# AA and safety camera warnings.



## mickle (2 Nov 2012)

I cant be the only person who thinks its morally reprehensible that the AA - along with TomTom and others no doubt - include in their route maps 'warnings' about where speed cameras are located. Its totally the wrong message - 'Watch out you might get a speeding ticket'.

Id like to protest about this but not sure the best way of going about it. Ultimately id like to see the law changed that allows the location of cameras to be published and displayed on satnavs. 

Should i start one of them there pertitions?


----------



## mcshroom (2 Nov 2012)

You could try but it wouldn't get very far ae apparrenty these cameres are part of an unjust war on the poor law abiding motorist who pays for the roads and everything honest!

My personal belief is that cameras should be camourflaged and put up without warning so that people actually stick to the limits rather than just slam the brakes on for the camera. If you can manage to still he breaking the law on speeding after being warned with a big camera sign and a bright yellow box then quite frankly you deserve everthing that's coming to you.


----------



## BrianEvesham (2 Nov 2012)

I hate speed cameras, no loathe them and their stealth tax abilities. If there is a local problem send mr PC down with his hand held speed camera.



This should get interesting (-;


----------



## mcshroom (2 Nov 2012)

How is fining people stupid enough to break the law a stealth tax?


----------



## Lee_M (2 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> I cant be the only person who thinks its morally reprehensible that the AA - along with TomTom and others no doubt - include in their route maps 'warnings' about where speed cameras are located. Its totally the wrong message - 'Watch out you might get a speeding ticket'.


 
if you look at it another way, the cameras have been put in place to get people to slow down. If people know where they are and slow down then job done, whereas if they dont know they dont slow down.

As a revenue collection you want the latter, for the former then surely the former is better?


I know a police officer (now a CI) who used to email the location of mobile cameras to people as that was more effective way of slowing them down


----------



## mcshroom (2 Nov 2012)

I'd prefer people to think they could be snapped by a camera at any time in any place. Otherwise the camera only works for the very small section of road it actually covers. For Motorways I'd be in favour of having timer cameras along the entire road. You'd only need a gantry at each junction to implement that and it would be safer and more environmentally friendly than the current situation.

I can't understand why many drivers are happy to sign up to an agreed licence to operate in accordance with the rules of the road, then feel it is their right to break any of those rules that they don't like. We all signed the forms, if you don't like the rules then feel free to hand your licence in at the next convenient opportunity.


----------



## BSRU (2 Nov 2012)

The "draconian" ways of really slowing down motorists are:-
Install a black box with GPS that prevents a car from exceeding the speed limit on any given road.
Install a black box with GPS that records positions and speeds, which can be downloaded during the MOT or by the Police when required to check for any speeding offences. Although the punishments must be regraded, a few miles an hour over the limit a fine, then points with large fine then for more than 20% over a limit automatic ban.
Have more officers with speed cameras, reduce the points total to 6 in order to automatically loose your licence and make the fine punitive, related to a persons pay.
Tyre spikes fitted in the road which activate when a speeding car approaches
Of course none of the above will happen due to costs and the governments fear of upsetting the motoring lobbies.


----------



## growingvegetables (2 Nov 2012)

BrianEvesham said:


> I hate speed cameras fines for burglary, no loathe them and there their stealth tax abilities.


FTFY


----------



## DRHysted (2 Nov 2012)

They are not speed cameras, they are Safety cameras. They are fitted in areas that have proven the required number of accidents (although the joke is with one placement, one of the accidents that was counted was a pedestrian falling off the bridge). 
As such their placements are advertised to warn road users that there is an accident black spot ahead. 
Personally I don't care, I have never been caught speeding by a camera.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

mcshroom said:


> . For Motorways I'd be in favour of having timer cameras along the entire road. You'd only need a gantry at each junction to implement that and it would be safer and more environmentally friendly than the current situation.
> .


 
When someone can explain to my satisfaction why it is unsafe to travel above 70mph on a three carriageway motorway in Britain, but perfectly safe to travel at 200mph on a duel carriageway in Europe then I will believe in blanket average speed cameras as a safety measure and not another money making scam and an excuse to reduce the number of physical police on the roads, who are much better at reading situations and spotting a variety of infringements a damned site worse than n+10%+2.

Now red light cameras, those I would have on every junction, and I would prosecute cyclists as well.


----------



## GrasB (2 Nov 2012)

BrianEvesham said:


> I hate speed cameras, no loathe them and there stealth tax abilities. If there is a local problem send mr PC down with his hand held speed camera.


Somehow despite driving past cameras 100s if not 1000s of times, also despite the fact I don't slow down or take any avoiding action when they come to my attention I've managed to avoid this stealth tax. This is all done with me owning 2 cars which can easily reach twice the UK NSL on dual carriageways & are far faster than the majority of cars on the road, I employ a secret technique which most people don't know.... ... I keep to the speed limit


----------



## Alun (2 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> I cant be the only person who thinks its morally reprehensible that the AA - along with TomTom and others no doubt - include in their route maps 'warnings' about where speed cameras are located. Its totally the wrong message - 'Watch out you might get a speeding ticket'.
> 
> Id like to protest about this but not sure the best way of going about it. Ultimately id like to see the law changed that allows the location of cameras to be published and displayed on satnavs.
> 
> Should i start one of them there pertitions?


You might want to consider where the AA and TomTom get their information from in the first place.
http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safety-advice/Road-Safety/Speed.aspx


----------



## BrianEvesham (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> They're not a stealth tax. They're an idiot tax - as you have to be a selfish idiot to be caught by one.


