Foamed Gatso - someone listened to Clarkson!

[Dj_Jestar]

Furthermore, on many of these roads that Fox comments on, which are dotted all over the country. They do not have any notification of the speed limit. For instance there is a road in eastbourne which is just so. A very long stretch of road in which the speed fluctuates (with signage) between 40 and 60 mph. Then theres a Gatso after about a two mile stretch which there is no speed notification. The last one being 40mph. So am I supposed to slow down in rush hour with a backlog of traffic to 40? That makes me popular.

However one day I see the policeman servicing the camera and I pull over and ask him what speed the camera is set to. Just over 60mph of course.

No notification of change in speed limit means the NIP you receive is void and invalid. Appeal and shock horror, you'll get let off. It is also law that the cameras must have valid (i.e. clear and visible) signage to indicate the current speed limit, as well as singage to indicate cameras are in operation.

The relevance of the "Police Officer" servicing the camera bares what?

And btw, the Police do not service the cameras, contractors do that.

So what you are saying is that he should sit at 35 in a 40 just in case? Wonderful.

Superb, I wondered how long it would be before someone takes the post out of context, congrats on achieving that.

And to answer it, no, I'm not. I'm saying if you go over the limit in your test, you fail.

What about those who have been found "guilty" of speeding due to lies or the fact that the equipment used to check speeds is flawed?

Those would be the exceptions - and have rightfully so had their appeals granted etc. and if we want to dwell on them, just try comparing the number of wrongly penalised motorists, to the number of correctly penalised motorists, and also the number of wrongly penalised motorists by officers vs cameras.

 

[Nozzer]

handguns had been around for decades, until some nut went on a killing spree and promptly made sure they were banned for the rest of us.

And I suppose that was due to some TV programme too?

 

[JRS]

Considering my attitude to speed cameras in this country, you might be a tad surprised to hear what I think about their implementation in parts of France:

They're great.

A little way in front of each camera is a sign reiterating the speed limit. Then another warning that a camera is ahead. Then another. And finally you get to the camera. They are placed on péage autoroutes and standard A-roads and unlike in the UK where people stand on their brakes just before the camera people start to gently back off at the first sign. It works, traffic flows nicely, and here's the winner:

They don't replace traffic police.

Everywhere I've been in France there have been traffic police. Alright, generally they're making a nuisance of themselves but very occasionally I've seen them being competent upholders of the law. And they haven't been replaced by a dumb yellow box (white in the case of France actually).

*Sigh* Some of my mates wondered why I enjoyed my drive in France at Easter so much....if only they knew quite how much better it was than driving in this country.

 

[Gaijin]

No notification of change in speed limit means the NIP you receive is void and invalid. Appeal and shock horror, you'll get let off. It is also law that the cameras must have valid (i.e. clear and visible) signage to indicate the current speed limit, as well as singage to indicate cameras are in operation.

Thanks for that - I didn't actually know it.

The relevance of the "Police Officer" servicing the camera bares what?

And btw, the Police do not service the cameras, contractors do that.

Erm. Nothing? It just means that he was servicing the machine and I could ask him what speed the camera was set to. Which is exactly what my original post implies and I don't see what else it would?

And btw, the Police do not service the cameras, contractors do that.

Lovely. Thanks for your pedantic tone. All I know is he was wearing a police uniform. Asking him his number, designation, branch and whether he plays cricket on tuesdays, was not high on my list of things to do that day.

Superb, I wondered how long it would be before someone takes the post out of context, congrats on achieving that.

And to answer it, no, I'm not. I'm saying if you go over the limit in your test, you fail.

If you were expecting it, then perhaps you'll care to phrase your points in a more coherent manner that isn't open to "being taken out of context".

 

[Dj_Jestar]

How does someone detect tone when reading text?

I've never been an 'expert' with words, but one can only hope others will not take posts out of context..

I asked about the guy servicing the camera as I actually thought you intended it to bare relevance to the debate.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

And I suppose that was due to some TV programme too?

no, but he brought this issue to public attention.
if there are a lot of cameras "foamed" as of now it's perfectly possible that they may attribute these crimes to the programme.
daft, i know, just like the old video nasty argument IMHO but you can see how things could progress once the legal wheels start spinning.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

However this DOESNT mean I cannot completely disagree with the whole anti-speed pro-camera culture.

