Difficult to present the safety argument here I feel.
Discussion
Pete317 said:
funkyrobot said:
Pete317 said:
funkyrobot said:
Does it really matter where a camera van is?
If you speed, you are taking the risk of getting caught. Regardless of what anyone says about safety, accidents, conditions etc., there is a maximum speed you are permitted to achieve on that road.
If people speed, fine. However, don't moan when enforcement takes place.
It seems it's impossible to discuss anything around here without someone coming along and regurgitating the same obvious sIf you speed, you are taking the risk of getting caught. Regardless of what anyone says about safety, accidents, conditions etc., there is a maximum speed you are permitted to achieve on that road.
If people speed, fine. However, don't moan when enforcement takes place.
t that we've heard a million timesA camera van was apparently catching people speeding. This is what they do.
You aren't allowed to go any faster than that number on the sign. So what if there was no apparent safety issue with doing more than the indicated speed. It's really quite simple. 50 mph from that point onwards.
The thing is, there seem to be quite a few people whinging on here about speed enforcement, and about getting caught. It really cannot be more simple. Do not speed if you do not like getting caught.
If a person feels quite aggrieved by this, write to your local councillor and put the case forward for getting the speed limit increased. If you do get it increased, you will be able to go faster without penalty. Until then, it's tough s
t, so stay at or below the speed limit if you don't like it.But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
Neither do you! I suppose you woudl have difficulty in comprehending the conflict in your own post.
Oh No...3 times. You must desist in putting this temptation before me.
Edited to add...simply not quick enough.
funkyrobot said:
Pete317 said:
If you don't like what people have to say, you don't have to read it.
But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
What a silly little plonker you are.
It's not me that doesn't like a certain situation.
Sorry, didn't realise this thread was invite only.
funkyrobot said:
Pete317 said:
If you don't like what people have to say, you don't have to read it.
But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
What a silly little plonker you are.
It's not me that doesn't like a certain situation.
Sorry, didn't realise this thread was invite only.
funkyrobot said:
Does it really matter where a camera van is?
If you speed, you are taking the risk of getting caught. Regardless of what anyone says about safety, accidents, conditions etc., there is a maximum speed you are permitted to achieve on that road.
If people speed, fine. (or a speed awareness course dependent upon the circumstances)
HIf you speed, you are taking the risk of getting caught. Regardless of what anyone says about safety, accidents, conditions etc., there is a maximum speed you are permitted to achieve on that road.
If people speed, fine. (or a speed awareness course dependent upon the circumstances)
There I fixed that for you!
Pete317 said:
funkyrobot said:
Pete317 said:
If you don't like what people have to say, you don't have to read it.
But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
But it seems you just can't help putting your nose in where it wasn't asked for, calling people whingers and them whinging about their purported whinging.
Go make yourself worthwhile somewhere.
What a silly little plonker you are.
It's not me that doesn't like a certain situation.
Sorry, didn't realise this thread was invite only.
Silly boy.
You won't make that mistake again, will you.
Rovinghawk said:
Leave the personal insults out of it.
The point of the thread is that the enforcement of the law doesn't appear to be based on safety as much as revenue generation/ employment justification.
No it isn't.The point of the thread is that the enforcement of the law doesn't appear to be based on safety as much as revenue generation/ employment justification.
It's the usual thread started by someone who has been caught (in this case the OP's wife), and they aren't happy about it. They then resort to a load waffle about how they were still safe, nobody was killed, not fair etc. But, completely miss the point that they are breaking the law.
13m said:
Near the Queens Medical Centre on Clifton Blvd in Nottingham there is often a camera van. It sits at the bottom of a hill catching motorists who are on a dual carriageway with Armco both sides and not a pedestrian in sight because there is an overpass. "It's because it's outside a hospital" is their specious explanation (my wife got a ticket from it).
Today however it was parked on the opposite carriageway, again with Armco both sides, catching people who were a tad to eager to get up to 50. You can see the 50 sign in this photo and the van was just before the silver car
There was pretty much no danger at all being caused by anyone accelerating to 50 a bit early. So have I missed something or was this a bit cheeky?
Take it to court then and argue it on the basis that your wife was still driving in a safe manner.Today however it was parked on the opposite carriageway, again with Armco both sides, catching people who were a tad to eager to get up to 50. You can see the 50 sign in this photo and the van was just before the silver car
There was pretty much no danger at all being caused by anyone accelerating to 50 a bit early. So have I missed something or was this a bit cheeky?
funkyrobot said:
What is there to discuss?
