Protesting speed cameras
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 18:29 Ian Jackson wrote: > In message <879g3bFhe6U5(a)mid.individual.net>, bod > <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> writes >> Adrian wrote: >>> "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>> they were saying: >>> >>>> I find that I say to myself "the limit is 30... it's still 30... >>>> it's still 30" to prevent me subconsciously increasing back to a >>>> sensible speed for those road conditions. >>> Is the signage not sufficient? >>> >>> >> >> Wherever I've seen those 'slow down'signs or signs showing your >> actuall speed, every car I've seen going faster than the limit, slows >> down. >> > I reckon that most drivers do not really intend to break the speed > limit - at least not by an amount that would be considered unduly > dangerous, having regard to the prevailing road conditions at the > time. > Most cars do indeed slow down if they get flashed by a 'slow down' > sign - especially if it shows their true speed. One of those is > probably far more effective than any number of speed cameras (and > probably a lot cheaper). I don't know about the question in the last sentence but agree with the content of this post.
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 18:33 bod wrote: > Ian Jackson wrote: >> In message <879g3bFhe6U5(a)mid.individual.net>, bod >> <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> writes >>> Adrian wrote: >>>> "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>>> they were >>>> saying: >>>> >>>>> I find that I say to myself "the limit is 30... it's still 30... >>>>> it's still 30" to prevent me subconsciously increasing back to a >>>>> sensible speed for those road conditions. >>>> Is the signage not sufficient? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Wherever I've seen those 'slow down'signs or signs showing your >>> actuall speed, every car I've seen going faster than the limit, >>> slows down. >>> >> I reckon that most drivers do not really intend to break the speed >> limit - at least not by an amount that would be considered unduly >> dangerous, having regard to the prevailing road conditions at the >> time. Most cars do indeed slow down if they get flashed by a 'slow down' >> sign - especially if it shows their true speed. One of those is >> probably far more effective than any number of speed cameras (and >> probably a lot cheaper). >> >> > Yep, but the government would lose their 'cash cow'. Too darned true says he who was done by a mobile camera, not in its regular sensible position, but advanced towards the newly moved transition from 40 to 30. I swear my rear bumper was still legally doing 40! A learner and his instructor were both done in the same sting.
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 19:05 Mentalguy2k8 wrote: > "Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVETHISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in > message news:e3XbXgMX15DMFwiz(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk... >> In message <879g3bFhe6U5(a)mid.individual.net>, bod >> <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> writes >>> Adrian wrote: >>>> "Mortimer" <me(a)privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>>> they were >>>> saying: >>>> >>>>> I find that I say to myself "the limit is 30... it's still 30... >>>>> it's still 30" to prevent me subconsciously increasing back to a >>>>> sensible speed for those road conditions. >>>> Is the signage not sufficient? >>>> >>>> >>> Snip of sensible content. > > I've always maitained that there is a difference between > good/experienced drivers who can safely go a few MPH over the limit, > and there are those whose complete disregard for the limits is > matched by their disregard for everything else in the Highway Code. > > I've noticed increasingly in the last few years that most of the worst > tailgating/speeding on motorways and speeding/pulling out into unsafe > gaps around town is being done by women. It always used to be > salesman plonkers in BMW's and Mondeos (or vans) but now it seems to > be 18-40 year old women driving stupid little Minis and Clios at > 100mph. I've done a few long trips in the last few weeks, and I'm > finding these women are more aggressive on the road than men. I've > also noticed (although this probably applies to some men as well) > that sometimes they have little kids strapped in the back while > they're doing it. That really pisses me off. The folk that are doing these sorts of things does seem to have changed. I regularly for 20 years used to do 40k per annum on UK roads, mostly motorway and at the start of this commuting experience used to watch out for White Van Man, Cortina/ Mondeo Man and his GM competitor. In the 90's this started to change with BMW man, and women in various cars, coming to the fore. The last used to worry me the most as I assumed that they had least knowledge of the construction of vehicles and their frailty. This morning, I was passed by a young lass in an elderly Corsa on the motorway in the fourth lane doing in excess of 90 mph in wet conditions. This evening, on returning, on a four lane stretch under better conditions, I was in the third lane passing cars and HGVs at circa 70 mph (speedo 75/76 ish) whilst a "plonker" in a laiden People Carrier in the outside lane, sitting on my rear quarter where it was difficult to see him, blocking the passage of others who wished to exceed the speed limit. I slowed down and pulled into the second lane to give him the opportunity to pull in - nope! As a result a Bentley and a Jag. used the gap to undertake the clown, potentially creating danger for others. I doubt that he was aware of it! Beware, we all have different approaches. Did I create danger by providing the opportunity for others to undertake?
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 19:10 Rob wrote: > Adrian wrote: >>> Chris Hills <chaz(a)chaz6.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like >>> they were saying: >>> >>>> The aim of the cameras is to make people drive safely. >>> >>> Is it? I thought it was to make people drive at a legal speed. >>> You're not confusing the two, are you? > > It's the stated aim by those who operate them - that's why they call > them 'safety cameras'. > >>>> I would disagree that helping that aim by warning people to watch >>>> their speed is obstructing justice. >>> >>> Deliberately standing so that the banner blocks the view of the >>> camera certainly would be. > > Or even 300 yards up the road > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3340963/Motorist-is-banned-over-speed-trap-alert.html Quite.
From: Clot on 9 Jun 2010 19:23
GT wrote: > "Chris Hills" <chaz(a)chaz6.com> wrote in message > news:huntva$sai$1(a)chaz6.eternal-september.org... >> Near where I live a mobile police speed camera van frequently parks >> on a grass verge, on public property. Would it be legal to protest >> in the form of holding a sign or banner, perhaps with the words >> "Speed kills", deliberately behind the van to block the view of the >> camera? > > In our area, the mobile van parks in two places - one on a double > yellow line and the other on the verge next to a solid white line on > a dual carriageway. I have "some" sympathy with that, despite the additional danger this might cause. These are likely to be the locations where folk should slow down, irrespective of whatever the limits are. Though the hand held gun would be far safer for all and more effective! |