The word AVERAGE added to speed camera warning signs
Discussion
It was 4 weeks & 2 days ago I missed this crafty addition to the wording of a camera sign & attendant 50mph limit display prior to a section of dual-carriageway. . As usual like millions before me over many many years I ignored the limit by about 10mph until approaching the sole fixed camera which was passed at, for me, an unusual 45mph or less. Pretty sure I hit 60mph though before the average speed limit area was passed.
It was not until the reverse journey that I noticed the change of wording & thus nearly had a brown trouser moment. The last 4 weeks & 2 days have been spent waiting for my wallet to be emptied & my clean licence soiled.
For me the lesson well learnt is that over familiarity with a route can be lead to laziness & a decline in observation. After all the re-worded signs were slightly larger than before & new looking.
It was not until the reverse journey that I noticed the change of wording & thus nearly had a brown trouser moment. The last 4 weeks & 2 days have been spent waiting for my wallet to be emptied & my clean licence soiled.
For me the lesson well learnt is that over familiarity with a route can be lead to laziness & a decline in observation. After all the re-worded signs were slightly larger than before & new looking.
it needs more than a change to signage to make it 'average' speed assessment.
What type of cameras are they?
They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
or they are static tax cameras and the average wording is total b
ks.
Unless you've missed them putting new cameras in ?
What type of cameras are they?
They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
or they are static tax cameras and the average wording is total b
ks.Unless you've missed them putting new cameras in ?
"...over many years..." you have been deliberately driving at 60mph in a 50mph speed limit and slowing to 45mph when you reached some obvious speed enforcement.
What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
The Selfish Gene said:
...
They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
No "technicality" exists.They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
Repel_Max said:
No "technicality" exists.
sorry for typo - working and typing at the same time etcEdited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
Why do you say that no technicality exists? We've seen people get cases dropped on technicalities a lot. (and long may it continue)
Surely if you haven't advertised the entrapment method correctly, there would be a case to get the tax request dropped?
I certainly drive very different depending on what time of camera system is in place and which vehicle I'm operating at the time.
An example could be - on my motorbikes, I completely ignore front facing average tax cameras etc
Repel_Max said:
"...over many years..." you have been deliberately driving at 60mph in a 50mph speed limit and slowing to 45mph when you reached some obvious speed enforcement.
What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
perhaps - our OP drives that road at all times of day and night, and his risk assessment as a sentient being is more advanced than a dumb camera system designed to lower the limit to an unreasonable number for the sole purpose of making money?What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
The Selfish Gene said:
...
They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
No "technicality" exists.They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
Perhaps not everyone is a f
king drone that does as they are told by people or organisations not qualified to make that risk assessment for him, as a free man?Repel_Max said:
"...over many years..." you have been deliberately driving at 60mph in a 50mph speed limit and slowing to 45mph when you reached some obvious speed enforcement.
What a stupid way to drive!
Illegal, definitely, almost certainty more risky, but not necessarily stupid. If the OPs increase in speed of 20 percent resulted in a 3 percent higher average speed then, even if only driving for the average time, over 10 years, they have gained nearly a whole extra week to spend with their family, at work or posting on PH. All it would appear with no negative consequences.. Objectively that doesn't appear stupid. What a stupid way to drive!
Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
The Selfish Gene said:
sorry for typo - working and typing at the same time etc
Why do you say that no technicality exists? We've seen people get cases dropped on technicalities a lot. (and long may it continue)
Surely if you haven't advertised the entrapment method correctly, there would be a case to get the tax request dropped?
I certainly drive very different depending on what time of camera system is in place and which vehicle I'm operating at the time.
An example could be - on my motorbikes, I completely ignore front facing average tax cameras etc
There is no requirement to advertise what type of cameras are in use. There is no requirement to advertise that there are cameras in use. There is no requirement to advertise that any kind of speed enforcement is in operation.Why do you say that no technicality exists? We've seen people get cases dropped on technicalities a lot. (and long may it continue)
Surely if you haven't advertised the entrapment method correctly, there would be a case to get the tax request dropped?
I certainly drive very different depending on what time of camera system is in place and which vehicle I'm operating at the time.
An example could be - on my motorbikes, I completely ignore front facing average tax cameras etc
The speed limit is the speed limit is the speed limit, regardless of whether or how it is actively enforced. You are of course at liberty to ignore it, and indeed most of us do most of the time. But to complain that you weren't told that you might get caught, and furthermore to complain that you weren't told what you might get caught by, is pretty special.
Repel_Max said:
"...over many years..." you have been deliberately driving at 60mph in a 50mph speed limit and slowing to 45mph when you reached some obvious speed enforcement.
What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
LOL aww diddums. What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
The Selfish Gene said:
...
They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
No "technicality" exists.They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
Alucidnation said:
The Selfish Gene said:
risk does not increase directly proportionally to speed. It's ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
Not directly but you are more likely to survive an impact at 10mph than at 100mph.I've had impacts at 100mph and survived and I know two people that have fallen down the stairs at 1mph and have not.
So - you're arguing Impact of the perceived risk is worse at a higher speed - that is true.
I'm arguing the likelihood of the risk becoming an issue is not directly proportional to the speed increase.
I did more damage to myself riding a mountain bike at 20mph than I've done in any race car or motorbike crashes I've had at much higher speeds.
So - to get back on topic - the idiot above that is getting all BRAKE about our hero (the OP) doing 10mph over the speed limit in an average tax assessment zone is a load of total s
te.Based on the behaviour I see in many many average speed camera zones, (ie thrashing through at +20-30mph then braking heavily for the cameras) I'm convinced that when some drivers see "Average Speed Camera" they think it means "Pretty Ordinary, Run of the Mill, Not Very Special Speed Camera".
The Selfish Gene said:
Alucidnation said:
The Selfish Gene said:
risk does not increase directly proportionally to speed. It's ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
Not directly but you are more likely to survive an impact at 10mph than at 100mph.I've had impacts at 100mph and survived and I know two people that have fallen down the stairs at 1mph and have not.
So - you're arguing Impact of the perceived risk is worse at a higher speed - that is true.
I'm arguing the likelihood of the risk becoming an issue is not directly proportional to the speed increase.
I did more damage to myself riding a mountain bike at 20mph than I've done in any race car or motorbike crashes I've had at much higher speeds.
So - to get back on topic - the idiot above that is getting all BRAKE about our hero (the OP) doing 10mph over the speed limit in an average tax assessment zone is a load of total s
te.Righto.
Alucidnation said:
The Selfish Gene said:
Alucidnation said:
The Selfish Gene said:
risk does not increase directly proportionally to speed. It's ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
Not directly but you are more likely to survive an impact at 10mph than at 100mph.I've had impacts at 100mph and survived and I know two people that have fallen down the stairs at 1mph and have not.
So - you're arguing Impact of the perceived risk is worse at a higher speed - that is true.
I'm arguing the likelihood of the risk becoming an issue is not directly proportional to the speed increase.
I did more damage to myself riding a mountain bike at 20mph than I've done in any race car or motorbike crashes I've had at much higher speeds.
So - to get back on topic - the idiot above that is getting all BRAKE about our hero (the OP) doing 10mph over the speed limit in an average tax assessment zone is a load of total s
te.Righto.
The Selfish Gene said:
risk does not increase directly proportionally to speed. It's ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
Not proportionally and not at all in general, in fact drivers exceeding the speed limit are statistically less likely to have an accident.But this post implied that the OP drives at a higher speed, where all other things are equal. So same driver, in the same car on the same road at the same time in the same conditions. In those circumstances higher speed is almost always a higher risk, both in terms of likelihood and severity of a collision. That doesn't mean that it was an unacceptable risk or more dangerous than driving at 10mph in other circumstances.
The Selfish Gene said:
Repel_Max said:
"...over many years..." you have been deliberately driving at 60mph in a 50mph speed limit and slowing to 45mph when you reached some obvious speed enforcement.
What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
perhaps - our OP drives that road at all times of day and night, and his risk assessment as a sentient being is more advanced than a dumb camera system designed to lower the limit to an unreasonable number for the sole purpose of making money?What a stupid way to drive!
Maybe your wallet would not be relieved of any of your cash if you had simply driven at speeds up to 50mph, including when you passed the speed enforcement, preventing the need to slow to a needless 45mph. No need to look for enforcement devices to manipulate and no need to be concerned about any sort of "sneaky" behaviour.
Perhaps it is about time you were in receipt of the points you deserve and your licence removed.
I am sure someone will be along soon with the hand-holding sycophantic view you were seeking.
The Selfish Gene said:
...
They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
No "technicality" exists.They were either always average tax cameras and someone has got away with it on a technically because they werent' marked as such..............
...
Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
Perhaps not everyone is a f
king drone that does as they are told by people or organisations not qualified to make that risk assessment for him, as a free man?Repel_Max said:
No "technicality" exists.
Dear Repel-Max,Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
If you were not trying to be deliberately offensive you failed. Why bother to post such a nasty reply to the OP? It's not called for and I think you should apologise for making this PH forum a more unpleasant place.
Chris944 said:
Repel_Max said:
No "technicality" exists.
Dear Repel-Max,Edited by Repel_Max on Friday 7th December 16:22
If you were not trying to be deliberately offensive you failed. Why bother to post such a nasty reply to the OP? It's not called for and I think you should apologise for making this PH forum a more unpleasant place.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff