'Operation Snap' - police want motorists' dashcam videos

[wack]

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.

There used to be one like that on the A605 on the way to Peterborough but it's gone now,it was behind a bridge , I actually saw the closest I've ever seen to a high speed head on collision when a guy overtook a truck, he'd have been well in except he saw the camera and braked narrowly missing a truck coming the other way.

[Solocle]

cmaguire said:

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.

Exactly this. The A303 is a trunk road. I've been stuck behind a hay lorry on it, and drivers can get frustrated by that. What comes after this stretch is straight road, 60 mph, where overtaking is allowed. With many hazards that a non-advanced driver may disregard. So, heck, even doing 90 in that lane would be safer than them trying an overtake slightly later.

wack said:

There used to be one like that on the A605 on the way to Peterborough but it's gone now,it was behind a bridge , I actually saw the closest I've ever seen to a high speed head on collision when a guy overtook a truck, he'd have been well in except he saw the camera and braked narrowly missing a truck coming the other way.

And, if there had been a head on collision, would the speed camera have been held responsible? I somehow doubt it, because the LA can't admit that speed can be safer than slow.

Edited by Solocle on Friday 2nd June 21:28

[Solocle]

And, does anybody think that this is for safety? This stretch used to be 40.

Spotted the camera? No, I thought not.

There he is! Kiss goodbye to your hard earned!

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

cmaguire said:

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.

Exactly this. The A303 is a trunk road. I've been stuck behind a hay lorry on it, and drivers can get frustrated by that. What comes after this stretch is straight road, 60 mph, where overtaking is allowed. With many hazards that a non-advanced driver may disregard. So, heck, even doing 90 in that lane would be safer than them trying an overtake slightly later.

wack said:

There used to be one like that on the A605 on the way to Peterborough but it's gone now,it was behind a bridge , I actually saw the closest I've ever seen to a high speed head on collision when a guy overtook a truck, he'd have been well in except he saw the camera and braked narrowly missing a truck coming the other way.

And, if there had been a head on collision, would the speed camera have been held responsible? I somehow doubt it, because the LA can't admit that speed can be safer than slow.

Drivers are responsible.
Responsible for their choices in relation to the limit just as they are responsible for all their other driving choices.
The law & enforcement are there to influence choices prior to them being made, the driver's make their choices in light of or in spite of those & the responsibility either way is their's. They can then be held accountable in a court of law for them

The driver who overtakes unsafely in excess of the limit or under the limit is accountable to the law.
The driver who also overtakes safely in excess of the limit is also accountable to the law.
The driver who overtakes safely within the limit is acting legally.
If safe & legal matter to you then your choices need to reflect that before you commit to the overtake.

[cmaguire]

Dodged as usual.
I wonder whether, behind that facade, you support that camera or not.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

Drivers are responsible.
Responsible for their choices in relation to the limit just as they are responsible for all their other driving choices.
The law & enforcement are there to influence choices prior to them being made, the driver's make their choices in light of or in spite of those & the responsibility either way is their's. They can then be held accountable in a court of law for them

The driver who overtakes unsafely in excess of the limit or under the limit is accountable to the law.
The driver who also overtakes safely in excess of the limit is also accountable to the law.
The driver who overtakes safely within the limit is acting legally.
If safe & legal matter to you then your choices need to reflect that before you commit to the overtake.

Picture this. You're overtaking a vehicle. The vehicle accelerates to hinder your perfectly safe and legal overtake. You have a tailgater. As a result, you either have to break the law or find yourself in a very dangerous situation. Perfectly possible. Now you are flashed. Not your fault, the other driver violated the highway code. But it's your aggravation for the next few months. They've gone and put a camera in the place where this scenario is most likely to unfold.

[Solocle]

vonhosen, the roads are rapidly evolving environments with a large number of human factors. A situation can consequently change extremely rapidly, rendering a former judgement invalid. If you base you overtake on being able to get out of the way before an oncoming vehicle at 60 mph reaches you, fully legally, what if a vehicle travelling at 100 appears? However unlikely, it is possible. You now have to either drop back or continue faster - which could mean breaking the law in the name of safety. A rigid driving philosophy is hence dangerous. You have to be flexible and move with the situation, with safety as the number 1 priority. You now have a duress defence. If you're hooning, speeding is a fair cop. But there are circumstances where it is legal (or non-prosecutable) - and you will still spend months worrying and dealing with the court case.
Indeed, consider the Prestleigh camera above. You are a law abiding citizen. You slow for the 30 zone. Now, a non-local vehicle is sitting inches from your bumper, because you could safely do at least 45. He shouldn't be doing this, no. But it happens. Now, you're doing 38 mph approaching a 30 mph camera that is hidden. If you brake, you have a non-fault accident. It's easy. If you don't brake, you have an FPN that you either suck up or appeal, with the entailing months. Remember, you're not at fault either way. Now, what if you don't see that there's a child without a seat belt on? You brake, the child is flung through the windscreen and their head ends up under your wheels, making a sickening sound. You did nothing wrong. The driver should have belted the child in, and not been tailgating. That scene is still going to haunt you for the rest of your life. And this would not have happened with the abscence of the camera.

Edited by Solocle on Friday 2nd June 22:05

[cmaguire]

Solocle said:

vonhosen, the roads are rapidly evolving environments with a large number of human factors. A situation can consequently change extremely rapidly, rendering a former judgement invalid. If you base you overtake on being able to get out of the way before an oncoming vehicle at 60 mph reaches you, fully legally, what if a vehicle travelling at 100 appears? However unlikely, it is possible. You now have to either drop back or continue faster - which could mean breaking the law in the name of safety. A rigid driving philosophy is hence dangerous. You have to be flexible and move with the situation, with safety as the number 1 priority. You now have a duress defence. If you're hooning, speeding is a fair cop. But there are circumstances where it is legal (or non-prosecutable) - and you will still spend months worrying and dealing with the court case.
Indeed, consider the Prestleigh camera above. You are a law abiding citizen. You slow for the 30 zone. Now, a non-local vehicle is sitting inches from your bumper, because you could safely do at least 45. He shouldn't be doing this, no. But it happens. Now, you're doing 38 mph approaching a 30 mph camera that is hidden. If you brake, you have a non-fault accident. It's easy. If you don't brake, you have an FPN that you either suck up or appeal, with the entailing months. Remember, you're not at fault either way. Now, what if you don't see that there's a child without a seat belt on? You brake, the child is flung through the windscreen and their head ends up under your wheels, making a sickening sound. You did nothing wrong. The driver should have belted the child in, and not been tailgating. That scene is still going to haunt you for the rest of your life. And this would not have happened with the abscence of the camera.

Edited by Solocle on Friday 2nd June 22:05

You need to keep your arguments plausible. There is no way you will put a child through any windscreen on the brakes, you need a collision and sudden stop for that.
The camera is just unnecessary, cynical and counter-productive for anything other than strict adherence to the Law. Implausible arguments shouldn't be required to acknowledge the futility of that camera.
Vonhosen will never acknowledge that anything illegal is acceptable anyway.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen, the roads are rapidly evolving environments with a large number of human factors. A situation can consequently change extremely rapidly, rendering a former judgement invalid. If you base you overtake on being able to get out of the way before an oncoming vehicle at 60 mph reaches you, fully legally, what if a vehicle travelling at 100 appears? However unlikely, it is possible. You now have to either drop back or continue faster - which could mean breaking the law in the name of safety. A rigid driving philosophy is hence dangerous. You have to be flexible and move with the situation, with safety as the number 1 priority. You now have a duress defence. If you're hooning, speeding is a fair cop. But there are circumstances where it is legal (or non-prosecutable) - and you will still spend months worrying and dealing with the court case.
Indeed, consider the Prestleigh camera above. You are a law abiding citizen. You slow for the 30 zone. Now, a non-local vehicle is sitting inches from your bumper, because you could safely do at least 45. He shouldn't be doing this, no. But it happens. Now, you're doing 38 mph approaching a 30 mph camera that is hidden. If you brake, you have a non-fault accident. It's easy. If you don't brake, you have an FPN that you either suck up or appeal, with the entailing months. Remember, you're not at fault either way. Now, what if you don't see that there's a child without a seat belt on? You brake, the child is flung through the windscreen and their head ends up under your wheels, making a sickening sound. You did nothing wrong. The driver should have belted the child in, and not been tailgating. That scene is still going to haunt you for the rest of your life. And this would not have happened with the abscence of the camera.

Edited by Solocle on Friday 2nd June 22:05

What speed you 'could' safely do in your opinion is an irrelevance. If you are doing what you should be doing (as far as the authorities are concerned) you won't have to brake hard for the 30, because you'll have been travelling at a speed where you could have observed it in sufficient time to be able to adopt the 30 limit by the time you got to the sign smoothy & safely. The vehicle behind will only crash into the back of you if you brake sharply for it & if you are doing what you should be doing there'll be no need to brake sharply for it in order to adhere to it. Tailgaters only really become a problem for you if you don't leave sufficient space tin front to deal with things ahead of you & a 30 limit ahead is a static hazard FFS, it doesn't run/drive at you.

We have lots of competing hazards to deal with on the road, exceeding the limit is one of the hazards you have to deal with (just like any other moving traffic offence). If you are competent you should be able deal with them, including the limit by making good choices in line with those competing hazards. Your driving test is to show you can deal competently with the hazards you encounter during a minimum time period. In this country you'll have been dealing with speed limits throughout that whole test period. It doesn't suddenly all get harder post test unless your choices make it harder for you.

I don't find myself 'having' to exceed the limit in the name of safety. If I want to exceed the limit it's for other reasons, but I don't suddenly find myself in situations where I'm compelled to exceed the limit for no other reason than to make myself safe. In truth very little happens suddenly on the roads if you are paying sufficient attention to the task. If you are finding yourself 'having' to exceed limits to, then if you honestly reflect you'll no doubt see that there were other alternate choices that could have been made earlier in the driving process, other choices that could have placed you on a different path to that which you ended up on resulting in you felling so compelled.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 2nd June 22:52

[Solocle]

cmaguire said:

You need to keep your arguments plausible. There is no way you will put a child through any windscreen on the brakes, you need a collision and sudden stop for that.
The camera is just unnecessary, cynical and counter-productive for anything other than strict adherence to the Law. Implausible arguments shouldn't be required to acknowledge the futility of that camera.
Vonhosen will never acknowledge that anything illegal is acceptable anyway.

I was suggesting that the vehicle behind you rear ends you without braking. I know that it's a very unlikely scenario, several factors have to combine. But it is possible.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

Vonhosen will never acknowledge that anything illegal is acceptable anyway.

Whether something is acceptable or not is down to personal choice. It's whether it's acceptable to you or not that matters because that will shape your choices & you are responsible for those choices. You are also responsible for the consequences of your choices, so if the consequences matter to you make them part of the planning in your choice.

I make my choices with that in mind, as I said that's no holier than thou I've never exceeded a limit statement, it's I make my choices & I am responsible for them & any consequences from them. I don't make my decisions based on what I want the law to be (there's no point in that), I make them in full knowledge of what the law is & the potential consequences for me should I be outside it.

[jm doc]

Nigel Worc's said:

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 !

He keeps spouting it endlessly. He would love it to be true no doubt.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

What speed you 'could' safely do in your opinion is an irrelevance. If you are doing what you should be doing you won't have to brake hard for the 30, because you'll have been travelling at a speed where you could have observed it in sufficient time to be able to adopt the 30 limit by the time you got to the sign smoothy & safely. The vehicle behind will only crash into the back of you if you brake sharply for it & if you are doing what you should be doing there'll be no need to brake sharply for it in order to adhere to it. Tailgaters only really become a problem for you if you don't leave sufficient space tin front to deal with things ahead of you & a 30 limit ahead is a static hazard FFS, it doesn't run/drive at you.

We have lots of competing hazards to deal with on the road, exceeding the limit is one of the hazards you have to deal with (just like any other moving traffic offence). If you are competent you should be able deal with them, including the limit by making good choices in line with those competing hazards. Your driving test is to show you can deal competently with the hazards you encounter during a minimum time period. In this country you'll have been dealing with speed limits throughout that whole test period. It doesn't suddenly all get harder post test unless your choices make it harder for you.

I don't find myself 'having' to exceed the limit in the name of safety. If I want to exceed the limit it's for other reasons, but I don't suddenly find myself in situations where I'm compelled to exceed the limit for no other reason than to make myself safe. In truth very little happens suddenly on the roads if you are paying sufficient attention to the task. If you are finding yourself 'having' to exceed limits to, then if you honestly reflect you'll no doubt see that there were other alternate choices that could have been made earlier in the driving process, other choices that could have placed you on a different path to that which you ended up on resulting in you felling so compelled.

What speed you 'could' be safely doing is irrelevant? Situations change. Maybe there was a sign of the development that you missed. Maybe not. Somebody has just appeared doing 70 in a 40 zone, they brake and are now inches from your bumper. They stay there. Even smooth braking is no longer possible without a collision. The unexpected happens. Of course, the more you can anticipate, the more prepared you are. But nobody can forsee everything.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

What speed you 'could' safely do in your opinion is an irrelevance. If you are doing what you should be doing you won't have to brake hard for the 30, because you'll have been travelling at a speed where you could have observed it in sufficient time to be able to adopt the 30 limit by the time you got to the sign smoothy & safely. The vehicle behind will only crash into the back of you if you brake sharply for it & if you are doing what you should be doing there'll be no need to brake sharply for it in order to adhere to it. Tailgaters only really become a problem for you if you don't leave sufficient space tin front to deal with things ahead of you & a 30 limit ahead is a static hazard FFS, it doesn't run/drive at you.

We have lots of competing hazards to deal with on the road, exceeding the limit is one of the hazards you have to deal with (just like any other moving traffic offence). If you are competent you should be able deal with them, including the limit by making good choices in line with those competing hazards. Your driving test is to show you can deal competently with the hazards you encounter during a minimum time period. In this country you'll have been dealing with speed limits throughout that whole test period. It doesn't suddenly all get harder post test unless your choices make it harder for you.

I don't find myself 'having' to exceed the limit in the name of safety. If I want to exceed the limit it's for other reasons, but I don't suddenly find myself in situations where I'm compelled to exceed the limit for no other reason than to make myself safe. In truth very little happens suddenly on the roads if you are paying sufficient attention to the task. If you are finding yourself 'having' to exceed limits to, then if you honestly reflect you'll no doubt see that there were other alternate choices that could have been made earlier in the driving process, other choices that could have placed you on a different path to that which you ended up on resulting in you felling so compelled.

What speed you 'could' be safely doing is irrelevant? Situations change. Maybe there was a sign of the development that you missed. Maybe not. Somebody has just appeared doing 70 in a 40 zone, the brake and are now inches from your bumper. They stay there. Even smooth braking is no longer possible without a collision. The unexpected happens. Of course, the more you can anticipate, the more prepared you are. But nobody can forsee everything.

Deal with it!

You deal with it how you want to.

I'll deal with it how I want to & I'm not going to be worrying about the consequences afterwards. I'll make my choices with the consequences in mind & accept the outcomes/consequences of my choices. Their mine, I own them, I'm responsible for them.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

Deal with it!

You deal with it how you want to.

I'll deal with it how I want to & I'm not going to be worrying about the consequences afterwards. I'll make my choices with the consequences in mind & accept the outcomes/consequences of my choices. Their mine, I own them, I'm responsible for them.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Legally, circumstances arise where speeding is acceptable - in fact, the safe action. The presence of a camera can change that judgement. If a copper saw you speeding to avoid a collision that is otherwise unavoidable , you would be applauded. If a camera "sees" you, you're ed for the next few months. A fact like that could shift the value judgement away from what should be primary, safety.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

Deal with it!

You deal with it how you want to.

I'll deal with it how I want to & I'm not going to be worrying about the consequences afterwards. I'll make my choices with the consequences in mind & accept the outcomes/consequences of my choices. Their mine, I own them, I'm responsible for them.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Legally, circumstances arise where speeding is acceptable - in fact, the safe action. The presence of a camera can change that judgement. If a copper saw you speeding to avoid a collision that is otherwise unavoidable , you would be applauded. If a camera "sees" you, you're ed for the next few months. A fact like that could shift the value judgement away from what should be primary, safety.

How do you know if a copper caught you speeding to avoid the collision they'd applaud you & not instead be looking at the earlier choices you made to put you on that path, resulting in them then instead taking a view that it was those choices that made you an architect in your own downfall?

Like I said. I don't find myself 'having' to exceed the limit to make things safe & your fanciful made up 'what ifs' don't make me feel concerned that is going to change any time soon for me.

I'll make my choices out on the road, own them & deal with the outcomes/consequences of them.

I honestly don't sweat much about cameras & the current speed enforcement policies (amount of it, where & when it's done).

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 2nd June 23:24

[Crackie]

vonhosen said:

The driver who also overtakes safely in excess of the limit is also accountable to the law.

Does that not bring the credibility of, and reason for, the limit into question ?

[vonhosen]

Crackie said:

vonhosen said:

The driver who also overtakes safely in excess of the limit is also accountable to the law.

Does that not bring the credibility of, and reason for, the limit into question ?

No, because they aren't about defining what is the maximum safe speed & they exist for many competing reasons.
They are a simple regulatory line drawn in the sand beyond which you aren't to pass. That makes them clear & unambiguous. Further they are also not enforced with zero tolerance & then you have a graduated disposal scheme relative to the degree you were over the initial tolerance level.

If we are to have speed limits then enforcement of them is a necessary & natural consequence of that very existence.

[Solocle]

Also, the first time I did 100 mph was out of pure safety considerations. A white van driver, who I was being wary of (due to general wariness), turned out to be a complete psycho in terms of tailgating and light flashing - when I had nowhere to go (DC). So, when the road ahead cleared, I had to weigh up the risk posed by doing a high speed against the risk posed by an unknown with aggressive tendancies in a largish vehicle behind. I chose the risk that I was in control of and was known.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

Also, the first time I did 100 mph was out of pure safety considerations. A white van driver, who I was being wary of (due to general wariness), turned out to be a complete psycho in terms of tailgating and light flashing - when I had nowhere to go (DC). So, when the road ahead cleared, I had to weigh up the risk posed by doing a high speed against the risk posed by an unknown with aggressive tendancies in a largish vehicle behind. I chose the risk that I was in control of and was known.

All these problems for you!

Perhaps it's in your best interests to take a step back & reflect on what makes you more prone to these problems than others.