Safe Speed Forums

Now I for one will openly declare that I can't look at my speedo and the road at the same time and that therefore, on occasion, my speed has drifted 4 to 8 mph over the posted limits - with the disasterous consequence of my very own NIP (35 in a 30) to prove it.

I have a question for the 'intollerant' ones amongst the posters on this board to give me a 'target speed' to drive at so that if and when I inadvertently 'drift' upwards, such 'drifting' doesn't upset the local "safety partnerships". Camera Operator can then have his nice earned rest when he can go away and spend all that bonus money coming his way.

Would a pootle around town (in a 30 zone) of ideally no more than 25mph be too much as a target or too slow? Would 20 in a 30 be better?

The same can be said of motorway driving. How slow should I go (in their eyes).

I'd like suggestions from the right and mighty - because I'd like to encompass this into a go-slow protest day.

So Basingwerk, this is for you: How fast do you think us 'morons' should limit ourselves to around town?

I think this is a unfortunate product of the fear of scameras and Talivans-a speedometer fixation. You shouldn't be looking at the speedometer ALL the time because that's what I would call inattention.

To Hell with the Speed Kills mentality! Excessive speed is A cause of accidents- not necessarily THE cause. I believe that inattention is a greater cause of RTA's along with inability to read the road conditions, impatience, lack of observation, driving under the influence and poor vehicle maintenance. So all that crap spouted by the pratnerships is meaningless.

Add to that, can you honestly say for certain just how accurate your speedometer is or for that matter how accurate the scammers detection equipment is? Could it be + or - 10% either way? That's why you want to drive at 25mph in towns. You're trying to compensate for inaccuracies in both systems. I believe that's what the scammers prey upon. The fact that you recieved a NIP for being about 5mph over the limit is a total bloody disgrace. You can't be expected to watch the speedo all the time!

I bet there isn't one person on any of these forums who hasn't drifted over the limit-even by 1mph. When I'm out driving, my number one priority is observation, both ahead and behind my car. I could watch the speedo, fearing the scameras, but what happens if I knock down a child while travelling within the speed limit?

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Well said CJG.

Incidentally, speedometers may over-read somewhat, and most of them do (i.e. exaggerate your speed) but they should not under-read. Your true speed should never be more than what the speedometer indicates.

I hope I've got that the right way round.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Most urban roads that I know have about the right limits, though it goes almost without saying that I believe discretionary enforcement would be better than going strictly by the numbers. I say that even though I rarely speed on those roads. The simple reason is that I could still be driving like an idiot at low speed and they do absolutely zero about it.

I can think of a number of limits that I feel are unnecessarily and unrealistically low. Two former NSL dual carriageways have had their limits reduced to 60 and 50 repectively. In both cases you can join them from NSL single carriageway roads which are probably not roads where most drivers would do as much as 60 . Both dual carriageways have had accidents with high sided vehicles falling over (one due to crosswinds and the other might be one particular bend), and one is very prone to fog. The lower limits do nothing to make that any better. OTOH there's a couple of local suburban NSL dual carriageway that needs a lower limit IMO. Both have traffic lights, and if you approach them at a legal 70 and they go amber as you get close little short of full emergency braking will stop you before the line. The alternative is to floor it and risk running the red. A lower limit would make more sense.

Same goes for many rural NSL single carriageway roads. You'd have to be insane to drive at 60 in many places, so why the limit? Because it relates to a classification rather than the actual hazards? Whatever, it's interesting that the rural roads often have higher than necessary limits, generally good compliance and a poorer accident record than other road types. Yet motorways arguably could have a higher limit, have a lot of speeding and are the safest roads in the UK.

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

I can very easily agree with that. To give an example in know: the main A376 coming into the north side of Exmouth has a 30 limit although it should really be 40 and I suspect it may have been up until recently, although I can't really say for sure becuse we've only lived here a couple of years. The 30 limit starts at the top of a hill.

The hill itself is reasonbly gently but steep enough for cars to accelerate away from 30. After about 300 yards where the hill levels out you are greeted by a gatso. In that 300 yard section of road you always see two types of drivers - those who you can tell are fixated on their speedo because there brake lights are going on and off, and the others who let their cars accelerate by themselves and then brake sharply for the camera.

Both scenarios are not particularly safe especially the first one because the 30 limit itself has become a distraction for the whole 300 yards whereas in the second scenario you only really have a distraction for 5 seconds or 20 yards. Now in my view if this road was a 40 limit there would be none of those issues, gatso or no gatso.

wouldn't the whole scenario happen as you describe but 10 mph faster? The problem is the Gatso, not the speed limit.

Kind of. I should've been more specific. I should've said the 30 limit starts at the top of quite a blind summit. And whatever the speed limit is, you can't really travel at more than 30 over the summit because as well as it being blind its also got a hidden cross junction at the top. And its much steeper on the other side of the summit so you'd need to be pushing it quite hard it you wanted to be over 30.

bonus

Well the blind summit and junction on it is at the 30 limit start, not after it. Anyway I've been a bit useless at explaining that place so I won't argue about it anymore myself. Hope I've made myself a bit clearer.

There's some anecdotal evidence that this has been going on in some places. At one point Thames Valley certainly did ping for below 10% + 2, and I still have the emails. However, some caveats with that. First is that it was a trial and I don't know if they continued it. Second was that it was being done only in 30mph limits and on other roads they were still pinging over 10% + 2. Third is that first time offenders were being given the option of a Drive Tech course in lieu of points, though the course still cost them sixty quid. Point is though, if you had 3 points already on your licence or for whatever reason were not prepared to do the course or failed to show up, you could indeed have got 3 points for as low as 1mph over the limit. BTW the person who provided me with some of this info told me the course was very good, although on the QT one of the instructors did mention over a coffee that without genuinely bad drivers being sent on it the course wasn't going to do jacks t. Anecdotal as well, though I have no reason to doubt the person's word, and I'd echo the sentiments.

Going back to the point, we could probably still do with a scan of a NIP that clearly shows the driver has been zapped below the ACPO guideline. As I said, I've still got email correspondance from Thames Valley, but a NIP would be much better, especially if it's from an area in which no such scheme is being trialled. IIRC Mad Moggie had a doctor mate that was fighting one that was said to be below 10% + 2, but I can't remember if he said what happened. PaulF, have you still got yours? If so perhaps Safe Speed or one of the mods would chip in to say if a scan would still be useful.

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

I appreciate your honesty and hate to leap on this, but according to your own 'safety camera' regime this makes you a seriously dangerous criminal. In fact, this religious belief that exceeding the limit by a small amount is deadly is the very basis for their operations. Remember "most accidents happen at a few mph above the limit" and "at 35mph you are twice as likely to kill someone as at 30". Both misleading BS of course, but they are core beliefs of your own organisation.

I don't judge you personally for exceeding the limit, but at the very least it is inconsistent with your job.

With all due respect, camera operator, how does you doing your job stop people speeding? Your job is to film people speeding, not to stop them doing it.

There was a letter in my local paper up here in Lancashire complaing that they had recieved a NIP for 33mph! Of course I never actually saw the thing so can't say for certain, but if someone has bothered to write to the paper about it then there could be something in it. Going back a couple of years when I worked at an insurance company I had a lady complaing then she shouldn't have to declare her speeding fine becuase it was for 32mph! If thats true(and I don't know either way) then that's shocking.

Ouch.

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

Camera Operator, a word from the wise. Before you commit anything to 'paper' think very carefully about what your words actually say, and what you meant them to say. Otherwise they will be taken down, unpicked, examined and re-arranged and used in evidence against you

Actually, we can take this one step further. Doubtless the official line will be "once we catch someone and they get points and a fine they will pay more attention to their speed, making the roads safer".

Let's ignore for the moment the fallacy that slower is automatically safer and think about the rest. What they are actually saying is that they need to catch everyone at least once to make them slow down. So camera operator can only "do his job" effectively by catching as many motorists as possible. Camera operator, how does this square with your earlier statement that you are doing your job if "no one speeds"?

Care to post your job description somewhere so we can see what you are actually tasked to do?

No, I don't believe they're saying that at all. The authorities who deploy cameras appear to believe that the mere threat of being snapped by one should be enough to convince drivers to slow down. I'm pretty sure they don't believe they'll have to nail everyone at least once before this happens.
I don't at all buy in to this 'cameras are out to catch as many people as possible' cynicism but, on the other hand, I believe the assumptions upon which their deployment is based is sadly naive and, perhaps, disrespectful to the intentions and attitudes of the general motoring public.

As a former member of the CSCP forums I'm fairly sure that "once we catch you you'll slow down" was peddled on more than 1 occasion by their glorious leader.

I would quote from the thread in question but, unfortunately, we all know what happened over there.

to date

Camera operator, please correct me if I am wrong.

The footage you provide is the secondary evidence; it is used to corroborate your prior opinion that the vehicle you have targeted is exceeding the speed limit for the road in question. If a case is called to court you will provide the primary evidence by stating that you believed that the vehicle was speeding and you then used your camera to take a record which confirmed your prior opinion.

You have just stated that "i end the tape with about 50 - 150 logs on, vehicles exceeding the threshold limit vary from 0 to whatever"

From this sentence we can see that some vehicles are not speeding and some of them are. Even assuming that you are qualified to offer a prior opinion (which, since you are not a Police Constable, I would argue that you are not) your opinion appears to be worthless, since you admit here that some of the vehicles you targeted and took a reading from were not speeding at the time you took said reading. Why would you target the vehicle to corroborate your opinion that they were speeding unless you believed that they were speeding? Unless you admit that your opinion that they are speeding is often wrong, in which case your opinion is of no use whatsoever.

Perhaps you can answer this one? Who decides who should be prosecuted? You, or someone else who reviews your footage at H.Q?