M4 : SPEED CAMERA VANS ON THE INCREASE
Discussion
Now the dust has well and truely settled after the M4 protest, the Wiltshire SCP seem to be targeting M4 users nearly every day, usually between jncts 17-15 near Swindon.
I feel sure they're going to cause one hell of a pile-up soon!
This morning they were sat on a bridge near jnct 17, one driver spotted them a bit too late and hit the brakes, causing swerving and hard braking behind him by several cars in lane two. Maybe he should have spotted it earlier, but you can't scan all the bridges all the time and braking hard is then a natural reaction.
Then this afternoon, returning on the West bound carriageway, they're there again but sat on the far side of the bridge as you approach, possibly to stay out of visibility more. There was no hard braking that time, but the traffic all slowed to 65-70 then sped back up after the bridge.
It makes me so angry, do they not see how potentially dangerous their actions are?
Do they not realise that they are only slowing the traffic to artificial speeds temporarily, creating an unnecessary hazard and for what? To pointlessly enforce a draconian law for the laws sake and keep themselves in work! All to the detriment of road safety, selfish greedy bastards!
Anyone think a second M4 protest would do any good, or any other suggestions to help stop this lunacy?
I feel sure they're going to cause one hell of a pile-up soon!
This morning they were sat on a bridge near jnct 17, one driver spotted them a bit too late and hit the brakes, causing swerving and hard braking behind him by several cars in lane two. Maybe he should have spotted it earlier, but you can't scan all the bridges all the time and braking hard is then a natural reaction.
Then this afternoon, returning on the West bound carriageway, they're there again but sat on the far side of the bridge as you approach, possibly to stay out of visibility more. There was no hard braking that time, but the traffic all slowed to 65-70 then sped back up after the bridge.
It makes me so angry, do they not see how potentially dangerous their actions are?
Do they not realise that they are only slowing the traffic to artificial speeds temporarily, creating an unnecessary hazard and for what? To pointlessly enforce a draconian law for the laws sake and keep themselves in work! All to the detriment of road safety, selfish greedy bastards!
Anyone think a second M4 protest would do any good, or any other suggestions to help stop this lunacy?
I’ve been travelling this stretch almost every day for the last few months, and I don’t know that they are there any more often than they were when they started targeting the motorway in earnest (about 3 months after the protest), but I do see that its becoming a bit of a “cat-and- mouse” game with the regular drivers.
The partnership always use the same bridges – they are all publicised on their website, but they have their favourites. Their most favourite appears to be where the motorway runs through a slight double bend (near Grittenham, about mid-way between junctions 16 and 17). The intention, no doubt, is to make some easy cash by being “visible,” but not visible soon enough for the cash vending machines to slow down before they get caught. The position on that bridge works for them in both directions but, if you look into the distance when coming down the hill from Wootton Bassett (westbound), you can just catch a glimpse of them.
The usual situation now is that the speed of traffic generally slows as that double bend is approached. A quick check to make sure that the barstewards aren’t there follows, then a procession of accelerators are floored again!
The trouble is, I’m spending more time looking at bleeding bridges than I am looking out for other hazards these days. But, of course, the motorway is much safer since they started their campaign isn’t it – it says so in their propaganda so it must be true …
.
As regards a second protest, I would be quite happy to participate, but somebody else can organise it!
The partnership always use the same bridges – they are all publicised on their website, but they have their favourites. Their most favourite appears to be where the motorway runs through a slight double bend (near Grittenham, about mid-way between junctions 16 and 17). The intention, no doubt, is to make some easy cash by being “visible,” but not visible soon enough for the cash vending machines to slow down before they get caught. The position on that bridge works for them in both directions but, if you look into the distance when coming down the hill from Wootton Bassett (westbound), you can just catch a glimpse of them.
The usual situation now is that the speed of traffic generally slows as that double bend is approached. A quick check to make sure that the barstewards aren’t there follows, then a procession of accelerators are floored again!
The trouble is, I’m spending more time looking at bleeding bridges than I am looking out for other hazards these days. But, of course, the motorway is much safer since they started their campaign isn’t it – it says so in their propaganda so it must be true …
. As regards a second protest, I would be quite happy to participate, but somebody else can organise it!
Personally I set my cruise control at 70 mph, and have absolutely no worries about speed cameras, if we all abided by the limits, there would be no problem with cars suddenly braking, and if you kept a safe distance behind the car in front, you would not be in danger of rear ending them.
