|
Why are some people so concerned with making a journey a few minutes faster ?
What is wrong with ensuring the law is obeyed ?
Or, are we allowed to pick and choose which laws we wish to abide by ?
|
|
I object because these cameras will be used primarily for revenue raising. Everyone occasionaly inadvertendly drifts over the speed limit on motorways unintenionally and I refuse to accept that you have never. With these smart signs it is sometimes very confusing to keep track of the current limit and other drivers can mislead you into thinking they are higher than they are. What happens if you are just past a sign and it suddenly changes speed limits down, and you havent been privvy to the change?
What happened to the established legal position that all speed cameras must be clearly visible and painted yellow? Or that they should only be deployed where serious accidents have occured in the past? Or is the agency reponsible for this stealth crrap above the law?
|
|
Occasional "drifting" over the limit doesn't get penalised - on a NSL motorway with 70 limit, 79mph, that's 80+ on a speedo is the lowest speed that's penalised.
If that's you idea of "drifting" heaven help us!
|
Occasional "drifting" over the limit doesn't get penalised - on a NSL motorway with 70 limit, 79mph, that's 80+ on a speedo is the lowest speed that's penalised.
If that's you idea of "drifting" heaven help us!
I'm pretty sure it is discretionary and they can do you for doing 71mph if they so wish.
|
I'm pretty sure it is discretionary and they can do you for doing 71mph if they so wish.
They can - but very unlikely
|
|
|
|
|
I was only asking questions. Your points are all valid. Of course I have sometimes broken the speed limit - I am a human being. I confess to once having received 3 points on my license.
Personally I don't see why something to detect law breaking should be visible. Unmarked police cars have long been something I advocate. Also is it not a good idea to try and prevent serious accidents in the first place ?
Considering its importance it is incredible, in my opinion, that there has never been a serious and fact led national debate about driving. Then there could be worthwhile action. Still I don't suppose politicians wish to jeopardise votes from any area.
|
|
As long as the stealth cameras have a little bit of 'tolerance' built in, I don't see any problem.
It would be a good idea to see these cameras on non-motorways. One particular kind of location where speed limits need to be enforced is crossings and junctions on main roads where visibility for emerging traffic is limited.
If you're turning to turn right onto a busy main road with a 40 mph limit and there's restricted visibility, it's much more difficult if drivers on the main road are ignoring the limit and doing 50 or 60. If there's a camera, most drivers will obey the limit and the few that don't will get caught.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 16/01/2015 at 09:42
|
|
Excellent points made and examples given. This is what should inform a national debate - situations where inappropriate speed can increase danger. There are many places which would benefit more from speed limit enforcement than motorways.
|
Excellent points made and examples given. This is what should inform a national debate - situations where inappropriate speed can increase danger. There are many places which would benefit more from speed limit enforcement than motorways.
The map with the press reports suggests these cameras are going in on predominantly 'urban' motorways (eg M1 round Sheffield and Leeds). Don't know if KSI stats bear it out, but common sense would suggest these sections are more dangerous than long cross country bits.
|
|
Yes, I agree with your comments. A point I was trying to add is the many dangerous situations caused by speeding on country roads (non-motorway). The have been some horrendous examples of drivers ignoring the need to have a safe stopping distance.
There needs to be much more thought applied to driving and the variables which need to be considered when decision making as a driver or planner.
|
|
|
|
For very good reasons the M621 serving Leeds city centre is 50mph.
Officers from the unmarked police car can regularly be seen emptying driver's wallets as far too many believe the limit doesn't apply to them and I have seen numerous near misses as a result.
|
For very good reasons the M621 serving Leeds city centre is 50mph.
It always was too right back to when it was still the M1.
For an exiled Tyke passing the Stourton junction and then the signs for Leeds Urban Motorway was that 'nearly home' moment. Same effect as when the train crawled over the old Holbeck viaduct route and one got first sight of the University and other city landmarks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I object because these cameras will be used primarily for revenue raising. Everyone occasionaly inadvertently drifts over the speed limit on motorways unintenionally and I refuse to accept that you have never.
Sorry, brum, I thnk this is a flimsy justification for a wish to drive faster than what is a reasonable compromise between safety and expediency. There is 'revenue-raising' because most people are only deterred by a hit in the wallet (I think we would all agree that exceeding a speed limit is not an imprisonable offence). If these fines can be more effectively collected automatically instead of by cops in chase cars, so much the better. And I suspect that may be behind your objection - you are more likely to be caught by a camera.
Most of the time, going over the speed limit is a harmless activity. But the consequences of a mishap are worse at higher speeds. And of course your journey will cost more the faster you do it.
And personally, I don't think I have ever gone over an indicated 75 in 50 years' driving. I could, but I choose not to. Motorway driving is not a game of cops and robbers where it 'isn't fair' to be caught.
|
|
I tend to drive anywhere from an indicated 60-80mph. An indicated 80mph in my car is actually 75 so its still fine.
Occasionally I give my car an 'italian tune' around once a month or so and I drive a fair bit faster than that. I only do this in the very early hours of the morning on a empty motorway. Looks like i'll have to stop and live with a sluggish car
|
Occasionally I give my car an 'italian tune' around once a month or so and I drive a fair bit faster than that. I only do this in the very early hours of the morning on a empty motorway. Looks like i'll have to stop and live with a sluggish car
Or have it serviced properly, then it won't need an "Italian Tune-Up".
|
Occasionally I give my car an 'italian tune' around once a month or so and I drive a fair bit faster than that. I only do this in the very early hours of the morning on a empty motorway. Looks like i'll have to stop and live with a sluggish car
Or have it serviced properly, then it won't need an "Italian Tune-Up".
It's serviced every 12500 miles - feels sluggish with lots of town driving over a prolonged period of time.
I am not aware of a service that helps burn carbon buildup
|
Occasionally I give my car an 'italian tune' around once a month or so and I drive a fair bit faster than that. I only do this in the very early hours of the morning on a empty motorway. Looks like i'll have to stop and live with a sluggish car
Or have it serviced properly, then it won't need an "Italian Tune-Up".
It's serviced every 12500 miles - feels sluggish with lots of town driving over a prolonged period of time.
I am not aware of a service that helps burn carbon buildup
Run some more expenisve petrol through it for a tankful - all the additioanl additives/detergents can help.
|
|
|
|
|
But 70mph in 3rd will give your car an Italian tune. And you remain legal!
Proper servicing has nothing to do with not needing an Italian tuneup. Engines perform better if they are extended occassionally above 3,000 rpm.
Edited by Chris M on 16/01/2015 at 12:49
|
But 70mph in 3rd will give your car an Italian tune. And you remain legal!
Good call - my car's geared pretty short so might be ok in 4th
|
|
|
|
I tend to drive anywhere from an indicated 60-80mph. An indicated 80mph in my car is actually 75 so its still fine.
Occasionally I give my car an 'italian tune' around once a month or so and I drive a fair bit faster than that. I only do this in the very early hours of the morning on a empty motorway. Looks like i'll have to stop and live with a sluggish car
Why is 75 "fine" when the limit is 70?
And you can do an "italian tune up" at 60mph in 4th gear or even third if you want to push the revs to the limit.
|
|
Further to my previous comments, I have no objection to clearly marked and visible cameras, that way they are a deterrant that constantly reminds you. Personally I feel single shot speed camera traps on motorways are not the answer, the average speed specs cameras are far more effective at controlling driver speeds, again because of the regularity of the reminder. But I expect they dont generate anywhere near as much revenue as a stealth snapper.
If the government were really serious about speeding, they would mandate compulsory speed limiters on cars, like they do in lorries, why not limit cars by design to 70mph?
BTW those who say their speedo reads 10% are fooling themselves, most speedos I've checked read between 3 and 8 percent high, and vary depending on driving environment due to the complexities of the tyre/road interface. These same people then assume its ok to add a further 10% plus 1 mph because of the alledged police guidelines...any speed even 1mph over the limit is technically illegal. Whether minor speeding is dangerous is entirely another debate.
Edited by brum on 16/01/2015 at 13:18
|
|
|
|
60mph in 4th is NOT an Italian tuneup. Once the engine is properly up to temperature you need to get it up to 5,000 rpm and maybe even a bit more.
I use the motorway every day. As a rule, I join in 3rd matching my speed to the traffic, so 60 - 70 mph and approaching 5,000rpm (It's a C1). No need to think about Italian tuneups - do it every day.
|
|
|
Why is 75 "fine" when the limit is 70?
And you can do an "italian tune up" at 60mph in 4th gear or even third if you want to push the revs to the limit.
I dont see how 70mph is dangerous and therefore and should the conditions be fine for it, one could safely do a much higher speed if need be.
Im not aware of the UK having a lower incident rate on our motorways than our European neighbours, but they have much higher legal speed limits.
Most motorists break the limit according to all the research simply because it's a low limit to start with. If someone is in the middle lane doing 65mph I will overtake them quickly. I wont overtake them at 70 during busy periods as I dont want to inconvenience a driver going faster than me.
I will go at 75mph simply because I cannot be prosecuted for it. I pay enough tax as it is without giving them any more of my hard earned cash
Edited by balleballe on 16/01/2015 at 14:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far in this thread, no-one has really addressed what I think may be on the agenda here, though I'm sure no-one in authority will be prepared to admit it.
We must be fast getting to the point where road-users will think that they will never be able reliably to spot speed cameras quickly enough to slow down as they approach, if they're speeding. The cameras won't be easily identifiable and there will soon be a huge number of them. That way, people will not speed - on main roads anyway - because they will believe there's little chance of getting away with it.
The French have been using uobtrusive, unmarked speed cameras for years and satnavs are not allowed to warn of their presence.
I'm making no comment about the desirability or otherwise of such a development.
|
|
We are told that 5% of fatel accidents happen on motorways, so why are wasting money on this? Target urban areas where 50% happen. or B roads.
A Sad lack of understand leeding to wasted efforts with good intentions.
|
|
Exactly right : as I posted, we need a fact led discussion and action as a result - otherwise waste of time.
|
|
|
We are told that 5% of fatel accidents happen on motorways, so why are wasting money on this? Target urban areas where 50% happen. or B roads.
A Sad lack of understand leeding to wasted efforts with good intentions.
Because there are more cars on a motorway than on a housing estate, so cameras will generate more income on the motorways?
|
|
|
|
The French have been using uobtrusive, unmarked speed cameras for years and satnavs are not allowed to warn of their presence.
The fundamental problem is that some drivers won't accept that posted speed limits are a compromise between public safety and making individual progress. You may argue that some limits are too low for today's advanced vehicles and expert and experienced drivers, but that's another issue.
So how are those drivers to be persuaded to conform, if they don't do it voluntarily? Why should cameras be conspicuous, just so that they can slow down and deceive them? All's fair in love and war, and although M-way driving may be neither of those, I personally am not angered by this kind of hidden surveillance.
My pet hate is the progressive imposition of short limits at any number ending in zero between 20 and 70. It gets harder to remember just what speed one is allowed to do where.
|
|
If I have to stick to 70mph I will probably drop to sleep through boredom.
The speed limit should be 80mph like in France, the 70mph limit was introduced when Ford Populars were on the road.
I've got a Defender and I can tell you I'm safer in my 5 series at 90mph than 70mph in the Defender.
All that will happen is they will get more money in fines and drivers will constantly be looking at the speedo instead of where they are going.
|
|
This is all about revenue raising
|
This is all about revenue raising
So is the tax on smoking and drinking. Anything people enjoy and are willing to pay for.
|
|
|
|
|
Some have made comments about the tolerance within the posted limits. I thought the general guidelines of the Association of Chief Police Officers were 10% + 3 mph, so (in theory) this allows up to 80mph before you get a ticket. I've always set the cruise control below 80mph when I need to make a fast journey. Despite this, however, I have always kept rigidly to the lower limits in the SPECS time cameras set up in roadworks. Perhaps my logic is flawed. So, are these stealth cameras going to hit you at 71mph or 81mph ? This the real issue. I suppose nobody in Authority will ever give the definitive answer.
|
Some have made comments about the tolerance within the posted limits. I thought the general guidelines of the Association of Chief Police Officers were 10% + 3 mph, so (in theory) this allows up to 80mph before you get a ticket. I've always set the cruise control below 80mph when I need to make a fast journey. Despite this, however, I have always kept rigidly to the lower limits in the SPECS time cameras set up in roadworks. Perhaps my logic is flawed. So, are these stealth cameras going to hit you at 71mph or 81mph ? This the real issue. I suppose nobody in Authority will ever give the definitive answer.
No, Nigel - ACPO guidelines are up to 10%+1mph - at 10%+2mph action is normally taken - so 78mph (GPS) is normally ok, not all forces apply ACPO guidelines.
|
|
I see maniacs breaking speed limits all the time.
They consider they are safe drivers, ignore the impact on other users and complain about speed cameras.
I welcome this and hope they get caught and dined - preferably a lot.
|
I welcome this and hope they get caught and dined - preferably a lot.
madf - is that what you really meant? :-)
|
|
If I have to stick to 70mph I will probably drop to sleep through boredom.
I suggest that the purpose of M-way driving is not to provide excitement. When it does, it is usually not welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
