Did the sneaky S.O.B scamera get me?

[ChemicalChaos]

So, I was driving home today on the A49 from Whitchurch north to Tarporley. As its a nice, wide, smooth and flowing road, and the weather was dry and sunny, I was driving to the conditions and making progress nudging the speed limit.
As I was actually concentrating on the road and driving smoothly, not fixated on my dashboard, I may have gone a few mph over the limit once or twice when accelerating out of corners or up inclines. To this end, I crested the brow of a hill on a perfectly straight stretch to see a mobile scamera van nestled on the leeside with the cameras out - I immediately glanced down and saw that I was doing an indicated 67-68, having accelerated to maintain momentum. I'll hold my hands up to that one because, as said, I was actually looking where I was going instead.....

.....anyway, my question is - given that a indicated 68 is likely to be 64-65, which is within 10% of 60, can I expect a ticket or have I escaped by the skin of my teeth? How strict are the scamera vans - do they operate to gatso tolerances or are they manned by "OMG speed kills think of the children" types?

I have so far managed 5 years of driving with a clean licence and I have no desire to get points now....

[James2593]

At 64/65 in a 60, you're unlikely to hear anything. While they are sneaky fkers (if it wasn't safe to exceed the limit, no-one would, so they wouldn't catch anyone, so they wouldn't be there), at least there is a bit of margin.

Just wait for a letter appearing on the door mat for the next 14 days...... only then will we know for sure (Assuming you're the RK).

[TwigtheWonderkid]

James2593 said:

if it wasn't safe to exceed the limit, no-one would, so they wouldn't catch anyone, so they wouldn't be there

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that people don't break the speed limit if it isn't safe to do so? Because every day I see people driving above the speed limit when it's totally inappropriate.

[James2593]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that people don't break the speed limit if it isn't safe to do so? Because every day I see people driving above the speed limit when it's totally inappropriate.

Yes. There will be exceptions to this though, there will be always unsafe people on the roads. If it is clearly unsafe to do the limit, using single track NSL roads as an example, the road is in effect self policed, as it is unsafe to exceed the speed limit. Would you do 60mph on a single track road, approaching a blind bend? Most people will not exceed the limit due to the nature of the road, so it doesn't need policing.

A wide open, straight single carriageway on a warm, sunny day, with unlimited visibility and no traffic, with a 50 limit, is easily exceeded as it is safe to do so. As it is easily exceeded, it will be a target for scamera vans.

Are there any scamera vans in 20 zones with speed bumps? No, because the speed bumps make it unsafe to exceed the limit. Meaning there is no point in the scamera van being there.


Speed is always a debate on Pistonheads. I myself drive to the conditions, not to a sign at the side of the road.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

James2593 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that people don't break the speed limit if it isn't safe to do so? Because every day I see people driving above the speed limit when it's totally inappropriate.

Yes. There will be exceptions to this though, there will be always unsafe people on the roads. If it is clearly unsafe to do the limit, using single track NSL roads as an example, the road is in effect self policed, as it is unsafe to exceed the speed limit. Would you do 60mph on a single track road, approaching a blind bend? Most people will not exceed the limit due to the nature of the road, so it doesn't need policing.

A wide open, straight single carriageway on a warm, sunny day, with unlimited visibility and no traffic, with a 50 limit, is easily exceeded as it is safe to do so. As it is easily exceeded, it will be a target for scamera vans.

Are there any scamera vans in 20 zones with speed bumps? No, because the speed bumps make it unsafe to exceed the limit. Meaning there is no point in the scamera van being there.


Speed is always a debate on Pistonheads. I myself drive to the conditions, not to a sign at the side of the road.

You seem to be ignoring the large numbers of complete bellends on our roads who often drive a speeds that are just stupid for the conditions. From morons flying past me on the motorway in thick fog, to young drivers acting like complete pricks in urban areas.

[James2593]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

James2593 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that people don't break the speed limit if it isn't safe to do so? Because every day I see people driving above the speed limit when it's totally inappropriate.

Yes. There will be exceptions to this though, there will be always unsafe people on the roads. If it is clearly unsafe to do the limit, using single track NSL roads as an example, the road is in effect self policed, as it is unsafe to exceed the speed limit. Would you do 60mph on a single track road, approaching a blind bend? Most people will not exceed the limit due to the nature of the road, so it doesn't need policing.

A wide open, straight single carriageway on a warm, sunny day, with unlimited visibility and no traffic, with a 50 limit, is easily exceeded as it is safe to do so. As it is easily exceeded, it will be a target for scamera vans.

Are there any scamera vans in 20 zones with speed bumps? No, because the speed bumps make it unsafe to exceed the limit. Meaning there is no point in the scamera van being there.


Speed is always a debate on Pistonheads. I myself drive to the conditions, not to a sign at the side of the road.

You seem to be ignoring the large numbers of complete bellends on our roads who often drive a speeds that are just stupid for the conditions. From morons flying past me on the motorway in thick fog, to young drivers acting like complete pricks in urban areas.

Bolded in text. Not everyone is a bellend, a select few are, which is the exception. Are scamera vans the way to catch bellends, or are more traffic police the way to do this? It is clearly the latter, but the latter doesn't raise as much revenue.

[Guybrush]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

James2593 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that people don't break the speed limit if it isn't safe to do so? Because every day I see people driving above the speed limit when it's totally inappropriate.

Yes. There will be exceptions to this though, there will be always unsafe people on the roads. If it is clearly unsafe to do the limit, using single track NSL roads as an example, the road is in effect self policed, as it is unsafe to exceed the speed limit. Would you do 60mph on a single track road, approaching a blind bend? Most people will not exceed the limit due to the nature of the road, so it doesn't need policing.

A wide open, straight single carriageway on a warm, sunny day, with unlimited visibility and no traffic, with a 50 limit, is easily exceeded as it is safe to do so. As it is easily exceeded, it will be a target for scamera vans.

Are there any scamera vans in 20 zones with speed bumps? No, because the speed bumps make it unsafe to exceed the limit. Meaning there is no point in the scamera van being there.


Speed is always a debate on Pistonheads. I myself drive to the conditions, not to a sign at the side of the road.

You seem to be ignoring the large numbers of complete bellends on our roads who often drive a speeds that are just stupid for the conditions. From morons flying past me on the motorway in thick fog, to young drivers acting like complete pricks in urban areas.

Speed limits don't make those drivers safer and revenue cameras won't catch those dangerous drivers you describe. Studies have shown that it's the statistically safer drivers who are the vast majority with points on their licence.

[tenpenceshort]

Cameras can get you from up to a kilometre away. That's not to say they will, only that they can.

I also don't understand what hills or corners have to do with your speeding? Why not just say you were pressing on, came across a speed camera and thought "oh st!"?

Assuming you're the registered keeper, give it three weeks or so to see if a nice letter lands on your door. If it doesn't, chances are you're in the clear.

If the clean licence is important to you, speed only where you're sure there are no cameras or police officers to catch you.

[anonymous-user]

I am always impressed to hear about these drivers who are so skilled and safe that (1) they can't tell how fast they are going without looking at the speedometer, and (2) they think that looking at the speedometer somehow makes them less safe.

If this had been me on a safe and clear 60 mph road I would perhaps have been going at about 70 mph on purpose. I drive the car, and I choose the speed. This means that sometimes I exceed the limit and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I get busted for speeding (and pay up without complaint), but usually I don't. Why do people make excuses for speeding?

To spell it out -

ChemicalChaos said:

...As I was actually concentrating on the road and driving smoothly, not fixated on my dashboardvoluntarily using a particular throttle setting in a particular gear, I may have gone a few mph over the limit once or twice when accelerating out of corners or up inclines...

.....

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 7th September 08:21

[ralphrj]

Breadvan72 said:

I am always impressed to hear about these drivers who are so skilled and safe that (1) they can't tell how fast they are going without looking at the speedometer, and (2) they think that looking at the speedometer somehow makes them less safe.

^This. I don't know how people managed to pass their drivers test without being able to either judge their speed without looking at the speedo or take a quick glance at it without crashing.

[anonymous-user]

But but but if you look at the instruments PUPPIES WILL DIE. They teach this as PH Driving God School. They also teach the Holy phrase "making progress", which in the mortal tongue means "hooning like a fker".

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

But but but if you look at the instruments PUPPIES WILL DIE. They teach this as PH Driving God School. They also teach the Holy phrase "making progress", which in the mortal tongue means "hooning like a fker".

Presumably very few PHers fail their driving test for not "making progress"



https://www.learnerdriving.com/driving-test/markin...

[anonymous-user]

I am just lucky that the test didn't include parking when I did it. 25 years on and I am still st at parking.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Guybrush said:

Studies have shown that it's the statistically safer drivers who are the vast majority with points on their licence.

Can I have a link to these studies and statistics. If that's true, why do insurers often charge extra for drivers with convictions instead of giving a discount?

[turbobloke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

why do insurers often charge extra for drivers with convictions instead of giving a discount?

Kerching?

Possibly, if the omnipotent and infallible State says speeding is dangerous i.e. it's dangerous to exceed a speed limit regardless of whether the limit is a loony limit and regardless of the specific conditions, insurance companies may see a 'legitimate' reason to load premiums...even so, if comments made by others are accurate, if you get a few points then some insurers want to know but won't increase the premium automatically which would be more in keepng with reality.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

turbobloke said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

why do insurers often charge extra for drivers with convictions instead of giving a discount?

Kerching?

Possibly, if the omnipotent and infallible State says speeding is dangerous i.e. it's dangerous to exceed a speed limit regardless of whether the limit is a loony limit and regardless of the specific conditions, insurance companies may see a 'legitimate' reason to load premiums...even so, if comments made by others are accurate, if you get a few points then some insurers want to know but won't increase the premium automatically which would be more in keepng with reality.

But Guybrush is saying studies show people with points are actually safer? Surely, as the insurers are always fighting each other for market share, at least one would have picked up on this and offered a discount.

[turbobloke]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

turbobloke said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

why do insurers often charge extra for drivers with convictions instead of giving a discount?

Kerching?

Possibly, if the omnipotent and infallible State says speeding is dangerous i.e. it's dangerous to exceed a speed limit regardless of whether the limit is a loony limit and regardless of the specific conditions, insurance companies may see a 'legitimate' reason to load premiums...even so, if comments made by others are accurate, if you get a few points then some insurers want to know but won't increase the premium automatically which would be more in keepng with reality.

But Guybrush is saying studies show people with points are actually safer? Surely, as the insurers are always fighting each other for market share, at least one would have picked up on this and offered a discount.

Indeed and it may well increase market share as you suggest

'Speedy Insurance Points The Way'

[craigjm]

could you imagine the outcry from the daily wail and others if they started doing that?

[turbobloke]

craigjm said:

could you imagine the outcry from the daily wail and others if they started doing that?

Even better

[TwigtheWonderkid]

craigjm said:

could you imagine the outcry from the daily wail and others if they started doing that?

No, but I can imagine the losses they'd make. Having points makes you a better risk.....utter crap.
Can't wait for Guybrush to post a like to these "studies".