Think positive guys, I know, and agree keeping to 70 is a pain in the butt, unfortunately thats the current law. Sad but true. In 40 years of motoring I have never had any points on my license, or a parking ticket. Its not hard to comply guys & girls.
Think positive guys, I know, and agree keeping to 70 is a pain in the butt, unfortunately thats the current law. Sad but true. In 40 years of motoring I have never had any points on my license, or a parking ticket. Its not hard to comply guys & girls.
vipers said:So you prefer to be a passenger when you’re behind the wheel?
Personally I set my cruise control at 70 mph,
vipers said:The Dodgyscope?
and have absolutely no worries about speed cameras,
The Shutter Effect or Notsoaccurate?
vipers said:until the limit gets lowered because, mostly thanks to speedo tolerance, the 50th percentile speed becomes “too low”
if we all abided by the limits, there would be no problem with cars suddenly braking,
vipers said:What’s that got to do with the speed cameras? Nothing!
and if you kept a safe distance behind the car in front, you would not be in danger of rear ending them.
vipers said:A law that we’re trying to get changed because it is inappropriate. The majority of drivers choose to ignore this irrelevant law and exceed the speed limit on motorways without consequence. Sad but true.
Think positive guys, I know, and agree keeping to 70 is a pain in the butt, unfortunately thats the current law. Sad but true.
vipers said:But have you been involnved in an accident?
In 40 years of motoring I have never had any points on my license, or a parking ticket.
vipers said:Not hard but certainly time wasting and distracting (speedo watching) or unengaging (cruise control), for some leading to fatigue, inattentiveness, driver error, crashes……
Its not hard to comply guys & girls.
Passenger? I dont think so, a responsible driver YES.
My comment on keeping a safe distance was in respect to the comment on the vehicle in front suddenly braking, and you having a better change of avoiding a rear end collision,
In 40 years of motoring, NO I have never had, or been involved in an accident.
I personally hate speed cameras as much as anyone else, and would dearly love to see motorway limits raised, but unfortunately I cant see that happening.
Thank you for your comments anyway, safe driving.
My comment on keeping a safe distance was in respect to the comment on the vehicle in front suddenly braking, and you having a better change of avoiding a rear end collision,
In 40 years of motoring, NO I have never had, or been involved in an accident.
I personally hate speed cameras as much as anyone else, and would dearly love to see motorway limits raised, but unfortunately I cant see that happening.
Thank you for your comments anyway, safe driving.
vipers said:Aren’t non-speeding drivers also causing potentially dangerous actions?
Sorry to go on a bit, but arnt speeding motorists also causing potentially dangerous actions?
vipers said:If I may correct: “Passenger? I dont think so, a legal driver YES”
Passenger? I dont think so, a responsible driver YES.
Exceeding a speed limit in this day and age doesn’t automatically mean a driver is irresponsible; remaining within a speed limit doesn’t automatically mean a driver is responsible.
vipers said:I agree, but do speed cameras encourage drivers to keep a safe distance?
My comment on keeping a safe distance was in respect to the comment on the vehicle in front suddenly braking, and you having a better change of avoiding a rear end collision,
To be fair, it looks a bit silly claiming it's making driving dangerous because you suddenly brake to below the limit when you see a speed camera. Whilst it clearly happens and is dangerous, it also kind of makes the point that you should be going below the speed limit in the first place then you wouldn't need to make this dangerous move.
Basically it's almost a pro-SCP argument for sticking below the speed limit.
Besides, their solution to it would just be to install average-speed cameras anyway??? Not really a desired outcome.
Russell
Basically it's almost a pro-SCP argument for sticking below the speed limit.
Besides, their solution to it would just be to install average-speed cameras anyway??? Not really a desired outcome.
Russell
pentoman said:A smart point, but this could just as easily show that the speed limit is set inappropriately low if the majority of drivers need to brake.
Basically it's almost a pro-SCP argument for sticking below the speed limit.
pentoman said:
Besides, their solution to it would just be to install average-speed cameras anyway??? Not really a desired outcome.
Agreed, especially when considering you’ll be driving close to others who would also have their attention fixed upon their speedo for the duration of the measurement zone. Besides, drivers will still brake when entering such a zone.
pentoman said:
To be fair, it looks a bit silly claiming it's making driving dangerous because you suddenly brake to below the limit when you see a speed camera....
The problem of braking for cameras extends to people driving below the limit anyway. If there were no cameras, would it be within your expectation parameters for someone traveling under the speed limit to suddenly brake? Unlikely. Unexpected braking causes unexpected crashes (at least to those involved) as drivers tailgate due to the lowering of driving standards caused by a lack of trafpol.
Those of us who are aware and concentrating will have spotted the camera and made sure we are travelling at he right speed. Unfortunately the majority of motorists do not do this with the result being the "see-camera-hit-brakes-to-be-sure" mentality. This is dangerous.
Whenever vipers posts, he gets hassle because of what he says, but I understand his points perfectly. Yes, the current camera situation is wrong and dangerous, however, what do you have to do in order to get by? If you want a clean licence then you obey the speed limit when you know there's a chance you would be caught, just make damn sure you're making the effort to concentrate as much as usual rather than falling asleep through boredom. This way the concentration ensures safety and the speed ensures licence-cleanliness. It's another unfortunate and annoying obstacle that has to be negotiated inthe modern motoring environment.
Having said that, The Life Of David Gale would suggest we all drive everywhere over teh speed limit and prove it is safe.
Roads where you know there are no scams on the other hand......
vipers said:
A probable sign that the revenue camera industry is gearing up for when GPS-only detectors are allowed...
James, can you explain that to me, not sure what you mean there, would be interested to know. I dont know anything at all about camera detectors at all? thanks.
The government want to ban detectors that detect ad hoc speed traps (as well as gatsos) - those that send out a signal which can be detected. They are content to allow detectors which warn of fixed and known position speed traps - i.e. GPS-based detectors.
Therefore, it's obvious that speed traps which cannot be detected by GPS devices will proliferate.
Smeggy said "Exceeding a speed limit in this day and age doesn’t automatically mean a driver is irresponsible; remaining within a speed limit doesn’t automatically mean a driver is responsible"
Totally agree with that. Unfortunately a number of those who choose to exceed said limits arnt up to handling their vehicles at those speeds, which of course means some are, no dispute.
Driving requires a 100% concentration, but we still see drivers with phones glued to their ear. Often I find myself in lane 2 of a dual carriageway and as you approach a car in lane 1, he startes to move out, then indicates, I get the impression half of the car drivers these days have absolutely no idea what is happening behind them, let alone in front of them.
I am all in favour of the limit being raised as are most of us, but until that happens, we are stuck with it. Lots of other good comments on this subject as well.
Be safe out there guys.
P.S. not sure what you meant by this comment "If I may correct: “Passenger? I dont think so, a legal driver YES”
>> Edited by vipers on Friday 27th January 15:51
>> Edited by vipers on Friday 27th January 19:41
Totally agree with that. Unfortunately a number of those who choose to exceed said limits arnt up to handling their vehicles at those speeds, which of course means some are, no dispute.
Driving requires a 100% concentration, but we still see drivers with phones glued to their ear. Often I find myself in lane 2 of a dual carriageway and as you approach a car in lane 1, he startes to move out, then indicates, I get the impression half of the car drivers these days have absolutely no idea what is happening behind them, let alone in front of them.
I am all in favour of the limit being raised as are most of us, but until that happens, we are stuck with it. Lots of other good comments on this subject as well.
Be safe out there guys.
P.S. not sure what you meant by this comment "If I may correct: “Passenger? I dont think so, a legal driver YES”
>> Edited by vipers on Friday 27th January 15:51
>> Edited by vipers on Friday 27th January 19:41
More cameras, people say drive at the limit and wont get cought.
The problem is, the vans are NOT there to catch law breakers, they are there to make the road SAFE. People braking the law by speeding on the motorway are not a problem, targeting them with the sole purpose of getting as many tickets and revenue as possible is fine, but it DOES make the road very un-safe.
Why say dont brake the limit, then people dont panick break, thus making 'Safety Cameras' not dangerous, sounds like a very strange way to make our roads safe.
Why dont we not have the 'safety cameras', then the road can go back to being safe.
The problem is, the vans are NOT there to catch law breakers, they are there to make the road SAFE. People braking the law by speeding on the motorway are not a problem, targeting them with the sole purpose of getting as many tickets and revenue as possible is fine, but it DOES make the road very un-safe.
Why say dont brake the limit, then people dont panick break, thus making 'Safety Cameras' not dangerous, sounds like a very strange way to make our roads safe.
