'Operation Snap' - police want motorists' dashcam videos

[vonhosen]

wack said:

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.

The purpose is for people to drive under or at the limit (safely for the conditions) everywhere, not just where the camera is sited or enforcement is taking place. If all cameras & enforcement was overt & obvious then it would only affect speed choice in those areas rather than assist in the wider objective of system compliance.

The limit itself is the advertising of what you should be doing, the camera only comes into place if you fail to observe that warning.

I agree with you though that if the sighting of the camera by drivers is making people react unpredictably then tactics should change. It would appear the most sensible option for the authorities objectives would be to have the clearly visible fixed cameras in lower speed limit high risk areas & to have completely hidden more mobile cameras in higher speed limit high incidence areas.

[nonsequitur]

Sp00ks said:

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.

So drivers have to slow down and take it easy for a while. Definitely the Devil's work.

[Crackie]

Durzel said:

Hopefully dashcam footage will help bring these lunatics to justice.

[MikeGoodwin]

Solocle said:

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!

Because people like me would pedal it down there at well above the speed limit. I don't know the road but it looks inviting, who doesn't love a sweeping b road.. 30mph seems stupid. Again I don't know the road so perhaps it's perfectly valid to have that limit in place. I have some local roads that are also inviting but keep it well under the limit out of respect for cyclists etc.

[Solocle]

MikeGoodwin said:

Because people like me would pedal it down there at well above the speed limit. I don't know the road but it looks inviting, who doesn't love a sweeping b road.. 30mph seems stupid. Again I don't know the road so perhaps it's perfectly valid to have that limit in place. I have some local roads that are also inviting but keep it well under the limit out of respect for cyclists etc.

Oh, at some point I might take my bike up there and try to trigger the camera!
As far as I gather, the camera was there before the limit was dropped to 30.

[Durzel]

vonhosen said:

I agree with you though that if the sighting of the camera by drivers is making people react unpredictably then tactics should change. It would appear the most sensible option for the authorities objectives would be to have the clearly visible fixed cameras in lower speed limit high risk areas & to have completely hidden more mobile cameras in higher speed limit high incidence areas.

Ironically SPECs zones "solve" the problem of people reacting to individual cameras, since speed is regulated over the whole zone. I'm pretty sure that no one complaining about people reacting unpredictably to GATSOs would be in favour of SPECs as a replacement...

On that basis complaining about people reacting badly to isolated cameras that only measure your speed for a fraction of the road, leaving you to speed before and after it, strikes me as a potentially devastatingly self-defeating stance to take.

[p1esk]

vonhosen 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.

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

I didn't demonstrate my ability to comply with the National Speed Limit when I gained my licence...

Dave.

[p1esk]

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 !

Well said, Nigel.

I don't think doctors would be highly amused if we were to tell them they are privileged to be treating our ailments.

It's the same principle: we demonstrate ability, then we get on and do it.

Best wishes,
Dave.

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

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.

Of course, but unfortunately it doesn't always result in improvements.

[vsonix]

nonsequitur said:

Sp00ks said:

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.

So drivers have to slow down and take it easy for a while. Definitely the Devil's work.

It's the first place you are allowed to legally overtake for about 20-30 miles. So drivers will have been 'slowing down and taking it easy' behind a heavily laden artic or a caravan for about half an hour.

[nonsequitur]

vsonix said:

nonsequitur said:

Sp00ks said:

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.

So drivers have to slow down and take it easy for a while. Definitely the Devil's work.

It's the first place you are allowed to legally overtake for about 20-30 miles. So drivers will have been 'slowing down and taking it easy' behind a heavily laden artic or a caravan for about half an hour.

We get stuck, we slow down, we speed up. As much as we would like to perform cartwheels in a lay by, it is not always possible. Such is life in the modern motoring world.

[vonhosen]

vsonix said:

nonsequitur said:

Sp00ks said:

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.

So drivers have to slow down and take it easy for a while. Definitely the Devil's work.

It's the first place you are allowed to legally overtake for about 20-30 miles. So drivers will have been 'slowing down and taking it easy' behind a heavily laden artic or a caravan for about half an hour.

Nobody is saying you can't legally overtake there.
But committing an offence whilst overtaking there is like committing an offence whilst overtaking in the previous 20-30 miles.

[Solocle]

I had a situation today where I believe the safest course of action was exceeding the limit (albeit momentarily).
Well sighted NSL, approaching a well sighted 40 zone.

The sight lines are slightly better in the 60. Soon, it becomes a bendy residential 30, so 40 is really there to slow people down prior.