You know exactly what there is to discuss. And he made that point in his thread title and post.We are sold the benefits of these 'safety' cameras on the basis that they are used to increase road safety. If they aren't put in places where there is the most danger from breaking the speed limit but appear to be in places which would generate revenue then I think that is something worth discussing. If you don't then you and your ilk can feel free to FRO to a brake forum.
The camera van near me parks in two places. Both are on wide well sighted roads where I'm not aware of there ever having been accidents or collisions with pedestrians. I can name lots of other places which are more dangerous and have had accidents and pedestrians knocked over..... never see the vans there.
I won't whinge if I get caught. But I won't support lying to promote revenue raising sneaky tactics either.
It *could* be about safety, but the way they seem to operate makes it obvious it is all about the money.
spookly said:
You know exactly what there is to discuss. And he made that point in his thread title and post.
We are sold the benefits of these 'safety' cameras on the basis that they are used to increase road safety. If they aren't put in places where there is the most danger from breaking the speed limit but appear to be in places which would generate revenue then I think that is something worth discussing. If you don't then you and your ilk can feel free to FRO to a brake forum.
The camera van near me parks in two places. Both are on wide well sighted roads where I'm not aware of there ever having been accidents or collisions with pedestrians. I can name lots of other places which are more dangerous and have had accidents and pedestrians knocked over..... never see the vans there.
I won't whinge if I get caught. But I won't support lying to promote revenue raising sneaky tactics either.
It *could* be about safety, but the way they seem to operate makes it obvious it is all about the money.
It doesn't matter how they justify it though, speeding is still breaking the law. If you break the law and get caught, you get punished.We are sold the benefits of these 'safety' cameras on the basis that they are used to increase road safety. If they aren't put in places where there is the most danger from breaking the speed limit but appear to be in places which would generate revenue then I think that is something worth discussing. If you don't then you and your ilk can feel free to FRO to a brake forum.
The camera van near me parks in two places. Both are on wide well sighted roads where I'm not aware of there ever having been accidents or collisions with pedestrians. I can name lots of other places which are more dangerous and have had accidents and pedestrians knocked over..... never see the vans there.
I won't whinge if I get caught. But I won't support lying to promote revenue raising sneaky tactics either.
It *could* be about safety, but the way they seem to operate makes it obvious it is all about the money.
It doesn't matter to me if they say they are doing it in the name of safety. Anyone with any common sense knows it isn't always done with this in mind. However, it still doesn't change the fact that the limit is the limit.
Unfortunately, I won't be disappearing off to any Brake forum as they are at the other extreme of the scale.
Funny how people get so angry when discussing breaking the law in this fashion. It's like a bunch of lefty loons getting upset because Trump won.
funkyrobot said:
13m said:
Near the Queens Medical Centre on Clifton Blvd in Nottingham there is often a camera van. It sits at the bottom of a hill catching motorists who are on a dual carriageway with Armco both sides and not a pedestrian in sight because there is an overpass. "It's because it's outside a hospital" is their specious explanation (my wife got a ticket from it).
Today however it was parked on the opposite carriageway, again with Armco both sides, catching people who were a tad to eager to get up to 50. You can see the 50 sign in this photo and the van was just before the silver car
There was pretty much no danger at all being caused by anyone accelerating to 50 a bit early. So have I missed something or was this a bit cheeky?
Take it to court then and argue it on the basis that your wife was still driving in a safe manner.Today however it was parked on the opposite carriageway, again with Armco both sides, catching people who were a tad to eager to get up to 50. You can see the 50 sign in this photo and the van was just before the silver car
There was pretty much no danger at all being caused by anyone accelerating to 50 a bit early. So have I missed something or was this a bit cheeky?
The number on the sign, the thing is, that number is decided by lots of people justifying their existence and councillors trying to get a tick on their CV, I dare say years ago that road was a perfectly normal NSA with the usual average amounts of RTC's generally caused by lack of observation as most of them are.
So, I can see why people get the hump with the dumbing down of speed limits, where I live there was a perfectly good NSL road, now it it restricted with a 50mph limit and lengthened 20mph through the village.
I dare say this was a knee jerk reaction to the last fatal caused by someone overtaking on a corner and hitting a bus.
So, I can see why people get the hump with the dumbing down of speed limits, where I live there was a perfectly good NSL road, now it it restricted with a 50mph limit and lengthened 20mph through the village.
I dare say this was a knee jerk reaction to the last fatal caused by someone overtaking on a corner and hitting a bus.
