Gatso Cameras

[throdgrain]

Ive been flashed by forward facing cameras many times trem.
Recently I was slashed at about 75 mph in a 40
Thankfully though, bikes dont have number plates on the front, so they can all fuck off

 

[Trem]

Aye they flash you but don't do you, so to speak.

 

[xane]

The point is, that if they just result in fines, rather than a lowering in the average speed, or speeds at which 'danger groups' drive, then the cameras amount to nothing more than a stealth tax, rather than traffic calming.

They also impose penalty points, which eventually keeps the danger off the roads.

Lowering the average speed is not a stated objective, as most people generally drive within the speed limit and traffic volumes are so high, a small number of racer boys make no noticeable difference to the average.

 

[ECA]

speed limits are there so the lowest common denominator can drive safely, this includes your average mcdonalds employee, yes the thick imbred fuck who despite telling him you want your burger "plain" "with nothing on" "yes! plain" still manages to put all the shit inside.

I heard on the radio, so feel free to correct me if i'm talking out of my bodhi, only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding?

Total disgrace.

 

[DaGaffer]

Road deaths per thousand miles is the statisitic used, and its been static for a while (its actually gone up a bit in the last year or two), so the increased volume of traffic isn't strictly relevant.

[rant] The thing that really winds me up about the "if you don't speed you won't get caught" numptys is that they completely fail to understand that "speed kills" is bollocks - its inappropriate speed that kills. We have speed limits designed for cars built in the 1970's (and even then, the 70 limit was an arbitrary measure to save fuel during the oil crisis, not a safety thing, there's no 'science' behind it) while we all drive airbagged/abs/crumple zone/xenon headlight cars that make your 1970s Morris Marina look like the Arkinsaw Chug-a-bug. So, while I agree entirely with aggressive speed limits in built up areas, speed limits on Motorways and dual carriageways are just absurdly low.

The British motorist is the most taxed and abused in the western world (despite actually being amongst the safest) I wouldn't actually have a problem with this if it was for the purpose of broader social good, but where are the transport improvements we were promised? Where's the 'integrated policy'? Nowhere.

The latest wheeze is 'pedestrian safety'. Cars will get bigger, uglier and less environmently friendly so that some drunken twat wandering out into the road won't get hurt by the nasty cars. Of course when he bounces off the protective bonnet airbag into the path of the resolutely un-pedestrian-friendly bus or artic (because we don't invest in rail freight) he'll get splatted into strawberry jam anyway. [/rant]

 

[Lazarus]

there was a program on about speed cameras not so long ago. Apparently, inaccurate recordings are common place. an old dear was clocked (in her austin metro) of doing 150+ mph

Apparently, the cameras can be fooled by cars going too slowly and/or certain shapes of cars. Most often the inaccurate speeds were caused by cars going the OPPOSITE direction - which made the camera add together the speeds of the 2 cars .

There was also a retired policemen (who was responsible for setting the cameras on his "beat" so to speak) who indicated that most cameras were setup as a revenue means.

 

[RandomBastard]

I know this because I have a GPS satnav system in my car, and its reading of my speed is much more accurate than a cable wired to a sensor on my front wheel.

If people find this hard to believe, do a bit of research on the subject, you'll find that the regulations for the accuracy of speedometers in this county are quite generous.

Actually thats incorrect as GPS takes your speed as an avaerage over time and its notoriously inaccurate hence why taking readings for navigating at sea we will always take the reading on the log over the gps reading.

//edit And its worth noting there are at least three types of gatsos, your normal one, two headed ones that work both ways and speed average ones. These ones are the nasty ones with two at either end of a mile facing at you, dont flash but record your registration number a photo and time and do so again at the end therefore working out your average speed over a mile.

 

[Tom]

Not all speed cameras are called Gatsos. Only the grey boxes that flash passing vehicles are known as Gatso cameras. The others are Truvello and SPECS, and quite a few more.

 

[Will]

Maybe I'm biased, since all car drivers seem to think that they should pass me as close as possible, at the fastest speed they can get away with (the speed limit is not a target, it's a limit), but I can't see the problem with speed cameras. If you disagree with the speed limit, you should be campaigning against that, not against the enforcement of a law.

I did love the ABD's (Association of British Drivers) campaign against the speed cameras. A month of obeying the speed limits. That'll teach them for putting up those pesky cameras.

As for all the safety features in modern cars meaning you should be able to drive faster...please. Cyclists death rates increased with the introduction of compulsory seat belts in 1983. The perceived risks of driving as very low nowadays, so the cameras are an artifical risk. People go on about them being purely for revenue, but what they are most pissed off about is the penalty points on their licence.

If the government wanted to prove they weren't revenue schemes, the fine should be reduced to cover the cost of running the cameras, and the points should be increased. That'd teach people for speeding.

 

[pcg79]

No drivers seem to adming they just like going fast for the sake of going fast. Except me.

I like driving fast. Its fun. (Open roads with little risk of anything happening). That said, I dont do 100. Hell, the fastest Ive been was 70.

In any case - speed cameras; if you dont want to be flashed, then dont speed. Simple as.

If you dont like the speed limits, then dont blame them on teh speed cameras.

 

[xane]

We have speed limits designed for cars built in the 1970's ...

At higher speeds a greater proportion of the safety is "thinking distance", and the human brain has not evolved much since, so any increase due to technology would be minor.

 

[pcg79]

Aye they flash you but don't do you, so to speak.

*titter*

 

[DaGaffer]

Maybe I'm biased, since all car drivers seem to think that they should pass me as close as possible, at the fastest speed they can get away with (the speed limit is not a target, it's a limit), but I can't see the problem with speed cameras. If you disagree with the speed limit, you should be campaigning against that, not against the enforcement of a law.

I did love the ABD's (Association of British Drivers) campaign against the speed cameras. A month of obeying the speed limits. That'll teach them for putting up those pesky cameras.

As for all the safety features in modern cars meaning you should be able to drive faster...please. Cyclists death rates increased with the introduction of compulsory seat belts in 1983. The perceived risks of driving as very low nowadays, so the cameras are an artifical risk. People go on about them being purely for revenue, but what they are most pissed off about is the penalty points on their licence.

If the government wanted to prove they weren't revenue schemes, the fine should be reduced to cover the cost of running the cameras, and the points should be increased. That'd teach people for speeding.

Last time I looked cyclists weren't allowed on Motorways. Neither were pedestrians. Cyclists shouldn't be allowed on dual carriageways or urban clearways either, then we wouldn't have to worry about that issue. Frankly I have ZERO sympathy for cyclists since most of them routinely run red lights and put themselves in harm's way; they're not licenced or tested and have no insurance. Motorists are legislated against because the powers that be can, its as simple as that. Road haulege has a powerful lobby and a whole new beuracraucy would have to be set up to deal with cyclists, so motorists are an easy, fragmented and disorganised target, who've been made to feel guilty about driving (despite the lack of alternatives) routinely for years. And yes I will protest about speed limits at the ballot box, but since this is the first time the opportunity to do so has appeared on a mainstream party's manifesto ever, this hasn't been an option for me in the past.

 

[DaGaffer]

At higher speeds a greater proportion of the safety is "thinking distance", and the human brain has not evolved much since, so any increase due to technology would be minor.

cobblers. Braking distances with modern brakes and ABS are more than HALF what they were in 1973.

 

[Will]

Last time I looked cyclists weren't allowed on Motorways. Neither were pedestrians. Cyclists shouldn't be allowed on dual carriageways or urban clearways either, then we wouldn't have to worry about that issue. Frankly I have ZERO sympathy for cyclists since most of them routinely run red lights and put themselves in harm's way; they're not licenced or tested and have no insurance. Motorists are legislated against because the powers that be can, its as simple as that. Road haulege has a powerful lobby and a whole new beuracraucy would have to be set up to deal with cyclists, so motorists are an easy, fragmented and disorganised target, who've been made to feel guilty about driving (despite the lack of alternatives) routinely for years. And yes I will protest about speed limits at the ballot box, but since this is the first time the opportunity to do so has appeared on a mainstream party's manifesto ever, this hasn't been an option for me in the past.

<bites>

I'm not allowed on motorways, true. Banning them from duel carrigeways and urban clearways would surely just add even more cars to the already congested roads.

Because some cyclists run red lights (illegal), you come across as thinking them as valid targets. Putting themselves in harms way...if people didn't drive like the roads belonged only to cars, surely it wouldn't be so dangerous.

Part of the beauty of cycling is the lack of licencing and testing...anyone, from any social background, can afford to get a bike, and get a bit of freedom. Running a car, on the other hand, is a finacial burden which is out of the grasp of a lot of people. And it is one of the alternatives which you dismissed.

 

[TdC]

they're not licenced or tested and have no insurance.

all adults in holland are insured, and parents are liable for kids. when I walk about outside, or bike for that matter, I'm protected by a mandatory insurance that translates roughly as "lawful accountability". When I use my MTB I'm protected by a different insurance designed specifically for bike sports. are you saying that such a construct doesn't exist in the UK?

 

[Will]

Technically, cyclists are covered on the roads by a group third party policy, as are all uninsured drivers. I can't remember the name of the fund though. Drivers pay for it through their insurance premiums.

You can also get optional insurance, from the CTC, for a very small sum indeed.

 

[DaGaffer]

all adults in holland are insured, and parents are liable for kids. when I walk about outside, or bike for that matter, I'm protected by a mandatory insurance that translates roughly as "lawful accountability". When I use my MTB I'm protected by a different insurance designed specifically for bike sports. are you saying that such a construct doesn't exist in the UK?

That's right, there's no obligation for cyclists (or pedestrians) to insure themselves in the UK. The thing Will is talking about is a fund similar to Criminal Injuries Compensation, but its not 'insurance' as such. If a cyclist ran in to my car, unless I pin him to the floor until the police arrive, I've got no financial redress (and I'd probably get arrested for assault), unless I sue him personally.

 

[mank!]

I know this because I have a GPS satnav system in my car, and its reading of my speed is much more accurate than a cable wired to a sensor on my front wheel.

If people find this hard to believe, do a bit of research on the subject, you'll find that the regulations for the accuracy of speedometers in this county are quite generous.

Indeed, my driving instructor has a speedometer mounted in front of the passenger seat which reads the speed as consistently lower. The margin is quite surprised, I was doing over 80mph according to the car's speedometer but the other one read it as 68/69mph. He said it's because they make in built speedometers show the speed slightly faster to make people drive slower.

 

[TdC]

no

jeebus!! how can you (you in general heh) live like that? it's ffing dangerous

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Actually thats incorrect as GPS takes your speed as an avaerage over time and its notoriously inaccurate hence why taking readings for navigating at sea we will always take the reading on the log over the gps reading.

Thank you mr.bastard.

That was my original point. And also why i asked what make/model GPS system you had. As very high end systems are obviously alot more accurate.

 

[jaba]

In any case - speed cameras; if you dont want to be flashed, then dont speed. Simple as.
cameras.

But my point is that I wasnt speeding and I still got flashed by the damn thing, and if speedos always overread the cars speed and I was doing 30, then how messed up is that camera! oh well
If I get a ticket though I am gonna fight against it, and if I get points well then im buying a damn bike and not touching a car again, theyre too damn expensive!

 

[mank!]

speed limits are there so the lowest common denominator can drive safely, this includes your average mcdonalds employee, yes the thick imbred fuck who despite telling him you want your burger "plain" "with nothing on" "yes! plain" still manages to put all the shit inside.

I heard on the radio, so feel free to correct me if i'm talking out of my bodhi, only 4% of accidents are caused by speeding?

Total disgrace.

HAHAHAHA

Whilst you and everyone else on this forum may be able to drive quite safely at 80mph up, down and round every road in this country you can't count on other people's ability to react as quick as you, not to mention the fact that you've got twice as less time to react to something when you're driving at 80mph when you should be doing 40mph. That's why speed limits exist.

 

[DaGaffer]

<bites>


Because some cyclists run red lights (illegal), you come across as thinking them as valid targets. Putting themselves in harms way...if people didn't drive like the roads belonged only to cars, surely it wouldn't be so dangerous.

.

Look, its simple physics, if you're on a bike, or you're a pedestrian, cars are a danger and they will kill you if you get in their way. If we must have bikes, cars and pedestrians occupying the same space, those most at risk should be obliged to take the most care, its their skin after all. And if you don't want pedestrians, cars and bikes to occupy the same space, ban one group or the other. And if you tax motorists to the extent that they are in the UK - people will behave like the road belongs to them - why shouldn't they? They've paid for it!

