Prev: Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?
Next: High Way Code omission
From: Rob on 9 Jun 2010 08:27 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 -- Rob
From: bod on 9 Jun 2010 08:32 Mortimer wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:879f75FuhuU21(a)mid.individual.net... >> bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >> were >> saying: >> >>>>> They would have to admit that the cameras are there for revenue >>>>> raising, then, since the van carries no warning about speed or any >>>>> aspect of driving safely. >> >>>> Why? >> >>> The copper was not exactly trying to encourage a safe road speed, but >>> waiting untill when they go 'over' the legal limit. Whereas, a sign >>> displaying "speed kills", is actively trying to reduce speeding. >>> Debatable about which achieves the best result. >> >> Depends what you mean by "best results". If the aim is to reduce road >> casualties, then both are pissing in the wind, since only a very tiny >> minority are due to speed in excess of the limit. >> >> If the aim is merely to reduce the speed of vehicles on that one stretch >> of road, then I rather suspect that the van is more effective than a lone >> loony waving a sheet about. > > Better still is a sign that lights up if you are over the limit to > remind you that the limit is lower than you have judged to be a safe > speed based on the road conditions at the time. > > There are a few roads near me which carry absurdly low limits for the > road layout etc, and I welcome anything which reminds me (and keeps > reminding me) to keep down to the limit. 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. > > Agreed, but it doesn't bring in revenue, ie: the cash cow. Bod
From: bod on 9 Jun 2010 08:34 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. Bod
From: Mortimer on 9 Jun 2010 08:37 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:879fk0FuhuU23(a)mid.individual.net... > "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? No: a single sign at the beginning doesn't serve as sufficient ongoing reminder in exceptional cases where the limit is set perversely low. I have found a technique that works for me: and keeping to the limit is more important than how you do so, isn't it? I'm only talking about a minority of roads that are like this. The majority of 30 and 40 limits are set at a sensible level. A few are set much lower, bearing in mind straightness of road and lack of driveways that emerge directly onto the road without a car-length grass verge for cars to wait in until there is a gap in the traffic. Near me I can think of an A road which is like this and carries a 30 limit for 2 miles, and another one which has houses that front directly onto the pavement (no front gardens) and has driveways that front directly onto the roadway and yet has a 40 limit. If there was no speed limit, I would drive at 40 on most of the first and maybe 50 in places, whereas I would drive at about 20-30 on the second. Speed limits should be set at a level which is realistic: there should an element of "it is safe to drive at speeds up to the limit, but not to exceed it".
From: Mentalguy2k8 on 9 Jun 2010 08:36
"Chris Hills" <chaz(a)chaz6.com> wrote in message news:hunv7j$7l4$1(a)chaz6.eternal-september.org... > On 09/06/2010 12:42, 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? > > The government calls them safety cameras. Staying within the legal speed > limit is one aspect of safe driving. > >>> 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. > > They would have to admit that the cameras are there for revenue raising, > then, since the van carries no warning about speed or any aspect of > driving safely. Try using that as a defence next time you get a FPN for speeding.... "the van didn't have a warning about speed or any aspect of driving safely on it", and let us know how you get on.... |