Why dont we not have the 'safety cameras', then the road can go back to being safe.
pentoman said:
To be fair, it looks a bit silly claiming it's making driving dangerous because you suddenly brake to below the limit when you see a speed camera. Whilst it clearly happens and is dangerous,
It is dangerous yes, enough said! I do many motorway miles and in reality most cars are tailgating most of the time, they shouldn't in an ideal world but they do in this one.
pentoman said:
it also kind of makes the point that you should be going below the speed limit in the first place then you wouldn't need to make this dangerous move.
Basically it's almost a pro-SCP argument for sticking below the speed limit.
I find that when traffic speeds are lower they tailgate even closer.
Even below 70 some drivers will still touch the brakes on seeing a camera van and the flashing of brake lights isn't good on motorways.
Vipers, it's very easy to say just stick below 70 and problem solved, but that is simply unrealistic and will never never happen in the real world. The fact is many drivers do exceed 70 and whether that is right or wrong doesn't matter, they do it. They aren't going to slow down and waste time pointlessly when it's safe to go 85. Then a driver spots the van on a bridge...
Does anyone think that camera vans on bridges are making motorways safer? Anyone...
deeps said:I'l be the first to agree that camera vans on bridges do absolutely nothing to make motorways safer, but as long as drivers blatently abuse the limit, whats to be done.
Does anyone think that camera vans on bridges are making motorways safer? Anyone...
We dont want to drive on a race track, so limis have to be set which are realistic for the majority of drivers, not just the boy racers, and those of us fortunate enough to be mature competent drivers with fast cars.
Yes and I agree those who panic break may be the cause of others to have nasty crunches, but if we all drove a little bit slower, and I have absoltely no problem with cars passing me at 80, providing the drivers are alert to whats going on, and I think forward observation maybe part of the problem, drivers dont see whats down the road, and are not prepared to take evasive, corrective action. Look at every bridge as you approach it, look for those bloody vans, and just gently slow down.
Just to reiterate I am all in favour of the limits being raised, but at the moment, we do need methods of slowing road users down, any suggestions for what the limit should be raised to? I dont think 90 sounds unrealistic, given the right road conditions, except it would clog up lane 3, lots still doodle in lane 1 and 2, to those who whose to do 70, or just over would be in lane 3 passing the others, with cars up their back side wishing to do 90, any thoughts on that?
vipers said:I could instead say ‘but as long as the authorities and SCPs blatently abuse the limit, whats to be done?’
I'l be the first to agree that camera vans on bridges do absolutely nothing to make motorways safer, but as long as drivers blatently abuse the limit, whats to be done.
vipers said:What about the minority? What should they do?
limis have to be set which are realistic for the majority of drivers
vipers said:This is a result from the speed kills message: “Speeding is the killer, stay within the limit and you’ll be safe”!
…..providing the drivers are alert to whats going on, and I think forward observation maybe part of the problem, drivers dont see whats down the road, and are not prepared to take evasive, corrective action.
How often do you see campaigns encouraging drivers to make use of ‘forward observation’?
vipers said:My bold.
Look at every bridge as you approach it, look for those bloody vans, and just gently slow down.
As soon as you can see the van, the operator can see you and that’s when they’ll ping you, hence it’s perfectly understandable why drivers would want to ‘adjust’ their speed quickly. There’s also the issue of the distraction caused by watching for these hazards (hazardous to your license).
vipers said:
I dont think 90 sounds unrealistic, given the right road conditions, except it would clog up lane 3, lots still doodle in lane 1 and 2, to those who whose to do 70, or just over would be in lane 3 passing the others, with cars up their back side wishing to do 90, any thoughts on that?
I agree. Those drivers who refuse to break the speed limit are usually the ones who conveniently chooses not to comply with another rule: keep left when appropriate (rule 238)
smeggy said:
And before anyone else says "stay within the limits and you'll be safe (from prosecution)" see this
Scarey stuff, when you know damm well you are inocent. How many I wonder have thought they wee probably guily and paid.
But this guy knowing he was no where 60 fought and won. I Just dont know what the answer is really, any ideas.
Good points above as well, on my short jaunt from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, met the usual clown. I was cruising up in lane 2 at 70 to pass landrover in lane 1, who was probably doing about 50, a car comes down the slip road, land rover, pulls into lane 2 in front of me to let the car out. Why oh why do they do this.................
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff