Safe Speed Forums

Has anyone noticed that some people slow down a lot (more than neccessary) for speed cameras?

I've noticed several times while travelling on A roads (70mph limit) that some drivers slow down to about 60-65mph to pass the camera then speed back up to 75-80mph afterwards.

One particularly amusing time I was keeping a fairly steady 75mph while another driver was going a few mph faster. He passed me but when he came to a camera slowed down to about 65, so I passed him at 75. A bit later he passes me again as he is back up to 78 or so. This must have happened at least 4-5 times in succession, until I turned off to another road.

However, this doesn't do wonders for safety, especially as the braking can be quite harsh at times as the drivers only see the camera at the last minute.

Is it bad for safety? Yes.

Can you blame drivers for doing it? No.

This is why the cameras have to go.

(Much is made of the 10% +2mph prosecution threshold, but I see relying on that as risky. The reason for having it is that the cameras only have to be accurate to about 10%. So if you are doing 33mph and are prosecuted for 35, you're stuffed.)

I saw a classic example about 6 months ago, the driver in front of me had at least two devices on the dash and 100 yards in front of the sensor that a mobile van plugs into one of the started flashing and he brakes down to 40mph, once past the sensor the flashing stops and he speeds back up again. There wasn't a van as it was dark (which is why I could see the lights on his dash). Funny thing is that the limit on the road is 60mph!

I have to admit, I probbaly slow down too much.
If is do 35 etc.
I have road Angel 2 I know my speedo shows ~10% faster than my speed.
But still I slow down . Admittally I don't slam my breaks on cos I know it's there . (Even if there is a tree etc infront of it).
I suppose it's the what If's, and worry about getting flashed, I don't feel confident in the system.


I will try to do better

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Why can't the drivers be blamed for doing it?

It's a natural reaction to the policies that put the scams up in the first place. Drivers want to protect their licences, which is how the scameras are supposed to slow 'em down. But the ability to drive is so important to most drivers that many over react when they see a scam/talivan. From personal observation it seems that many who aren't even speeding will slow down just to make sure they're under 30, irrespective of what the limit actually is. Especially true on 40s and 50s now that so many roads have had unrealistic 30 limits imposed on them. An unfamiliar road and an unexpected Gatso... even if the driver is sure it's a 40 limit he might not want to take the chance, so he hits the anchors.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Apparently the cameras in question are set to flash at 83mph (So says an acquaintance who works for the police in that area anyway). I don't know the accuracy of the in-camera detectors though.

Hmm... I can see the logic of what you're saying, but am reluctant to absolve drivers of their responsibility to other road users. I guess it's down to personal perspective. I'd argue that drivers should learn not to panic brake when they see the cameras (in fact one could go so far as to use it as an excuse to put more cameras up!). The cameras aren't the origins of the panic braking, it's the drivers response to the cameras that are is the problem. Ergo it's the drivers attitude to the cameras that needs to change.

IMHO.

I should have made myself clearer. I am not saying it's okay, or that drivers don't need to learn not to do this. I'm just saying that it's a natural reaction. There's a couple of ways of approaching problems caused by natural human reactions. One is to avoid whatever is causing the reaction, or at least to try to mitigate the situation so that it's safe to react. Another is to attempt to change human nature so that people no longer react the same way. The latter is probably the ideal, but is almost certainly going to be unsuccessful. Teaching a pig to whistle territory - wastes your time and annoys the pig. Ideal would be nice, but I'll take functional over an unworkable ideal any day.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Fair enough Gatso, I think I was just a bit confused by Zams simplified logic. The trouble with these debates is that things are never as simple as they first appear.

While it maybe wrong, its perfectly understandable that drivers panic brake when they see a scamera - it certainly doesn't help that limits can be badly signed and change far too frequently. Also many drivers rely on their licences to earn a living, not just get to work which is an added burden. Even 3 points can have an effect on some peoples lives, for example a lot of companies advirtise with 'maximum 3 points' , altough few now say clean licence as they get so few applicants. Faced with losing your job and livelyhood then its understandable that they will brake 'just to be sure'. Surely everyone's had that feeling when your almost certain your in 40 zone... but... you've seen no repeaters in awhile... have I missed a 30 sign?...... oh bugger there's a camera.....er.......

