Question regarding mobile camera van equipment
Discussion
Driving in to work yesterday, I left the M40 at J5. Parked on the bridge over the M40 at this junction was the predictable scammer van.
Thing is, it was a foggy morning. Foggy enough to make me put my rear fogs on. Not just mist, but decent fog.
Can scameras actually take usable pictures in fog, or was he sitting there because that's what the day's schedule called for, and hoping for the fog to clear??
Thing is, it was a foggy morning. Foggy enough to make me put my rear fogs on. Not just mist, but decent fog.
Can scameras actually take usable pictures in fog, or was he sitting there because that's what the day's schedule called for, and hoping for the fog to clear??
HantsRat said:
Magnum 475 said:
Can scameras actually take usable pictures in fog,
YesMagnum 475 said:
HantsRat said:
Magnum 475 said:
Can scameras actually take usable pictures in fog,
YesI am appalled at their road risk and willingness to create it by pitching up in fog, well aware they will still cause some to slam the anchors on, risking a road incident in the fog, it's recklessly endangering the road, again.
Is using the tool of law as an excuse to inflict their will on safe but a little fast road users though a long range scope, with indifference to the fact they saw it was "safe" in "good visibility" really not enough of an immediate and long term risk for them to cause, that they up the risk of road incident doing it in the fog?
I know they are dangerously stuck on the idea of speed kills whilst ignorant to their risk of causing higher speed incidents within higher limits elsewhere via drivers they upset/cause the "motions" to, are in denial of their damage to road safety in inflicting "the motions" on what was a safe driver before their action, think the false compliments on courses are evidence of a real positive change, and ignore the consequences of spying on a safe driver, commonly coasting thought a sign, then inflicting punishment on them resulting in them being affected at the wheel for some time on going though "motions" as though it doesn't happen, and are deluded that they are simply making the road safer every time they knowingly "upset" drivers in a sick form of deluded sadism.
But surely they can see causing any panic braking, whatever the reason, stupidity or legitimacy of the reaction, is dangerous to the road users on a foggy day.
Is using the tool of law as an excuse to inflict their will on safe but a little fast road users though a long range scope, with indifference to the fact they saw it was "safe" in "good visibility" really not enough of an immediate and long term risk for them to cause, that they up the risk of road incident doing it in the fog?
I know they are dangerously stuck on the idea of speed kills whilst ignorant to their risk of causing higher speed incidents within higher limits elsewhere via drivers they upset/cause the "motions" to, are in denial of their damage to road safety in inflicting "the motions" on what was a safe driver before their action, think the false compliments on courses are evidence of a real positive change, and ignore the consequences of spying on a safe driver, commonly coasting thought a sign, then inflicting punishment on them resulting in them being affected at the wheel for some time on going though "motions" as though it doesn't happen, and are deluded that they are simply making the road safer every time they knowingly "upset" drivers in a sick form of deluded sadism.
But surely they can see causing any panic braking, whatever the reason, stupidity or legitimacy of the reaction, is dangerous to the road users on a foggy day.
Edited by NFT on Thursday 7th March 16:55
Yes, NFT, speed cameras can increase the risk of some types of collisions,
while reducing others.
The question is:
What is the nett result?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
while reducing others.
The question is:
What is the nett result?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Dave Finney said:
Yes, NFT, speed cameras can increase the risk of some types of collisions,
while reducing others.
The question is:
What is the nett result?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
I think you're being to kind to nft.while reducing others.
The question is:
What is the nett result?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
Their lengthy musings just sound like a teenage "it's not fair you caught me" moan.
Speeding by drivers isn't always unsafe, but it is always illegal.
It is definitely unsafe in the fog, which easily outweighs the small risk of particularly stupid drivers "slamming on their brakes".
fourstardan said:
Why do speed camera vans never seem to work at Night if they work in Fog?
I have had many a tosspot undertake me and do other horrendous acts late at night.
Most Fatal RTC's I would say are speeders at night thinking they get away with murder.
[Cynic mode]I have had many a tosspot undertake me and do other horrendous acts late at night.
Most Fatal RTC's I would say are speeders at night thinking they get away with murder.
Overtime rates [/Cynic mode]
fourstardan said:
Most Fatal RTC's I would say are speeders at night thinking they get away with murder.
That is just not true.The VAST majority of Fatal RTC's occur when drivers are within the speed limit:
https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/speeding/
The evidence is there on government websites, but no-one takes the time to look it up.
That, combined with a natural belief that to be killed must require a lot of kenetic energy (inc speed),
and road safety messaging that seems quite deliberately designed to fool us,
leads to a false understanding of why collisions occur.
And if you are unaware of the real reasons for collisions, it's difficult to guard against them.
You are therefore more likely to be involved in a Fatal RTC!
BertBert said:
Ian Geary said:
I think you're being to kind to nft.
Their lengthy musings just sound like a teenage "it's not fair you caught me" moan.
It's getting excruciatingly dull nowTheir lengthy musings just sound like a teenage "it's not fair you caught me" moan.
I'm not interested in supposed legitimacy of the negative effect that materializes from strict enforcement, or how stupid it might be to suffer "the motions" if you broke the law.
I am interested in reality and material facts, and strict enforcement damages road safety far more significantly than a little speed a few meters past a sign far away from anyone.
I, my loved ones, and the wider public deserve safer roads, it is in the public interest, and any officially supported effort that damages road safety so detrimentally, with such apparent lack of comprehension, lacking care, diligence, consideration or even any genuine interest in comprehensively evaluating the damage caused by their own actions, must not be respected, confused with serving the public interest, or legitimate use of law.
This is because serious life changing injury's, loss's of loved ones and lives will be lost, due to their efforts; and they will delude themselves and everyone else about the material risk and responsibility they hold for it, and will do so whilst using it as a statistic to support and validate their conduct towards greater efforts that will cause even more incidents without challenge.
I have heard the safety scheme PR reps assure its not a cash cow, ignore the reality that they damage road safety, then get ever more focused on using longer range, concealed and unmarked equipment, stating incidents are no longer falling from their current efforts, whilst they are causing, and will increasingly cause negative impacts on drivers and road safety in delusion they are doing good.
When a group tied to law and policing is getting out of order, it must not be in silence.
NFT said:
BertBert said:
Ian Geary said:
I think you're being to kind to nft.
Their lengthy musings just sound like a teenage "it's not fair you caught me" moan.
It's getting excruciatingly dull nowTheir lengthy musings just sound like a teenage "it's not fair you caught me" moan.
I'm not interested in supposed legitimacy of the negative effect that materializes from strict enforcement, or how stupid it might be to suffer "the motions" if you broke the law.
I am interested in reality and material facts, and strict enforcement damages road safety far more significantly than a little speed a few meters past a sign far away from anyone.
I, my loved ones, and the wider public deserve safer roads, it is in the public interest, and any officially supported effort that damages road safety so detrimentally, with such apparent lack of comprehension, lacking care, diligence, consideration or even any genuine interest in comprehensively evaluating the damage caused by their own actions, must not be respected, confused with serving the public interest, or legitimate use of law.
This is because serious life changing injury's, loss's of loved ones and lives will be lost, due to their efforts; and they will delude themselves and everyone else about the material risk and responsibility they hold for it, and will do so whilst using it as a statistic to support and validate their conduct towards greater efforts that will cause even more incidents without challenge.
I have heard the safety scheme PR reps assure its not a cash cow, ignore the reality that they damage road safety, then get ever more focused on using longer range, concealed and unmarked equipment, stating incidents are no longer falling from their current efforts, whilst they are causing, and will increasingly cause negative impacts on drivers and road safety in delusion they are doing good.
When a group tied to law and policing is getting out of order, it must not be in silence.
Dingu said:
So many words to talk so much crap.
What part do you disapprove of?In terms of evidence, there has been:
a 19% increase in fatal and serious collisions after mobile speed cameras started operating.
- - - - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
a 16% increase in fatal and serious collisions after fixed speed cameras were installed.
- - - - - https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed/
Dave Finney said:
Dingu said:
So many words to talk so much crap.
What part do you disapprove of?In terms of evidence, there has been:
a 19% increase in fatal and serious collisions after mobile speed cameras started operating.
- - - - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
a 16% increase in fatal and serious collisions after fixed speed cameras were installed.
- - - - - https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed/
(whichever is reported)
fourstardan said:
Why do speed camera vans never seem to work at Night if they work in Fog?
I have had many a tosspot undertake me and do other horrendous acts late at night.
Most Fatal RTC's I would say are speeders at night thinking they get away with murder.
Camera vans don't work so well at night.I have had many a tosspot undertake me and do other horrendous acts late at night.
Most Fatal RTC's I would say are speeders at night thinking they get away with murder.
Because they basically work by showing a presence, so a driver with any brain cells realises speeding is a bad idea.
Maybe the tosspots are undertaking someone who should consdier moving leftwards a lane or two?
E-bmw said:
Dave Finney said:
Dingu said:
So many words to talk so much crap.
What part do you disapprove of?In terms of evidence, there has been:
a 19% increase in fatal and serious collisions after mobile speed cameras started operating.
- - - - - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GqOm-keyss
a 16% increase in fatal and serious collisions after fixed speed cameras were installed.
- - - - - https://speedcamerareport.co.uk/09_fixed/
(whichever is reported)
Trend includes miles driven, vehicle design, state of the economy, transport mode choices, weather and everything else.
Some official reports do compensate for trend (it's an effect they are able to deal with).
My reports give you:
the actual collisions at the camera sites, straight out of the official database.
and also the collisions at the camera sites as a percentage of the entire Thames Valley area (to compensate for trend).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff