How do I get the mobile speed camera on our road?

[convert]

The only person who claims speedos are distracting is you.

 

A good driver doesn't even have to look at the speedo, I can tell roughly what speed I'm doing from engine noise, and the limit isn't a target remember, it's an upper speed.

 

A good driver doesn't drive at the limit all the time and doesn't peer at his speedo enough for it to distract.

 

It's a good job I've finished my breakfast, otherwise there'd be crumbs in my keyboard now !!

 

Engine noise can vary according to the load the vehicle is under (going up hill, going down hill etc).

 

Plus if you only know 'roughly' what speed you're doing how can you maintain an accurate speed within the posted limit.

 

A good driver not only refers to his speedo on a regular basis, he checks the readouts from other instruments; oil pressure, water temp', etc. A good driver also makes regular checks of his mirrors, and performs rear observations when changing lane / overtaking etc.

 

Whilst I agree that you don't have to drive at the limit, to avoid fines you need to know EXACTLY what speed you're doing, not roughly.

 

Mind you most cyclists don't have speedometers on their penny farthings do they, because traffic laws (including speeding) don't apply to them

[spindrift]

All traffic laws apply to cyclists, you remember your Highway Code? They can't be done for speeding, but the brilliantly-named offence of 'Furious Cycling' exists.

 

Nobody has to know EXACTLY what their speed is all the time, the ACPO guidelines allow lee-way, that's why you don't get an FPN for doing 31 in a 30.

 

This distracted by speedo twaddle is the worst excuse for bad driving ever, what do you imagine your examiner in a driving test would say if you were inattentive because 'I was staring at the speedo!'.

[brightlightj]

Paying councillors to help out in your area?? doesn't sound very 'be the change' to me!!

[tis me]

The only person who claims speedos are distracting is you.

 

A good driver doesn't even have to look at the speedo, I can tell roughly what speed I'm doing from engine noise, and the limit isn't a target remember, it's an upper speed.

 

A good driver doesn't drive at the limit all the time and doesn't peer at his speedo enough for it to distract.

 

so you can tell the difference between 68 mph and 71? I am far more qualified,experienced and capable than you will ever be and i cant.

You talk out of your rear,but it is refreshing to see that your talking down to people isnt cut and paste.......THIS time.

 

You like all authorty with vested interest in making money from cameras,forget to mention the many varables,every driver and every vehicle is different as is the situation,and thats why people are so apposed to cameras,they treat everybody as thick,although im sure like many your one of them that needs to be treat that way,some of us can actually think for our selfs,judge a situation and a safe speed for that.

[Cyclone]

The only person who claims speedos are distracting is you.

 

A good driver doesn't even have to look at the speedo, I can tell roughly what speed I'm doing from engine noise, and the limit isn't a target remember, it's an upper speed.

 

A good driver doesn't drive at the limit all the time and doesn't peer at his speedo enough for it to distract.

 

I think it was you that claimed earlier that things out of the eye line distract the driver, that would include the speedo unless it's moved, or is it only the things that you decide are distracting?

 

Roughly.

 

Well, that'll be fine then, just tell the speed camera that you were roughly at the right speed and it'll all be okay.

[spindrift]

so you can tell the difference between 68 mph and 71? I am far more qualified,experienced and capable than you will ever be and i cant.

You talk out of your rear,but it is refreshing to see that your talking down to people isnt cut and paste.......THIS time.

 

You like all authorty with vested interest in making money from cameras,forget to mention the many varables,every driver and every vehicle is different as is the situation,and thats why people are so apposed to cameras,they treat everybody as thick,although im sure like many your one of them that needs to be treat that way,some of us can actually think for our selfs,judge a situation and a safe speed for that.

 

 

Why would anyone need to hear the difference between 68 and 71 mph?

 

Who says you need to do that!?

 

The distraction argument doesn't stand up, you DON'T need to be fixated on your speedo the whole time, unless you're a crap driver.

 

I repeat, if you offered as an excuse after an RTA that you were 'distracted' by the speedo you'd be laughed out of court.

 

Besides, if, as you claim, so many people oppose cameras, how come all public surveys report strong support, around 70% of people support cameras?

 

Can you find a single survey that reports disapproval of cameras?

 

Thought not.

 

This idea that drivers pick and choose the law and decide for themselves what constitutes a safe speed is arrogant selfishness, YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON ON THE ROAD, your interests are not the over riding concern, other people must be allowed for. You don't place your own selfishness above safety, when you speed you make the roads more dangerous and bully and intimidate other people.

[spindrift]

I think it was you that claimed earlier that things out of the eye line distract the driver, that would include the speedo unless it's moved, or is it only the things that you decide are distracting?

 

Roughly.

 

Well, that'll be fine then, just tell the speed camera that you were roughly at the right speed and it'll all be okay.

 

 

A quote from the IAM said that street clutter and a plethora of road signs can distract drivers.

 

Nobody apart from you has ever claimed that speedos are distracting.

 

The IAM don't claim speedos are distracting.

 

I don't claim speedos are distracting.

 

You do, but you have so far offered zero evidence for it, and you seem to have forgotten that even if the phenomena of speedo distraction DID take place, it would be bad driving. The driver would be at fault. If you offered the distraction argument as a defence in court it would be pointed out to you that a good driver should not allow themself to be distracted.

 

There is evidence that clearing roads of too much clutter can foster a mutual respect among all road users.

 

I've never seen evidence that removing speedos or the need to monitor speedos would have the same effect.

 

If you have any then let's have it.

[Cyclone]

A quote from the IAM said that street clutter and a plethora of road signs can distract drivers.

 

Nobody apart from you has ever claimed that speedos are distracting.

 

The IAM don't claim speedos are distracting.

You claimed that having to look at things outside your line of sight is distracting.

Have you changed your mind? Is your speedo not outside your line of sight when looking where you are going? How do you explain the conflict?

 

I don't claim speedos are distracting.

 

You do, but you have so far offered zero evidence for it, and you seem to have forgotten that even if the phenomena of speedo distraction DID take place, it would be bad driving. The driver would be at fault. If you offered the distraction argument as a defence in court it would be pointed out to you that a good driver should not allow themself to be distracted.

Maybe then a good driver wouldn't be distracted by road signs? You really do want to have it both ways don't you.

 

There is evidence that clearing roads of too much clutter can foster a mutual respect among all road users.

So it's respect we're after now, not safety?

 

I've never seen evidence that removing speedos or the need to monitor speedos would have the same effect.

 

If you have any then let's have it.

Have I suggested removing them, or are you off in fantasy land?

[spindrift]

You claimed that having to look at things outside your line of sight is distracting.

 

Once again, I claimed nothing of the kind. The Institute of Advanced Motorists said too many street signs can be distracting.

 

'Maybe then a good driver wouldn't be distracted by road signs? '

 

Possibly, the important thing to remember is that de-cluttering can makes things safer. The same is not true with regard to speedos, there is no evidence removing the or the need to check them would make things safer.

 

 

aked roads’ are roads without any of the usual street ‘clutter’ such as traffic lights, signs, kerbs, white lines and other road markings.

 

Although initially this may seem like it would cause chaos on the roads and an increase in road crashes, at specific types of location naked roads have actually had the opposite effect and improved safety on the roads.

 

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/naked-roads

[tis me]

You claimed that having to look at things outside your line of sight is distracting.

 

Once again, I claimed nothing of the kind. The Institute of Advanced Motorists said too many street signs can be distracting.

 

'Maybe then a good driver wouldn't be distracted by road signs? '

 

Possibly, the important thing to remember is that de-cluttering can makes things safer. The same is not true with regard to speedos, there is no evidence removing the or the need to check them would make things safer.

 

 

aked roads’ are roads without any of the usual street ‘clutter’ such as traffic lights, signs, kerbs, white lines and other road markings.

 

 

Although initially this may seem like it would cause chaos on the roads and an increase in road crashes, at specific types of location naked roads have actually had the opposite effect and improved safety on the roads.

 

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/naked-roads

 

You seem to spend an awfully large amount of time on here.Who do you work for?you either work for someone with a vested interest in you spouting your crap or you dont work at all.