Speed Awareness Course

[paulrbarnard]

When compared to your previous comments it rather sounds like a case of do as I say not as I do or did you feel a radar detector would be useful even though you didn't break the speed limit which is after all in your words "an absolute offence" Just sayin.

As people grow older they often gain more respect for others. My position today is learned from a lifetime of experience and no longer a testosterone dominated outlook based on the concept of my own infallibility.

 

[Lons]

As people grow older they often gain more respect for others. My position today is learned from a lifetime of experience and no longer a testosterone dominated outlook based on the concept of my own infallibility.

Fair enough as applies to the majority of people you would hope

 

[Lons]

Well... it could be argued that if fixed speed cameras are there for safety (placed in areas where accidents have occurred) then a map based speed camera notification is simply giving you early warning of a potentially hazardous area, and is a good safety feature... officer.

Also why after considerable pressure they were painted yellow but of course the IF is another subject entirely when there are clear examples of sited cameras where there have never been accidents but the camera revenue is huge while other roads are completely ignored even by the camera vans. In this area there are some shocking examples which prompted the council leader to demand an explanation, it took a very long time to get an answer and that was nonsensical.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The powers that be (whoever they are) used insist that cameras are located at locations with a high incidence of accidents.

I recall that the logic for this was challenged as random incidents/accidents would inevitably produce "blackspots". A little like the probability of tossing a coin which over a large number of tosses should give a 50:50 distribution, but could give three heads in a row.

A camera location at (say) on entry to a village may calm traffic going through the village, the location of many seem intended to catch the unwary. One locally on the A46 towards Bath is on a downhill stretch where even on a trailing throttle for the preceding 500m+ the camera would be triggered.

 

[Lons]

There have been a few anomalies in this area, at least two cameras are in places where there has never been an accident and the mobile units caused a lot of complaints. There was one spot especially where it was just around a bend past the 30mph signs, no houses and very rarely pedestrians and the van was there a couple of times a month, again no history of any accidents, not even minor. Freedom of information revealed that over a 5 year period the vans had been deployed on the 50 mile stretch of A road north of that location only few times despite there being multiple accidents and a couple of fatalities. There never was a coherent answer to that so go figure!

Note before anyone jumps in, I've already said there's no excuse for speeding but Is it any wonder the safety argument is sometimes met with disbelief..

 

[Jacob]

There have been a few anomalies in this area, at least two cameras are in places where there has never been an accident and the mobile units caused a lot of complaints. There was one spot especially where it was just around a bend past the 30mph signs, no houses and very rarely pedestrians and the van was there a couple of times a month, again no history of any accidents, not even minor. Freedom of information revealed that over a 5 year period the vans had been deployed on the 50 mile stretch of A road north of that location only few times despite there being multiple accidents and a couple of fatalities. There never was a coherent answer to that so go figure!

Note before anyone jumps in, I've already said there's no excuse for speeding but Is it any wonder the safety argument is sometimes met with disbelief..

Not inclined to believe your story above either. Do you have a coherent report of this, in the way of evidence, or is it just a rumour?

 

[RogerS]

Not inclined to believe your story above either. Do you have a coherent report of this, in the way of evidence, or is it just a rumour?

Because it doesn't play to your narrative, Jacob. But surely....even you must know what a Freedom of Information request is ? Based on fact. Which is what Lons referred to.

 

[Lons]

Not inclined to believe your story above either. Do you have a coherent report of this, in the way of evidence, or is it just a rumour?

I don't give a damn whether or not you believe it TBH but for the record the information was obtained by a local county councillor prior to him being elected as leader and I had nothing to do with it. Info to me came direct from the horses mouth as I know him but it was reported locally anyway.

So you can shove your opinion where the sun doesn't shine fella.

 

[Scruples]

I suppose that only those who speed should be worried about speed cameras.

 

[Tom K]

I suppose that only those who speed should be worried about speed cameras.