- almost always flags vans when presentRovinghawk said:
You must be a bad person.
Speed kills.
It's not about money it's about SAFETY.
They do it because they care, not because they're a bunch of grubby little parasites.
Consider yourself well & truly told.
(I think I covered everything there)
Perhaps it's about discipline in a vehicle. Many people out there can't decide if something is safe or not. Speed kills.
It's not about money it's about SAFETY.
They do it because they care, not because they're a bunch of grubby little parasites.
Consider yourself well & truly told.
(I think I covered everything there)
I was going to work today and got overtaken by someone doing around 60-70mph in a 30 zone whilst on a right curve with absolutely no view as to what was coming towards them. The driver obviously thought he was a fantastic driver though much like most on PH.
I see at least 5 or 6 things like this a week where idiots do stupid manoeuvres only saved by oncomers reacting to avoid a crash. The problem is people get away with it and think their driving is safe. That then leads to unsafe driving practices (why do you thing rear-ending the car in front is the commonest crash? People drive too close, get comfortable doing it then can't react in time when they need to).
14-7 said:
Perhaps it's about discipline in a vehicle. Many people out there can't decide if something is safe or not.
I was going to work today and got overtaken by someone doing around 60-70mph in a 30 zone whilst on a right curve with absolutely no view as to what was coming towards them. The driver obviously thought he was a fantastic driver though much like most on PH.
I see at least 5 or 6 things like this a week where idiots do stupid manoeuvres only saved by oncomers reacting to avoid a crash. The problem is people get away with it and think their driving is safe. That then leads to unsafe driving practices (why do you thing rear-ending the car in front is the commonest crash? People drive too close, get comfortable doing it then can't react in time when they need to).
i agree about discipline in a vehicle. what i don't understand is how points and a fine for exceeding some arbitrary number is going to change that behaviour .I was going to work today and got overtaken by someone doing around 60-70mph in a 30 zone whilst on a right curve with absolutely no view as to what was coming towards them. The driver obviously thought he was a fantastic driver though much like most on PH.
I see at least 5 or 6 things like this a week where idiots do stupid manoeuvres only saved by oncomers reacting to avoid a crash. The problem is people get away with it and think their driving is safe. That then leads to unsafe driving practices (why do you thing rear-ending the car in front is the commonest crash? People drive too close, get comfortable doing it then can't react in time when they need to).
wc98 said:
14-7 said:
Perhaps it's about discipline in a vehicle. Many people out there can't decide if something is safe or not.
I was going to work today and got overtaken by someone doing around 60-70mph in a 30 zone whilst on a right curve with absolutely no view as to what was coming towards them. The driver obviously thought he was a fantastic driver though much like most on PH.
I see at least 5 or 6 things like this a week where idiots do stupid manoeuvres only saved by oncomers reacting to avoid a crash. The problem is people get away with it and think their driving is safe. That then leads to unsafe driving practices (why do you thing rear-ending the car in front is the commonest crash? People drive too close, get comfortable doing it then can't react in time when they need to).
i agree about discipline in a vehicle. what i don't understand is how points and a fine for exceeding some arbitrary number is going to change that behaviour .I was going to work today and got overtaken by someone doing around 60-70mph in a 30 zone whilst on a right curve with absolutely no view as to what was coming towards them. The driver obviously thought he was a fantastic driver though much like most on PH.
I see at least 5 or 6 things like this a week where idiots do stupid manoeuvres only saved by oncomers reacting to avoid a crash. The problem is people get away with it and think their driving is safe. That then leads to unsafe driving practices (why do you thing rear-ending the car in front is the commonest crash? People drive too close, get comfortable doing it then can't react in time when they need to).
Rovinghawk said:
drf765 said:
He really is an idiot.
Leave the personal insults out of it.The point of the thread is that the enforcement of the law doesn't appear to be based on safety as much as revenue generation/ employment justification.
Then you get others who come here mainly to attack and otherwise denigrate the first group for doing so.
Then you get certain others who can't tell the difference between the two.
Pete317 said:
Rovinghawk said:
drf765 said:
He really is an idiot.
Leave the personal insults out of it.The point of the thread is that the enforcement of the law doesn't appear to be based on safety as much as revenue generation/ employment justification.
Then you get others who come here mainly to attack and otherwise denigrate the first group for doing so.
Then you get certain others who can't tell the difference between the two.
When they are also unable to grasp the link between going too fast and reduced road safety then they must expect to be "attacked and otherwise denigrated" fro that inability too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff