Avon and Somerset Police using redlight camera for speeding
Discussion
drf765 said:
Countdown said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is all very well, but tapereel is bang on the money. If you don't start to regard cameras as being a widespread inevitability, and adapt your driving with that in mind, you likely WILL find yourself licenceless at some point.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
Just to add, surveys suggest most people support the use of speed cameras. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
If you're driving properly, you're watching out for ANY hazard, and using it to determine how you drive, including what speed is appropriate for the conditions.
If conditions mean that a speed within the limit is appropriate, then cameras are a hazard that can be ignored.
Where conditions mean that higher speeds than are legal can be perfectly appropriate, then cameras become a hazard to move up the priority list.
Their existence is just a fact of life. They're inevitable, just as inattentive numpties and the aggressively incompetent are inevitable. If you get tagged by one, then it's a clue that your situational awareness wasn't up to scratch, and you missed a significant hazard. Same goes for Real Live Stripy Plod waving a hairdryer about. Get tugged? Your own fault. Accept it and learn from it.
There's really not much difference between the thread we're in now and this one -> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
TooMany2cvs said:
drf765 said:
Countdown said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is all very well, but tapereel is bang on the money. If you don't start to regard cameras as being a widespread inevitability, and adapt your driving with that in mind, you likely WILL find yourself licenceless at some point.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
Just to add, surveys suggest most people support the use of speed cameras. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way in which they're used, whinging and blustering are not going to change the fact they ARE used. Assuming that the big bright yellow box on a stick just before some lights WON'T also do speed is just asking for trouble.
If you're driving properly, you're watching out for ANY hazard, and using it to determine how you drive, including what speed is appropriate for the conditions.
If conditions mean that a speed within the limit is appropriate, then cameras are a hazard that can be ignored.
Where conditions mean that higher speeds than are legal can be perfectly appropriate, then cameras become a hazard to move up the priority list.
Their existence is just a fact of life. They're inevitable, just as inattentive numpties and the aggressively incompetent are inevitable. If you get tagged by one, then it's a clue that your situational awareness wasn't up to scratch, and you missed a significant hazard. Same goes for Real Live Stripy Plod waving a hairdryer about. Get tugged? Your own fault. Accept it and learn from it.
There's really not much difference between the thread we're in now and this one -> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
cmaguire said:
That is so lame.
Given the nature of the leading questions in any survey, they'd have me down as supporting the use of speed cameras.
It's hard to find a decent, accurate and honest survey. Remember a few years ago when these kinds of things were popular and several of the scam companies removed the surveys from their own web pages due to the vast majority of votes showing how many were against them? Given the nature of the leading questions in any survey, they'd have me down as supporting the use of speed cameras.
Sums them up nicely. Hide anything negative, (remember the wonderful clip they tried to hide of people crashing due to panic braking?) alter stats to suit, carry on fleecing.
TooMany2cvs said:
Which is all very well, but tapereel is bang on the money. If you don't start to regard cameras as being a widespread inevitability, and adapt your driving with that in mind, you likely WILL find yourself licenceless at some point.
You have assumed I am a "speeder" Why do you think that?
There is a fairly simple explanation to the speed camera debate.
If it was all about road safety they would be honest about what cameras were where. They wouldn't make money instead covering their costs and putting the excess into further roads safety schemes.
In A&S case there was a clear intention to generate revenue from their camera. They have a budget short fall and spent money buying the cameras and re-commissioning selected sites that generate good returns.
Prime example is the M5 today, between 24-24 north bound they have put 50mph average specs. Now these are now active and the TM is out but two days have gone by with no works or workmen working.
If it was all about road safety they would be honest about what cameras were where. They wouldn't make money instead covering their costs and putting the excess into further roads safety schemes.
In A&S case there was a clear intention to generate revenue from their camera. They have a budget short fall and spent money buying the cameras and re-commissioning selected sites that generate good returns.
Prime example is the M5 today, between 24-24 north bound they have put 50mph average specs. Now these are now active and the TM is out but two days have gone by with no works or workmen working.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 2nd November 13:33
surveyor_101 said:
If it was all about road safety they would be honest about what cameras were where. They wouldn't make money instead covering their costs and putting the excess into further roads safety schemes.
That ridiculous theory of yours has been scotched more than once by various posters, and it just bounces of you.If that's your level of reasoning then I'm glad you are not left to decide your own speed on the road.
surveyor_101 said:
There is a fairly simple explanation to the speed camera debate.
If it was all about road safety they would be honest about what cameras were where. They wouldn't make money instead covering their costs and putting the excess into further roads safety schemes.
In A&S case there was a clear intention to generate revenue from their camera. They have a budget short fall and spent money buying the cameras and re-commissioning selected sites that generate good returns.
Prime example is the M5 today, between 24-24 north bound they have put 50mph average specs. Now these are now active and the TM is out but two days have gone by with no works or workmen working.
...so covering their costs it would seem.If it was all about road safety they would be honest about what cameras were where. They wouldn't make money instead covering their costs and putting the excess into further roads safety schemes.
In A&S case there was a clear intention to generate revenue from their camera. They have a budget short fall and spent money buying the cameras and re-commissioning selected sites that generate good returns.
Prime example is the M5 today, between 24-24 north bound they have put 50mph average specs. Now these are now active and the TM is out but two days have gone by with no works or workmen working.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 2nd November 13:33
singlecoil said:
That ridiculous theory of yours has been scotched more than once by various posters, and it just bounces of you.
If that's your level of reasoning then I'm glad you are not left to decide your own speed on the road.
What ridiculous about not profiting from cameras, I appreciate they must recover their costs.If that's your level of reasoning then I'm glad you are not left to decide your own speed on the road.
The goal should not be getting loads of convictions it should be getting people to slow down. Your not saving lives by getting pictures of cars speeding. Many of these cars may be untaxed/uninsured/unmoted they arent dealing with this. Only in april someone at work got stopped for speeding. In jluy we realised her car had no mot or tax since feb !
surveyor_101 said:
singlecoil said:
That ridiculous theory of yours has been scotched more than once by various posters, and it just bounces of you.
If that's your level of reasoning then I'm glad you are not left to decide your own speed on the road.
What ridiculous about not profiting from cameras, I appreciate they must recover their costs.If that's your level of reasoning then I'm glad you are not left to decide your own speed on the road.
The goal should not be getting loads of convictions it should be getting people to slow down. Your not saving lives by getting pictures of cars speeding. Many of these cars may be untaxed/uninsured/unmoted they arent dealing with this. Only in april someone at work got stopped for speeding. In jluy we realised her car had no mot or tax since feb !
If they tell people where the cameras are drivers will slow down for the cameras and speed up where they know they are safe from conviction.
If the goal is to get people to slow down (to the speed limit or below) then telling people where the cameras are would be daft! Think about it FFS!
surveyor_101 said:
What ridiculous about not profiting from cameras, I appreciate they must recover their costs.
The goal should not be getting loads of convictions it should be getting people to slow down. Your not saving lives by getting pictures of cars speeding. Many of these cars may be untaxed/uninsured/unmoted they arent dealing with this. Only in april someone at work got stopped for speeding. In jluy we realised her car had no mot or tax since feb !
Excellent idea - they should combine speed cameras with ANPR so they can fine people with not MOT/Tax The goal should not be getting loads of convictions it should be getting people to slow down. Your not saving lives by getting pictures of cars speeding. Many of these cars may be untaxed/uninsured/unmoted they arent dealing with this. Only in april someone at work got stopped for speeding. In jluy we realised her car had no mot or tax since feb !
singlecoil said:
If the goal is to get people to slow down (to the speed limit or below) then telling people where the cameras are would be daft! Think about it FFS!
They do tell you where they are if you ask. You can also log on to most scamera parsnip web pages and check. More than that..
"Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “We are on the side of honest motorists. I’ve always been clear that cameras should be visible and get used for safety rather than revenue raising"
Yet again, another figure of authority agrees with me and those like me and not you. Tell us again why your opinion counts and theirs doesn't?
Digby said:
singlecoil said:
If the goal is to get people to slow down (to the speed limit or below) then telling people where the cameras are would be daft! Think about it FFS!
They do tell you where they are if you ask. You can also log on to most scamera parsnip web pages and check. More than that..
"Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “We are on the side of honest motorists. I’ve always been clear that cameras should be visible and get used for safety rather than revenue raising"
Yet again, another figure of authority agrees with me and those like me and not you. Tell us again why your opinion counts and theirs doesn't?
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
...and 3) threads like this prove that cameras are not always visible.
Point of order, Sir.The camera this thread's about was very visible, and had been very visible for at least seven years.
It's just that the numpty in question thought it was just red light...
singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
...and 3) threads like this prove that cameras are not always visible.
Point of order, Sir.The camera this thread's about was very visible, and had been very visible for at least seven years.
It's just that the numpty in question thought it was just red light...
surveyor_101 said:
Riley Blue said:
Good, I have absolutely no sympathy with drivers who speed across a junction, red light jumper or not.
this is pistonheads not brake.singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
...and 3) threads like this prove that cameras are not always visible.
Point of order, Sir.The camera this thread's about was very visible, and had been very visible for at least seven years.
It's just that the numpty in question thought it was just red light...
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
singlecoil said:
...and 3) threads like this prove that cameras are not always visible.
Point of order, Sir.The camera this thread's about was very visible, and had been very visible for at least seven years.
It's just that the numpty in question thought it was just red light...
singlecoil said:
Digby said:
singlecoil said:
If the goal is to get people to slow down (to the speed limit or below) then telling people where the cameras are would be daft! Think about it FFS!
They do tell you where they are if you ask. You can also log on to most scamera parsnip web pages and check. More than that..
"Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “We are on the side of honest motorists. I’ve always been clear that cameras should be visible and get used for safety rather than revenue raising"
Yet again, another figure of authority agrees with me and those like me and not you. Tell us again why your opinion counts and theirs doesn't?
Back to ignoring you I feel. Get the last word in, quick now, you can use the ignoring part to tell us all you have 'won'
Digby said:
singlecoil said:
Digby said:
singlecoil said:
If the goal is to get people to slow down (to the speed limit or below) then telling people where the cameras are would be daft! Think about it FFS!
They do tell you where they are if you ask. You can also log on to most scamera parsnip web pages and check. More than that..
"Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “We are on the side of honest motorists. I’ve always been clear that cameras should be visible and get used for safety rather than revenue raising"
Yet again, another figure of authority agrees with me and those like me and not you. Tell us again why your opinion counts and theirs doesn't?
Back to ignoring you I feel. Get the last word in, quick now, you can use the ignoring part to tell us all you have 'won'
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff