Hero.

[MKnight702]

stumpage said:

So put a permanent big yellow speed camera there with nice white lines on the road that people become aware of and know is there. Having a mobile one is not there to deter but catch.

Surely, being caught is the ultimate deterrent? If you get caught by a hidden camera then maybe you will pay more attention next time, cameras are not just there to make you slow down for 100 yards or so then carry on regardless.

Rather than moan about those enforcing the limits why not go to the root of the problem, those councils that set unrealistic limits for no good reason whatsoever. Now that would get my vote, not whining about someone enforcing a 30 limit in a built up urban area.

[longshot]

My opinion has always been that a stretch of road is either an accident black spot or it isn't.
It can't be a part-time accident black spot so you either fit a camera or you don't.

Camera vans deter no-one when they aren't there.

There is a site they use not too far from where I live.
3/4 of a mile of straight level road apart from 100 yards of hill where the road descends from a bridge crossing the railway lines.
30mph limit, no residents whatsoever, and they aim the camera at the hilly bit where your speed may creep over 30 if you are not very careful.

Make of that what you will.

[Alex@POD]

talksthetorque said:

I'm a bit confused. ( It's easily done)

The larger green spaces appear to be the front gardens of some houses or the side garden of one house ( which also has an enclosed rear garden, so I expect the ones on this side of the main road do too)
Other than that there are the grass verges.
Not really "open spaces where children play" is it?

Also the sight lines driving along that road look great.
15' from the road to a six foot high fence on one side, with no obstrucions so no kids appearing from nowhere.
30 foot on the other side of clear unobstructed view, unless some sprog is going to hide behind the green switching box/dog piss collector.

This is the type of attitude which confuses me. Because of all the above, people should be free to drive at whatever speed they want down that road?

[MrBarry123]

So they're preventing the Police from catching motorists who are speeding in a residential area where a 30mph limit is justified?

I'm all for motorists given a bit of leniency if they're caught at, for example, 85mph on a quiet motorway however the Porsche owner is just being a prat.

Typically 30mph limits are there for a reason and, whilst I accept we all speed through them from time to time, we shouldn't then be angry (other than with ourselves) if we're caught.

It's slightly ironic that there's a thread on here regarding [possibly] unfair stereotypes towards Porsche drivers whilst this picture is summarising exactly why some people think they're s.

[SturdyHSV]

Leins said:

SturdyHSV said:

Those paying attention to the road will see it and not be caught (and arguably won't be speeding in an inappropriate place anyway as they're paying attention), whereas the people who are actually a danger because they are both speeding and not paying enough attention to see a big police van on the side of the road will be caught

Kind of playing devil's advocate here to a degree, but I've often wondered if putting a great distraction like a camera van along a stretch of road where children might be crossing is actually the safest way to protect them

I may just be labouring my point instead of listening to yours (surely not!), but could one not argue that a van being parked on the roadside should be a distraction a driver is capable of dealing with without being rendered oblivious to all other hazards?

In some classic Clarkson steering wheel spike logic, the safest way to protect the precious children would surely be to render all roads where they might be crossing 60mph limits? That way they'll be so bloody petrified of crossing it they'd pay a whole lot more attention before frantically sprinting across the road clutching Mummy's hand for dear life?

[talksthetorque]

Alex@POD said:

talksthetorque said:

I'm a bit confused. ( It's easily done)

The larger green spaces appear to be the front gardens of some houses or the side garden of one house ( which also has an enclosed rear garden, so I expect the ones on this side of the main road do too)
Other than that there are the grass verges.
Not really "open spaces where children play" is it?

Also the sight lines driving along that road look great.
15' from the road to a six foot high fence on one side, with no obstrucions so no kids appearing from nowhere.
30 foot on the other side of clear unobstructed view, unless some sprog is going to hide behind the green switching box/dog piss collector.

This is the type of attitude which confuses me. Because of all the above, people should be free to drive at whatever speed they want down that road?

I am replying to comments that people are saying "open spaces where children might play" - hence the bit in quotes.

But yes, you've hit the nail on the head.
What I clearly stated above is that people should be able to hurtle down the road at 140 mph in their broken down Porsches and they will be cheered and applauded and showered with bunting, confetti and party poppers followed by an orgy with sexy people of their chosen gender to encourage it.

[Cool Mart]

Leverstock Green Road, Hemel Hempstead - HP2 4HG - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Leverstock+Gre...

The pub is the Crabtree.

Not an easy road to speed along as there's raised mini-roundabouts every 50m, but it is a residential area.

[R8Steve]

castex said:

That's a residential area. I would want my children to be able to cross the road in safety. Kids drop things, forget where they are. Spur of the moment. That sort of thing.
This would have been cool on a dual carriageway.

The camera van isn't going to prevent anything happening in that situation though, is it? It just means the person would get a fine in the process.

[Alex@POD]

talksthetorque said:

Alex@POD said:

talksthetorque said:

I'm a bit confused. ( It's easily done)

The larger green spaces appear to be the front gardens of some houses or the side garden of one house ( which also has an enclosed rear garden, so I expect the ones on this side of the main road do too)
Other than that there are the grass verges.
Not really "open spaces where children play" is it?

Also the sight lines driving along that road look great.
15' from the road to a six foot high fence on one side, with no obstrucions so no kids appearing from nowhere.
30 foot on the other side of clear unobstructed view, unless some sprog is going to hide behind the green switching box/dog piss collector.

This is the type of attitude which confuses me. Because of all the above, people should be free to drive at whatever speed they want down that road?

I am replying to comments that people are saying "open spaces where children might play" - hence the bit in quotes.

But yes, you've hit the nail on the head.
What I clearly stated above is that people should be able to hurtle down the road at 140 mph in their broken down Porsches and they will be cheered and applauded and showered with bunting, confetti and party poppers followed by an orgy with sexy people of their chosen gender to encourage it.

No, what you're saying is "there won't be any children playing there and the drivers have very good visibility, why should the police be trying to catch people breaking the law here?"

I appreciate that the children argument of a low speed limit is irrelevant, it still remains a road where the speed is limited.

Besides, I'm not referring to your post in particular, but to the general attitude of "it's not doing any harm, therefore I shouldn't be penalised for doing it".

[talksthetorque]

Alex@POD said:

No, what you're saying is "there won't be any children playing there and the drivers have very good visibility, why should the police be trying to catch people breaking the law here?"

I appreciate that the children argument of a low speed limit is irrelevant, it still remains a road where the speed is limited.

Besides, I'm not referring to your post in particular, but to the general attitude of "it's not doing any harm, therefore I shouldn't be penalised for doing it".

For the second time you know what I'm saying ( which isn't what I posted)
I'm bowing out to your better knowledge of what I'm saying.
You can post for me for the rest of the thread as I won't be bothering.
<Flounces off>

[Hoofy]

R8Steve said:

The camera van isn't going to prevent anything happening in that situation though, is it? It just means the person would get a fine in the process.

I always say this about speed cameras. The funny thing is, when a speed camera goes up in a quiet village after the villagers complain about people speeding through their village, it's the villagers who all end up with speeding tickets.

As for the child dropping something in the middle of the road, if I'm doing 100mph, by the time the child has stepped out, they'll be behind me, surely. Whereas, if I were only doing 29.9mph, I'd have run over their stupid head.

[Alex@POD]

talksthetorque said:

Alex@POD said:

No, what you're saying is "there won't be any children playing there and the drivers have very good visibility, why should the police be trying to catch people breaking the law here?"

I appreciate that the children argument of a low speed limit is irrelevant, it still remains a road where the speed is limited.

Besides, I'm not referring to your post in particular, but to the general attitude of "it's not doing any harm, therefore I shouldn't be penalised for doing it".

For the second time you know what I'm saying ( which isn't what I posted)
I'm bowing out to your better knowledge of what I'm saying.
You can post for me for the rest of the thread as I won't be bothering.
<Flounces off>

Oh thanks! On the off chance that you are reading this (you didn't say about not reading the posts):

Some posters have mentioned the chance of children playing around the area as a good reason for limiting the speed. You have then posted saying it is highly unlikely children will be playing there.
If you are trying to say that as a result, people will be tempted to speed and therefore should be stopped as there may be children there after all, then just say that!

If I misunderstood your meaning, twice, then why not make it clearer rather than flouncing off?

[hotchy]

Id rather speed vans down my residential area than 30ft speed humps i can barely get over, follwed by the huge pothole just after.

[Smokehead]

That van could easily hide a child running onto the road parked like that.

[SturdyHSV]

Rather than park obscuring the camera, Mr Porsche should have first made a large banner with "Free sweeties inside!" and plenty of glitter, then snuck up from the side and stuck it to the van.

Far funnier, and Mr Police can still catch those pesky crims

[talksthetorque]

First an apology. I know I said I'd flounce off, yet here I still am.

Alex@POD said:

If I misunderstood your meaning, twice, then why not make it clearer rather than flouncing off?

if you interpreted things i posted incorrectly twice in a row, what are the chances you will read what I put and not then rewrite your incorrect interpretation of it on the third or fourth attempt?


<re-flounce>

[stumpage]

MKnight702 said:

stumpage said:

So put a permanent big yellow speed camera there with nice white lines on the road that people become aware of and know is there. Having a mobile one is not there to deter but catch.

Surely, being caught is the ultimate deterrent? If you get caught by a hidden camera then maybe you will pay more attention next time, cameras are not just there to make you slow down for 100 yards or so then carry on regardless.

Rather than moan about those enforcing the limits why not go to the root of the problem, those councils that set unrealistic limits for no good reason whatsoever. Now that would get my vote, not whining about someone enforcing a 30 limit in a built up urban area.

But if you were caught you were speeding so it didn't deter the speeding in the first place. I agree you need to get to the root of the problem so by law put speed limiters on cars which can be linked to GPS, put average speed cameras on every road, more traffic calming measures. There are ways in which speeding can be prevented for good but once people stop speeding where will the financial gain come from?

[Alex@POD]

talksthetorque said:

First an apology. I know I said I'd flounce off, yet here I still am.

Alex@POD said:

If I misunderstood your meaning, twice, then why not make it clearer rather than flouncing off?

if you interpreted things i posted incorrectly twice in a row, what are the chances you will read what I put and not then rewrite your incorrect interpretation of it on the third or fourth attempt?


<re-flounce>

Actually, that was my mistake, I only misinterpreted it once. And you won't be able to fix me, people have tried.

However, you still refuse to clarify what you were trying to say. You might has well have said the road appears to be made of tarmac for all the value your post added to the thread!

[MarshPhantom]

You can argue about the rights and wrongs of speed cameras all day long but that is pretty funny.

[blindswelledrat]

talksthetorque said:

if you interpreted things i posted incorrectly twice in a row, what are the chances you will read what I put and not then rewrite your incorrect interpretation of it on the third or fourth attempt?


<re-flounce>

Instead of getting all sulky, then why not explain what your actual point was in the post because unless there is a further point beyond the fact that there are fences thus no children, it is just being argumentative for the sake of it.