# speed camera



## Mark A (5 Nov 2012)

Last night (about 10pm) I was driving on the A426 through Rugby in patchy fog and was flashed by a speed camera. It was invisible in a area of particularly dense fog so I didn't see it 'til it flashed. I was driving at 36mph in what my satnav said was a 40 zone.

Am I still accountable?

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## RogerBoyle (5 Nov 2012)

Yes


----------



## katellwood (6 Nov 2012)

How many times did it flash once or twice?

In addition ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidelines on prosecutions recommend an error margin of 10% + 2mph therefore you have up to 35mph before prosecution (assuming its a 30). 

Also where did you measure your 36mph was it your car speedo or satnav. car speedo's are normally up to 10% inaccurate and usually measure over the actual speed (try comparing a satnav speed with your car speedo) 

Notice of Intended Prosecutions dictate that they must inform you within two weeks of the offence so let us know if you get an NIP (assuming you were in your own car registered to your home address)


----------



## Harbo (6 Nov 2012)

If it had street lighting and a 40mph zone it should have had 40 sign repeaters.
No repeater signs required in a 30 zone.

It also depends what type of camera is being used - it might not have any film in? There's an interesting web site about cameras - the new ones are digital and don't "run out"?
Sat navs are much more accurate than speedos for giving actual speeds.

Rod


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":24w25q4x said:


> Last night (about 10pm) I was driving on the A426 through Rugby in patchy fog and was flashed by a speed camera. It was invisible in a area of particularly dense fog so I didn't see it 'til it flashed. I was driving at 36mph in what my satnav said was a 40 zone.
> 
> Am I still accountable?
> 
> ...


Yes. :lol:


----------



## MickCheese (6 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":rswvd580 said:


> Last night (about 10pm) I was driving on the A426 through Rugby in patchy fog and was flashed by a speed camera. It was invisible in a area of particularly dense fog so I didn't see it 'til it flashed. I was driving at 36mph in what my satnav said was a 40 zone.
> 
> Am I still accountable?
> 
> ...



Mark

Don't take this the wrong way and I don't wish to sound pious but nearly 40mph in dense fog is just too fast regardless of the camera. This should be a lesson to all, please don't think I am being dramatic but people die on the roads in conditions like that.

Mick


----------



## Mark A (6 Nov 2012)

MickCheese":3fv3tbc1 said:


> Don't take this the wrong way and I don't wish to sound pious but nearly 40mph in dense fog is just too fast regardless of the camera. This should be a lesson to all, please don't think I am being dramatic but people die on the roads in conditions like that.



I was expecting someone to say this. The roads where deserted and the fog was patchy - some bits where clear and others foggy. I was driving at around 35mph through the clear sections and much slower in the sections with poor visibility. The speed camera was hidden in an area of particularly thick fog and I was slowing down as it flashed.

I will just have to wait and see if I receive a letter.


----------



## henton49er (6 Nov 2012)

My satnav is frequently telling me that I am in a speed limit zone. It is more often right than wrong, but there are a large number of locations across the country where it does not tell me the right speed. This is particularly so on "A" roads through villages where the local highway authority may have had a policy of reducing spped limits from 40 or 50 mph down to 30 mph. THey also pick up long term speed limits on major motorway improvements for example.

People should not rely on their satnavs for speed limits any more than they would rely on it not to send them the wrong way up a one way street. Following a satnav's guidance is no excuse in law for a breech of traffic regulations - they are supposed to guide you, not relieve you of responsibility for your actions. The number of times massive (and usually foreign) trucks used to get stuck on "drove roads" when we lived on the Somerset levels and they were looking for short cuts were too many to count!!


----------



## Dibs-h (6 Nov 2012)

I used to look at my Sat nav for speed limits until I drove thru what used to be a 40 area (drove thru it for yrs) and the Sat nav was saying 40 - but the 40mph repeaters on the lamp posts were no longer there. And cameras - mix of forward facing & rear facing - there were loads.

Thankfully slowed & stayed at 30 before anything - but learned a valuable lesson. The eyes and ears first - TomTom last! 

Cheers

Dibs


----------



## Peter T (6 Nov 2012)

I live in Rugby so I might be able to shed more light on the subject. There are not many fixed camera sites in Rugby. On the A426 the only one, as far as I know, is just after/before, depending on your direction of travel, Rugby School, and this is a 30 mph limit zone.

Where exactly in Rugby were you when you were flashed? The fog would not make any difference to the statutory limits, but if you were doing 35 in a 30 zone you would definitely get flashed, sorry.

Good luck,


----------



## Losos (6 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":q9ea4zjj said:


> I will just have to wait and see if I receive a letter.



Mark, I hope you do not get a ticket as it seems from your words that you were being reasonably careful, my sat nav is usually accurate when it comes to speed limits ('tho often out of date when it comes to tempory speed restrictions :roll: )


----------



## Mark A (6 Nov 2012)

Peter T":qgky0gge said:


> Where exactly in Rugby were you when you were flashed? The fog would not make any difference to the statutory limits, but if you were doing 35 in a 30 zone you would definitely get flashed, sorry.



It was at the top of a hill.


----------



## Peter T (6 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":38vhh78i said:


> Peter T":38vhh78i said:
> 
> 
> > Where exactly in Rugby were you when you were flashed? The fog would not make any difference to the statutory limits, but if you were doing 35 in a 30 zone you would definitely get flashed, sorry.
> ...



Sounds like the one near Rugby School. Definitely a 30 Zone! That stretch of road used to be 40 but our wonderful council reduced it to 30 and gave us a shiny new camera at the same time!

Maybe the fog will obscure your number plate!!


----------



## Chrispy (6 Nov 2012)

If it was that foggy may be the picture will be as well, after all if you can't see it it can't see you.


----------



## Mark A (6 Nov 2012)

I hope so.

I wouldn't have minded if it was 4 in the afternoon, but this was 10 pm on a cold frosty Sunday night with nobody on the roads.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":1mvms6my said:


> I hope so.
> 
> I wouldn't have minded if it was 4 in the afternoon, but this was 10 pm on a cold frosty Sunday night with nobody on the roads.


Excuses excuses!
It was speeding. That's all there is to it. The cameras are situated on accident prone stretches of road, for maximum effect.
Bin there dunnit etc. And did the speed awareness course in lieu of points on the licence. I now drive a lot slower and stick to limits fairly well.


----------



## newt (6 Nov 2012)

Not all cameras are placed in accident black spots, some are placed to maximise revenue, particularly mobiles. But you still need to obey the the limits.


----------



## WellsWood (6 Nov 2012)

newt":q48m4dvy said:


> ...some are placed to maximise revenue...



A contentious and debatable issue in my opinion, but leaving that aside the words "school" and "hill" probably give much more clue as to the siting of this particular one.

The circumstance begs the question how you knew the roads were deserted - if you couldn't see the camera you're frankly lucky there was nothing else "hidden in dense fog". Precious little sympathy here I'm afraid.


----------



## Jacob (6 Nov 2012)

newt":152x6h7n said:


> Not all cameras are placed in accident black spots, some are placed to maximise revenue, particularly mobiles. ..


Complete nonsense.


----------



## Kalimna (6 Nov 2012)

Whilst I normaly agree with you Jacob, on your post above I think you are quite wrong. I am not saying that all, or even the majority of speed cameras are there primarily to maximise revenue, but from driving a lot of roads, there are some which seem to serve no other purpose.
All who drive should know what the speed limit on that particular stretch of road is, and should happily accept the consequences of being caught driving over that limit. If you didnt know what the speed limit is, then, again, it's your own fault. However, placing a camera at the base of a steepish dual carriageway gradient where the limit has dropped to 50, and it would be easy to over step slightly seems, to me, a revenue gaining exercise. Thats one specific Scottish example I can think of.
The debate as to whether the speed limit imposed is a reasonable one is different and moot.
If speed cameras are there purely to help prevent accidents, then road signs saying something to the effect of "There is a speed camera 100/200/300/etc metres away and the road speed limit is Xmph" would be much more effective at reducing speeds, but also much less effective at generating funds.
It all depends on whether speed cameras primary role is to catch people speeding, or help prevent the speeding in the first place.

Cheers.
Adam


----------



## mailee (6 Nov 2012)

I did wonder how accurate the speed was on my sat nav as it is 5mph faster than my speedo. I always follow my speedo reading so am always below the speed limit in that case.


----------



## Steve Maskery (6 Nov 2012)

I have only one speeding story to tell. 
I and three friends were holidaying in Sweden. A Summer House belonging to a friend of a friend. Elictricity but no water or sanitation. A S**T lorry came around once a week to empty the buckets..

So by midweek we were in need of some ablutions.

A trip to the local town (40 miles) and a happy hour or two in the pool and sauna followed by a late-night trip back home.
10.30pm in rural Sweden. 50 kph. Big Red Light. I was driving my own car and I stopped. Big burly Constable came over, knocked on the left-hand-side window and thrust in a breathalyser, which my mate Dave,teetotal, happily operated. When the giggling subsided, the delectable Katarina came over. She spoke perfect English. After suitable interrogation, and my suppressing the urge to ask her what time she got off duty, she gave me a lecture on Swedish speed limits (if there is a school nearby, it is 40kph, even if it is 10.30 at night - I was doing 50 kph) even though actual signs are on the shelf next to the hen's teeth, and wished us a happy holiday.

It's a good job we were no longer smelly

S


----------



## Mark A (6 Nov 2012)

WellsWood":1y0zpbu3 said:


> A contentious and debatable issue in my opinion, but leaving that aside the words "school" and "hill" probably give much more clue as to the siting of this particular one.
> 
> The circumstance begs the question how you knew the roads were deserted - if you couldn't see the camera you're frankly lucky there was nothing else "hidden in dense fog". Precious little sympathy here I'm afraid.



I'm not after sympathy, I was just curious. If I receive a fine, then so be it. I drive thousands of miles a month and have always been careful about my speed. 

I was driving below the speed limit I thought it was for the road (even in the conditions it would have been a sensible speed if the limit was what I thought it to be) It just so happened that the section of road on which the camera, school and hill were situated was shrouded in denser fog and I made to slow down but the camera got me first. 

I'm not blaming anyone but myself: I was focusing on the road and not my speed or my surroundings and I relied too much on the satnav speedometer (which is conveniently placed on the windscreen). No big deal - I'll just be even more careful in the future. 

Mark


----------



## WellsWood (7 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":1ptut7nu said:


> No big deal - I'll just be even more careful in the future.
> 
> Mark



Which, it can be reasonably argued, is the real point of speed cameras. In which case, job done. Fingers crossed the point, having been made, now isn't laboured by the arrival of a brown envelope one mornng soon.


----------



## RogerS (7 Nov 2012)

Here's the truth about speed cameras. It must be right as it's in the press.

And here's another article by my 'favourite' newspaper columnist George Monbigot http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/20/a-rea ... man-lives/


----------



## Baldhead (7 Nov 2012)

mark aspin":17kc1b9z said:


> WellsWood":17kc1b9z said:
> 
> 
> > A contentious and debatable issue in my opinion, but leaving that aside the words "school" and "hill" probably give much more clue as to the siting of this particular one.
> ...


You should have been driving a lot slower that the speed limit long before you drove into the DENSE fog, anything could have been on the road in front of you, you also say it was frosty, this alone should make drivers slowdown, black ice is a killer.

Baldhead


----------



## henton49er (7 Nov 2012)

So, it was cold and frosty (potential for a slippery road surface), at night (potential for difficulty in seeing pedestrians), with patchy fog (potential for not seeing other road users or parked vehicles), and you are complaining about being flashed by a camera for doing 36mph??


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Nov 2012)

Jacob":1e5whcap said:


> mark aspin":1e5whcap said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so.
> ...



Well, on a push-bike you have to be young to break speed limits. :wink: 

For your further information Jacob:

Where speeding offences are concerned, the Road Traffic Act does mention the type of road, the condition of the road, and the use to which it was being put, *at the time of the offence.* Of course, that was for the good old days, when you would be stopped for speeding by an officer, who had to follow you for three-tenths of a mile to prove the offence. 

That was because the Courts realised there is no such thing as 'Constant Velocity', and it is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time. In other words, they appreciated how easy it is to creep up above limits. Consequently a Police Officer could use discretion, and issue a warning. Cameras of course have no discretion, and they are an indication of what is wrong with today's society. Everything has to be black or white. 

So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.


----------



## newt (7 Nov 2012)

Give the man a bit of slack, he was doing 36 in a 30 zone, yes he got flashed and he has said lesson learrnt. Some of you have said he should have been driving slower than the speed limit easy to say that, but what speed do you then suggest, 10,15 20 29, of course you can't you weren't there. You have to make a judgment at the time, drive very slow and that produces other risks. Nothing to do with cameras really just making sensible decisions about the conditions at the time and remaing within the law.


----------



## SBJ (7 Nov 2012)

I think you miss the point Newt. Apart from the facts that pretty much everyone can see that it's a bit daft to be breaking the speed limit in the conditions as described, the op asked if he was accountable. Accountable for his own actions.


----------



## SBJ (7 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":2flww7dy said:


> Jacob":2flww7dy said:
> 
> 
> > mark aspin":2flww7dy said:
> ...



Presumably the type, condition and use of the road would only affect the severity of the punishment rather than whether a crime was committed or not?


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":3t04yzqo said:


> .....
> So, check your facts Jacob, and try to resist gloating because someone got caught by a speed camera.


The facts - he was speeding and might have been caught. Are there other facts or mitigating circumstances if any sort? Don't think so.
Not gloating, just laughing - having been through the same myself, including the self-righteous sense of it being unreasonable, unfair, etc. etc. These feelings didn't last long and the speeding awareness course finally nailed them!



> t is also virtually impossible to keep a vehicle at a set speed for any length of time.


Mine has a cruise control. I can set it at any speed. Unfortunately it doesn't work the brakes so it is possible to exceed the setting going down a steep enough hill, but other than that, it's quite handy for sticking to speed limits. Saves fuel too - less erratic accelerating and braking.



> Presumably the type, condition and use of the road would only affect the severity of the punishment rather than whether a crime was committed or not?


Largely fixed penalty as far as I know, if no accident is involved.


----------



## newt (7 Nov 2012)

SBJ":2otsmdk2 said:


> I think you miss the point Newt. Apart from the facts that pretty much everyone can see that it's a bit daft to be breaking the speed limit in the conditions as described, the op asked if he was accountable. Accountable for his own actions.



Stuart, yes of course he is accountable he and nobody else broke the speed limit, I was was really commenting on the observations made others about what speed he should have been driving. Also never rely on the Satnav to tell you the speed limit.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Nov 2012)

Suit your self Jacob. The facts I referred to were the words in the Act, of which you are clearly ignorant. 

And yes I think you WERE gloating. 
A speed awareness course doesn't make you an expert, so don't get lulled into thinking you won't get caught again! :wink: 


SJB,

Yes, the conditions, use and type of road could and did affect the punishment, but mostly it was down to officers to decide whether or not to prosecute. Either way, a report had to be made. 

If the 'miscreant' argued, then he/she wasn't admitting the offence, and a caution couldn't be given. That meant a Notice of Intended Prosecution. (This procedure gave rise to speculation that you got booked just because you argued with an officer. Not so.) In the end, if a report was made it was the Chief Inspector at the Station who decided. Not like today, when decisions are made by some local civilian Hitler, with no knowledge of the law and disproportionate powers.) As I said, it's a measure of the kind of society 'up with which, we have to put.'


----------



## SBJ (7 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":ni4wrgy5 said:


> Suit your self Jacob. Verbal diarrhoea again?
> SJB,
> 
> Yes, the conditions, use and type of road could and did affect the punishment, but mostly it was down to officers to decide whether or not to prosecute. Either way, a report had to be made.
> ...




Fair enough, but here's the thing - people know about speed cameras, it's no surprise that they exist on our roads. We all know that if you get caught by a speed camera, then it's because you've done something stupid. Given that most cars speedos are calibrated on the high side, and you have to be going in excess of the speed limit to to get caught there is no argument against them. I'd have them on every road, because quite frankly if you are stupid enough to get caught then I'm glad you have to pay your fine because it's more money in our pot to spend. 

So, I don't think "it's a measure of the kind of society 'up with which, we have to put" in terms of how justice served but rather a reflection on the individuals in society that don't think before they drive.


----------



## Peter T (7 Nov 2012)

Jacob":1stzyq67 said:


> Benchwayze":1stzyq67 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



You must of been on a different speed course to the one I was on. What a pathetic waste of an afternoon listening to half truths and idiotic statements from two guys who knew less about cars and motoring than my mum!

And, BTW, cruise control doesn't improve fuel consumption. It tries to maintain a constant speed, so going up hill it applies enough power to do that. If you were trying to drive as economically as possible, you would maintain a constant throttle opening and allow the speed to bleed off, within reason of course.


----------



## newt (7 Nov 2012)

Peter T":rpfqaotr said:


> Jacob":rpfqaotr said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":rpfqaotr said:
> ...



Quite right Peter, I was just about to comment on the cruse control statement, many folk think it is the most economical way to drive, as you say it's not. Cruise control is fixed speed variable fuel consumption, manual driving can be variable speed fixed consumption.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

Peter T":9thi7gmi said:


> ......
> You must of been on a different speed course to the one I was on. What a pathetic waste of an afternoon listening to half truths and idiotic statements from two guys who knew less about cars and motoring than my mum!


Maybe you need to go on another one then


> And, BTW, cruise control doesn't improve fuel consumption.....


It does for me.


----------



## Peter T (7 Nov 2012)

Jacob":lkex7zpb said:


> Peter T":lkex7zpb said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Sorry but I've got better things to do than listen to a couple of old duffers talking nonsense.

As to the cruise control..................... all I can say is you should take up speed awareness instructing!


----------



## SBJ (7 Nov 2012)

Surely you can only judge whether cruise control improves fuel consumption if you are aware of how someone drives without it?


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Nov 2012)

And maybe because of the intolerance and proliferation of speed cameras, many drivers are spending far too much time checking their speed. It needs eyes off the road to do that. Is there anyone here who has NEVER been caught out, by something happening in front, just as you check your mirror, or your speed? 

I know it's happened to me. Fortunately I don't 'tailgate'; unless some twit on mental 'cruise control' hurtles past me and cuts into my safety distance! :wink:

I'm off to scrap my car and hand in my licence. I am getting too old for this malarky!


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

There does seem to be a lot of bad tempered car drivers about! Should they be on the roads at all?
Bring on the speed cameras - that'll sort them out. 
I also think we need more 20 mph limits on many roads.
Road safety methods seem to be working though - traffic accidents are historically very low.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

SBJ":1bpwe1ae said:


> Surely you can only judge whether cruise control improves fuel consumption if you are aware of how someone drives without it?


Yes. I am aware of how I drive without it. Most noticeable on motorways where setting it at 70 produces 54 mpg for me.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Nov 2012)

Do you need me to walk in front of you with a red flag Jacob? 
I might not be able, but I know a man who can.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":svlfxgbj said:


> ... Is there anyone here who has NEVER been caught out, by something happening in front, just as you check your mirror, or your speed? ...


Er, yes. Me!
Checking your speed and looking into the mirror will both reduce the likelihood and the outcome of an accident.


----------



## SBJ (7 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":1w6xnogt said:


> *And maybe because of the intolerance and proliferation of speed cameras, many drivers are spending far too much time checking their speed. It needs eyes off the road to do that. Is there anyone here who has NEVER been caught out, by something happening in front, just as you check your mirror, or your speed?
> *
> I know it's happened to me. Fortunately I don't 'tailgate'; unless some twit on mental 'cruise control' hurtles past me and cuts into my safety distance! :wink:
> 
> I'm off to scrap my car and hand in my licence. I am getting too old for this malarky!



This, is quite an amazing argument! Speed cameras are causing accidents because drivers are having to check their speed rather than, presumably, drive at whatever speed happens to feel right at the time whether that be over or under the speed limit?


----------



## Peter T (7 Nov 2012)

SBJ":24eeya1d said:


> Surely you can only judge whether cruise control improves fuel consumption if you are aware of how someone drives without it?



Obviously if someone drives like they are on a racetrack, and then does the same trip using cruise control, they will get better consumption with c/c.

But, if you drive economically without c/c you should get better consumption than with c/c.

Don't get me wrong, I love cruise control and use it at every opportunity. Another useful toy I have on my SLK is a speed limiter. Useful in unfamilier areas when there are lots of cameras around.


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Nov 2012)

Jacob":20t1ljnp said:


> Benchwayze":20t1ljnp said:
> 
> 
> > ... Is there anyone here who has NEVER been caught out, by something happening in front, just as you check your mirror, or your speed? ...
> ...



Now two simple questions. 

Is there anything you don't know Jacob? 
Is there any subject upon which you don't have an expert opinion? :roll: 

Toodle-oo.
.


----------



## SBJ (7 Nov 2012)

Peter T":7qtxm6tf said:


> SBJ":7qtxm6tf said:
> 
> 
> > Surely you can only judge whether cruise control improves fuel consumption if you are aware of how someone drives without it?
> ...



Ah, ok, I just thought that you said c/c doesn't improve fuel consumption.

Re the speed limiter - that takes us nicely full circle, what speed do you set you speed limiter?


----------



## Lons (7 Nov 2012)

Jacob":3v2srtr0 said:


> Benchwayze":3v2srtr0 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Is there anyone here who has NEVER been caught out, by something happening in front, just as you check your mirror, or your speed? ...
> ...



Well if you were caught speeding then there's something you've "caught out by". You must have been looking at something not to notice the camera (or (cop)? :roll: 

BTW, my car manual says that cruise control should not be used in fog or icy conditions or where there are regular bends or traffic e.g built up areas.
Or maybe that applies only to German cars :wink: 

I'll nail my colours to the mast: I have no problem with speed cameras in specific high risk areas such as schools for instance but I also believe that a large number of them are definate revenue cash cows. Operating costs are inaccurate and old data as digital cameras are much cheaper to run which is why they are being introduced.
And if you think that drivers don't fixate on their speedos whilst passing a camera then I suggest you go sit by one and watch it happen - I have when doing my teacher training (of all things :lol: ) though it was 10 years ago.

I drive sensibly and within the limits most of the time and always when in built up areas, but on a motorway with all fast traffic doing 80+ - I go with the flow! and I use the handling capabilities of my car when conditions allow.
Speed is only a factor in accidents but not the only one. Ignorant, arrogant and downright stupid drivers, many who aren't even responsible enough to insure their vehicles are the biggest problem along with young inexperienced drivers and an ageing population with reduced reaction faculties and overcrowded roads don't help. 

I've had 1 ticket more than 40 years ago for 32 in a 30 limit. I contested that and it was quashed as the "gun" was inaccurate.

Bob


----------



## Lons (7 Nov 2012)

Peter T":2av4vxvx said:


> Don't get me wrong, I love cruise control and use it at every opportunity. Another useful toy I have on my SLK is a speed limiter. Useful in unfamilier areas when there are lots of cameras around.



How does that work Peter? 

I consider that good acceleration can be a positive safety feature as there might well be a need for it to avoid an incident. E.g. you're overtaking a slow vehicle, maybe a lorry, limit is 60 and that's what your limiter is set to. Some p**** pulls out of a side road coming towards you and the only safe manouver is speed up and tuck in. If the car won't do more than 60 then you're possibly dead :roll: 

All the cars we've owned for years now have had an audible speed limit indicator which the driver can set. Beeps if you exceed that. (mine's set at 120mph btw :wink: )

Bob


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

Lons":1iaenc7j said:


> ......
> Well if you were caught speeding then there's something you've "caught out by". You must have been looking at something not to notice the camera (or (cop)? :roll: .....


I was caught out by _not_ looking - not noticing the speed limit, the camera, my speed.


----------



## Jacob (7 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":1ytkdquq said:


> ....
> 
> Is there anything you don't know Jacob?
> ..
> .


Dunno ask me another!


----------



## Benchwayze (7 Nov 2012)

Jacob":39fevnna said:


> Benchwayze":39fevnna said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Can you prove that Jacob? 

G'Night...


----------



## Lons (7 Nov 2012)

> I was caught out by not looking



Not very observant then :wink:


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

Lons":125gaj9i said:


> > I was caught out by not looking
> 
> 
> 
> Not very observant then :wink:



Fiddling with his cruise control perhaps ? :lol:


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

Ah, I was wrong. Just managed to hack into the DVLA system and found the photo that the speed camera took of Jacob. Here it is .









:roll: #-o


----------



## Peter T (8 Nov 2012)

Lons":kb5egthl said:


> Peter T":kb5egthl said:
> 
> 
> > Don't get me wrong, I love cruise control and use it at every opportunity. Another useful toy I have on my SLK is a speed limiter. Useful in unfamilier areas when there are lots of cameras around.
> ...



Hi Bob, you're right, you do need the ability to speed up if someone does something stupid. 

On my car the limiter works when driving "normally". If I floor the accelerator to kickdown the auto box, it overrides the limiter and you get full performance.


----------



## Benchwayze (8 Nov 2012)

SBJ":1lfs2cbc said:


> Benchwayze":1lfs2cbc said:
> 
> 
> > *And maybe because of the intolerance and proliferation of speed cameras, many drivers are spending far too much time checking their speed. It needs eyes off the road to do that. Is there anyone here who has NEVER been caught out, by something happening in front, just as you check your mirror, or your speed?
> ...



SBJ, 

Where did I say that checking mirrors or speedometers causes accidents? 
I was merely pointing out that making these checks takes your eyes of the road; for up to one second. At 60mph? How many times in a couple of miles do you make these checks. 

I'll leave you to do the maths on distance travelled whilst not looking at the road ahead directly, and relying on peripheral vision; which in some folk isn't always up to snuff. 
Not so 'amazing' then?


----------



## Lons (8 Nov 2012)

> Hi Bob, you're right, you do need the ability to speed up if someone does something stupid.
> On my car the limiter works when driving "normally". If I floor the accelerator to kickdown the auto box, it overrides the limiter and you get full performance.
> _________________
> Peter



Ah - got it #-o 
I knew it would really. these Germans "hav vays" of being pretty clever. There's stuff in my Audi I'm still discovering (I've had it since January  ) :lol: 

Anyway - great toy you have there Peter.

cheers

Bob


----------



## SBJ (8 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":2uwk2g4w said:


> SBJ,
> 
> Where did I say that checking mirrors or speedometers causes accidents?
> I was merely pointing out that making these checks takes your eyes of the road; for up to one second. At 60mph? How many times in a couple of miles do you make these checks.
> ...



Ok, either it's not an issue to check your speed and take yours eyes off the road or it is, I'm not sure what your point is now.

Also, speed cameras shouldn't affect the amount of times that you check your speed, you're either driving safely with in the rules of the road or driving to avoid being caught speeding. If it's the latter, it kind of negates the argument that it's the speed cameras that are making the roads unsafe, wouldn't you say?


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

SBJ":2q6b2r61 said:


> Benchwayze":2q6b2r61 said:
> 
> 
> > SBJ,
> ...



Umm...not really. It's not speeding per se. It is the wrong speed for the conditions prevailing at the time. If you're telling me that you drive at 70mph or below on a motorway at 3am on a Sunday morning, with no other vehicles in sight then you really are more of a Miss Goody TwoShoes then I thought :lol:


----------



## Peter T (8 Nov 2012)

Lons":2f86spln said:


> > Hi Bob, you're right, you do need the ability to speed up if someone does something stupid.
> > On my car the limiter works when driving "normally". If I floor the accelerator to kickdown the auto box, it overrides the limiter and you get full performance.
> > _________________
> > Peter
> ...



Thanks for that. thought you might like a picture -







I bought it as a retirement present to myself


----------



## Benchwayze (8 Nov 2012)

SBJ":no62ry7k said:


> Benchwayze":no62ry7k said:
> 
> 
> > SBJ,
> ...





. 

That's my point. Speed cameras, do in fact encourage drivers to watch their speedometers much more often than they would have done in the past. The best deterrent was a Police Car, fully visible, either in your mirrors, or in a lay-by. If you still think that looking in a rear-view mirror, or checking a 'speedometer' can't be dangerous, well I can remember at least four occasions when that was the explanation given by drivers who had shunted a vehicle in front. E.g., 'I'm sorry officer. I had just checked my mirrors and when I looked again, the car was suddenly in front of me!' 

Twist it how you like, but maybe they weren't all just making excuses. Okay. they were driving badly and a longer braking distance would have saved them, but that's my whole point. 

To check mirrors and speedometers you have to take your vision off the road ahead and it can result in an accident if you do it at the wrong time. The more often you do it, the more likely that one time in a hundred is likely to occur. So as I said, do the maths and check how far you travel in one second, at 60mph.
Subject closed at this end my friend.


----------



## Jacob (8 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":2spb3vhw said:


> ..... Speed cameras, do in fact encourage drivers to watch their speedometers much more often than they would have done in the past.


No really? Well blow me down! :lol: :lol: Or should I say "well slow me down"?


> The best deterrent was a Police Car, fully visible, either in your mirrors, or in a lay-by.


That wouldn't make you look at your speedo then? If not why not?..

The whole point of the camera - or the cop in the lay-by - is to make you look at your speedo more often, and if necessary, slow down. 
THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR!!!!!
And apparently they work very well in reducing accidents. 
I think you are getting the idea Benchwayze - yes they make you check your speed, but what are you supposed to do next?


----------



## Harbo (8 Nov 2012)

The problem with fixed speed cameras is that they can be "avoided" if you are a local or have a Sat Nav.
The types that really work in keeping speeds down are the AverageSpeed ones which are becoming more and more common on Motorways.
They are much more difficult to cheat.

Also It is rumoured that they could be "installed" everywhere as the existing and widespread Traffic Sensors could be quite easily used for that purpose?

Rod


----------



## Jacob (8 Nov 2012)

Harbo":3ffngdc3 said:


> The problem with fixed speed cameras is that they can be "avoided" if you are a local or have a Sat Nav.


That's OK it'd reduce traffic on a dangerous road. 
But would you really bother to take a detour? Surely it'd be simpler and quicker to just slow down as you pass it.


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

Trouble with those AverageSpeed cameras is that they do force you to slow down to the limit. But here's the kicker. Driving down an empty motorway at 40mph. No workmen. No other cars. For ten miles? Give me a break.


----------



## Harbo (8 Nov 2012)

Sorry Jacob I didn't think I needed to explain how to "avoid" them - like driving like the clappers and braking suddenly when in range - that why I used " ".

Rod


----------



## Harbo (8 Nov 2012)

Roger you could have risked 46 (40 +10% + 2) 

Rod


----------



## Jacob (8 Nov 2012)

RogerS":33zds0y7 said:


> Trouble with those AverageSpeed cameras is that they do force you to slow down to the limit. But here's the kicker. Driving down an empty motorway at 40mph. No workmen. No other cars. For ten miles? Give me a break.


That's terrible. Now you've put it like that I see what you mean. :shock: 
I tell you what Zilch-Wedlock me off no end - it's having to drive on the left, or clockwise around traffic islands. Where's all this Human Rights legislation when it's needed? :roll:


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

Jacob":1htghu7r said:


> RogerS":1htghu7r said:
> 
> 
> > Trouble with those AverageSpeed cameras is that they do force you to slow down to the limit. But here's the kicker. Driving down an empty motorway at 40mph. No workmen. No other cars. For ten miles? Give me a break.
> ...



OK, Jacob. Just tell me what is the point of the camera in my example. Is it protecting workmen? No. Are there any other vehicles? No. 

The thing is that if, like me, you have a higher than average IQ than moronically and slavishly driving down a monotonous straight road at 40mph is a recipe for falling asleep. I realise, Jacob, that you won't have this problem but for those like me, it is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Jacob (8 Nov 2012)

RogerS":3arwezrp said:


> Jacob":3arwezrp said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":3arwezrp said:
> ...


No I agree with you Roger. The faster you go the safer it is. Obvious. A two year old child could work it out - more accidents occur in 30 zones than on motorways. 
They should increase limits and have a _minimum_ speed of 70 through built-up areas. Having a 40 limit on a motorway is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## DrPhill (8 Nov 2012)

RogerS":3oa7z19c said:


> Trouble with those AverageSpeed cameras is that they do force you to slow down to the limit. But here's the kicker. Driving down an empty motorway at 40mph. No workmen. No other cars. For ten miles? Give me a break.



10 miles at 40mph = 15 minites.
10 miles at 70mph = ~8.5 minites.


We are arguing 6.5 minites difference here. Less time than it takes to read this thread.

I do not know about the majority, but I think obeying the law slightly more important than reading this thread.......

But I *am* in training for my BOF qualifications.

Phill


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

DrPhill":ntwa6z36 said:


> RogerS":ntwa6z36 said:
> 
> 
> > Trouble with those AverageSpeed cameras is that they do force you to slow down to the limit. But here's the kicker. Driving down an empty motorway at 40mph. No workmen. No other cars. For ten miles? Give me a break.
> ...




BOF?


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

Jacob":jzi9y2d9 said:


> RogerS":jzi9y2d9 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":jzi9y2d9 said:
> ...



Jacob, I know you can be gormless at times but please respond to what I actually said rather than go off on one.


----------



## SBJ (8 Nov 2012)

Benchwayze":1mu14q39 said:


> SBJ":1mu14q39 said:
> 
> 
> > Benchwayze":1mu14q39 said:
> ...



Well I'm glad the subject is closed at your end, you're in danger of making yourself look silly :lol: . I refuse to believe that you think a police car is less of a distraction than a speed camera, is that really what you said????? I still think that you're missing the point. 

If you are used to driving at/under the speed limits you don't need to be increase the amount of times you check your speed, because you are just driving normally like you would every day. You get used to driving at the speed limit. If I was a bad driver, and it was normal for me to break the speed limit then I expect that I would be checking my speed more often but in that case it's not the camera or the police car that's the issue but that fact that I'm a bad driver. Bad driving causes accidents as you pointed out yourself.

Oh by the way, the answer to your little maths problem is about 27m.


----------



## gregmcateer (8 Nov 2012)

Wow!

It's all kicked off Pru, since I last chanced by this lay-by.

Can we all calm down, dears.

Didn't bother reading it all, so not sure who's quoted who and who's fallen out with who, but seems all pretty strong views being aired.

Can we just pretty much agree to differ and crack on with some workshop-based stuff? :wink:


----------



## DrPhill (8 Nov 2012)

RogerS":24v2ed7t said:


> DrPhill":24v2ed7t said:
> 
> 
> > ..........................
> ...



Boring Old F..t


----------



## Lons (8 Nov 2012)

One of the main problems with fixed cameras as I see it is that some drivers overeact. As I said, no problems in built up arteas where you should be doing 30 anyway butwe have one on the A1 on a dual carriageway a few hundred yards before the road turns to 2 way. Again no problem as it is potentially a danger spot (never heard of an accident there - even prior to any camera :? ), but a typical scenario I encounter there is: 2 lines of traffic, outside lane doing 70 ish, drivers spot the camera and slam on the anchors (and I mean slam on) down to 50 - 60 mph. causing a concertina effect. They often try to cut back into the inside lane as well and I've seen a few close ones which imo are a direct result of the camera being there. Didn't happen pre camera, vehicles just slotted in!

No one can tell me that isn't a dangerous scenario and no good saying drivers shouldn't be stupid. We live in the real world - and they are!

Bob


----------



## SBJ (8 Nov 2012)

I guess the answer is to have average speed cameras.


----------



## Kalimna (8 Nov 2012)

If they are driving on the road at the time, police cars are considerably less distracting as you adjust your speed so you dont overtake them, without recourse to taking eyes of road and onto speedo.
Perhaps what is needed instead is a proliferation of HUD-style speedos in all cars, not just high end execs?
Adam


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

SBJ":2uttncd2 said:


> I guess the answer is to have average speed cameras.



Goodies? Goody-goody-yum-yum.


----------



## Elapid (8 Nov 2012)

On the way to Maplins today we were behind a queue of traffic. The person at the front of the queue was doing 40mph all the way though 30mph zones and 60mph zones. Upon seeing the speed camera in a 60 zone while doing 40mph they panicked and slammed on their brakes to avoid flashing the camera and locked up and skidded to a stop making all the cars behind do the same. We stopped easily as the wife ensures she leaves plenty of distance in front to brake in time and make it easier to see ahead.

Due to one person at least that shouldn't be on the road there was nearly a 4 car accident. 

For some reason where I live nearly everyone over 50 drives at 40mph no matter what the speed limits are but this drops to 20mph if there is a speck of rain and sometimes less if it actually rains. Indicators don't seem to exist for these drivers either.


----------



## RogerS (8 Nov 2012)

Elapid":3vvg99er said:


> .....
> 
> For some reason where I live nearly everyone over 50 drives at 40mph no matter what the speed limits are but this drops to 20mph if there is a speck of rain and sometimes less if it actually rains. Indicators don't seem to exist for these drivers either.



Are you sure you weren't following Jacob ? :lol:


----------



## mind_the_goat (9 Nov 2012)

So not only were you speeding past a school, it was foggy and possibly icy, lucky to make it home at all ;-)

I would say there was a good chance the fog would disperse the flash so much that all the photo will show is a blob of light.


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2012)

They are good these threads. It's useful for a pathetic driver like me to pick up a few tips from our experts. 
So: driving faster gets you out of accidents, slowing down is a major cause of accidents and the main argument against speed cameras. Have I got that right? 
I take Benchwayze's points about the risks of looking at your speedometer or driving mirror. Obviously a dangerous distraction. Good job you can't do both at the same time! Should these distractions be banned - they sound riskier than mobile phones?
What about brakes - do they give a false sense of security and cause accidents? I think they should be banned.
Safety belts - I'm worried that if I have a crash I wont be thrown clear like in those action movies. Or escape from a burning or sinking car? I think they should go too.

PS and all that bollix about driving on the left! Ridiculous - most the world's other drivers don't have to do that, or go clockwise around roundabouts. If they can do it why can't we? It's not fair!


----------



## Lons (9 Nov 2012)

Jacob":3xuc08s8 said:


> They are good these threads. It's useful for a pathetic driver like me to pick up a few tips from our experts.
> So: driving faster gets you out of accidents, slowing down is a major cause of accidents and the main argument against speed cameras. Have I got that right?
> I take Benchwayze's points about the risks of looking at your speedometer or driving mirror. Obviously a dangerous distraction. Good job you can't do both at the same time! Should these distractions be banned - they sound riskier than mobile phones?
> What about brakes - do they give a false sense of security and cause accidents? I think they should be banned.
> ...



Typically the only bit you got right in that supercillious rant was the word "bollix" :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Elapid (9 Nov 2012)

Jacob":1sxvobj2 said:


> They are good these threads. It's useful for a pathetic driver like me to pick up a few tips from our experts.
> So: driving faster gets you out of accidents, slowing down is a major cause of accidents and the main argument against speed cameras. Have I got that right?
> I take Benchwayze's points about the risks of looking at your speedometer or driving mirror. Obviously a dangerous distraction. Good job you can't do both at the same time! Should these distractions be banned - they sound riskier than mobile phones?
> What about brakes - do they give a false sense of security and cause accidents? I think they should be banned.
> ...




Driving too fast for the conditions, not being aware of what is going on around you and impeding the flow of traffic all contribute to accidents and are all things you would fail your driving test for.

I currently choose not to drive as my medication makes everything feel too fast and unsafe while in a car so while I can drive I don't. I cringe every time my wife brakes for a corner even though she is a very good driver.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Nov 2012)

Being a motorcyclist as well as a car driver, I'm always glad when my wife brakes FOR a corner. It's much better than braking IN one.


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2012)

Elapid":1n4eysn5 said:


> On the way to Maplins today we were behind a queue of traffic. The person at the front of the queue was doing 40mph all the way though 30mph zones and 60mph zones. Upon seeing the speed camera in a 60 zone while doing 40mph they panicked and slammed on their brakes to avoid flashing the camera and locked up and skidded to a stop making all the cars behind do the same. We stopped easily as the wife ensures she leaves plenty of distance in front to brake in time and make it easier to see ahead.
> 
> Due to one person at least that shouldn't be on the road there was nearly a 4 car accident.


To be realistic - if there had been a 4 car accident the fault would be with the three cars behind (if non of them stopped in time and hadn't be shunted up by one behind). 
Your wife has the right idea - drive as though everybody else on the road is a complete .. It'll be true sooner or later (no names no pack-drill :roll: ).


----------



## Lons (10 Nov 2012)

Jacob":wijawwcv said:


> Your wife has the right idea - drive as though everybody else on the road is a complete .. It'll be true sooner or later (no names no pack-drill :roll: ).



I partly agree with that and fully believe that all "thinking" drivers should drive defensively but it's virtually impossible in the real world to do so and be invulnerable to other drivers actions.

e.g.
My father in law drove for several years (as do many others) when he should not have been on the road. he had dementure and serious memory loss and confusion. he never knew where he was going, was impossible to predict, braked and swerved without reason, drove over the white line on corners and occasionally the wrong way on roundabouts. I watched in horror one day as he reversed without looking into 60mph oncoming traffic on a busy main highway.

Any responsible driver will make little progress if they hang back too far as someone else will pop in front and close the gap again.
Not everyone has the time to tootle around all the time or the experience to recognise a situation unfolding ahead of them. The advanced driving test should be madatory IMO and include skid pan training and drivers should not be able to self declare on line where it is all too easy and common to click the "no" boxes to confusion, memory loss and eyesight questions.

Some friends visited us on Friday night and I enquired after her father who is 96 and drives the round trip of 20 miles into the local town every day :shock: I watched (and heard) him a couple of years ago drive 150 yards down the main street in 1st gear, engine screaming, weaving side to side. Shouldn't be on the road and I said so to his daughter and suggested she take appropriate action.

Most of us think we're above average drivers and many would get a hell of a shock if that belief was to be tested!

Bob


----------



## RogerS (10 Nov 2012)

Jacob":350q91r1 said:


> Elapid":350q91r1 said:
> 
> 
> > On the way to Maplins today we were behind a queue of traffic. The person at the front of the queue was doing 40mph all the way though 30mph zones and 60mph zones. Upon seeing the speed camera in a 60 zone while doing 40mph they panicked and slammed on their brakes to avoid flashing the camera and locked up and skidded to a stop making all the cars behind do the same. We stopped easily as the wife ensures she leaves plenty of distance in front to brake in time and make it easier to see ahead.
> ...



Earth to Planet Jacob....Earth to Planet Jacob.

Rule of thumb...one cars length per 10mph. That's 4 cars lengths between cars. Now tell me how many towns and cities have a traffic density that lets that happen? In the real world....not Jacob-world.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

RogerS":2co64fbv said:


> ....
> Rule of thumb...one cars length per 10mph. That's 4 cars lengths between cars. Now tell me how many towns and cities have a traffic density that lets that happen? In the real world....not Jacob-world.


It's up to you to keep the distance. 
OK so someone might pop in to the gap but most of the time it isn't that easy. If they do you just back off again. I do it all the time. 
No prob until you get an angry Clarkson fan behind you but they either overtake or give up tail gating after a bit. 
One thing I've found is that I mustn't do V sign over my shoulder - there have been one or two very angry incidents resulting. :roll: - There are some very angry drivers out there. It's easy to forget this when you are just pottering along at the speed limit enjoying yourself and listening to the radio. Maybe we need a breath test for testosterone and adrenaline!
Same on motorways - I ease off at the first hint of a brake light in the distance, however far away. My wife doesn't - she leaves it to the last minute which makes being a passenger a bit nerve wracking.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2012)

Missing the point, as ever, Jacob. I've had enough of your witterings. You're back on the Ignore setting.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2012)

You're right, Bob.

One scam for which there is little warning is the 'fake' stop at traffic lights. You will be stopped as car number three at a set of red lights. In front of you but unbeknown to you (unless you are Jacob, of course, and are omniscient) are two cars belonging to the gang. Lights go green. Lead car starts to go straight on then jinks into an unindicated left turn. The second gang car does an unnecessary emergency stop. You rear-end him. The gang claim for whiplash, exaggerrated repair costs, storage of their vehicle, car hire costs etc. Typically a £15k sting.


----------



## Lons (11 Nov 2012)

> Maybe we need a breath test for testosterone



Well I guess some blokes just don't have any - or perhaps you should change your name to Jacobina :wink:  

cheers

Bob


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

RogerS":o1nksf4p said:


> You're right, Bob.
> 
> One scam for which there is little warning is the 'fake' stop at traffic lights. You will be stopped as car number three at a set of red lights. In front of you but unbeknown to you (unless you are Jacob, of course, and are omniscient) are two cars belonging to the gang. Lights go green. Lead car starts to go straight on then jinks into an unindicated left turn. The second gang car does an unnecessary emergency stop. You rear-end him. The gang claim for whiplash, exaggerrated repair costs, storage of their vehicle, car hire costs etc. Typically a £15k sting.


Does this happen to you often Roger, or are you just scaring yourself shiteless unnecessarily? Do you worry about things that go bump in the night? Have you considered meditation, or counselling? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Elapid (12 Nov 2012)

RogerS":jdpnlep1 said:


> You're right, Bob.
> 
> One scam for which there is little warning is the 'fake' stop at traffic lights. You will be stopped as car number three at a set of red lights. In front of you but unbeknown to you (unless you are Jacob, of course, and are omniscient) are two cars belonging to the gang. Lights go green. Lead car starts to go straight on then jinks into an unindicated left turn. The second gang car does an unnecessary emergency stop. You rear-end him. The gang claim for whiplash, exaggerrated repair costs, storage of their vehicle, car hire costs etc. Typically a £15k sting.



The other one is that they just remove their braking or reverse lights then emergency stopping or even reversing into you. Often they will say don't worry it at the scene but will then say you left the scene without giving your details and the police turn up on your doorstep.

There are a few videos of it happening on youtube to people that have avoided getting sued by having video cameras in their cars.


----------



## Sainty (23 Aug 2013)

This amazes me. All the pomp and ceremony coming from sbj
The man was happy to drive an uninsured and untaxed 
Vehicle on the public roads.


----------



## RogerS (23 Aug 2013)

What amazes me is that the same person who was previously know as SBJ now comes back nearly a year later as his alter ego AKA the same person but using a different username....sainty...slagging off his own posts.

How bizarre.


----------



## katellwood (25 Aug 2013)

Back to the main issue, Mark if you are still here did you get prosecuted or not


----------

