To Those Who Are In Favour Of Speed Cameras

[GPSHead]

Please defend the practice of maintaining reduced speed limits and cameras 24/7 on motorway/DC stretches with roadworks, when the workmen are there for no more then 6-7 hours a day (sometimes only on weekdays). Please bear in mind that on some stretches, there is no lane-narrowing, and there are no cones out of hours, meaning that everything is exactly the same as normal (when it is 70mph).

And besides, even if the lanes are narrow or there are cones, so what? 40/50mph is still risibly low in the general scheme of things. You've still got 2/3 lanes each way, possibly with a hard shoulder, on a well-aligned road, separated by a central reservation, with a speed limit of 40/50mph. As opposed to countless thousands of miles of NSL single carriageway, 2-lane, less well-aligned roads.

Madness, surely? I'm rather hoping that even those who normally support cameras will agree. It's got to be one of the most blatant examples of cameras being used to persecute us. To an extent, I suppose it's a knock-on effect of the motorway NSL only being 10mph above the single carriageway NSL, which is an absurdly low difference. But that doesn't excuse it.

Discuss.

Edited by GPSHead on Wednesday 5th September 20:55

[alphadog]

Personally, I'd rather see workers on the job 24/7 until it's finished. You would think we can afford it given the amount of tax we pay to use the roads and the damage to the economy caused by delays due to roadworks.

[Sheriff JWPepper]

I'm no camera fan but sounds more like an argument against inappropriately low speed limits rather than cameras.

[GPSHead]

Sheriff JWPepper said:

I'm no camera fan but sounds more like an argument against inappropriately low speed limits rather than cameras.

I suppose so. But let's face it, if you have a stupidly low limit and it's 3am with no other traffic, the only thing that's going to stop most people exceeding it is the presence of a camera. You're right though, ultimately it's the speed limit itself that's wanting (but of course those who say they are in favour of cameras are implicitly in favour of the limits that they enforce as well).

Motorway roadworks accidents have been shown to increase when cameras are present, but that's another argument.

[Hooli]

the joke of daftly low limits with no workmen or indeed work existing & scamera enforcement must be making some car hater in whitehall piss themselves laughing everyday.
the limits on roadworks should only apply when work is being done.
oh & another one - why why why why why cone off 4 or 5 miles of road to do 300yrds of work? i know you need a 'buffer zone' for safety, but for christs sake i could knock it into netural & drift to halt miles before the work they way things are worked out at present.

[shack55]

If there wasn't such a lot of drivers around thinking they know better and ignoring the speed limits set there may be the opportunity to utilize variable limits and perhaps shorter buffer zones; utill there is the extra buffer and permamnent limits are required I would say.
In other words: Stop taking the pi55 and get treated sensibly!

Edited by shack55 on Wednesday 5th September 22:49

[GPSHead]

shack55 said:

If there wasn't such a lot of drivers around thinking they know better and ignoring the speed limits set there may be the opportunity to utilize variable limits and perhaps shorter buffer zones; utill there is the extra buffer and permamnent limits are required I would say.
In other words: Stop taking the pi55 and get treated sensibly!

Don't you think that drivers would be more likely to obey limits if they were only set when appropriate? Don't you agree with the "crying wolf" principle? Why do you say that the permanent limits are required: do you think they are making things safer, or is it just a case of revenge and spite for ignoring "sensible" limits? In short: how does forcing people to go far slower than is safe actually help? Don't you agree that inappropriately low limits can actually make things more dangerous?

And if variable limits are such a no-no, why are they on the M25 and M42 (and, we're told, "a success" in those places)?

Face it, permanent limits on part-time roadworks are completely unnecessary and indefensible, and bring cameras even further into disrepute. They don't help anyone except the SCPs. You can admit that without compromising your position on cameras in general (not that some of the other things you've said haven't been completely illogical IMHO).

[catso]

shack55 said:

In other words: Stop taking the pi55 and get treated sensibly!

You're avin' a larf, aren't you?......

[smeggy]

shack55 said:

If there wasn't such a lot of drivers around thinking they know better and ignoring the speed limits set there may be the opportunity to utilize variable limits and perhaps shorter buffer zones; utill there is the extra buffer and permamnent limits are required I would say.
In other words: Stop taking the pi55 and get treated sensibly!

Ah, the disingenuous poster returns. Did you ever figure out why you said 'Havoc is wrong'?

Let's review your stance: the authorities take the piss by setting unreasonably low limits, so then it's the motorists fault when they choose not to abide by them?

[JustinP1]

smeggy said:

shack55 said:

If there wasn't such a lot of drivers around thinking they know better and ignoring the speed limits set there may be the opportunity to utilize variable limits and perhaps shorter buffer zones; utill there is the extra buffer and permamnent limits are required I would say.
In other words: Stop taking the pi55 and get treated sensibly!

Ah, the disingenuous poster returns. Did you ever figure out why you said 'Havoc is wrong'?

Let's review your stance: the authorities take the piss by setting unreasonably low limits, so then it's the motorists fault when they choose not to abide by them?

... and if everyone stuck to the fixed limit, they would let everyone go faster!?

I love the smell of airborne bacon in the morning...

[PeteG]

I must say, though, that there's a current prevalence of 30mph limits around roadworks where previously it would be 40 or 50 - and if you set it too low, the number of people that stick two fingers up to it seems more common.

[WildCat]

shack55 said:

If there wasn't such a lot of drivers around thinking they know better and ignoring the speed limits set there may be the opportunity to utilize variable limits and perhaps shorter buffer zones; utill there is the extra buffer and permamnent limits are required I would say.
In other words: Stop taking the pi55 and get treated sensibly!

Edited by shack55 on Wednesday 5th September 22:49

We are discussing the road works or long stretches of cones with no roadworks ... und a 30 mph limit enforced 24/7 by Tempo SPECS these days

It all to do with creating congestion of course . It always noted with some sarcastic amusement that the scam usually at the first lolly sign und the last of the pairings just before the end of roadworks und the NSL lolly.

This no accident or even incident. They know they can get you on average if you not slow enough for the first one und know a good many start accelerating when they see the higher lolly instead of throttling up as they pass it In theory that ist the law - you supposed to be at the lolly speed. But cops allow discretion on this one - but a money makin' gadget does not. That ist the issue which make many a person angry as authorities know that average speed was compliant for duration of the roadworks but this speed raised above the average to perhaps prosecution level right at the end of the roadworks It a scam und they will not give FOI as to which SPECS pairings recorded the fluct above threshold either. We think these stats would be useful if available. In a set of 5 - could be any. We also note odd numbers - und they all work together apparently so if you speed up as you pass the last one of 5 - may mean falling foul at the last hurdle. It why we would like this information which they will not supply.

[7db]

Incidentally to answer the OPs question -

- there are periods when concrete barriers are setting and not yet fully hardened when there is a lack of lateral protection (preventing cross-over between carriageways) which can sometime cause a reduced limit.

- because you need the speed limit in place *before* the workers start and *after* they leave, and as these things are done by rather blunt TROs which name the time of the restriction, you end up with some spare. The alternative would be having to pull everyone off the site in order to extend the TRO.

- in order to catch the numpties who can't (or won't) stick to a short section of reduced speed limit. Someone has to pay for the tea and biscuits - it might as well be you.

[havoc]

alphadog said:

Personally, I'd rather see workers on the job 24/7 until it's finished. You would think we can afford it given the amount of tax we pay to use the roads and the damage to the economy caused by delays due to roadworks.

Simple answer. The Germans manage it (with far shorter coned-off sections, too!), so why can't we???

[smeggy]

havoc said:

alphadog said:

Personally, I'd rather see workers on the job 24/7 until it's finished. You would think we can afford it given the amount of tax we pay to use the roads and the damage to the economy caused by delays due to roadworks.

Simple answer. The Germans manage it (with far shorter coned-off sections, too!), so why can't we???

They work on short areas rolling the works along as necessary, instead of spending a long, long time working along 15 mile stretches like we do!

[GPSHead]

7db said:

- there are periods when concrete barriers are setting and not yet fully hardened when there is a lack of lateral protection (preventing cross-over between carriageways) which can sometime cause a reduced limit.

"sometimes" = "very occasionally" I would think. Do you think you might be clutching at straws?

7db said:

- because you need the speed limit in place *before* the workers start and *after* they leave, and as these things are done by rather blunt TROs which name the time of the restriction, you end up with some spare. The alternative would be having to pull everyone off the site in order to extend the TRO.

If they can put variable limits in place elsewhere, they can do so at roadworks. Even if it does require a one-off legislative change to enable temporary variable limits, they could easily do it if they wanted to. But they're quite happy with the status quo, not because of any safety-related reason, but because they like to shit on the motorist, and fairness and reason doesn't come into it. It speaks volumes that no scamera proponent has yet acknowledged that when it's so blindingly obvious.

7db said:

- in order to catch the numpties who can't (or won't) stick to a short section of reduced speed limit. Someone has to pay for the tea and biscuits - it might as well be you.

"Why do they have a pointless reduced limit overnight?"
"To catch people exceeding the pointless reduced limit overnight."

I suppose that makes sense, a bit like:

"Why do they have speed cameras?"
"To catch people."

Nice to see a scamera proponent finally admitting that cameras are there to catch people rather than somehow slow them down by taking a photograph. So far this thread has been more revealing than I'd hoped. Oh, and some of the "short sections" tend to be well over ten miles long.

This "You must obey the limit because it's the limit" thing is really worrying though. Third Reich anyone?

[7db]

Mate - you clearly know best so there's nothing I can add. But I'd advise not speeding in temporary roadwork sections when there are cameras enforcing them. That *would* be stupid.

[GPSHead]

Come on Von, I know you're watching...what's your $0.02? Do you think that the 24/7 limits described are indeed unreasonable? You can tell us....

[GPSHead]

7db said:

Mate - you clearly know best so there's nothing I can add. But I'd advise not speeding in temporary roadwork sections when there are cameras enforcing them. That *would* be stupid.

I asked people to defend the 24/7 limits. IMHO your defence was less than watertight, and seemed to come from someone who will never say "Yes, that is silly" about any aspect of camera enforcement, however obviously silly it is. You behave like someone who has a vested interest, although I'm not suggesting that. It just baffles me that you can't or won't see how ludicrous the 24/7 limits are. They're not even remotely reasonable, and they serve no purpose other than to catch people and make money (as you pretty much admit).

I don't know best at all, hence starting the topic. I'm always very happy to hear the various opinions of PHers. I just know chicanery when I see it, and I see it a lot from those who defend cameras. They go through the most incredible logical contortions to justify everything about the status quo. Common sense seems to go out of the window and statements are made which I feel compelled to take issue with.

And you effectively called me a numpty, so thanks for getting personal. I say the numpties are those in authority who dress up anti-car measures as safety. And those who seemingly can't think for themselves and believe that every single speed limit ever is for a good reason. If only that were even halfway true.

[Jules360]

GPSHead said:

7db said:

Mate - you clearly know best so there's nothing I can add. But I'd advise not speeding in temporary roadwork sections when there are cameras enforcing them. That *would* be stupid.

I asked people to defend the 24/7 limits. IMHO your defence was less than watertight, and seemed to come from someone who will never say "Yes, that is silly" about any aspect of camera enforcement, however obviously silly it is. You behave like someone who has a vested interest, although I'm not suggesting that. It just baffles me that you can't or won't see how ludicrous the 24/7 limits are. They're not even remotely reasonable, and they serve no purpose other than to catch people and make money (as you pretty much admit).

I don't know best at all, hence starting the topic. I'm always very happy to hear the various opinions of PHers. I just know chicanery when I see it, and I see it a lot from those who defend cameras. They go through the most incredible logical contortions to justify everything about the status quo. Common sense seems to go out of the window and statements are made which I feel compelled to take issue with.

And you effectively called me a numpty, so thanks for getting personal. I say the numpties are those in authority who dress up anti-car measures as safety. And those who seemingly can't think for themselves and believe that every single speed limit ever is for a good reason. If only that were even halfway true.

All we ever hear from the por-scamera brigade is "you know the limit and if you break it, it's your fault and don't complain". They rarely try to justify their existence, as it is virtually indefensible. The point of democratic debate is to explore better alternatives and hopefully come to a majority concensus. If you take the 7db/von angle, we would still be burning witches....." i don't care that you think burning witches is wrong. The law says you must not be one, so if we decide you have acted like one, don't complain at the outcome...."