Yes exactly. Maybe I was exonarting drivers slightly too much (speed cameras are a hazard and it's up to the driver to deal with hazards safely I guess).

But I think the overall principle is right that unless the speed limit is written on every camera or signed on the same post, bad drivers will panic brake and better drivers will stick to about 30 through the camera unless a higher repeater is physically visible. Of course, writing the limit on cameras won't happen, as confusion about what the limit is is of such obvious benefit to the scammers.

We could always tear the whole bloody lot down. That'd work.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I see this ALL THE TIME. It happens in Peterborough where they have a road that goes between 30 and 40 several times. There are cameras at each stage. It is easy to loose track of where you are in the limits. Drivers are always braking to 30 in the 40 zone just in case.

Also on the A47 there are fixed cameras near Skeffington. Comming towards Leicester they go from 50 in the village up to national speed limit then straight away back to 50 again for the junction where there are cameras. Cars frequently brake down to 40 there...

A more synister efect is like on the M42 where there are left over marking on the motorway with no cameras. It used to be a 50 limit during the road works. People still brake to 50 when they see the markings. Must be dangerous. They should be made to remove redundant road markings.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Simple solution. Just put a big , , , or on the same post that the speed camera is attached to.

And if the SCPs want to be really nice to us sinning criminals*, perhaps one like this with the distance to the camera clearly given underneath in yards.

* 99% of all drivers, after all, who has NEVER exceeded a speed limit?

It certainly would make sense to put the limit signs actually on the cameras, or at the very least in the same line of sight as the camera (when it is visible of course). If it stops panic braking then it's got to be a positive step forward.

Although I suppose it should be said that drivers should know the limit of the road they are driving down. A reminder wouldn't do any damage though!

As has often been pointed out before on here, the system of speed limit signing is highly ambiguous in some circumstances, and enormous numbers of signs, particularly repeaters on lit roads with limits above 30 mph, are missing.

Many lower limits are marked by a single sign on the left-hand side right at a junction, where they can so easily be missed.

Therefore it's hardly surprising that people feel uncertain about what the limit is.

I missed a speed limit sign (or thought there might have been one when there wasn't) on my IAM test, which I passed. If an IAM candidate can do this, what chance is there for the ordinary Joe?

It was on this road, by the way.

If we have to have speed cameras, and accept that they should be highly visible, then I see no reason why each cannot have a specific warning sign approx. 200 yards in advance stating the applicable limit.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I've got 9 points on my licence, all for minor excesses of speed limits.

I will lose my job and become unemployable for 6 months if I get flashed again. I therefore must not get flashed again. All other concerns are secondary.

I feel sorry for the poor unfortunates who have to take evasive action when I panic brake on sight of a Talivan, but at the end of the day, they're not going to pay my mortgage and feed my kids if I lose my livelihood.

Sorry, but I don't make the rules.

I'd like to make two observations here, first, 20ish years ago when I started driving you could look any unfamiliar road and be pretty sure what the speed limit was by the type of road, lighting, housing etc. nowadays you'd be as well spinning a bottle.

Secondly, I was the passenger in a car in which the driver was paranoid about speed cameras, last year on the A3 approaching Hook? heading west, three lanes, doing about 40 in a 50 mph limit when the driver saw an AA sign (you know the ones, yellow about 500mm square ). The drivers immediate reaction was: stand on brakes, check speedo - then look around at other traffic. Luckily no accident, but it was luck, next time he (and everyone else around him) might not be so lucky. When I delicately raised the incident later his reply was "It's the person behind's responsibilty to pull up in time" true but not realistic

[/quote]

I like it. Afterall cameras are only meant to be placed near hazards, so a bit of info on why the camera is where it is could be useful...

But then, maybe the camera could be done away with and just the warning sign left (without the 'camera' bit of course).