'Operation Snap' - police want motorists' dashcam videos

[Ken Figenus]

vonhosen said:

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

Of course there are cameras near schools, what are you talking about?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5939358,-0.36598...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6143509,-0.34007...


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5796881,-0.36682...

Not in my neck of the woods. Looks like your LA is more safety oriented than revenue oriented.

Not mine, I just plucked some that I knew of. That's just a snapshot within a few miles of each other in one area. It's in no way unique.

I can think of a hundred speed cams I know of. I can think of only one outside a school in all that. Excellent positioning and application. https://goo.gl/maps/FDJ796XBut82 But no, this is very much hen's teeth territory...

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

vonhosen said:

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

Of course there are cameras near schools, what are you talking about?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5939358,-0.36598...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6143509,-0.34007...


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5796881,-0.36682...

Not in my neck of the woods. Looks like your LA is more safety oriented than revenue oriented.

Not mine, I just plucked some that I knew of. That's just a snapshot within a few miles of each other in one area. It's in no way unique.

I can think of a hundred speed cams I know of. I can think of only one outside a school in all that. Excellent positioning and application. https://goo.gl/maps/FDJ796XBut82 But no, this is very much hen's teeth territory...

Well your scope has been considerably expanded. I've just shown you three more all within a few miles of each other.

& here's another around there too.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6230671,-0.31874...



The point originally being made by Solocle was that they aren't situated in such (high risk) places, only where people are likely to exceed the limit safely (high incidence). The evidence is to the contrary, that is that they are situated in such places as well as where people are, due to the road type, likely to exceed the limit in higher numbers.
If the authorities want to get the most out of cameras placing them in high risk & also in high incidence areas as well would seem to be a sensible tactic.

[Ken Figenus]

vonhosen said:

Well your scope has been considerably expanded. I've just shown you three more all within a few miles of each other.

& here's another around there too.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6230671,-0.31874...



The point originally being made by Solocle was that they aren't situated in such (high risk) places, only where people are likely to exceed the limit safely (high incidence). The evidence is to the contrary, that is that they are situated in such places as well as where people are, due to the road type, likely to exceed the limit in higher numbers.
If the authorities want to get the most out of cameras placing them in high risk & also in high incidence areas as well would seem to be a sensible tactic.

My experience is quite the opposite I'm afraid - and I do get about a bit Maybe your borough is a bit more progressive and safety can come before volume/turnover?

I can't think of ONE near a school in a city of 500k. However this one does very nicely for them - and the speeding issue there is largely an academic one (pun intended)! Used to be a 40... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2778395/Br...

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

vonhosen said:

Well your scope has been considerably expanded. I've just shown you three more all within a few miles of each other.

& here's another around there too.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6230671,-0.31874...



The point originally being made by Solocle was that they aren't situated in such (high risk) places, only where people are likely to exceed the limit safely (high incidence). The evidence is to the contrary, that is that they are situated in such places as well as where people are, due to the road type, likely to exceed the limit in higher numbers.
If the authorities want to get the most out of cameras placing them in high risk & also in high incidence areas as well would seem to be a sensible tactic.

My experience is quite the opposite I'm afraid - and I do get about a bit Maybe your borough is a bit more progressive and safety can come before volume/turnover?

I can't think of ONE near a school in a city of 500k. However this one does very nicely for them - and the speeding issue there is largely an academic one (pun intended)! Used to be a 40... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2778395/Br...

Well I get about too, work all over the UK & beyond.
As I said not my borough, just an example. Can show you outside that borough too if you like, but I don't realistically think further evidence will alter your mindset though, despite them being the facts (the fact that it's not just where high incidence is likely as claimed, but they are also to be found in high risks areas too).

Just in case.


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Varndean+Schoo...

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 2nd June 17:56

[Solocle]

This is the one I'm talking about - just West of Chicklade.

They just killed the overtaking lane by doing that - not long after, the lane ends. So, if you're overtaking, you want the freedom to speed up.

[nonsequitur]

Dave Hedgehog said:

oh boy are they going to regret this

the adenoidal dash cam police will be submitting ten's of thousands of offences

"you can clearly see the BMW ahead of me only indicated 9 times before pulling over, instead of 10"

"i had to accelerate to 31.5 mph to keep up with the audi in front of me, the maniac!"

"i was reading my copy of country life whilst maintaining a constant 38mph in a NSL zone when some reckless idiot dared to over take me on a 2 mile straight with no oncoming traffic"

Many PH members have dash cams as is clear from the number of posts with DC shots attached. So in effect you are coffee beanzing our fellow posters with your very cynical comments and dismissal of a positive and much needed police initiative to highlight, and where necessary, prosecute, the very drivers who are frequently outed on this website.

[nonsequitur]

Solocle said:

This is the one I'm talking about - just West of Chicklade.

They just killed the overtaking lane by doing that - not long after, the lane ends. So, if you're overtaking, you want the freedom to speed up.

Was the word 'killed' used deliberately? The photo shows an exellent use of road management and traffic control.

[Sp00ks]

nonsequitur said:

Solocle said:

This is the one I'm talking about - just West of Chicklade.

They just killed the overtaking lane by doing that - not long after, the lane ends. So, if you're overtaking, you want the freedom to speed up.

Was the word 'killed' used deliberately? The photo shows an exellent use of road management and traffic control.

If you know the place where that camera is you will know it is not excellent use of road management and traffic at all. That camera faces up hill, at a place where you need to be finishing your overtake within the next 100-200 metres or so as the lane ends and you will be facing oncoming traffic. I never even bother trying to overtake there anymore as it is too risky. But you often see a line cars overtaking a lorry/caravan and then having to slam on their brakes at the camera, before trying to speed up again and its not at all uncommon to see cars going across the hatched area and kicking up a load of dust and debris as they barely finish their overtake.

[Solocle]

nonsequitur said:

Was the word 'killed' used deliberately? The photo shows an exellent use of road management and traffic control.

330 yds more until merge at that point. No hazards. It is an NSL, but putting that combo there is like saying "go on, overtake. We dare you". My point is, overtaking something there it would be very easy to exceed the limit. Indeed, if what you were overtaking started resisting, it could end up being the only safe option. And it's not exactly dangerous to speed there.

[Ken Figenus]

vonhosen said:

Well I get about too, work all over the UK & beyond.
As I said not my borough, just an example. Can show you outside that borough too if you like, but I don't realistically think further evidence will alter your mindset though, despite them being the facts (the fact that it's not just where high incidence is likely as claimed, but they are also to be found in high risks areas too).

Just in case.


https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Varndean+Schoo...

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 2nd June 17:56

It's all good - l like seeing them in such places. But in this new age of one individual's fact Trumping another's similar truth I'd LOVE to see another pic of a GATSO outside a school in Wales as I honestly haven't seen one. This is why that Pencoed one stood out during a test drive of an AMG 45 from the garage nearby .

Back to being a bit more on-topic then... As long as the police can sort the wheat from the chaff, I'm good with Stasi like vigilantes grassing up dangerous drivers! Should I ever have a dashcam I wouldn't hesitate... This is a fabulous case in point why: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/p...

[Solocle]

Sp00ks said:

If you know the place where that camera is you will know it is not excellent use of road management and traffic at all. That camera faces up hill, at a place where you need to be finishing your overtake within the next 100-200 metres or so as the lane ends and you will be facing oncoming traffic. I never even bother trying to overtake there anymore as it is too risky. But you often see a line cars overtaking a lorry/caravan and then having to slam on their brakes at the camera, before trying to speed up again and its not at all uncommon to see cars going across the hatched area and kicking up a load of dust and debris as they barely finish their overtake.

Exactly. Us locals know the road better. And no, I rarely overtake there either, because it's so easy to get it wrong. While increasing speed would normally get you out of trouble, this removes that option. Thus creating a more dangerous situation than doing 80 in a 60 would constitute, let alone 70.

[Solocle]

Ken Figenus said:

It's all good - l like seeing them in such places. But in this new age of one individual's fact Trumping another's similar truth I'd LOVE to see another pic of a GATSO outside a school in Wales as I honestly haven't seen one. This is why that Pencoed one stood out during a test drive of an AMG 45 from the garage nearby .

Back to being a bit more on-topic then... As long as the police can sort the wheat from the chaff, I'm good with Stasi like vigilantes grassing up dangerous drivers! Should I ever have a dashcam I wouldn't hesitate... This is a fabulous case in point why: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/p...

That piece of driving is p*ss-poor. I had a similar looking vehicle nearly hit me when overtaking. I was a cyclist, and he overtook with oncoming traffic. He seemed to forget that he had a trailer.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

Sp00ks said:

If you know the place where that camera is you will know it is not excellent use of road management and traffic at all. That camera faces up hill, at a place where you need to be finishing your overtake within the next 100-200 metres or so as the lane ends and you will be facing oncoming traffic. I never even bother trying to overtake there anymore as it is too risky. But you often see a line cars overtaking a lorry/caravan and then having to slam on their brakes at the camera, before trying to speed up again and its not at all uncommon to see cars going across the hatched area and kicking up a load of dust and debris as they barely finish their overtake.

Exactly. Us locals know the road better. And no, I rarely overtake there either, because it's so easy to get it wrong. While increasing speed would normally get you out of trouble, this removes that option. Thus creating a more dangerous situation than doing 80 in a 60 would constitute, let alone 70.

Surely if you are doing what you should be doing the camera is of no consequence (i.e. in planning an overtake plan to stay within the speed limit, there being no exemption to exceed it for an overtake).

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

Surely if you are doing what you should be doing the camera is of no consequence (i.e. in planning an overtake plan to stay within the speed limit, there being no exemption to exceed it for an overtake).

I normally won't plan an overtake to exceed the speed limit. However, I want to be able to do so if necessary, without lengthy court proceedings and months of worry. Frankly, exceeding the speed limit momentarily on such a stretch should be of no consequence. It's more dangerous for somebody to be annoyed for the next 2 miles.

[Nigel Worc's]

La Liga said:

Driving isn't a right it's a privilege and everyone has a right to travel by alternative means.

The above has to be dealt with every time that drivel is spouted;

Driving is NOT a privilege, it is an ENTITLEMENT, my licence says so, I imagine yours does too !

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

Surely if you are doing what you should be doing the camera is of no consequence (i.e. in planning an overtake plan to stay within the speed limit, there being no exemption to exceed it for an overtake).

I normally won't plan an overtake to exceed the speed limit. However, I want to be able to do so if necessary, without lengthy court proceedings and months of worry. Frankly, exceeding the speed limit momentarily on such a stretch should be of no consequence. It's more dangerous for somebody to be annoyed for the next 2 miles.

You have a straight choice in the knowledge that it's illegal to exceed the limit.
Don't do it because of the consequences & likelihood of being caught, or do it & damn the consequences.
The authorities don't want you to do it, hence the rules, enforcement & punishments, but the choice is ultimately yours (in light of that knowledge).
If they didn't care about you doing it they wouldn't have put the legislation, enforcement & punishments in place (remembering of course that even then they will only initiate prosecutions where the margins over aren't small).

We all know the rules (& have demonstrated that we can adhere to them sufficiently in order to gain the licence in the first place), we all then have to choose what's more important.
Protecting our licence by adhering to the obligations, or chancing your arm & risking your licence by going outside the rules

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

You have a straight choice in the knowledge that it's illegal to exceed the limit.
Don't do it because of the consequences of being caught, or do it & damn the consequences.
The authorities don't want you to do it, hence the rules, enforcement & punishments, but the choice is ultimately yours (in light of that knowledge).
If they didn't care about you doing it they wouldn't have put the legislation, enforcement & punishments in place (remembering of course that even then they will only initiate prosecutions where the margins over aren't small).

The fact is that speed cameras tend to distract drivers from the most important task, driving safely. I know there are idiots around, but those idiots slam the brakes for the cameras then speed up again (even in average zones! ).
So no, I tend to be a law abiding citizen, but speeding really doesn't warrant the amount of focus on it to the detriment of other, more dangerous infractions (e.g. tailgating). That braking that the idiots engage in is more of a hazard than them smoothly speeding - I've undertaken people because they go from 60 to 40 in a 50.
Idiots don't change their behavior when they're not being watched. Inevitably some will be caught, but most aren't. And sensible people end up focusing more on their speedometer than the road. There are situations where speeding is the safest course of action. The danger of such a situation arising, inherent in overtaking in the location shown, would not stop most people overtaking, because normally such a situation does not occur, and, even when it happens, speeding is still safe. However, the camera prevents sensible people from overtaking here. the the idiots will. And the idiots won't speed through a camera.... they'd much rather cut you up instead. Instead of speeding and being gone.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

You have a straight choice in the knowledge that it's illegal to exceed the limit.
Don't do it because of the consequences of being caught, or do it & damn the consequences.
The authorities don't want you to do it, hence the rules, enforcement & punishments, but the choice is ultimately yours (in light of that knowledge).
If they didn't care about you doing it they wouldn't have put the legislation, enforcement & punishments in place (remembering of course that even then they will only initiate prosecutions where the margins over aren't small).

The fact is that speed cameras tend to distract drivers from the most important task, driving safely. I know there are idiots around, but those idiots slam the brakes for the cameras then speed up again (even in average zones! ).
So no, I tend to be a law abiding citizen, but speeding really doesn't warrant the amount of focus on it to the detriment of other, more dangerous infractions (e.g. tailgating). That braking that the idiots engage in is more of a hazard than them smoothly speeding - I've undertaken people because they go from 60 to 40 in a 50.
Idiots don't change their behavior when they're not being watched. Inevitably some will be caught, but most aren't. And sensible people end up focusing more on their speedometer than the road. There are situations where speeding is the safest course of action. The danger of such a situation arising, inherent in overtaking in the location shown, would not stop most people overtaking, because normally such a situation does not occur, and, even when it happens, speeding is still safe. However, the camera prevents sensible people from overtaking here. the the idiots will. And the idiots won't speed through a camera.... they'd much rather cut you up instead. Instead of speeding and being gone.

What a lot of hogwash, 'sensible people end up focusing more on their speedometer than the road'.
You only need to look at the speedo periodically in favourable conditions. If it's safe to travel at the limit (which by definition you should be doing in conditions that are favourable) you only need to merely be competent (not an expert) to periodically check it in order to maintain compliance with the limit. It is nether sensible or necessary to stare at the speedo if you've adopted the mindset in relation to speed (limits) that the authorities desire you to through their implementation of the law, enforcement & punishments.

Sure if your mindset is to seek to exceed it at will that presents you with problems, but that's exactly the premise of the legislation, enforcement & punishments in order to deter that mindset & punish those who don't.

Let's not pretend what was a simple necessity to display in order to gain your licence suddenly becomes an inordinately difficult task post test. That's just window dressing a desire to exceed limits for personal gain.
I've more respect for people who choose to exceed the limit for personal gain & admit so than those who claim they become a gibbering wreck post test through no fault of their own because it's really too difficult to adhere to the limit & remain safe/competent because the only sensible option is to stare at the speedo.

That's not holier than thou, I've never exceeded a limit talk.
It's calling bluff on the claim it's a choice between exceeding the limit to a magnitude that places you in danger of prosecution or stare at your speedo to avoid that.
If I choose to exceed the limit it's a choice to in knowledge of the potential consequences & alternatively I don't need to stare at the speedo to avoid the risk of exceeding the limit if that's much choice to either.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

What a lot of hogwash, 'sensible people end up focusing more on their speedometer than the road'.
You only need to look at the speedo periodically in favourable conditions. If it's safe to travel at the limit (which by definition you should be doing i conditions are favourable to) you only need to merely be competent (not an expert) to periodically check it in order to maintain compliance with the limit. It is nether sensible or necessary to stare at the speedo if you've adopted the mindset in relation to speed (limits) that the authorities desire you to through their implementation of the law, enforcement & punishments.

Sure if your mindset is to seek to exceed it at will that presents you with problems, but that's exactly the premise of the legislation, enforcement & punishments in order to deter that mindset & punish this who don't.

Let's not pretend what was a simple necessity to display in order to gain your licence suddenly becomes an inordinately difficult task post test. That's just window dressing a desire to exceed limits for personal gain.
I've more respect for people who choose to exceed the limit for personal gain & admit so than those who claim they become a gibbering wreck post test through no fault of their own because it's really too difficult to adhere to the limit & remain safe/competent because the only sensible option is to stare at the speedo.

I'm definitely not a gibbering wreck kind. However, I'm not talking about me. Some people will keep their eyes glued to the speedo, it's inevitable. I will pay more attention to it on a downhill stretch with speed cameras, because 5 mph can creep up on you (it says as much in Roadcraft). Prestleigh is a case. And there are times that I willingly exceed the speed limit, generally when I feel that it improves safety. And an anecdote to my test - I momentarily did 35 mph coming out of a downhill junction onto a 30 mph dual carriageway. I didn't even get a minor fault for that.

[cmaguire]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

Surely if you are doing what you should be doing the camera is of no consequence (i.e. in planning an overtake plan to stay within the speed limit, there being no exemption to exceed it for an overtake).

I normally won't plan an overtake to exceed the speed limit. However, I want to be able to do so if necessary, without lengthy court proceedings and months of worry. Frankly, exceeding the speed limit momentarily on such a stretch should be of no consequence. It's more dangerous for somebody to be annoyed for the next 2 miles.

Vonhosen, you defending this sort of crap just identifies you as establishment. That camera is pointless, there is an overtaking lane and common sense says that those wishing to overtake should take advantage of legitimate opportunities, rather than taking risks where an overtake is more dangerous. Overtaking there is both facilitated and easy, and overtaking should be undertaken in such a way as to limit the risk and expedite the manoeuver as quickly as possible whilst maintaining safety. We can all acknowledge that a limit exists, and that it should guide those as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and wilfully exceeding the posted limit by a reasonable margin in order to facilitate a safer overtake should be regarded as an acceptable decision rather than an opportunity for a conviction.
What this type of cynicism actually creates is a situation where that camera restricts the number of vehicles that are able to safely overtake in that zone, and thereby increases the likelyhood of those unable to overtake then making a far more dangerous manoeuver soon afterwards.