From: Rob on
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
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
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
"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

"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....