Approaching at NSL, starting to slow down to enter the 40 zone. Some young children on scooters appear on that pathway. Potential hazard. I start to brake more. But my main concern turns to reality - oncoming vehicle (probably speeding). If I slowed down to 40, I would have been 3 abreast with these children and the oncoming vehicle. Two options - hammer the brakes to avoid a potentially hazardous situation, which would have meant emergency braking - not really appropriate for a potential hazard. The other option was to hit the throttle - which I did, hitting the 40 zone at 60. Hazard cleared, slowed down to 40 before the junction (as soon as I passed the children). [The throttle doesn't do much in a Citigo doing 50]. Not really noteworthy in the scheme of things, but I think it provides a good counterpoint to you not believing that speeding can be a safer course of action.

[Durzel]

It sounds like you didn't brake enough when initially spotting the potential hazard, to be honest, if an emergency stop was or could've been deemed necessary for a hazard you were already aware of for several seconds.

[Solocle]

Durzel said:

It sounds like you didn't brake enough when initially spotting the potential hazard, to be honest, if an emergency stop was or could've been deemed necessary for a hazard you were already aware of for several seconds.

Well, emergency stop is pushing it, but the timing was such that to go the other way would have been harsh braking. Also, it was probably 1 second between the appearance of the children and the appearance of the oncoming vehicle. Nothing would have come of just slowing down, but there was a hazard present.

[C70R]

nonsequitur said:

Sp00ks said:

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.

So drivers have to slow down and take it easy for a while. Definitely the Devil's work.

I want drivers using overtaking lanes to have made their moves long before the last "100m", rather than having to put the hammer down and exceed the limit to squeeze into the last couple of metres.

[Engineer792]

C70R said:

nonsequitur said:

Sp00ks said:

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.

So drivers have to slow down and take it easy for a while. Definitely the Devil's work.

I want drivers using overtaking lanes to have made their moves long before the last "100m", rather than having to put the hammer down and exceed the limit to squeeze into the last couple of metres.

Except that you don't always have control over when you can make your move

[BertBert]

Very hard to judge without having been there, but it doesn't feel a very compelling argument on going faster being safer.

Especially as you accelerated towards the hazard.

Solocle said:

I had a situation today where I believe the safest course of action was exceeding the limit (albeit momentarily).
Well sighted NSL, approaching a well sighted 40 zone.

The sight lines are slightly better in the 60. Soon, it becomes a bendy residential 30, so 40 is really there to slow people down prior.

Approaching at NSL, starting to slow down to enter the 40 zone. Some young children on scooters appear on that pathway. Potential hazard. I start to brake more. But my main concern turns to reality - oncoming vehicle (probably speeding). If I slowed down to 40, I would have been 3 abreast with these children and the oncoming vehicle. Two options - hammer the brakes to avoid a potentially hazardous situation, which would have meant emergency braking - not really appropriate for a potential hazard. The other option was to hit the throttle - which I did, hitting the 40 zone at 60. Hazard cleared, slowed down to 40 before the junction (as soon as I passed the children). [The throttle doesn't do much in a Citigo doing 50]. Not really noteworthy in the scheme of things, but I think it provides a good counterpoint to you not believing that speeding can be a safer course of action.

[Fish]

Again difficult to judge when not there but there are VERY few circumstances where speeding up helps especially in a Citigo.. I would suggest the emergency braking then chastise yourself for not spotting the hazard scenario earlier...

[Drawfront]

Solocle said:

I had a situation today where I believe the safest course of action was exceeding the limit (albeit momentarily).
Well sighted NSL, approaching a well sighted 40 zone.

The sight lines are slightly better in the 60. Soon, it becomes a bendy residential 30, so 40 is really there to slow people down prior.

Approaching at NSL, starting to slow down to enter the 40 zone. Some young children on scooters appear on that pathway. Potential hazard. I start to brake more. But my main concern turns to reality - oncoming vehicle (probably speeding). If I slowed down to 40, I would have been 3 abreast with these children and the oncoming vehicle. Two options - hammer the brakes to avoid a potentially hazardous situation, which would have meant emergency braking - not really appropriate for a potential hazard. The other option was to hit the throttle - which I did, hitting the 40 zone at 60. Hazard cleared, slowed down to 40 before the junction (as soon as I passed the children). [The throttle doesn't do much in a Citigo doing 50]. Not really noteworthy in the scheme of things, but I think it provides a good counterpoint to you not believing that speeding can be a safer course of action.

You need to hand your driving licence in as soon as you can so the public can be protected.