Yes but to be safe you should always drive well below the limit to account for speedometer errors in the reverse of what is practised ie 30mph + 3 and 10% should be reversed say 24mph to avoid drifting over the limit and if in one of the new 20mph zones 15 or 16mph should do it

 

[Scruples]

Yes but to be safe you should always drive well below the limit to account for speedometer errors in the reverse of what is practised ie 30mph + 3 and 10% should be reversed say 24mph to avoid drifting over the limit and if in one of the new 20mph zones 15 or 16mph should do it

That would adding an additional reduction to the one the speedos have built in to them. So, you'd end up driving at a very unnecessary, and unpopular rate.
The police work on the guidelines of the limit +10% +2mph, for normal vehicles.

 

[Tom K]

That would adding an additional reduction to the one the speedos have built in to them. So, you'd end up driving at a very unnecessary, and unpopular rate.
The police work on the guidelines of the limit +10% +2mph, for normal vehicles.

No better safe than sorry it the limit not the target!

 

[Scruples]

No better safe than sorry it the limit not the target!

I agree with the statement but not the additional precaution. Just drive sensibly at or near the limit, if it is safe to do so, otherwise drive within the limit according to the road conditions.

 

[paulrbarnard]

Yes but to be safe you should always drive well below the limit to account for speedometer errors in the reverse of what is practised ie 30mph + 3 and 10% should be reversed say 24mph to avoid drifting over the limit and if in one of the new 20mph zones 15 or 16mph should do it

If you have a car as delivered by the manufacturer it will not read low (show a lower speed than you are actually driving). If you change the wheels and put bigger tires on then it will read low.
I assume you were making a point for effect but the reality is you do not need to drive at a speed lower than your speedo says to be ‘safe’.
Conversely it is foolish how some people “work the odds” and drive at an indicated 36mph because of assumed tolerances and leeway given in enforcement.

 

[Tom K]

I agree with the statement but not the additional precaution. Just drive sensibly at or near the limit, if it is safe to do so, otherwise drive within the limit according to the road conditions.

You appear to be advocating individual judgment as opposed to strictly obeying rules that’s how all these speed crazy loons try to justify breaking the law!

 

[Tom K]

If you have a car as delivered by the manufacturer it will not read low (show a lower speed than you are actually driving). If you change the wheels and put bigger tires on then it will read low.
I assume you were making a point for effect but the reality is you do not need to drive at a speed lower than your speedo says to be ‘safe’.
Conversely it is foolish how some people “work the odds” and drive at an indicated 36mph because of assumed tolerances and leeway given in enforcement.

No tyre diameter varies according to air temperature, inflation pressure, tyre wear and make so you can’t assume a true reading better safe than sorry! I think we need to change the way people are taught to drive too, do you realise if a driving test was conducted in the lane outside your house a person could fail for not achieving the speed limit? It’s no wonder speed junkies like Lons go around flouting the law!

 

[paulrbarnard]

No tyre diameter varies according to air temperature, inflation pressure, tyre wear and make so you can’t assume a true reading better safe than sorry! I think we need to change the way people are taught to drive too, do you realise if a driving test was conducted in the lane outside your house a person could fail for not achieving the speed limit? It’s no wonder speed junkies like Lons go around flouting the law!

Tires do not get significantly bigger with excess pressure. The steel banding is there to prevent that. You are right that wear and under inflation will have a measurable impact BUT they both give an effectively lower diameter to the tire which results in your speedo reading higher.

 

[Tom K]

Tires do not get significantly bigger with excess pressure. The steel banding is there to prevent that. You are right that wear and under inflation will have a measurable impact BUT they both give an effectively lower diameter to the tire which results in your speedo reading higher.

You have assumed the tyre is at maximum expansion at the recommended tyre pressure so yes they will get taller if over inflated

 

[artie]

Conversely it is foolish how some people “work the odds” and drive at an indicated 36mph because of assumed tolerances and leeway given in enforcement.

It's been a while I know, since I got my PSV licence, but the instructor instructed me that as a commercial driver I was expected to drive one or two miles above the posted limit.

 

[Scruples]

You appear to be advocating individual judgment as opposed to strictly obeying rules that’s how all these speed crazy loons try to justify breaking the law!

You're right. The rules are, after all, for the guidance of angels and the obedience of fools.

A learner driver would not fail their test for driving slowly. They might, however, fail for not making good progress on the highway which would indicate to the examiner that the driver lacks confidence in their abilities and needs more training and experience.