IMHO you're not disagreeing with speed cameras at all, you're disagreeing with inconsistant camera placements and some antiquated speed limits.
the camera doesn't decide what the limit on a given road is, it merely catches drivers driving above it.
you mention a road that is a 40 limit, but is safe at 60.
if the camera was set at 60,or 70 would you agree with it then?

i agree with you that many of the posted limits could be raised with zero effect on safety/accident figures...but IMHO you have a disagreement with parliament and not the enforcement agency.

 

[PeterNem]

you mention a road that is a 40 limit, but is safe at 60.
if the camera was set at 60,or 70 would you agree with it then?

No. Because in poor weather conditions only 50 might be safe, but on a light summers evening with no traffic 80 might be fine.

A police officer can use his judegement and decide whether the motorist is being safe, the camera cannot.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

No. Because in poor weather conditions only 50 might be safe, but on a light summers evening with no traffic 80 might be fine.

A police officer can use his judegement and decide whether the motorist is being safe, the camera cannot.

but we have to be realistic here.
to replace the cameras and do the same job would require a £26k/year minimum traffic officer to be at every sight 24/7/365.the money just isn't there to do this.

 

[M0T]

but we have to be realistic here.
to replace the cameras and do the same job would require a £26k/year minimum traffic officer to be at every sight 24/7/365.the money just isn't there to do this.

Surely having no cameras and replacing them with traffic police would be more effective since you can memorise the location of a camera but not a moving police car?

Pretty much where I live everybody knows the location of the cameras and the spots the police sit with their speed guns, past these points any speed is game. If there were more traffic police around people would probably stick to the limits. Plus traffic police can catch people going through red lights and performing dangerous manouvres, which a gatso cannot.

In november a young girl got stabbed to death near to where I live, suddenly we had loads of traffic police about for 3 weeks. Everybody drove better because they were in random places, obviously checking to find the murderer, after a month they dissapeared and everyone was back to their old tricks.

 

[RiPz]

Taking 'good' drivers - ones that have morals and have some grasp of when and where it is safe to do X speed...

More often than not it is safer to do a 'comfortable' speed than to have to keep looking down at the speedo every 2minutes to make sure you're not speeding, especially if you're on say.. a motorway doing 70.. looking down at your speedo will take what.. half a second.. do you have any idea how far you travel at 70 mph in half a second?.. surely it would be MUCH safer to keep your eyes on the road where they belong.

Also, if ALL the traffic on X 60mph NSL road is doing 70.. quite safely, then round the next corner there's a GATSO.. and the person at the front slams on to avoid getting (an unjustified) speeding ticket - high pile-up potential there..

I wouldnt have a problem with speed cameras if there were some thought put into their placement... they should be put near schools and residential areas to stop.. well.. idiots.. at about 25mph its fairly safe to check your speedo... you've got time.. its the silly ones that are placed on 60mph plus roads that are more hassle, and sometimes dangerous than they are worth.

Now lets compare the UK - because we all know this isnt just an England issue (though it mainly is) - to another country.. err.. Germany!... the DO have speed cameras.. but they put thought into their placement.. they put them at road works, fair enough, they put them on dangerous residential roads, fair enough, they do NOT put them on the motorways, they do NOT put them on the well maintained A road equivalents, and you know what, they have less road-traffic accidents than we do, that must say something (maybe they're just all better drivers than us - heh)..

Just because a few people have hurt themselves or died on a certain stretch of road doesnt give them justification to lower the speed limit because it wont make a blind bit of difference (in most cases), if the road is bad at 60mph, its going to be bad at 50mph too. What the government SHOULD be doing is perhaps maintaining the road and reducing accidents, rather than cashing in on the unfortunate.

