument elsewhere - all the people (such as yourself) that say "i was only doing 8 mph over" will be the same people that say "i was only doing the 90 mph 2 minutes past the speed curfew, how unfair, boo hoo".

thing is how do you define when it is safe (as at some rare night it might not be semi busy and the 90mph would then be dangerous) and how much money versus gain will it grant. I mean there are only a few people on that road at night and less will be speeding and again less will be irritated by getting caught (allthough I dont really see the use for having hidden speed cameras at night, which would lead to people being able to know where to speed and where not).
This is off course besides the point that there will be people who will break the time zone by claiming that in 10 (20?) minutes the higher limit time zone will be valid or as you said that 2 minutes ago it was allowed and it isnt now. And it will confuse tourists alot as they most likely wont know about this rule.

And Trem as you said, when people drive slow somebody else has to act stupid to make it dangerous or atleast in most cases. While driving fast no one else has to make a mistake/act stupid and it can be dangerous. So while going significantly slower than the speed limit might cause more problems, there usually still has to be someone who breaks the law to create a problem.

Example slow ass tractor and someone being to close to it trying to overtake it. By doing so he cant actually see the opposite traffic and might create a problem. It isnt atleast totally the fault of the tractor that the accident might happen, the overtaking driver should have kept more distance so he had time to judge the opposite trafic coming towards him.
However at motorways, I think there is besides a maximum limit also a minimum limit (atleast there is in the netherlands). So you could increase the minimum limit if it creates to much problems on the motorways atleast.

 

[Trem]

The thing is, if someone crashes whilst overtaking someone doing 4mph in a 30 zone then I would tend to blame the person driving woefully slow. If someone crashes whilst overtaking someone doing the correct speed then its the overtakers fault. Arguments for both sides I guess.

 

[d1m3b4g]

Stuff

Well done for spectacularly missing the point and reading exactly what you wanted to see.

What a waste of time :/

 

[Tom]

Tom, to critisise the system so much, surely you would have to have an alternative answer? Obviously just doing away with speed limits would be chaos and to be honest I'm not sure how else they can police speed limits. It wouldn't be finiancially viable to have traffic police on every road at every hour so unfortunately I think cameras are the only way to go and it would be impossible to capture an image of the driver of every speeding car I think, and there would certainly be ways to avoid having your picture caught on camera.

You don't need a traffic officer on every corner. What we need is to allow the officer to use his own judgement and discretion on what is appropriate when witnessing somebody speeding. If I get caught doing 70mph down a dual carriageway on a Sunday morning, when the posted limit is 50mph, I would expect a policeman to pull me over and say "look mate, you were speeding, just beware theres been some accidents on this road, just be a bit more careful and back off would you?". That would suit me, and the officer would certainly have my respect. What tends to happen now is that the officer would log you as speeding, and a day or two later a NiP would drop on the doormat demanding to know who was driving (information which you are legally required to supply; guilty until proven innocent).

Traffic police also play a very valuable role in educating errant drivers on their mistakes, or bad habits. The more speed cameras you have, the fewer traffic police, because to a Chief Constable, why have traffic police on the roads when they could be patrolling the streets, and reducing the critisism coming from the press and public about visible policing?


Will - I sympathise with your point of view. I've been cycling for 16 years, been knocked down twice, and I've seen it all (shouting through window as they pass, spitting, honking horn, driving too close, cutting you up). Its a bit unfair to put those kinds of drivers in the same category as respectable drivers who know how to drive, and can determine what speed is appropriate for the conditions.

Nath - you sign up for the army in a democracy, and you do what you're told to, otherwise in the clink you go. The army isn't a democracy, if you don't like it, you leave. I like this country, I want to stay here, I just don't agree with the government's policy on speeding, because its basically unjust.

 

[Driwen]

What tends to happen now is that the officer would log you as speeding, and a day or two later a NiP would drop on the doormat demanding to know who was driving (information which you are legally required to supply; guilty until proven innocent).

this is what I understood from briefly reading that pepipoo site, but it seems that they wont fine you then for speeding if you either say I dont know or dont say anything. however they will possibly fine/arrest you for not knowing who was the driver at that time as it is your vehicle that was speeding so your responsibility. So you are not guilty of speeding, but guilty of not knowing who used your vehicle to speed with (I assume that if your vehicle was stolen than there will be no problem as long as you either have reported this or can somehow prove that it was already the case).

Off course I can be horribly wrong on this, but as I see it, it is atleast not a clear case of guilty until proven innocent (as your car has been proven to be speeding).

 

[old.user4556]

Well done for spectacularly missing the point and reading exactly what you wanted to see.

What a waste of time :/

Constructive post, you win the prize. I didn't miss any point, i have my own opinion, if you don't like it - then tough shite .

Question: are you the same dimebag that used to op on Quakenet many years ago?

 

[Durzel]

I mainly agree with Dime and Tom - speed limits as they stand are too arbitrary.

Whilst I agree certain speed limits should be fixed and immutable (e.g. residential and school run 20/30 limits) the notion that weather conditions, time of day and traffic load should bear no influence on limits seems a trifle out of date. Just as it is technically reckless to drive at 70mph during rush hour traffic on icey motorways (even though legally speaking you are not breaking any Laws), it is equally not reckless in my opinion to do 100mph on a clear, empty motorway in the middle of the night.

I've done 170 on the M3 "safely" for a short time, and was in no danger to myself or anyone else at the time.

 

[Trem]

School runs tend to be no faster than 15mph due to all the 4x4 driving mums who live 4 yards from the school taking little Timmy to school*


























*I may wish I hadn't said that.

 

[GekuL]

4x4's should be banned in cities.

 

[Trem]

I love you!!

I often hear the argument that "4x4's are safer, which would you prefer your wife and child to use"

Not so fucking safe when they plough into a kid and mum who have actually bothered to walk to school, trapping them in the bull bars that the 4x4's in Stoke clearly need to tie the buffalo to after they have been hunted down and shot.*








































* I may regret saying that.

 

[old.user4556]

It's the truth Trem.

My neighbour says that she loves her 4x4 because "it's good for getting out the drive when it snows", the problem is that:

1) she has a level drive
2) when it snows here, it melts quickly
3) she's a tard like the rest of the SUV crowd*








*Now I may i wish i hadn't said that

 

[d1m3b4g]

Yes I am Big-G...

I've never disputed that the law is the law, all I am disputing is the actual law itself.

Its 2004, the law for 70mph limits on motorways has been in effect since 1965.

Think about that, thats 40 years old next year.

Have some interesting reading...

http://www.abd.org.uk/motorwayspeedlimit.htm

You'all learn something you hear.

Dime