That's assuming your are deliberately breaking the law.




DRHysted said:


> They are not speed cameras, they are Safety cameras. They are fitted in areas that have proven the required number of accidents (although the joke is with one placement, one of the accidents that was counted was a pedestrian falling off the bridge).
> .


I disagree. We have two sites in my area which do not fit the criteria. Both are long straight stretches of road that have no history of accidents which used to be 40 mph limits, they were reduced to 30 mph and Cameras then installed. But I do accept that they are the only answer to genuine accident black spots.

Yes I have a clean licence! I am More likely to get fined for going too slow!


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> The thing you seemed to have failed to grasp is that the law doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's the law - full stop.
> 
> And you can expect no sympathy if you get caught breaking it.


 
Never said I don't understand or accept the law old love, just said I don't accept the bullshit around *safety* cameras. If they call them what they are and the reason they are in place, then hunky dory, but don't give the left wing guardian reading munchkins another soapbox to stand on. They are not safety cameras, they will do no more to stop the 16 yo chav in his stolen corsa from mowing down a ped or cyclist than a fart in the wind.


----------



## BrianEvesham (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> My what is deliberately breaking the law?
> 
> The fact is, that it is your responsibility as a driver, to know what the speed limit is for the road you are on and to drive at or below that limit (which is of course a maximum - not a target). There is no such thing as 'accidentally' breaking the speed limit.


I was just trying to differentiate between the occasional "lost" motorist and a deliberatly speeding/racing motorist.


----------



## BrianEvesham (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> If they're that "lost" and confused then they really shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car...


LOL, I think that might be another thread which I will not disagree with.


----------



## Recycle (2 Nov 2012)

I switched off the feature on my (Garmin) device because I drive at the speed limit and I found that the device still issued a persistent and irritating warning "bong" for sometime before and after the speed check. The only way to avoid the "bong" is to drive below the speed limit.


----------



## Alun (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> The Safety Partnership were compelled to publish the sites of fixed cameras after a campaign by the AA, RAC, and their ilk, who whinged that poor motorists were being persecuted.


Compelled by whom? Do you have a link for that?


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> My what is deliberately breaking the law?
> 
> The fact is, that it is your responsibility as a driver, to know what the speed limit is for the road you are on and to drive at or below that limit (which is of course a maximum - not a target). There is no such thing as 'accidentally' breaking the speed limit.


 

A few years ago there was a stretch of 40 limit road near where I live, this was altered to 30, 40 repeaters where removed and a spangly new sign installed saying welcome to "Oldfatfool town, remember the speed limit 30 MPH" After a couple of months speed scamera signs went up and the local pretend rozzers sat about in a transit smoking woodbines and slurping tea. No worries you have been warned BUT the spangly sign had the 30 MPH blanked out, tell me it isn't a con, anyone driving on that road would remember the speed limit was 40!!!

OK so if lamposts are less than xx feet apart then the limit is 30, but to actually remove a reminder is in my book criminal, there would be considerably less speeding on the roads if the limit was posted more frequently and obviously, especially given the number of roads that have had stricter limits imposed on them.

As for cameras and speed limits would you rather have a driver looking where he was gong, and observing cyclists and other hazards, or would you rather all drivers where fixated on the speedo ensuring they don't stray over 29 mph in case there is a camera hidden in the next bush


----------



## mcshroom (2 Nov 2012)

I'd rather drivers were driving at a speed and with an awareness suitable for the road around them. Being able to read the road signs would be part of that general awareness.

After all, if you can't read a large clearly designed high contrast retro reflective sign then what chance does a pedestrian have?


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

mcshroom said:


> I'd rather drivers were driving at a speed and with an awareness suitable for the road around them. Being able to read the road signs would be part of that general awareness.


Thats fine if there are road signs showing the limit, and a lot of the reduced limits on roads aren't always what could be called suitable. 30 mph on a duel carriageway at 8.45 am might be the max safest speed but deserted at 4 am 70mph could equally be judged as suitable.

As for awareness, which is it easiest for a driver to do, concentrate on the speedo or scour the bushes for hidden cameras that may or may not be there? As mentioned with modern cars it takes nothing at all to be doing 33 instead of 28, even a slight change in incline can do that.


----------



## Alun (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> DfT letter.


I think that you have misinterpreted this letter. "_A central recommendation of the group is that site by site casualty, crash and speed information for permanent fixed camera sites_" It doesn't seem to mention camera location at all.

It also appears to be dated June 2011, camera location information has been widely available for many years before this date. as shown in my 2003 Road atlas.

The thrust of the letter that you link to, seems to be about showing the success (or otherwise) of "speed"(that's the word that DfT use) cameras, surely you don't disagree with that.


----------



## green1 (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2131822, member: 45"]It's not perfectly safe to travel at 200mph anywhere.[/quote]Better stop flying then.


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Nov 2012)

I'm a driver and have a bundle of speeding tickets to my name.

I'm largely (but not entirely) reformed.

The change is almost entirely due to the cost of tickets and the associated increase in insurance premium.

I am in a minority among motorists in my thinking on speed cameras.

I think they should be placed wherever the authorities want to place them, with no signposts and no warnings.

There is much that is good about the AA, but I agree with the OP that it is odd to announce camera locations. It's been going on for years and is not just the AA. 

I wouldn't bother with a petition. In forty years of cycling, I have yet to have a serious issue with a speeding motorist. We oughtn't do it, but we do and we'd do it a lot less if we were hit harder when caught... but as a cclist, a motorist and a pedestrian, i have no issue at all with speeding road users.


----------



## simon.r (2 Nov 2012)

User said:


> The thing you seemed to have failed to grasp is that the law doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's the law - full stop.
> 
> And you can expect no sympathy if you get caught breaking it.


 
I assume you have reflectors on your pedals?

Or is that a law that it's OK to break?


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2131822, member: 45"]It's not perfectly safe to travel at 200mph anywhere.[/quote]
It's not perfectly safe to get out of bed in a morning, come to think of it, it isn't perfectly safe to stay in bed either, bugger, where all farked


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Nov 2012)

Actually I am all for it!

This is traffic calming that is effective, cheap and the idiots regulate themselves.

The information given includes fixed sites, but also mobile sites...

Our driver approaches area, PratNav tells him he is about to get a ticket because there is a 30 mph speed restriction enforced by a speed camera.... so they slow down to 30.

The fact that there is no camera there is irrelevant as the PratNav has done it's work, and slowed down our driver.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> It's not perfectly safe to get out of bed in a morning, come to think of it, it isn't perfectly safe to stay in bed either, bugger, where all f***ed


 
Apt choice of phrase.... how many of us are here due to an accident that occurred after staying in bed?


----------



## GrasB (2 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Thats fine if there are road signs showing the limit, and a lot of the reduced limits on roads aren't always what could be called suitable. 30 mph on a duel carriageway at 8.45 am might be the max safest speed but deserted at 4 am 70mph could equally be judged as suitable.
> 
> As for awareness, which is it easiest for a driver to do, concentrate on the speedo or scour the bushes for hidden cameras that may or may not be there? As mentioned with modern cars it takes nothing at all to be doing 33 instead of 28, even a slight change in incline can do that.


My Alfa has performance figures which could read straight off the Porsche spec list for a mid-range model & is an accomplished long distance cruiser which really doesn't feel much difference between 30mph & 130mph. However it's easy enough to keep it at a more or less constant 29-30mph even in hilly areas without my eyes glued to the speedo. It's not that difficult, it does however require one to actually pay attention to their surroundings. Just keep the engine spinning at a reasonable speed not down at silly low rpm then just listen & feel for the engine revving on. Also visual clues like how fast stationary objects are passing give you very good indications of speed changes in either direction.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> . It's not that difficult, it does however require one to actually pay attention to their surroundings. Just keep the engine spinning at a reasonable speed not down at silly low rpm then just listen & feel for the engine revving on. Also visual clues like how fast stationary objects are passing give you very good indications of speed changes in either direction.


 
So if you see a scamera sign or roadside yellow box, you are so confident in your ability that you won't check your speedo?

Regardless, upto to that point I agree, however, searching the roadside trying to spot camouflaged scameras (which was what one poster was advocating and the point I was answering in an earlier post) would imo take more of the average drivers attention than was safe or they would be too busy staring at the speedo, especially if they are close to the totting up.

I would imagine anyone who needs a car and is on 9 points would be a nervous wreck and an absolute liability.

NOW no doubt someone will pop along and say if you have been caught out to have 9 points then you deserve all you get, and in the past with a good old traffic officer on the beat I would agree, HOWEVER scameras like buses always come in 3's or 4's, SO quite easily you could drive down a 1 mile stretch of road in the belief it was a 40 limit (that it may have been months ago) and end up getting caught by 3 cameras in a row, 9 points but only 1 offence.

Bloody hell burglars can ask for xyz other robberies to be taken into account and still only get 1 sentence or sentences that run concurrent, yet a motorist commits one 'crime' and gets 3 sentences!!!!!!

If it was the good old traffic officer, the odds are if you where driving sensibly you would get a slap on the wrist and warned the limit had changed, at the very worst you would get 3 points, but you sure as hell wouldn't continue on your merry way speeding for the next mile to get caught twice more!!


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132247, member: 45"]That's bonkers. If you drive properly it will make no difference if a safety camera is hidden or not.[/quote]

If you have 9 points on your license and drive for a living and the cameras become camouflaged then I would imagine your speedo will become rather an important focal point of your driving.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Thats fine if there are road signs showing the limit, and a lot of the reduced limits on roads aren't always what could be called suitable. 30 mph on a duel carriageway at 8.45 am might be the max safest speed but deserted at 4 am 70mph could equally be judged as suitable.
> 
> As for awareness, which is it easiest for a driver to do, concentrate on the speedo or scour the bushes for hidden cameras that may or may not be there? As mentioned with modern cars it takes nothing at all to be doing 33 instead of 28, even a slight change in incline can do that.


 
So if the local boy racer decides that he can "safely" drive through your residential area at 70 then we should allow him to do so as he is a competent judge of what speed is appropriate?


----------



## GrasB (2 Nov 2012)

Yes, I am that confident, I drive like that all the time. My speedo is checked every 2 min or so as part of my instrument review (that's a quick check of speed, temps & pressures among other things) or 2 speed checks in rapid sucession when changing speeds, say from 40 to 20mph with a speed limit change.

Why in gods name has someone got 9 points on their licence? A laps of concentration at the wrong time might get 3 points however to rack up 9 points & there's some sort of systematic breakdown in your driving or you've been a right idiot & been drink driving or such like. Either way I have absolutely NO sympathy for someone who gets banned in those situations as they've already proven them selves to be right at the bottom or bellow the minimum standard of driving required to hold a driving licence.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> So if the local boy racer decides that he can "safely" drive through your residential area at 70 then we should allow him to do so as he is a competent judge of what speed is appropriate?


 
Now you are being silly.

There are plenty of duel carriageways that are completely barried off from pedestrians etc that are 30/40 mph limits, equally there are plenty of single lane roads with footpaths either side that are NSL. If the speed limit isn't posted and made obvious upon which road are you most likely to find

a) a speeding motorist
b) a scamera

and which road would you think would be the safest road to drive on at say 60mph if there was no other traffic around.

I have no issue with driving within the speed limit, if I want to play I will either go abroad or find a track day.
I don't even have an issue with speed cameras that are visible, marked and not put in places where they are clearly placed to catch out the unwary rather than at an accident blackspot.

What, as a paranoid motorist, and I freely admit I am paranoid about scameras as I drive for a living, does nark me off is that the speed limits on roads are not clearly marked, how much would it cost (apart from lost revenue) to paint a massive 30 or 40 or whatever in the middle of the road every 500 yds?? With the amount of road side furniture, and twisted buggered painted over yadda yadda yadda signs, parked buses/ lorries etc at the sides of our roads it is easy enough to miss the single speed limit sign even when paying attention.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Yes, I am that confident, I drive like that all the time. My speedo is checked every 2 min or so as part of my instrument review (that's a quick check of speed, temps & pressures among other things) or 2 speed checks in rapid sucession when changing speeds, say from 40 to 20mph with a speed limit change.
> 
> Why in gods name has someone got 9 points on their licence? A laps of concentration at the wrong time might get 3 points however to rack up 9 points & there's some sort of systematic breakdown in your driving or you've been a right idiot & been drink driving or such like. Either way I have absolutely NO sympathy for someone who gets banned in those situations as they've already proven them selves to be right at the bottom or bellow the minimum standard of driving required to hold a driving licence.


 
See my post at the bottom of page 2, obviously you are perfect and a driving god, never break the speed limit, never pick your nose, change the radio station, sneeze, smoke or knock one out whilst driving, but I can assure you lots and lots of people do and have 9 points on their license to prove it, and I would guess a goodly proportion of those would be classed as professional drivers at that.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132312, member: 45"]If you don't know the speed limit of a road you're driving on then perhaps you would benefit from some retraining. It's not difficult.[/quote]

So I can put you down in the middle of any road in the country and you can tell me the speed limit, okkkkk.

And in anycase what is the harm in reinforcing the message, other than loss of revenue?

I am sure I read a report somewhere that said the signs that flashed up the limit and a smiley or sad face with your speed where much more effective than scameras at reducing average speeds over a given stretch of road.


----------



## Alun (2 Nov 2012)

All this talk indicates that some here still think a driving licence is lost at 12 points.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/thir...ts-rack-up-offence-after-offence-6455073.html


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132329, member: 45"]Cars don't fly. You have to drive to a point. And on the way you are alerted time the speed limit. If you're paying attention.[/quote]

If you see the sign. If the sign isn't obscured by foliage, parked vehicles etc, I ask again what would be the harm of reinforcing the speed limit by repeaters, and more frequent repeaters? Surely you don't want people to speed, so cram the limit down their throats.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132333, member: 45"]Anyone with nine points is a proven dangerous driver.[/quote]

We are never going to agree, basically because you are wrong


----------



## Alun (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132333, member: 45"]Anyone with nine points is a proven dangerous driver.[/quote]
No, someone who has been found guilty of dangerous driving is a proven dangerous driver.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132358, member: 45"]There's no need to do anything more. Millions of us prove this day after day.[/quote]
Like I said you must be the only motorist in the UK that as never inadvertently broken the speed limit . I am very happy for you.


----------



## oldfatfool (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132361, member: 45"]If you've got nine points it's because you've been caught presenting an unnecessary increased risk on the roads.[/quote]

My final post on the subject, but out of interest who would you say presented the greatest risk, and out of these three examples who would receive the 9 points.

A) Joe Bloggs driving in a 30 limit at 35 mph on a rural road Sunday evening at 7pm, isn't aware of the speed cameras and gets flashed 3 times

B) Damien Hill (or anyone really but we will go with a very talented driver) driving down a deserted motorway, 6.30 am in the morning, perfect visibility, middle of July, driving a new lamborrari at a steady 110 mph

C) Aunt Fanny, aged 86, driving an Austin Metro, 1 month of MOT to run, driving down the m1 at 8.30 am on a friday morning in January at 45mph in patchy fog


----------



## Bromptonaut (2 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> If you see the sign. If the sign isn't obscured by foliage, parked vehicles etc, I ask again what would be the harm of reinforcing the speed limit by repeaters, and more frequent repeaters? Surely you don't want people to speed, so cram the limit down their throats.


 
But realistically what are the chances of signs, pretty well invariably on both sides of the carriageway, being totally obscured? One of my techniques while teaching The Lad to drive was to ask him the speed limit; he was usually right. The chances of being wrong/confused and in range of a camera are minimal. If not then you're simply not giving the task enough attention. 

And I don't buy the bollox about danger through too much focus on speedo either. Can pin either of my cars to 20, 30 or 40 and engine note confirms speed is constant. Sure I glance at the speedo as part of scan of road, mirrors etc. But there's no need to fix it in a catatonic stare.


----------



## Bromptonaut (2 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> My final post on the subject, but out of interest who would you say presented the greatest risk, and out of these three examples who would receive the 9 points.
> 
> A) Joe Bloggs driving in a 30 limit at 35 mph on a rural road Sunday evening at 7pm, isn't aware of the speed cameras and gets flashed 3 times
> B) Damien Hill (or anyone really but we will go with a very talented driver) driving down a deserted motorway, 6.30 am in the morning, perfect visibility, middle of July, driving a new lamborrari at a steady 110 mph
> C) Aunt Fanny, aged 86, driving an Austin Metro, 1 month of MOT to run, driving down the m1 at 8.30 am on a friday morning in January at 45mph in patchy fog


 
You are the late Paul Smith (safespeed) AICMFP.

But to keep the pot boiling:

I'm not sure Joe deserves 9 points but if he was unlucky enough to find a rural 30 with three cameras in quick succession then his number's up anyway. On an urban or semi urban road the first flash should wake him up.

Damien would get a short ban and a big fine, I've a feeling there's an oddity that lets him off the points he richly deserves.

Provided Aunt Fanny is in lane 1 she's no problem to anybody.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (2 Nov 2012)

I've skimmed the thread but seen no mention of the French law which prohibits radar detectors, whether they are in use or not (I'm not sure if a suitably enabled sat nav counts but I don't see why not). I think I'm right in saying that if you have one in your car you get an on-the-spot fine and the device and your car is liable to confiscation. I suspect that other mainland Europe countries have similar laws (but am not arsed to do a comprehensive google trawl before posting!). I'm not sure exactly when this came in, maybe 10 years ago, but having driven in France before and after the change I can assure you it made a massive difference. I agree with the OP that the position in the UK is farcical. I'd support some French style enforcement on this front.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> Now you are being silly.


 
Not at all........

Please explain why he is not allowed to choose the speed that he feels is safe and appropriate, but you are?

... or is it the simple fact that you should both be observing speed limits?


I always love the aspirational ego-trip that the person driving fast is an experienced famous racing driver....... Max Power magazine, the Boy Racer's bible worked with the IAM and intheir research showed that over 85% of their readers classified themselves as "above average" in their skill


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132333, member: 45"]Anyone with nine points is a proven dangerous driver.[/quote]

.. and the evidence supports this.

Repeated speeding has been unequivocally linked with other risk taking behaviour such as inappropriate overtaking, failing to give way at junctions and tailgating.


----------



## growingvegetables (3 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> When someone can explain to my satisfaction why it is unsafe to travel above 70mph on a three carriageway motorway in Britain, ..... blah, blah, blah.


Two suggestions

a) Get out of your driving seat, and spend 10 minutes on one of those motorway service station bridges. Watch the traffic. And think.

- How many of those drivers are *driving*? (Very few)
- How many are just holding a position in a strange filing system, just behind the file in front, just in front of the file behind? Nearly all.

You can keep a safe distance between you and the file in front of you, but how many dingbats are behind you? You *may* be able to stop if necessary, but they can't.

b) A different angle. Recognise these symptoms? Rigid arms, tight shoulders, sore neck, sore head from focusing your eyes far too much on a very limited view, sore legs from making very controlled but small movements hour after hour after hour, and being absolutely cream-crackered after a long motorway drive? And you want to drive at 200mph? In that state? Come on - self preservation here .......... it wouldn't just be you driving at 200mph, it'd be all the other brain-numbed idiots.

Aye, I know, the ones who don't have your level of awareness.

The other leg's got bells on.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2012)

Safety Cameras? My bottom. They don't photograph people during safely. Whatever next? Safety Tasers? Safety Batons?

Why be ashamed? Just call them Speed Cameras and get on with it.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2012)

Well, they actually operate at barely a profit. Was it Clarkson who discovered that Simon Cowel pays more in income tax than these things raise?

I do like the idiot motorist bit though. There's only one persons foot on throttle, and if that person can't spot a 10 feet high pillar with a 2 foot square box on the top then I wonder how successful they'd be at spotting me, whos rather smaller, on my bike.

I don't listen to shoplifters bitching about CCTV and certainly won't take any notice of motorists with the same complaint.


----------



## GrasB (3 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> See my post at the bottom of page 2


So the driver gets 9 points for not paying proper attention to the road. Hey that's showing that the driver is driving in a manner which falls bellow the required standards. Your arguments gets a big '*FAIL!*' stamp!



> obviously you are perfect and a driving god, never break the speed limit, never pick your nose, change the radio station, sneeze, smoke or knock one out whilst driving, but I can assure you lots and lots of people do and have 9 points on their license to prove it, and I would guess a goodly proportion of those would be classed as professional drivers at that.


No I'm not & I'm sure I've broken the speed limit on many occasions however I seem to have avoided getting any points on my licence. I can't think why this is it seems to be escaping me... oh... erm... yeah it's because I'm doing my upmost to make sure I'm driving in a safe manner & adhering to the rules of the road. When one is doing this the effect of a minor & short duration interruption to your concentration such as a sneeze has minimal impact.

Things like changing the radio station, smoking, etc. do it when it's safe to do so. For changing a radio station wait until you're stationary at some lights, at a junction etc. Personally I can categorically say as a driver I've never changed a radio station while driving. Why? Because I know that any conversation that is on the radio will distract me so I don't listen to it, in I've always listened to instrumental only music in the car.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'knock one out' because that indicates consuming alcohol or texting in the vehicle, both of which are extremely selfish, irresponsible & moronic actions one *chooses* to do in a vehicle.


----------



## simon.r (3 Nov 2012)

User said:


> Yep.
> 
> And me not having reflectors wouldn't put anyone else at risk...


 
Fair enough, just making the point that the vast majority of us break some laws at times and your statement that "...the law doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's the law - full stop." is, IMO, too simplistic. I'd have thought that part of the government's job was to make 'good' laws and that means explaining them to us.

I almost always abide by the laws (pedal reflectors excepted) but that doesn't mean I agree with them all and I can think of several that, IMO again, are not justifiable for all sorts of reasons.


----------



## simon.r (3 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'knock one out'...


 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knock one out

HTH


----------



## simon.r (3 Nov 2012)

User said:


> Why? Do you expect the Government to explain why we have theft laws? Or why we have laws relating to violence?


 
I don't think those particlar laws need explaining, the vast majority of us accept that theft and violence are wrong and should be legislated against, but other laws do need explaining.

Examples include planning law, licensing hours, drugs, helmet laws (thinking motorbikes here), dangerous dogs, minimum alcohol pricing...etc etc.

I have opinions on most of these, as you probably do. Sometimes our opinions will differ, but I do think the government should explain why laws exist or are proposed. For example, why cannabis is illegal and alcohol isn't. Or why it's compulsory to wear a helmet on a moped (which can't exceed 30 mph) and not on a bicycle (which can easily exceed 30 mph).

Speaking of which, I am now going to get dressed and get out on my bicycle for a couple of hours

Whilst wearing a helmet


----------



## simon.r (3 Nov 2012)

User said:


> They do that. It called the legislative process, which is public. If you really want to know about why particular laws are being proposed, then all the information is there - you just need to get off your arse and stop expecting to be spoonfed.


 
I haven't suggested that the information isn't out there or that I'm expecting to be spoonfed. (Whether it's sensible information is another issue).

The legislative process exists, to some extent at least, to explain proposed laws to my / our satisfaction. Which seems to contradict your point that "...the law doesn't have to be explained to your satisfaction. It's the law - full stop."

If everyone had that attitude we would be giving parliament the implied right to pass whatever laws they saw fit, with no attempt to explain them to us. Which is not a position I'd like to be in.


P.S. Rain has postponed bike ride, but it's getting brighter.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

There was some research done with the Institute of advanced motorists that has an interesting correlation between prosecutions and popularity in August this year.

In Scotland 15% of drivers think they are unacceptable, with 14% of drivers being caught
In England 20% think they are unacceptable, with 19% being affected by prosecutions for speeding
Wales has he highest number of drivers who believe that cameras are unacceptable at 32%, but also had the highest rate of prosecutions at 27%

Does this tell us something?

Could it suggest that those who don't speed think they are acceptable and those who get caught think they are not?

It also shows that the vast majority find their use acceptable.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

There was a piece of work called "_*Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil*_" by Thomas Hobbes in 1651

A complex work, but in a very basic form he argues that there are common desires and needs, and that these will be ignored by some. Therefore at some point you appoint law makers who will make laws for the benefit of the society as a whole, in order to bring these people into line

The unequivocal fact is that the majority of the public don't want nutters driving around at any speed that they "think" they are safe at. As a result they have no problem with laws being introduced on their behalf and these idiots being caught and fined.


----------



## Peteaud (4 Nov 2012)

I have no problem with speed cameras but they do nothing to stop the poor standards of driving.

More marked police cars on the roads and hefty fines for tailgating and poor driving is what I would like to see.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

Peteaud said:


> I have no problem with speed cameras but they do nothing to stop the poor standards of driving.
> 
> More marked police cars on the roads and hefty fines for tailgating and poor driving is what I would like to see.


 
Unfortunately not!
In Manchester they used "Smart Cars" with video and a Police officer reviewing the video, then issuing tickets for inappropriate driving.


Nirvana - Police on the streets in cars and issuing tickets for bad driving

Within days the bleating commenced about how it was a money raising exercise, nothing to do with road safety and my favourite, from the Association of Bad Drivers claiming.......

It is a total infringement.

That while the camera is looking into cars, other motorists could be driving erratically and causing a danger on the roads

That using these marked vehicles was dangerous as otherwise law abiding motorists were being forced to watch out for Police vehicles instead of watching the road, thus causing accidents, and that they would encourage panic braking as motorists saw them, again causing accidents


So apparently using marked Police vehicles is an unacceptable infringement of the right to drive like a loon and a ludicrously dangerous idea!


----------



## GrasB (4 Nov 2012)

Peteaud said:


> More marked* unmarked* police cars on the roads and hefty fines for tailgating and poor driving is what I would like to see.


Fixed that for you. It's amazing how much better the standard of driving is when there's a marked police car about, the police car turns off the road & the standard of driving instantly gets much worse. I've witnessed this many times. So no, unmarked police cars & lots of them. That way people end up having drive to their 'best behaviour' standard because virtually every newish car they see might be a police car


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Fixed that for you. It's amazing how much better the standard of driving is when there's a marked police car about, the police car turns off the road & the standard of driving instantly gets much worse. I've witnessed this many times. So no, unmarked police cars & lots of them. That way people end up having drive to their 'best behaviour' standard because virtually every newish car they see might be a police car


 

Naughty...

You can't have unmarked Police Cars either

The use of unmarked Police cars is entrapment

Unmarked Police Cars are only hidden to catch otherwise law abiding motorists and etort money. Also ther is the problem wher thes motorists have to divert their attention way from the road watching for unmarked Police Cars making accidents more likely.

Secondly there is the panic braking that occurs when motorists see the uniformed driver of an unmarked vehicle which also causes accidents.


----------



## GrasB (5 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Naughty...
> 
> You can't have unmarked Police Cars either
> 
> The use of unmarked Police cars is entrapment


Entrapment requires an officer to coerce an individual into do something illegal for the sole purpose of arresting them. An unmarked police car doesn't coerce anyone into doing anything, it simply is there allowing the officer to observe in a more discrete manner.

Unmarked police cars isn't entrapment, it's allowing the officer to practice coppering.



> Unmarked Police Cars are only hidden to catch otherwise law abiding motorists and etort money. Also ther is the problem wher thes motorists have to divert their attention way from the road watching for unmarked Police Cars making accidents more likely.
> 
> Secondly there is the panic braking that occurs when motorists see the uniformed driver of an unmarked vehicle which also causes accidents.


By your theory because someone hasn't murdered someone they shouldn't be prosecuted for shop lifting. It's nonsense, if someone is committing a motoring offence they should be punished for it.

If one is driving to an acceptable standard & speed on the road then there is absolutely no need to modify their behaviour in a car when a police officer is present. The very act of panic braking is an indication that not only are they breaking the law, they're also aware that they are doing so.

People already panic brake when they see highly visible police cars so why is not marking the cars up any different? I've said this many times & will continue to say so. The best way to not get prosecuted for motoring offences is to not commit them in the first place.

Basically your post screams of 'the crime is getting caught not the actual action' & shows a complete lack of respect for law abidance.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Nov 2012)

[QUOTE 2132361, member: 45"]If you've got nine points it's because you've been caught presenting an _*unnecessary*_ increased risk on the roads.[/quote]
if you'll excuse the liberty - added emphasis


----------



## snorri (5 Nov 2012)

GrasB said:


> Basically your post screams of 'the crime is getting caught not the actual action' & shows a complete lack of respect for law abidance.


I thought Cunobelin was just being mischievous by using a few phrases he has lifted from 'safespeed'. 
No?


----------



## mickle (5 Nov 2012)

This email was sent to you by TomTom. Having trouble viewing the email below?
Click here to read the online version.












*Dear customer,*
New speed cameras are put up all the time. But we don’t want you to worry about them on your journeys. That’s why we’re offering a big discount on our Speed Cameras service, which gives you fixed speed camera alerts.

*Right now, you can get 12 months of Speed Cameras Europe for just £6,99 – that’s 65% off!*
Timely warnings let you know when you’re approaching a speed camera, so you can drive safely and stay relaxed. But knowing where the cameras are doesn’t just mean safer driving. Speed Cameras helps you avoid costly fines, with over 25,000 up-to-date camera locations including red-light. And with 95% coverage in 23 European countries, you’ll know what’s ahead – wherever you are.

£ 19.99
*£ 6,99*




All the best,
The TomTom team


----------



## Davidc (5 Nov 2012)

I'd like us to have the same rules as the French. AFAIK the type of kit in Mickle's post is illegal there, as well as radar detectors.

I'd like to see the same penalties for speeding as for drink drive (and those to be toughened as well).

Not politically likely I know.

I have a tried and tested method for not getting speeding fines or points. I just obey speed limits. Silly not to really, you don't get anywhere any faster if you do speed, you risk fines and points, you increase the hazard you present to other people and the risk to yourself.

I do think we should have repeater signs in 30 limits, the same as we do for other speeds. Nonetheless anyone who gets caught speeding has only themselves to blame. It's not difficult to drive within the limits, and anyone who can't should give up driving or buy a Garmin satnav.


----------



## subaqua (5 Nov 2012)

Lee_M said:


> if you look at it another way, the cameras have been put in place to get people to slow down. If people know where they are and slow down then job done, whereas if they dont know they dont slow down.
> 
> As a revenue collection you want the latter, for the former then surely the former is better?
> 
> ...


 Noprth Wales police used to tell you the roads they were going to have a mobile camera on. they just never told you what day that week, or what time. It worked


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (5 Nov 2012)

Part of the fun of obeying speed limits is watching loads of other drivers going nuts trying to come to terms with why you're going so slow.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (5 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> I'd like us to have the same rules as the French. AFAIK the type of kit in Mickle's post is illegal there, as well as radar detectors.
> 
> I'd like to see the same penalties for speeding as for drink drive (and those to be toughened as well).
> 
> ...


 Agree re the French approach (see my earlier post). I didn't realise there was a difference in repeater signs between 30 and higher limits and would support repeater 30 signs.


----------



## Alun (5 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> I'd like us to have the same rules as the French.


81mph? I agree with you on that one !


----------



## Davidc (5 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> 81mph? I agree with you on that one !


I don't have a problem with their top limit used on toll motorways with better design and maintenance than ours. As you realise I like their rules on not allowing disclosure or detection of monitoring devices (such as cameras), hidden cameras and so on. They need them more than we do given their higher KSI rates than ours, but we'd benefit from them.


----------



## Davidc (5 Nov 2012)

mumbo jumbo said:


> I didn't realise there was a difference in repeater signs between 30 and higher limits and would support repeater 30 signs.


 
I believe (but will accept corrections) that it's because we still have an archaic bit of law which says there's a 30 limit if there are street lights, so if it's not 30 and there are lights there are repeaters, if there aren't lights and there's a limit other than national there are repeaters, if there are lights and it's 30 there are no repeaters.

That was fine when there were fewer street lights and generally they coincided with 30 limits, now it's just confusing.


----------



## mickle (5 Nov 2012)

I'd happily give ten miles per hour to some stretches of motorway in exchange for a reduction of ten mph in built up areas.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (5 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> I would imagine anyone who needs a car and is on 9 points would be a nervous wreck and an absolute liability.



I would imagine that anyone whose job, home, marriage, charity work, or whatever else, depends on having a driving licence, would drive accordingly.


GC


----------



## RedRider (5 Nov 2012)

Why wouldn't the AA provide camera warnings? It's in its marrow. This from the AA website...
A group of motoring enthusiasts met at the Trocadero restaurant in London's West End on *29 June 1905* to form the Automobile Association (the AA) – a body initially intended to champion the cause of the motorist and *particularly to help motorists avoid police speed traps*.
By 1912 they had 950 cycle patrols taking part in this work. Here's just one of the quislings...


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Nov 2012)

IIRC there was a previous organisation called the Cyclist Touring Club.

They had an increasing number of people driving the new fangled cars and they wanted the CTC to campaign on their behalf as well - the CTC refused, so a breakaway group met at the Trocadero

SO the AA is in fact a splinter group of the CTC!


----------



## subaqua (6 Nov 2012)

Davidc said:


> I believe (but will accept corrections) that it's because we still have an archaic bit of law which says there's a 30 limit if there are street lights, so if it's not 30 and there are lights there are repeaters, if there aren't lights and there's a limit other than national there are repeaters, if there are lights and it's 30 there are no repeaters.
> 
> That was fine when there were fewer street lights and generally they coincided with 30 limits, now it's just confusing.


 
its really simple. no repeaters and its a 30, all other limits have to have repeaters . if I don't see a repeater I assume its 30.


----------



## subaqua (6 Nov 2012)

2136925 said:


> Yes but making drivers think about anything, other than the road ahead, is dangerous apparently.


 ROFLMAO . yes even asking them to think about using mirrors and signals before turning overloads brains apparently


----------



## mcr (6 Nov 2012)

No, Davidc's interpretation is correct. 30mph zones without street lights set a certain distance apart have to have repeaters (which is why our tiny village of 200 got 9 of the signs when a 30 limit finally came in in March).


----------



## subaqua (6 Nov 2012)

mcr said:


> No, Davidc's interpretation is correct. 30mph zones without street lights set a certain distance apart have to have repeaters (which is why our tiny village of 200 got 9 of the signs when a 30 limit finally came in in March).


 http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu...n/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_191920.pdf

clears it up nicely.


----------



## Bad Company (9 Nov 2012)

oldfatfool said:


> If you have 9 points on your license and drive for a living and the cameras become camouflaged then I would imagine your speedo will become rather an important focal point of your driving.



Correct. Then you are likely to crash.


----------



## Bad Company (9 Nov 2012)

BrianEvesham said:


> I hate speed cameras, no loathe them and their stealth tax abilities. If there is a local problem send mr PC down with his hand held speed camera.;



Spot on. Trouble is Mr Plod won't raise much money.


----------



## mickle (9 Nov 2012)

Bad Company said:


> Correct. Then you are likely to crash.



Hopefully off the road - and permanently. I dont want to share road space with people who cant farking drive.


----------



## theclaud (10 Nov 2012)

Bad Company said:


> Correct. Then you are likely to crash.


Badders! Nice to see you again, dismal contribution to the discussion notwithstanding. Sort out your avatar, would you?


----------



## GrasB (10 Nov 2012)

Bad Company said:


> Correct. Then you are likely to crash.


If you can't keep to the speed limit then you're a dangerous driver & IMO are obligated to hang up the keys because you're not safe on the roads. I can keep a my car at the speed limit easily enough for anything over 20mph* which does 0-60mph in sub-5.5s, 30-80mph (4th) in 4.3s & has hit 168mph & was still accelerating rather quickly


* speed limits under 20mph are a little interesting as the rpm is either very low or very high due to the large ratio jumps. I'd like to make 1st lower & 2nd higher then put a gear in between them to smooth out the big jumps between 1st, 2nd & 3rd.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Nov 2012)

Bad Company said:


> Spot on. Trouble is Mr Plod won't raise much money.


 
How very dare you.....

Don't you know that uniformed Police Offers standing by the side of the road with speed cameras cause accidents due to panic braking, and cause otherwise low abiding motorists to concentrate on looking for Police Officers rather than the road?

Spelling corrected after bread based criticism!


----------



## irw (10 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> How very dare you.....
> 
> Don't you know that uniformed Police Offers standing by the side of the road with speed cameras cause accidents due to *panic baking*, and cause otherwise low abiding motorists to concentrate on looking for Police Officers rather than the road?


 
Damn that under-cooked bread! Or is it because people are eating it too quickly out of the oven?


----------



## Bad Company (10 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Badders! Nice to see you again, dismal contribution to the discussion notwithstanding. Sort out your avatar, would you?



What's wrong with the avatar?

BTW did I mention that I bought a new bike?


----------



## theclaud (10 Nov 2012)

Bad Company said:


> What's wrong with the avatar?
> 
> BTW did I mention that I bought a new bike?


It's pixellated - you need to reload it at a bigger size. No I don't think you did - what have you got?


----------



## Bad Company (10 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> It's pixellated - you need to reload it at a bigger size. No I don't think you did - what have you got?




Specialized Roubaix Elite Compact. Bloody Marvellous !!!


----------