Now onto the traffic police vs. camera issue... my opinion on this is similar to above.. traffic police can use their disgression, cameras cannot. so its useless putting traffic police around schools etc.. we all know doing ovr the speed limit around schools is dangerous nomatter how you do it, they're just too pedestrianised.. on the other hand on high speed roads (straight A roads, motorways) it is often quite safe to 'speed', but you cannot completely remove all law enforcement (i.e. gety rid of cameras), so traffic police would be much better employed here (and in some places are, and it works)

For example, on ripponden road in the oldham area (its a fairly dead road, not much housing at all, not much traffic, pretty straight) the speed limit has been reduced to 40 in some places because of idiots doing speeds they cant handle, there arent any speedcameras on the road, but sometimes they employ traffic police there... My dad drives the road very often (it leads to the A640 - one of the best roads up here) and he knows it better than the back of his hand, he knows where and when its safe to do what speed, and got caught doing 50 in one of the 40 sections on there, the police man had a friendly word with him.. all was good, if that were a camera, the road would be no better off, my dad would have got points, and the government would have got some cash - cameras (When placed in these situations) prey on the innocent, and its just stupid.

wow that was a long post for me... :O

*dies*

 

[s0ck]

lol

 

[-Neil-]

ROFL at the Gatso

Check this out for a laugh:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2171298164600836416

Neil.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Taking 'good' drivers - ones that have morals and have some grasp of when and where it is safe to do X speed...

More often than not it is safer to do a 'comfortable' speed than to have to keep looking down at the speedo every 2minutes to make sure you're not speeding, especially if you're on say.. a motorway doing 70.. looking down at your speedo will take what.. half a second.. do you have any idea how far you travel at 70 mph in half a second?.. surely it would be MUCH safer to keep your eyes on the road where they belong.

The "rather keep my eyes on the road" argument is somewhat weak. I don't mean this to be aggressive/offensive I just can't find a better word

When you took your test (assuming you have ) you proved to the examiner you were capable of maintaining your speed below the limit, whilst still being in full control of the vehicle. I'm fully aware Learner's are prohibited from motorways, but examiners tend to take candidates onto NSL roads to judge their driving ability at 'high speed'

Also, if ALL the traffic on X 60mph NSL road is doing 70.. quite safely, then round the next corner there's a GATSO.. and the person at the front slams on to avoid getting (an unjustified) speeding ticket - high pile-up potential there..

The same would happen with a traffic cop. The same would happen if there was a tractor, or a broken down vehicle.. if... if ... if.. if..

I wouldnt have a problem with speed cameras if there were some thought put into their placement... they should be put near schools and residential areas to stop.. well.. idiots.. at about 25mph its fairly safe to check your speedo... you've got time.. its the silly ones that are placed on 60mph plus roads that are more hassle, and sometimes dangerous than they are worth.

Agreed. Except the last part about checking speedo again.

Now lets compare the UK - because we all know this isnt just an England issue (though it mainly is) - to another country.. err.. Germany!... the DO have speed cameras.. but they put thought into their placement.. they put them at road works, fair enough, they put them on dangerous residential roads, fair enough, they do NOT put them on the motorways, they do NOT put them on the well maintained A road equivalents, and you know what, they have less road-traffic accidents than we do, that must say something (maybe they're just all better drivers than us - heh)..

We can't go blaming our higher number of traffic accidents on cameras, they were mugh high than many places before cameras existed.

Just because a few people have hurt themselves or died on a certain stretch of road doesnt give them justification to lower the speed limit because it wont make a blind bit of difference (in most cases), if the road is bad at 60mph, its going to be bad at 50mph too. What the government SHOULD be doing is perhaps maintaining the road and reducing accidents, rather than cashing in on the unfortunate.

When does a 'few' become too many? Agreed road maintenance should be the first thing they look at, but having said that - from what I have seen at least - the road condition is improved in 'blackspots' usually at the same time a camera is put in though.

Now onto the traffic police vs. camera issue... my opinion on this is similar to above.. traffic police can use their disgression, cameras cannot. so its useless putting traffic police around schools etc.. we all know doing ovr the speed limit around schools is dangerous nomatter how you do it, they're just too pedestrianised.. on the other hand on high speed roads (straight A roads, motorways) it is often quite safe to 'speed', but you cannot completely remove all law enforcement (i.e. gety rid of cameras), so traffic police would be much better employed here (and in some places are, and it works)

For example, on ripponden road in the oldham area (its a fairly dead road, not much housing at all, not much traffic, pretty straight) the speed limit has been reduced to 40 in some places because of idiots doing speeds they cant handle, there arent any speedcameras on the road, but sometimes they employ traffic police there... My dad drives the road very often (it leads to the A640 - one of the best roads up here) and he knows it better than the back of his hand, he knows where and when its safe to do what speed, and got caught doing 50 in one of the 40 sections on there, the police man had a friendly word with him.. all was good, if that were a camera, the road would be no better off, my dad would have got points, and the government would have got some cash - cameras (When placed in these situations) prey on the innocent, and its just stupid.

wow that was a long post for me... :O

*dies*

But you still can't argue that if your dad hadn't of been speeding, he wouldn't of had an issue - camera or police officer. Cameras do not prey on the innocent. They prey on those who break the speed limits. It is exactly these types of phrases that bug me. Your dad was not innocent, he was speeding - as you said yourself. OK, it was 'safe' to do so, ok he didn't kill/maim/paper cut any Children, but he was speeding, which is an offence.

 

[[TW]Fox]

When you took your test (assuming you have ) you proved to the examiner you were capable of maintaining your speed below the limit, whilst still being in full control of the vehicle. I'm fully aware Learner's are prohibited from motorways, but examiners tend to take candidates onto NSL roads to judge their driving ability at 'high speed'

No they don't - few, if any, tests in city areas leave the city and head onto NSL roads.

Your entire arguement of using the driving test to judge what is and isn't acceptable on our roads is completely flawed and if thats the standard by which you set your driving I'd imagine quality driving is not something you take seriously. After all, as long as you adhere to THE LAW what else matters?

There are, for example, advanced driving techniques which whilst totally legal, would lead you to fail your driving test.

Your dad was not innocent, he was speeding - as you said yourself. OK, it was 'safe' to do so, ok he didn't kill/maim/paper cut any Children, but he was speeding, which is an offence.

This is why having any sort of debate with you is a complete waste of time, you absolutely will not see beyond the black/white notion of SPEEDING IS AGAINST THE LAW HENCE IT IS WRONG END OF. You are like some robot aimlessly repeating the same pointless mantra over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I could think of several analogies now to point out why your view of ITS THE LAW OBEY IT AND SHUT UP is daft, but I see no reason to bother becuase you'd just shout about how they are irrelevant etc, as the concept of analogies is not something you seem to have grasped.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

No they don't - few, if any, tests in city areas leave the city and head onto NSL roads.

Oh really?The testing centres round here all take every candidate out onto NSL roads. I see them every day as I drive to work, and have done for the last 5 years. I live in London.

Your entire arguement of using the driving test to judge what is and isn't acceptable on our roads is completely flawed and if thats the standard by which you set your driving I'd imagine quality driving is not something you take seriously. After all, as long as you adhere to THE LAW what else matters?

Flawed? Excuse me, but isn't that exactly how the governement determine who is fit to drive and who is not? So what do you propose? We just let every monkey onto the road and have darwin take them, and some others, out?

There are, for example, advanced driving techniques which whilst totally legal, would lead you to fail your driving test.

Those advanced techniques are taught so that you can evade disaster as best as you can - I'm referring to recovering from drifts/spins etc.

This is why having any sort of debate with you is a complete waste of time, you absolutely will not see beyond the black/white notion of SPEEDING IS AGAINST THE LAW HENCE IT IS WRONG END OF. You are like some robot aimlessly repeating the same pointless mantra over and over and over and over and over and over again.

I could think of several analogies now to point out why your view of ITS THE LAW OBEY IT AND SHUT UP is daft, but I see no reason to bother becuase you'd just shout about how they are irrelevant etc, as the concept of analogies is not something you seem to have grasped.

So go on then Fox - argue against it. Would he really have had a problem by not speeding? What could possibly be so against the simple, obvious fact that if his father had been travelling that 10mph slower to stay below the limit is so unfathomable?

Why do you continue to side track and try to argue about the limits and not the cameras vs police officers debate, which is exactly what this is about? Go on, offer one simple argument that proves I'm wrong with the "don't speed, don't get fined" fact.. you haven't yet.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Oh really?The testing centres round here all take every candidate out onto NSL roads. I see them every day as I drive to work, and have done for the last 5 years. I live in London.

Well good for - none of the test routes around here include NSL A roads and I suspect it's the case in many places. How many NSL A roads are there within a 15 minute drive of Central London anyway?

Flawed? Excuse me, but isn't that exactly how the governement determine who is fit to drive and who is not? So what do you propose? We just let every monkey onto the road and have darwin take them, and some others, out?

What an utterly ridiculous notion. Not once did I say the driving test was not something we should do. I simply said it's not all-ecompassing enough to be used as an all-ecompassing judge of whats right and wrong.

Those advanced techniques are taught so that you can evade disaster as best as you can - I'm referring to recovering from drifts/spins etc.

You can 'refer' to that all you want, it wasn't what I was reffering to. I'm thinking of every day driving and not disaster evasion.

So go on then Fox - argue against it. Would he really have had a problem by not speeding? What could possibly be so against the simple, obvious fact that if his father had been travelling that 10mph slower to stay below the limit is so unfathomable?

It's just a stupid point, isn't it? It's true that your stupid, irritating mantra 'OMG DONT SPEED NO FINE' is true but then its also equally true that if you 'PARK BY SIDE OF ROAD YOU WONT GET SPEEDING FINE' or other equally inane, dull, pointless basic statements of fact. It ignores the real issue.

You don't even have an arguement, you simply repeat a basic fact over and over and over and over and over again. We don't need you to tell us that if you don't speed past a camera you won't get nicked, why exactly do you feel the need to constantly remind us?

Why do you continue to side track and try to argue about the limits and not the cameras vs police officers debate, which is exactly what this is about?

Becuase it is cameras which enforce these irrelevant, out of date, unsuitable speed limits and make criminals out of people who, in the real world, are doing nothing wrong other than exceeding the speed displayed by a number on a sign set by a guy in a suit who'd probably never visited the road.

Go on, offer one simple argument that proves I'm wrong with the "don't speed, don't get fined" fact.. you haven't yet.

Becuase there isn't one, but thats like me asking you to offer one simple arguement that proves I'm wrong with the 'cars that are painted red are done so using red paint' point - again, its indisputable but damn it's so blatantly obvious and pointless I wonder what you hope to acheive by continually mentioning it?

If you don't have the capacity to think beyond what is written in front of you then I feel sorry for you - I thought you did, but this thread seems to show otherwise.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Well good for - none of the test routes around here include NSL A roads and I suspect it's the case in many places. How many NSL A roads are there within a 15 minute drive of Central London anyway?

Several, as it happens. But I don't know of any test centres in Central London. I do agree that not everywhere will have this 'luxury'.

What an utterly ridiculous notion. Not once did I say the driving test was not something we should do. I simply said it's not all-ecompassing enough to be used as an all-ecompassing judge of whats right and wrong.

Yes you did. Your statement that my arguement of "drivers can show they can maintain speeds below the speed limits" is 'flawed' did exactly that. Yes, I also agree that the driving test is by no means comprehensive enough to cover all aspects of driving. However it it were, the test would be over several days/months/years/never end, and not just a 1 hour spin. Maybe this would be a good thing if it were to be extended to say a week or two. Though that could be called excessive, and probably would be by many.

You can 'refer' to that all you want, it wasn't what I was reffering to. I'm thinking of every day driving and not disaster evasion.

Fair point, but the everyday driving does not include illegal manueveres or speeding.

It's just a stupid point, isn't it? It's true that your stupid, irritating mantra 'OMG DONT SPEED NO FINE' is true but then its also equally true that if you 'PARK BY SIDE OF ROAD YOU WONT GET SPEEDING FINE' or other equally inane, dull, pointless basic statements of fact. It ignores the real issue.

You don't even have an arguement, you simply repeat a basic fact over and over and over and over and over again. We don't need you to tell us that if you don't speed past a camera you won't get nicked, why exactly do you feel the need to constantly remind us?

Becuase it is cameras which enforce these irrelevant, out of date, unsuitable speed limits and make criminals out of people who, in the real world, are doing nothing wrong other than exceeding the speed displayed by a number on a sign set by a guy in a suit who'd probably never visited the road.

Becuase there isn't one, but thats like me asking you to offer one simple arguement that proves I'm wrong with the 'cars that are painted red are done so using red paint' point - again, its indisputable but damn it's so blatantly obvious and pointless I wonder what you hope to acheive by continually mentioning it?

I only 'bleat' on about it because others continually 'bleat' on like GATSO's are the axis of evil because it prevents them from breaking the speed limits, like it is their divine right to do so in the first place.

If you don't have the capacity to think beyond what is written in front of you then I feel sorry for you - I thought you did, but this thread seems to show otherwise.

I don't rise to flame baits that easily.