Speed cameras obstructed by fog
Discussion
A quote from a BBC news article:
The thick fog which has accompanied wintry conditions in some areas has prevented drivers on the M6 in Cumbria from being caught by speed cameras.
The county's safety camera partnership has reported that more than 150 vehicles were caught travelling at 70mph on Tuesday night in a section of contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit is 50mph.
However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed to even make out the shape of some of them.
Nutters... Utter Utter Nutters. If a speed camera cant see what SHAPE your vehicle is, the visibility is far too low to be doing 50, let alone 70...
The thick fog which has accompanied wintry conditions in some areas has prevented drivers on the M6 in Cumbria from being caught by speed cameras.
The county's safety camera partnership has reported that more than 150 vehicles were caught travelling at 70mph on Tuesday night in a section of contraflow near Tebay, where the temporary limit is 50mph.
However, the fog was so heavy that the cameras failed to even make out the shape of some of them.
Nutters... Utter Utter Nutters. If a speed camera cant see what SHAPE your vehicle is, the visibility is far too low to be doing 50, let alone 70...
I agree that people who go too fast in fog must have a death wish.
I did though travel to Scotland last week on the M6. The roadworks at Tebay are typical of limits that are set low just because there may be some activity some time - there was no way they require a 50mph limit.
On the way back there was one of Cumbria's finest from the camera partnership sat on a motorway bridge, (not near the roadworks), catching motorists coming south. It was a beautiful clear day with low sun from the south, he was playing the fighter pilot card of coming out out the sun so as not to be seen. He was parked side ways on with the dark blue side of his van facing the traffic, the bright yellow side facing away. The window was in the blue side very hard to pick him out.
This is why I have no respect for them, somebody travelling at 80+ would have been causing no problem at all, the traffic was light and as I said a clear day.
I did though travel to Scotland last week on the M6. The roadworks at Tebay are typical of limits that are set low just because there may be some activity some time - there was no way they require a 50mph limit.
On the way back there was one of Cumbria's finest from the camera partnership sat on a motorway bridge, (not near the roadworks), catching motorists coming south. It was a beautiful clear day with low sun from the south, he was playing the fighter pilot card of coming out out the sun so as not to be seen. He was parked side ways on with the dark blue side of his van facing the traffic, the bright yellow side facing away. The window was in the blue side very hard to pick him out.
This is why I have no respect for them, somebody travelling at 80+ would have been causing no problem at all, the traffic was light and as I said a clear day.
Er before we all jump on the 70 is dangerous in fog bandwagon, has anyone considered that :
A: The bright flash will refract light from all the tiny droplets of water, directly back into the camera lens, over exposing the film.
B: Camera film is not as sensitive as human eyes in adjusting to low light, which is why they need a flash in the first place.
Go outside and try to take a picture in the fog with your flash, you will get crap results.
So it is entirely possible that 70 was safe in these conditions.
A: The bright flash will refract light from all the tiny droplets of water, directly back into the camera lens, over exposing the film.
B: Camera film is not as sensitive as human eyes in adjusting to low light, which is why they need a flash in the first place.
Go outside and try to take a picture in the fog with your flash, you will get crap results.
So it is entirely possible that 70 was safe in these conditions.
ohopkins said:
So it is entirely possible that 70 was safe in these conditions.
You seem to be suggesting that because the camera can't take a legible photograph of the offending vehicle then that somehow means that the driving is not necessarily unsafe.
Could these drivers stop in the distance they could see to be clear? If not, then they were driving unsafely.
I can't for the life of me think of any reason why anyone would want to encourage people to drive at an inappropraite speed in thick fog.
volvos70t5 said:
So it is entirely possible that 70 was safe in these conditions.
You seem to be suggesting that because the camera can't take a legible photograph of the offending vehicle then that somehow means that the driving is not necessarily unsafe.
Could these drivers stop in the distance they could see to be clear? If not, then they were driving unsafely.
I can't for the life of me think of any reason why anyone would want to encourage people to drive at an inappropraite speed in thick fog.
I think you've mis read his intention slightly here - what I think he is trying to say is that a camera using a flash will become unreadable with only small amounts of water vapour in the air, much less so than a human eye.
You then make the assumption that they were driving to fast to be able to stop in the distance they could see, perhaps it would have been fairer to ask
volvos70t5 said:
Could these drivers stop in the distance they could see to be clear? If not, then they were driving unsafely, if so then they could well have been driving safely but I wasn't there, so don't know
Also I don't see anyone encouraging people to drive at inappropriate speed in think fog
Cheers
Paul
Carrera2 said:
Yawn.
None of you lot were there. 150 drivers clearly thought it was safe. Perhaps, therefore, it was safe.
The picture quality from a speed camera is fairly bad normally so in mist/fog I can quite believe it would be useless without assuming zero (or anywhere near) visibility.
Quite. Judging by the car foglights being switched on when visibility is still half a mile (just mist), I expect some drivers are over-reacting. In any case, most speed limits are way too low to start with.
I was driving at at least 70mph in the "lighter" fog the other day...as I could still see much further than the stopping distance. When it thickened up, I slowed down.
And I agree with the posts about photographs - the human eye has MUCH greater resolution than any digital camera, it's just we don't always realise it.
I think it's quite likely that they had their laser aimed at >200 or 300m (if they were on a bridge they'd want a long distance to minimise parallax error). Which in the fog would be shadows only, esp. when you consider their height into the equation.
But even half that - 100m "good" visibility - on the ground is quite enough.
And I agree with the posts about photographs - the human eye has MUCH greater resolution than any digital camera, it's just we don't always realise it.
I think it's quite likely that they had their laser aimed at >200 or 300m (if they were on a bridge they'd want a long distance to minimise parallax error). Which in the fog would be shadows only, esp. when you consider their height into the equation.
But even half that - 100m "good" visibility - on the ground is quite enough.
I actually got a little travel sick the other night driving home on 6 miles of heavily fog bound country lane. Had to concentrate so HARD on the road, just over tick over in second gear, trying to pick out the white lines in the middle of the road. Not good.
Then, some a***hole comes haring up behind me!, then weaving about on my tail.
Death wish? tell me about it.
Not great conditions to drive in when you can't even make out the image of your surroundings. Even back in the street lit area it was really bad
Then, some a***hole comes haring up behind me!, then weaving about on my tail.
Death wish? tell me about it.
Not great conditions to drive in when you can't even make out the image of your surroundings. Even back in the street lit area it was really bad
ohopkins said:
Er before we all jump on the 70 is dangerous in fog bandwagon, has anyone considered that :
A: The bright flash will refract light from all the tiny droplets of water, directly back into the camera lens, over exposing the film.
B: Camera film is not as sensitive as human eyes in adjusting to low light, which is why they need a flash in the first place.
Go outside and try to take a picture in the fog with your flash, you will get crap results.
So it is entirely possible that 70 was safe in these conditions.
Agree with you on this, however this was Cumbria, using mobile speed enforcement, therefore Laser plus video.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff