'Operation Snap' - police want motorists' dashcam videos

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

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.

A lot of the problems I suggest are theoretical, I can envisage them unfolding. I like to think ahead. As for the van, there were no former signs of his conduct. It's likely that I overreacted to his flashing, but at the time it was highly intimidating and a situation that I had never before (or since) encountered. So I got away from it. Fast.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

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.

A lot of the problems I suggest are theoretical, I can envisage them unfolding. I like to think ahead. As for the van, there were no former signs of his conduct. It's likely that I overreacted to his flashing, but at the time it was highly intimidating and a situation that I had never before (or since) encountered. So I got away from it. Fast.

I see.
So I'm not worrying about fanciful things that aren't happening to me whilst you are worrying about fanciful things that aren't happening to you.

[InitialDave]

vonhosen said:

They are a simple regulatory line drawn in the sand beyond which you aren't to pass.

That line being "No person with a correct, legible number plate may exceed X mph within Y yards of the focal area of the camera and not suffer predefined consequences"

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

I see.
So I'm not worrying about fanciful things that aren't happening to me whilst you are worrying about fanciful things that aren't happening to you.

Exactly. But if one of those fanciful things does happen, I'm more prepared. Some people seem to think that children running across the road is fanciful. I like to try and think about scenarios outside of the heat of the moment.

[Crackie]

vonhosen said:

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.

If speed limits are not for defining what the maximum safe speed is then what is their purpose ? and what are some of the competing reasons, over and above the well documented noise reduction and pollution reduction ?

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

vonhosen said:

I see.
So I'm not worrying about fanciful things that aren't happening to me whilst you are worrying about fanciful things that aren't happening to you.

Exactly. But if one of those fanciful things does happen, I'm more prepared. Some people seem to think that children running across the road is fanciful. I like to try and think about scenarios outside of the heat of the moment.

Prepared means prepared for the choices, outcomes & consequences of one's choices. I'm prepared for them & I don't need to get fanciful about it. I'll concern myself & deal with the realities & practicalities of it all. Good preparation & planning minimises 'heat of the moments'. Some lunge from crisis to crisis & think they are doing well dealing with them. Others choices can mean they they don't find themselves getting to crisis points. I know which I prefer to aim for out of those.

[vonhosen]

Crackie said:

vonhosen said:

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.

If speed limits are not for defining what the maximum safe speed is then what is their purpose ? and what are some of the competing reasons, over and above the well documented noise reduction and pollution reduction ?

Noise & pollution are some (as you've alluded to), traffic management & quality of life can be others.
They can also be about safety without having to define the maximum safe speed.

You can't honestly believe they define the maximum safe speed when there are so many variables?
Rarely, if ever, will the posted limit exactly match the maximum safe speed achievable for a given driver, in a given vehicle, in given conditions. Let alone all drivers, in all vehicles, in all conditions. It seems pretty obvious that's not what they are attempting to do. By their nature they are going to be fairly conservatively set, or there is no point having them if the limit is set above what speed everybody would do anyway in all vehicles in all conditions.

Driving is a regulated activity, so regulation in relation to speed is no surprise. We've had some form of speed limits for almost as long as we've had motor vehicles. They, along with the other traffic legislation, create an environment within which we all have to operate together. They are part of a framework of defined acceptable behaviour & expectations/responsibilities we all have (that's where they can have a safety element to them that I was talking about earlier, without defining the maximum safe speed). If you like they are part of our licenced contract with the government to drive on the roads.

They are a blunt tool (a lot of legislation is), but where we go outside of that contract we are subject to penalties that can ultimately result in our licence to engage in the activity being forfeit. We know that & shouldn't be surprised by it.

[Durzel]

I fear your very reasoned arguments are going to fall on deaf ears for many when their only consideration is basically that they want to go as fast as they want, everyone else be damned. No argument is going to assuage that attitude. Speed limits stop them doing that (well, they don't, they just moan incredulously about getting caught after the event).

People with this attitude care not for the wider considerations of sharing the road with other equally entitled-to-be-there people, and won't even consider the idea that limits are set conservatively with the average driver in mind, or that they are a necessarily blunt instrument to deal with a massively variable (car & driver experience, performance, capabilities, etc) environment. All they think is that those limits specifically curtail what they want to do.

Speed, or don't speed, but don't whine when you get caught when limits (with very, very few exceptions that are defensible in court - e.g. missing or defective signage) are the most obvious things on the road. I don't think anyone can claim they genuinely don't know what limit they're in at a given time. Many act like it's somehow a massive burden though, disingenuously complaining that "I shouldn't have to watch the speedo constantly", etc. All nonsense of course.

Long story short the people that complain about this stuff will never change their attitude, because their attitude boils down to them just wanting to be able to do what they want with no restrictions (for them, for other people - particularly people driving past their house - they'd like enforcement please). These people will never own their behaviour because it's easier to whine about getting caught.

I say all that as someone who speeds fairly routinely, at a level I'm prepared to accept the consequences for. I've had over the years 6 (2x3) points for speeding, tellings off, etc. So no saint basically. But I own my driving, I don't act incredulously when I get caught, or blame anyone else but myself.

Edited by Durzel on Saturday 3rd June 08:01

[vonhosen]

I want to be able to do whatever speed I choose to on whatever road I choose to.
However I have to recognise
1) That others don't want me to be able to do that.
2) Accept the risks I pose in doing so are greater than if my speeds are curtailed by legislation.
3) Deal with the reality of enforcement in my choices rather than delude myself I'm in some kind of PH Utopia.

[Tabletopz]

Durzel said:

I fear your very reasoned arguments are going to fall on deaf ears for many when their only consideration is basically that they want to go as fast as they want, everyone else be damned. No argument is going to assuage that attitude. Speed limits stop them doing that (well, they don't, they just moan incredulously about getting caught after the event).

People with this attitude care not for the wider considerations of sharing the road with other equally entitled-to-be-there people, and won't even consider the idea that limits are set conservatively with the average driver in mind, or that they are a necessarily blunt instrument to deal with a massively variable (car & driver experience, performance, capabilities, etc) environment. All they think is that those limits specifically curtail what they want to do.

Speed, or don't speed, but don't whine when you get caught when limits (with very, very few exceptions that are defensible in court - e.g. missing or defective signage) are the most obvious things on the road. I don't think anyone can claim they genuinely don't know what limit they're in at a given time. Many act like it's somehow a massive burden though, disingenuously complaining that "I shouldn't have to watch the speedo constantly", etc. All nonsense of course.

Long story short the people that complain about this stuff will never change their attitude, because their attitude boils down to them just wanting to be able to do what they want with no restrictions (for them, for other people - particularly people driving past their house - they'd like enforcement please). These people will never own their behaviour because it's easier to whine about getting caught.

I say all that as someone who speeds fairly routinely, at a level I'm prepared to accept the consequences for. I've had over the years 6 (2x3) points for speeding, tellings off, etc. So no saint basically. But I own my driving, I don't act incredulously when I get caught, or blame anyone else but

vonhosen said:

I want to be able to do whatever speed I choose to on whatever road I choose to.
However I have to recognise
1) That others don't want me to be able to do that.
2) Accept the risks I pose in doing so are greater than if my speeds are curtailed by legislation.
3) Deal with the reality of enforcement in my choices rather than delude myself I'm in some kind of PH Utopia.

2 reasonable and well-formed statements setting out why regulation is needed and why enforcement is needed to make regulation effective. This will never go down well as it is reasonable and correct. Stand-by for god-like driver's and those who can defy chance with untested self-assumed skill and physics-defying strength.

[cmaguire]

Somewhat strange that the State felt less need to limit/regulate the speed of Mr. Smith in his Morris Marina or VX 4/90 in the Seventies than they do to interfere now with Mr. Jones in his Vauxhall Insignia or Focus ST.

[Ken Figenus]

Exaggeration does not prove your 'the lore is the lore; no discussions, end of story and tough' argument. No one here is arguing for selfish free rein in whatever they do. So rewind...

Would that camera on that three lane stretch serve a better purpose outside a school, by the shops, near your road? Yes in several people's opinion. Could it, where currently placed, create additional hazard, unecessary frustration and be a contributory factor in avoidable conflict between vehicles? Yes. Would it do that by shops/school/your gaff? Very unlikely.

I see that as the discussion so it seems pretty valid and isn't about pedal to the metal vroom vroom... Far from it so its silly to dumb it down.

[Ken Figenus]

I rest my b case: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/speed... See 26" into the video. Happy to lend a hand shifting that 3 lane one and carting it over 'ere to do some proper good

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

Exaggeration does not prove your 'the lore is the lore; no discussions, end of story and tough' argument. No one here is arguing for selfish free rein in whatever they do. So rewind...

Would that camera on that three lane stretch serve a better purpose outside a school, by the shops, near your road? Yes in several people's opinion. Could it, where currently placed, create additional hazard, unecessary frustration and be a contributory factor in avoidable conflict between vehicles? Yes. Would it do that by shops/school/your gaff? Very unlikely.

I see that as the discussion so it seems pretty valid and isn't about pedal to the metal vroom vroom... Far from it so its silly to dumb it down.

If we are to have limits, then the idea must be that they apply where ever they are present & people don't get to pick & choose about when/where to adhere to them or not (or they aren't a limit they are merely advisory - which is effectively no limit).
There is not much point to speed limits that people are free to choose without sanction when & where they adhere to them or not. That's why I said earlier that if you want speed limit adherence (or to at least still influence speed choices) it would seem a sensible idea to both enforce them in high risk areas & also high incidence of speeding areas. More over it would be an additional sensible proactive/influential move to have further enforcement carried out on an anytime, anywhere basis to support that you aren't free to choose anytime anywhere.

In addition a mixture of both overt & covert enforcement would seem sensible. So on your 3 lane road you could have a completely hidden camera in that location whilst on the approach to the school a very overt camera.

The legislation is also specifically written so that there is no need to prove any danger from the exceeding the limit (that's by design not chance). It really is a black & white issue & as such is ideal for automated enforcement from a management/administrative purpose (rather than using expensive valuable resources such as Police officers for such a single purpose) particularly as there is A) no zero tolerance policy & B) a graduated penalty scheme beyond that.
Your choices as a driver are pretty clear & as such I don't see that as unfair or underhand.

I'm not exaggerating either.
I would like to choose my speed without an imposed limit anytime anywhere. I'm just as capable of choosing an appropriate speed for circumstances in urban areas as in rural & on motorways.
My dilemma is that there are a lot of people I wouldn't want to be able to do that & I'm sure there are a lot of people who equally are against me being able to do it.

If you want to talk about things like an 80 limit on the motorway I really don't care about it, because small tweaks one way or other with current limits really aren't going to dramatically change my journey times as it's the slower speeds during the journey that have most effect on that & moving the upper limit by 10mph where lower speeds are going to still exist & have an impact on the journey time, doesn't add up to any real benefit for me (particularly with current prosecution thresholds for the limits we have now).

Whilst the limits & current enforcement policies don't fit in with how I'd personally like to use the roads, they do influence my choices, whilst not curtailing my enjoyment of driving/riding or causing unreasonable journey times.

Limits are always going to be about striking a balance of the opposing wishes/needs of many rather than individual desires & the current limits (with the current enforcement levels/policies) don't give huge cause for concern for my personal vehicle use.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd June 12:24

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

Somewhat strange that the State felt less need to limit/regulate the speed of Mr. Smith in his Morris Marina or VX 4/90 in the Seventies than they do to interfere now with Mr. Jones in his Vauxhall Insignia or Focus ST.

And it won't be as it is now in another 40/50 years, the world moves on.

[Solocle]

I think everyone speeds on the motorway at some point. It's not exactly a big safety issue. But your point about tolerances, while widely observed, are by no means guaranteed (indeed, if you guaranteed them, a lot of people would treat 10% +1 as the new limit(they do anyway sometimes!)).
And there are plenty of idiots around who wouldn't see the problem doing 50 in a 30. I personally try to abide by 30 zones rigidly. At the same time, speed limits are open to political pressure from NIMBYs. As a result, a stretch of road just north of me oscillates between 30,40 and 60 - with 30's in non-residential areas, besides 1 or 2 houses. These stretches should really be 40 zones - and 95% of the traffic travels at 40 mph through them. I will try to observe them, but at the same time I'm ready to go with the flow if necessary. There aren't many places to pull over and doing 30 can stimulate aggressive behavior and dangerous overtakes.
The motorways, an 80 limit wouldn't make a huge difference. Now 90, that could. I've seen plenty of traffic on the motorway doing 90, but an analysis of that would be required. If everything's doing a similar speed, less danger arises. At the same time, if somebody ploughed into a stationary object, the damage would be considerably worse than 70.

[vonhosen]

Solocle said:

I think everyone speeds on the motorway at some point. It's not exactly a big safety issue. But your point about tolerances, while widely observed, are by no means guaranteed (indeed, if you guaranteed them, a lot of people would treat 10% +1 as the new limit(they do anyway sometimes!)).
And there are plenty of idiots around who wouldn't see the problem doing 50 in a 30. I personally try to abide by 30 zones rigidly. At the same time, speed limits are open to political pressure from NIMBYs. As a result, a stretch of road just north of me oscillates between 30,40 and 60 - with 30's in non-residential areas, besides 1 or 2 houses. These stretches should really be 40 zones - and 95% of the traffic travels at 40 mph through them. I will try to observe them, but at the same time I'm ready to go with the flow if necessary. There aren't many places to pull over and doing 30 can stimulate aggressive behavior and dangerous overtakes.
The motorways, an 80 limit wouldn't make a huge difference. Now 90, that could. I've seen plenty of traffic on the motorway doing 90, but an analysis of that would be required. If everything's doing a similar speed, less danger arises. At the same time, if somebody ploughed into a stationary object, the damage would be considerably worse than 70.

No limit would make a real difference, I've spent an awful lot of time driving on roads where there has been no enforceable speed limit influencing my choice of speed. Slightly different limits make no appreciable difference.

Speed limits are open to political pressure from any group, they are after all a politically imposed tool & a politician's first thought is generally to have policies that will increase their chances of maintaining their position & getting re-eleceted.

[Solocle]

vonhosen said:

No limit would make a real difference, I've spent an awful lot of time driving on roads where there has been no enforceable speed limit influencing my choice of speed. Slightly different limits make no appreciable difference.

Speed limits are open to political pressure from any group, they are after all a politically imposed tool & a politician's first thought is generally to have policies that will increase their chances of maintaining their position & getting re-eleceted.

Well, I certainly agree with that!
A good policy to begin with would be banning HGVs from overtaking other HGVs doing more than 45 mph...
But I have experienced the M5 south late at night... conditions like that, 100 mph would have been safe! The inside lane was varying from 50 mph when an HGV was present, to 80 mph at times!

[wack]

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.

Spotting a camera hidden behind a bridge most people would brake even if they were under the limit I suspect that's why it's been removed, if it was about road safety why hide it behind a bridge , why not put it further down where it's visible , if people are aware it's there they'll drive under the limit so it's achieved its purpose in making the road safer.

[Crackie]

vonhosen said:

You can't honestly believe they define the maximum safe speed when there are so many variables?

My initial, and subsequent, comments were made in relation to your preceding post relating to a hypothetical safe but still illegal overtaking manoeuver.