Average Speed Cams - are people really this thick?

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

[rs1952]

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

Referring back to the title of this thread: "Average Speed Cams - are people really this thick?"

Forget cameras 10 miles apart - let's look at cameras a mile apart. Let us say for the sake of argument that, over that mile, you do 50 mph for three-quarters of a mile, and 70 mph for a quarter of a mile - speeding up to get into that gap, getting lorry drivers off your "chuff" (to quote another poster) or just because you like to think you live dangerously:

At 50 mph every quarter mile takes 18 seconds. At 70mph each quarter mile takes 12.86 seconds. You have done a mile in 66.86 seconds. Your overall average speed for that mile would have been 53.85mph.

Or perhaps the cameras are half a mile apart, so you do 50 mph for a quarter of a mile and 60 mph for the other quarter. Your figures would be 18 seconds for the first quarter mile and 15 seconds for the second. Your overall average speed would be 54.55 mph.

The tolerance threshold is limit + 10% + 2, so you are not likely to get a ticket for anything under 57.

Mountains, molehills, and finding problems where none exist (if you actually do the maths of course) spring to mind. And perhaps not understanding how average speed cameras work...

[Pete317]

rs1952 said:

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

Referring back to the title of this thread: "Average Speed Cams - are people really this thick?"

Forget cameras 10 miles apart - let's look at cameras a mile apart. Let us say for the sake of argument that, over that mile, you do 50 mph for three-quarters of a mile, and 70 mph for a quarter of a mile - speeding up to get into that gap, getting lorry drivers off your "chuff" (to quote another poster) or just because you like to think you live dangerously:

At 50 mph every quarter mile takes 18 seconds. At 70mph each quarter mile takes 12.86 seconds. You have done a mile in 66.86 seconds. Your overall average speed for that mile would have been 53.85mph.

Or perhaps the cameras are half a mile apart, so you do 50 mph for a quarter of a mile and 60 mph for the other quarter. Your figures would be 18 seconds for the first quarter mile and 15 seconds for the second. Your overall average speed would be 54.55 mph.

The tolerance threshold is limit + 10% + 2, so you are not likely to get a ticket for anything under 57.

Mountains, molehills, and finding problems where none exist (if you actually do the maths of course) spring to mind. And perhaps not understanding how average speed cameras work...

This thread was about people not getting the concept of averages, not about calculating averages.

Mentally calculating averages is trivial when you're sitting in your armchair or at your desk, but, for example, on a dark, rainy night when you notice that you've drifted up to 60-something, and you're not sure how long you've been at that speed, or how far it is to the next camera, all of a sudden it becomes a lot more fraught.

[Devil2575]

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

So how far apart are they located?

[rs1952]

Pete317 said:

This thread was about people not getting the concept of averages, not about calculating averages.

Mentally calculating averages is trivial when you're sitting in your armchair or at your desk, but, for example, on a dark, rainy night when you notice that you've drifted up to 60-something, and you're not sure how long you've been at that speed, or how far it is to the next camera, all of a sudden it becomes a lot more fraught.

That might depend on how old you are. I went to school in pre-calculator days, and we learnt mental arithmetic the old-fashioned way.

Sad case that I am, I have been calculating average speeds in my head for over 50 years (mainly for the purposes of calculating train speeds from mileposts, but I said that I was a sad case... )

Anyway, the next time you are in a "fraught" situation, you could always refer to ny calculations. Perhaps writing down quarter-mile speeds in terms of seconds and sticking them to your steering wheel might help?

Just a thought...

[Devil2575]

rs1952 said:

Referring back to the title of this thread: "Average Speed Cams - are people really this thick?"

Forget cameras 10 miles apart - let's look at cameras a mile apart. Let us say for the sake of argument that, over that mile, you do 50 mph for three-quarters of a mile, and 70 mph for a quarter of a mile - speeding up to get into that gap, getting lorry drivers off your "chuff" (to quote another poster) or just because you like to think you live dangerously:

At 50 mph every quarter mile takes 18 seconds. At 70mph each quarter mile takes 12.86 seconds. You have done a mile in 66.86 seconds. Your overall average speed for that mile would have been 53.85mph.

Or perhaps the cameras are half a mile apart, so you do 50 mph for a quarter of a mile and 60 mph for the other quarter. Your figures would be 18 seconds for the first quarter mile and 15 seconds for the second. Your overall average speed would be 54.55 mph.

The tolerance threshold is limit + 10% + 2, so you are not likely to get a ticket for anything under 57.

Mountains, molehills, and finding problems where none exist (if you actually do the maths of course) spring to mind. And perhaps not understanding how average speed cameras work...

Well said.

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

So how far apart are they located?

Certainly a lot less than 10 miles

[Pete317]

rs1952 said:

Pete317 said:

This thread was about people not getting the concept of averages, not about calculating averages.

Mentally calculating averages is trivial when you're sitting in your armchair or at your desk, but, for example, on a dark, rainy night when you notice that you've drifted up to 60-something, and you're not sure how long you've been at that speed, or how far it is to the next camera, all of a sudden it becomes a lot more fraught.

That might depend on how old you are. I went to school in pre-calculator days, and we learnt mental arithmetic the old-fashioned way.

Sad case that I am, I have been calculating average speeds in my head for over 50 years (mainly for the purposes of calculating train speeds from mileposts, but I said that I was a sad case... )

Anyway, the next time you are in a "fraught" situation, you could always refer to ny calculations. Perhaps writing down quarter-mile speeds in terms of seconds and sticking them to your steering wheel might help?

Just a thought...

I'll just ignore your condescending tone and say that I probably have a few years on you

[CarbonXKR]

On the A9 Perth to Inverness, their are numerous average cameras but none cover the dualled sections. There are also lorries using the road travelling at 50mph compared to the cars 60mph. Get stuck (as you do) on the non dualled sections behind a lorry for sometime, you can easily push up to a little over the NSL to regain your average 60mph.
I have a Road Angel Gem that shows the average sections (when you are in them) and also displays your running average between the "pair". It resets passing a gantry and the game begins again. If you worked on the assumption of some on here - i.e. set speed limiter to 6omph +-, your average would be way lower due to slower traffic in places.
I forgot to take the RA with me last trip and used my common sense to achieve a good average - no tickets in post!

[tapereel]

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

So how far apart are they located?

Certainly a lot less than 10 miles

That's what we like, a guess by someone with absolutely no clue or evidence.

Average speed meters have approval in the UK for distances from 75 metres to unlimited distances.

While they are seldom used at distances of less than 250metres they are hardy, indeed if ever, used at 10 miles.

Just keep making stuff up 317, it may just come true, not!

[Pete317]

tapereel said:

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Pete317 said:

Devil2575 said:

Take a 10 mile stretch of road with average speed cameras and a limit of 50 mph.

If you do 50 mph for 9 miles and 70 mph for 1 mile then you're average speed is 51.5 mph.

Does anyone really think this is going to get you a ticket? A short burst of extra speed on a slip road to get into a gap is really not going to be a problem.

Do you really think that the cameras are spaced 10 miles apart?

And when you're not quite sure where the cameras are situated, eg at night, are you really willing to take the chance on speeding up significantly?

So how far apart are they located?

Certainly a lot less than 10 miles

That's what we like, a guess by someone with absolutely no clue or evidence.

Average speed meters have approval in the UK for distances from 75 metres to unlimited distances.

While they are seldom used at distances of less than 250metres they are hardy, indeed if ever, used at 10 miles.

Just keep making stuff up 317, it may just come true, not!

What the fk are you on about? Did you actually read the post I was responding to before jumping in with both feet?

I said the distance between cameras, in my experience, is a lot less than 10 miles - there being typically 3, 4 or more of them in a typical road works section a few miles long.

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 16th February 07:50

[Tiggsy]

Cant believe people still going on about this!

has ANYONE heard of someone got a ticket (not a mate of a mate) for doing 60 ish in an average zone? Because doing it day in and day out and never hear a thing.

[BertBert]

Depends what you mean by 60ish. Do you mean 62 as indicated on GPS where the speedo will be reading 64-65? OR do you mean 58 on the speedo where the real speed is probably 55mph? That's a 10mph range.
BErt

[PhilUK]

tapereel said:

That's what we like, a guess by someone with absolutely no clue or evidence.

Average speed meters have approval in the UK for distances from 75 metres to unlimited distances.

While they are seldom used at distances of less than 250metres they are hardy, indeed if ever, used at 10 miles.

Just keep making stuff up 317, it may just come true, not!

That's what he said...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

rs1952 said:

Referring back to the title of this thread: "Average Speed Cams - are people really this thick?"

Forget cameras 10 miles apart - let's look at cameras a mile apart. Let us say for the sake of argument that, over that mile, you do 50 mph for three-quarters of a mile, and 70 mph for a quarter of a mile - speeding up to get into that gap, getting lorry drivers off your "chuff" (to quote another poster) or just because you like to think you live dangerously:

At 50 mph every quarter mile takes 18 seconds. At 70mph each quarter mile takes 12.86 seconds. You have done a mile in 66.86 seconds. Your overall average speed for that mile would have been 53.85mph.

Or perhaps the cameras are half a mile apart, so you do 50 mph for a quarter of a mile and 60 mph for the other quarter. Your figures would be 18 seconds for the first quarter mile and 15 seconds for the second. Your overall average speed would be 54.55 mph.

The tolerance threshold is limit + 10% + 2, so you are not likely to get a ticket for anything under 57.

Mountains, molehills, and finding problems where none exist (if you actually do the maths of course) spring to mind. And perhaps not understanding how average speed cameras work...

Absolutely spot on. The moaners on here are lying to themselves. Truth is, they want to do 85/90 and are annoyed that they can't. Everything else is just meaningless waffle to try and find fault with the system.

[Zedboy1200]

Pete317 said:

Mentally calculating averages is trivial when you're sitting in your armchair or at your desk, but, for example, on a dark, rainy night when you notice that you've drifted up to 60-something, and you're not sure how long you've been at that speed, or how far it is to the next camera, all of a sudden it becomes a lot more fraught.

Just get a Road Angel ... Does it all for you. Perfect companion these days

[Pete317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Absolutely spot on. The moaners on here are lying to themselves. Truth is, they want to do 85/90 and are annoyed that they can't. Everything else is just meaningless waffle to try and find fault with the system.

Your attempts at scoring points by denigrating others are pathetic.

What do you come here for?

[Jasandjules]

Tiggsy said:

Cant believe people still going on about this!

has ANYONE heard of someone got a ticket (not a mate of a mate) for doing 60 ish in an average zone? Because doing it day in and day out and never hear a thing.

Well, I've not travelled at 60mph in a 40mph limit to find out....

[rs1952]

Pete317 said:

I'll just ignore your condescending tone and say that I probably have a few years on you

Apologies if you felt aggreived.

The problem is, when somebody takes a position that someone else can drive a coach and horses through, and then comes back to defend that position even after a coach and horses has been driven through the hole in their argument... well,there comes a point ...

But in any case, us old buggers should be sticking together. Some of the young 'uns around here think we're not safe to be on the road

[WJNB]

rs1952 said:

Pete317 said:

I'll just ignore your condescending tone and say that I probably have a few years on you

Apologies if you felt aggreived.

The problem is, when somebody takes a position that someone else can drive a coach and horses through, and then comes back to defend that position even after a coach and horses has been driven through the hole in their argument... well,there comes a point ...

But in any case, us old buggers should be sticking together. Some of the young 'uns around here think we're not safe to be on the road

This 'old bugger' is still haunted by the need to be a hooligan VERY occasionally & what fun WHEN the road is empty, dry & free of traffic.
Come speed limited roads & average speed cameras only too pleased to bumble at the indicated speed & watch others take the risks. They wouldn't know what to do with the time saved, have not grown up & learnt respect patience or tolerance & probably have a chip on their shoulders & need to prove something. Sometimes trying to push water uphill & beat the system is just not worth the effort AND failure is a certainty. Too easy to be left looking rather silly.