speed camera

[SBJ]

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?

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]

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?

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?

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]

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

Thanks for that. thought you might like a picture -

I bought it as a retirement present to myself

 

[Benchwayze]

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?

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?

.

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]

..... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Rod

 

[Jacob]

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]

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 waters 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:

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]

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 waters 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:

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.

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]

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]

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

BOF?

 

[RogerS]

That's terrible. Now you've put it like that I see what you mean. :shock:
I tell you what waters 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:

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.

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.

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

 

[SBJ]

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?

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?

.

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.

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]

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]

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

Phill

BOF?

Boring Old F..t

 

[Lons]

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