AA and safety camera warnings.

[BrianEvesham]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Boris Bajic]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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!!