Oh, and I'm sorry but the bicycle is simply not a practical transport alternative to the car, I drive 30 miles to work ffs and there's no direct train (2 hours, 2 changes) or bus (at all). For short journies in good wheather, fine, and I've got a bike to do just that.

 

[mank!]

No drivers seem to adming they just like going fast for the sake of going fast. Except me.

I like driving fast. Its fun. (Open roads with little risk of anything happening). That said, I dont do 100. Hell, the fastest Ive been was 70.

In any case - speed cameras; if you dont want to be flashed, then dont speed. Simple as.

If you dont like the speed limits, then dont blame them on teh speed cameras.

I like driving fast. I love overtaking someone on a bypass, but I'm not retarded enough to break the law by doing 50mph in a 30mph zone or something ludicrous like that.

 

[DaGaffer]

HAHAHAHA

Whilst you and everyone else on this forum may be able to drive quite safely at 80mph up, down and round every road in this country you can't count on other people's ability to react as quick as you, not to mention the fact that you've got twice as less time to react to something when you're driving at 80mph when you should be doing 40mph. That's why speed limits exist.

No-one's saying that. They're saying 70 is too low on a motorway or dual carriageway (and a lot of urban clearways). No one's arguing that there shouldn't be speed limits, but that most are inappropriate - speeds should probably come down in quite a few places, but considerably up in others.

 

[Tom]

Oh, and I'm sorry but the bicycle is simply not a practical transport alternative to the car, I drive 30 miles to work ffs and there's no direct train (2 hours, 2 changes) or bus (at all). For short journies in good wheather, fine, and I've got a bike to do just that.

Nobody is suggesting that you should ride a bike over that distance, but many people live no more than 5 miles away from work. In most cases, a fit and able person can cycle that distance in little over the time it would take in a car (assuming that its in rush hour traffic). I used to race buses home from college, on a 7.5 mile trip I would often get home before the bus passed the end of my street

I'm quite lucky really, at my parent's home a 15 minute walk would take me to a Metrolink station, with trams at intervals of less than 10 minutes all day. Where I live now, the train station is less than 5 minutes walk from my house, and it goes direct into Manchester, or Warrington/Liverpool the other way. Sorry you're not so fortunate on that score

 

[TdC]

Oh, and I'm sorry but the bicycle is simply not a practical transport alternative to the car

oh but it is!! within reason naturally: if people in cities got off their collective arse and did a 15min bike trip instead of a 20min car trip then there would be much rejoicing. I'm well aware that a *long* bike trip is ott for general commuting. Living in holland I find commute trips up to 10 miles to be perfectly acceptable.

For short journies in good wheather, fine, and I've got a bike to do just that.

wuss

 

[mank!]

No-one's saying that. They're saying 70 is too low on a motorway or dual carriageway (and a lot of urban clearways). No one's arguing that there shouldn't be speed limits, but that most are inappropriate - speeds should probably come down in quite a few places, but considerably up in others.

Motorways, fair point. Don't the German autobahns have no speed limit and considerably less accidents? In urban areas then speed limits and neccesary and there are some roads near me that despite being rural are very dangerous, only the other day someone overtook me and nearly half a dozen other cars in one go, then had to slam the brakes on just before a corner as someone was coming the other way. Although speed limits won't stop that, it's a deterrence just like speed cameras and if people like that insist on doing it repeatedly they'll just lose their license.

On the subject of ridiculously low speed limits, there's a 30 zone that I drive through on the way to work. It's just off the bypass and it's residential, but there's no street lights, no pavement, and all the houses are set back from the road by about 10 foot of grass on either side, and then most of the houses have a huge driveway. In about two years of driving through there I doubt I've seen a dozen pedestrians. It's the most absurd speed limit ever, the only reason it's that low is because one of the head officers in the Thames Valley force lives there. It should be at least 40 but 50 is probably overkill. The difference between 30 and 40 is pretty annoying and it is to easy to go over 30 without realising it through there.

 

[Tom]

No-one's saying that. They're saying 70 is too low on a motorway or dual carriageway (and a lot of urban clearways). No one's arguing that there shouldn't be speed limits, but that most are inappropriate - speeds should probably come down in quite a few places, but considerably up in others.

Agreed. Housing estates = 15-20mph. Motorways = 80mph (on straight sections. Bits like the M6 through Birmingham/Stoke should remain at 70).