Speeding fine- im shocked.

[Cyclone]

Are you talking about a van, or about a fixed, but concealed camera.

 

There's a hidden camera on the A56 coming into Warrington. When the road was reduced from 50mph to 40mph it caught loads of people.

It sounded like the latter, and once publicised this camera is only going to catch people who don't know about (and by catching someone has proven to have failed in reducing their speed).

 

If people are consistently speeding on a road, is it necessarily the people who are wrong, or could it be the speed limit?

[L00b]

Are you talking about a van, or about a fixed, but concealed camera.

I believe when posters are on about wanting concealed cameras, they mean something like this or this.

 

Highly mobile, set up in minutes, used on-site for an hour so, then moved on to the next spot check area, rinse/repeat.

 

Accompanied by harsh(er) penalties, these have worked particularly well in curbing speeding in France (mostly A/B -type roads), in the past few years.

 

I haven't changed my driving style much in years and, relative to the perceived 'norm' I witness on roads over there year-on-year, I used to feel slow, but these days -on the exact same roads- I feel like a proper outlaw

If people are consistently speeding on a road, is it necessarily the people who are wrong, or could it be the speed limit?

That, is a very good point.

[alchresearch]

If people are consistently speeding on a road, is it necessarily the people who are wrong, or could it be the speed limit?

 

The road in question was a rural 50mph dual carriageway which leads to a single carriageway 30mph road at a built up area.

 

Because of the way the land lies (the road has a couple of curves and blind dips) there were numerous accidents, so the road was reduced to 40mph. I've not seen any since it was reduced.

 

However, people didn't feel inclined to drive at the new speed limit (despite the signs indicating the new speed), but now the camera van makes a more regular appearance, they do.

 

Sadly, the news article isn't online. But the report said that it was Warrington citizens who'd been caught.

[DT Ralge]

Are you talking about a van, or about a fixed, but concealed camera.

 

 

It sounded like the latter, and once publicised this camera is only going to catch people who don't know about (and by catching someone has proven to have failed in reducing their speed).

 

If people are consistently speeding on a road, is it necessarily the people who are wrong, or could it be the speed limit?

 

 

Speed limits do not need to be "right" or "just", they just are.

 

Appropriate speed within speed limits is a bigger issue that might answer your question, "is it the drivers who are wrong?" - on many occasions I see drivers around me who are driving within the speed limit but have shown no interest in reflecting in their speed the many shades of potential and actual hazard. Some drivers seem to wait for a bloody great arrow to appear over and point at a looming hazard before they ease off and/or brake. With such one-dimensional autopilot drivers, the posted speed limits are the limit of their understanding of hazard and risk ... and they still get fines for not noticing boards or the camera itself. What chance have they got of spotting something less obvious?

[Cyclone]

That sort of depends on whether you wish to blindly discuss ways of enforcing something, or to look at the larger issue and ask why a law is being regularly ignored (if it is).

 

I'd rather look at the larger picture. There's definitely a case for some speed camera's, in some locations. But equally there's no reason that a council shouldn't look at why a road has a speeding problem before they look at ways to make money from the speeding problem.

 

Limits are posted for the lowest common denominator, and even then they don't mean it's safe to drive at that speed. Appropriate speed can be below or above the posted limit (where appropriateness is considered with reference to conditions and pretending their is no posted limit).

To use the argument that people who don't notice the camera deserve to be caught requires that the cameras not be hidden though!

 

<Anecdote>I drove up St Mary's gate on Tuesday, about 19:35 towards Hanover Way. The roundabout has three lanes, one is left+straight on, the middle is straight on only, the right is right only. I approached in the middle lane (some traffic on my left) and another car approached in the right.

We set off when it was clear, I always move quite quickly, it's actually difficult to set off sedately in my car, but I noticed that the car to my right appeared to be nailing it as we set off.

He then had to break sharply because he was going straight on (using the wrong lane). I stopped accelerating at 40 mph, the limit on Hanover way and he swerved in behind me and accelerated past on the inside (having just cut up the taxi already in the left hand lane).

 

Unfortunately I think the camera on that stretch has been removed, he must have been doing 60 as he passed where it used to be, and still accelerating. We all caught him up at the pedestrian crossing where the lights were on red I last saw him race off towards the A61 as I went left to Broomhill.

</anecdote>

Oh, the point was that I was wishing the camera was still there to catch him, obviously it couldn't see his dangerous driving, but the speed would have triggered it.

[NahmeanUhear]

my hubby received his first speeding fine yesterday..£85 and 3 points. he has the option to go on a driver awareness course which he will have to pay the same amount for but he wont get the 3 points.not sure what option he will go for..its a bit steep for a first fine for speeding.my hubby says that the police were prob hid up somewhere as they were no speed cameras in the place he was driving. on another note im really concerned myself at the amount of speed cameras,as i observed when out with my husband,im not a driver myself.

 

serve him right

[galanthusgal]

Cameras should only be used at accident blackspots (or places that are likely to be dangerous for whatever reason). However, in many cases, a sign works wonders, without the need for a camera: 'children crossing', 'hidden junction' etc.

 

Most speeders tend to not exceed 10mph (in my opinion, not a statistical certainty), so we could reduce the speed limit by 10mph for, say, 50 yards, just at the accident point itself. This would encourage drivers to slow down to a SAFER (not necessarily safe, but safer) speed.

 

I believe that road designers have to take a fair bit of responsibility for accidents - there are places in Sheffield that since the road markings have been changed, there are more chances of an accident occurring. We should get people off the main part of the road quickly, not sit on it, next to some hatched zone; why can't the car go where the hatched zone is? There never used to be a hatched zone there... (in particular the A61 northbound out of Sheffield, in 2 places where people turn right towards Ecclesfield, High Green, etc).

 

There is also a 'what-if' counter-argument to the number of accidents caused by speed, that we cannot measure: if we were a few metres less along the road, because we were a bit slower, we hit a child that ran out into the road (or whatever type of accident you like), that we wouldn't have hit if we were a few metres further up the road?!! We can all be in the wrong place at the wrong time, whatever the speed!

 

(as an aside) The number of times I've nearly hit a driver doing 38 in a 40 zone, suddenly jumping on the brakes (to less than 30!!!!!!!) because they saw a speed camera... I think braking at a speed camera is becoming a Pavlovian response in some drivers...

[R i chy]

We should have the same laws as in America.

 

In America if a pedestrian isn't looking then they cross the road then, they're liable if they're hit.

 

Why is it never the pedestrians fault here?

 

As far as I'm concerned 90% of the time it's probably the pedestrians fault anyway.

[upinwath]

my hubby received his first speeding fine yesterday..£85 and 3 points. he has the option to go on a driver awareness course which he will have to pay the same amount for but he wont get the 3 points.not sure what option he will go for..its a bit steep for a first fine for speeding.my hubby says that the police were prob hid up somewhere as they were no speed cameras in the place he was driving. on another note im really concerned myself at the amount of speed cameras,as i observed when out with my husband,im not a driver myself.

 

 

85 quid - expensive?

 

The police are very naughty. We all know that kids wear hi viz jackets and jump up and down before they chase their football across the road.

I can see how the number of speed cams is a worry when your husband drives too fast and can't see six foot coppers with speed cameras.

 

Back to that 85 quid. A ruddy pile cheaper than paying for a funeral.

 

http://www.whatprice.co.uk/health/funeral-cost.html

 

Another arrogant thread from an unthinking item trying to justify dangerous and crappy driving.

 

Break the law - Tough cookie - Pay up, learn to drive and don't do it again.

[DT Ralge]

Speed control is not an end in itself though, so unless there's an increase in casualties or accidents then they should leave it alone.

 

Without getting into semantics (i hope you acknowledge that my perspective on this is not the one-dimensional "stop speeding and you solve the world's problems") speed control is just one end amongst more than a few as far as the authorities are concerned. On some roads speed has been targeted as an end by itself (20 zones, roads where NSL has been replaced by 50) since they authorities believe with reason that speed has played a more than significant part in the crash history. Elsewhere, road position, lack of vision, land drainage, camber, sharp deviation are problems whilst rumble strips and signage, paint, chevrons (not cameras) are the means of achieving different ends.

If drivers stopped seeing speed as the only thing authorities are interested in modifying they might see the bigger picture.