Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:09 |
Interesting point re-visited in todays D. Telegraph motoring section.
Why, if camera's are to encourage you to keep within the speed limit, is the actual speed-limit not shown on the back of the Camera??
Because they aren't there for that reason at all!
They are there to make money!
Edited by thepits
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:42 |
spokey wrote:
You are the Reverend A. J. Blair, and I claim my £5.
|
Thanks for the warm welcome.
Nice, really nice.
I didn't think I was being rude or dismissive in posting my thoughts or
questions, but clearly it is what I deserve for daring to question the
obvious majority view here.
As I said I am struggling to understand how the government, Police or
whoever are to blame for any of us speeding & my questions were an
offer for me to be educated in this.
Clearly though posing questions on such matters labels me as a Blairite which could not be further from the truth actually.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:52 |
billgates e30 wrote:
in Durham County there are no fixed camera sites
and only one or two mobile units that are placed in proven accident blackspots, info of these sites are availble to the public.
And they have the lowest record of RTA's in the country
coincidence i think not |
Surely the question isn't how many collisions occur in a county , but
do the counties/areas that have cameras see a greater reduction in the
number of collisions.
If we look at the reductions in collisions between 2003 & 2004 the
North East were one from bottom of the table in reduction numbers.
London, The South East , The Midlands etc performed much better in
contributing to the reduction in death & serious injury numbers.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:54 |
livvy wrote:
Thanks for the warm welcome. Nice, really nice.
I didn't think I was being rude or dismissive in posting my thoughts or questions, but clearly it is what I deserve for daring to question the obvious majority view here.
As I said I am struggling to understand how the government, Police or whoever are to blame for any of us speeding & my questions were an offer for me to be educated in this.
Clearly though posing questions on such matters labels me as a Blairite which could not be further from the truth actually.
|
Livvy - for once it wasn't me that replied to your post in such a manner - nevertheless I will apologizs on their behalf for any offence made
We all accept - I think - that speeding is an offence.
The issue here is the prolification and location of cameras.
No sensible person would object to them outside schools - but on a motorway? Well????????
The current speed limits - out of town - are stupid. 70mph on a motorway where we are all going the same way??
Speed does not kill - FACT
Inappropriate use of speed DOES!
discuss...........
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 17:57 |
thepits wrote:
Interesting point re-visited in todays D. Telegraph motoring section.
Why, if camera's are to encourage you to keep within the speed
limit, is the actual speed-limit not shown on the back of the Camera??
Because they aren't there for that reason at all!
They are there to make money!
|
Unfortunately there are very strict rules over signage .
If the limit is not clearly posted as per the regulations then the limit is invalid & you can't be prosecuted.
If it's a correctly posted limit any reasonably observant driver should
be aware of the limit they are in. It was after all a basic requirement
for our driving tests, as was complying with that limit.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:03 |
livvy wrote:
Unfortunately there are very strict rules over signage .
If the limit is not clearly posted as per the regulations then the limit is invalid & you can't be prosecuted.
If it's a correctly posted limit any reasonably observant driver should be aware of the limit they are in. It was after all a basic requirement for our driving tests, as was complying with that limit.
|
I'm sorry I'm not having this! There are many many roads where the limit changes time and time again, so there becomes a very real danger that - no matter how good a driver you are - you find a camera, and are not sure what the limit should be, so slow down to what it could be.
If - as you say - there are strict rules on signage then they need to be changed, otherwise we will always say that the majority of cameras are there for only one reason - to make money.
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:03 |
Livvy, welcome, and if you find anything offensive hit the report post button, and the post & poster will be dealt with.
Signage ?
I wonder where your coming from here, the sinage regs for speed limits are a joke, most of them have been relaxed !
No min distance for repeaters is a good one, councils being allowed to put speed limit changes before hazards is another
The more sceptical of us ( me being one of them) link this in with the massive amount of speed cameras, and all the cow pooh that goes along with them
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:07 |
thepits wrote:
Livvy - for once it wasn't me that replied to your post in such a
manner - nevertheless I will apologizs on their behalf for any offence
made
We all accept - I think - that speeding is an offence.
The issue here is the prolification and location of cameras.
No sensible person would object to them outside schools - but on a motorway? Well????????
The current speed limits - out of town - are stupid. 70mph on a motorway where we are all going the same way??
Speed does not kill - FACT
Inappropriate use of speed DOES!
discuss........... |
Thank you thepits , perhaps it isn't all unfriendly here after all
6,000 cameras on all or miles of network. Not that many really is it
when you think of how many miles of road we have at our disposal.
Interesting that you suggest them being outside schools. This is a
common view stated, but I personally think that cameras are best placed
where the fatal collisions actually occur. Nobody likes to see a knee
jerk reaction to a problem & rather than acting on a gut feeling on
where cameras should be sited (they are expensive after all & there
is a limited number available) they should surely be placed where the
evidence shows that collisions do actually occur in greatest numbers.
That evidence shows that very few primary school aged children are
killed on or to the journeys from school, but are instead killed in the
roads in which they live. As children grow older they are killed
further from home & on busier faster roads.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:11 |
thepits wrote:
I'm sorry I'm not having this! There are many many roads
where the limit changes time and time again, so there becomes a very
real danger that - no matter how good a driver you are - you find a
camera, and are not sure what the limit should be, so slow down to what
it could be.
If - as you say - there are strict rules on signage then they need
to be changed, otherwise we will always say that the majority of
cameras are there for only one reason - to make money. |
You can't have a change of limit without correctly placed & visible
signs. If they are not there then it is not enforceable. If we don't
then see them surely that is down to us & a defeciency in our
observation skills.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:11 |
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:13 |
Nigel wrote:
Livvy, welcome, and if you find anything offensive hit the report post button, and the post & poster will be dealt with.
Signage ?
I wonder where your coming from here, the sinage regs for speed limits are a joke, most of them have been relaxed !
No min distance for repeaters is a good one, councils being allowed to put speed limit changes before hazards is another
The more sceptical of us ( me being one of them) link this in with
the massive amount of speed cameras, and all the cow pooh that goes
along with them |
Thank you for the welcome Nigel (& I'll remember about the button,
though I don't think in this case it warranted hitting it).
I'd have thought persoanlly that a reduction in speed just prior to a hazard might be a good thing.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:15 |
livvy wrote:
I'd have thought persoanlly that a reduction in speed just prior to a hazard might be a good thing. |
Define!
Motorway - hazard??
Edited by thepits
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:21 |
thepits wrote:
I quite agree - so how come they appear on motorways - which are proven to be the safest roads in the country? |
I've seen very few on motorways (& I use them quite a lot), the
exception being in roadworks etc. I know there was a section introduced
on the M4 that caused a fuss but wasn't that in response to that
section of motorway having had quite a few fatal & serious
collisions just prior to the cameras going up ?
You've got me thinking though, if there are lots on our motorways &
they are our safest roads, perhaps that's because they are there.
|
|
Floody
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 14-April-2004
Location: U.K Darlington (Croft)!!
Status: Offline
Points: 1339
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:21 |
You get my vote Nigel I live in Co.Durham (think) Dave has said this,and my other half work's in the police "Ticket" office.
Durham only have 1 mobile camera and no "Fixed" ones, they only use this (normaly) outside School's, built up area's etc.
What they do have is a "ANPR" van "automatic number plate reader" this tell's them all the drivers on the road without Tax, M.O.T and ins. They then take the car and,after 10 day's if the driver can't ins/tax it they "crush" it, this to me makes more sence
|
Mark E30 M3 RHD!!! now sold !!! still crying!!!!
E36 318 is in technoviolet, for sale
Thank's for the photo Coasting, Flood's on tour!
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:22 |
thepits wrote:
livvy wrote:
I'd have thought persoanlly that a reduction in speed just prior to a hazard might be a good thing. |
Define!
Motorway - hazard?? |
I was replying to Nigel's post about councils putting them in just
before hazards. I didn't take that to mean motorways because it would
be the Highway's Agency placing them there not council's wouldn't it ?
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:22 |
Livvy
Not if concentrating on the hazard causes you to miss the sign, then a lack of repeaters, then flash, oops £60 3 points etc etc
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:26 |
Nigel wrote:
Livvy
Not if concentrating on the hazard causes you to miss the sign, then a lack of repeaters, then flash, oops £60 3 points etc etc |
Surely though Nigel we should always be travelling at a speed in the
first place, that we can take in all the information that is available
to us & pertinent (I include the speed limit sign in this). If we
can't aren't we driving beyond our capabilities & that is dangerous.
|
|
thepits
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-July-2003
Location: far far away
Status: Offline
Points: 10000473
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:28 |
livvy wrote:
I was replying to Nigel's post about councils putting them in just before hazards. I didn't take that to mean motorways because it would be the Highway's Agency placing them there not council's wouldn't it? |
But why on motorways at all?
We all agree that speed should be reduced when there is danger, don't we?
And no-one should object to cameras where there is a known hazard?
But they are regularly positioned in places for no apparent reason.
Other than to make money?
http://www.speedcameras.org/index.php?poll_show_results=bene fits&option_select=16&Submit=Submit&page=poll&am p;view_type=results
|
Cats know your every thought.
But don't care.
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:30 |
No Livvy, I disagree with you.
There can be so much information to take in, you can't possibly do it all, and the local council and the highways department are responsible for large amounts of sinage overload on our roads.
You prioritise what you are seeing, subconciously, and with experience.
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 12-November-2005 at 18:34 |
thepits wrote:
Other than to make money? |
I'm still struggling on how they can do this if we are obeying the law
& the limit as we all should be. Surely it is our choice on whether
we put ourselves up for giving them money or not. I choose not to by
obeying the limit, if somebody else chooses to speed, are they not
giving the government tacit permisssion to fine them knowing full well
the rules ?
I don't see that 3,500 road deaths should be dismissed as not
important & shouldn't be addressed because 5,000 people die in
hospital. Surely both should be addressed by the agencies concerned, it
doesn't have to be one or the other.
Edited by livvy
|
|