stupid sneaky speed cameras

[Dave20046]

Honestly, I think there should be more onus on hazard perception and road reading than black and white speed limits. But that's in an ideal word and like it or not they're required. It's an argument that's been done many times before and will be done over again. Naturally people, as humans, will just keep testing and testing gradually upping their speed (or whatever) in tiny increments until they're bitten... so it's either a general rule of thumb (speed limits) to keep that in check or 6 monthly testing to re-allign perceptions for all road users, they're the only two practical routes that spring to my mind.

It's all academic now for granty, no one was hurt he got a ticket and will probably think more in future about speeds - as he's clearly sensible enough to realise ultimately responsible himself.

I know they say they only put cameras on stretches with 'good' KSI stats ,but they really don't seem to help themselves winning over people's attitudes with exactly where they are positioned/park up. It always, unfortunately, seems to be on wide open stretches where you can a custom to the static hazards exceptionally fast and any road traffic/pedestrians/men running with panes of glass could be spotted miles off before they run the risk of interfering with your current path.

[Haircut]

Originally Posted by granty92

well i didnt hit anyone or anything so all of this is irrelevant
i have learned my lesson and will now not speed again. end of.

Have you received a NIP yet?

Originally Posted by Haircut

All been there, I was caught (in the car) by a camera in a van that had been set up in a layby after a two lane uphill section of an A-road in Cornwall, I put foot down to overtake a lorry (tis why the lane is there!) and saw the van as I crested the hill, turned the air blue.

Still I was lucky enough to be offered the course, what pee'd me off on the course was the number of people that were indignant about being caught I was just happy to have the chance to take the course and not get 3 points.

This one silly moo complained that they should not have put the camera at the bottom of hill as people are always going to speed going downhill and that anyone who crosses at the bottom of a hill does so at there own peril!

I had done the crime so I did the time and I did learn from it.

That's the trouble with just giving points for more 'serious' speeding people will not learn from it I think the offer of a course for a first offence should be mandatory,

Let me guess, North coast between Bude and Bodmin? That is one of the safest roads in Cornwall to go fast on. Not much traffic, not many houses, wide open roads and yet still put a camera on one of the safest parts of that road, because they can get much coinage into the coffers!

[Haircut]

Originally Posted by phil24_7

Let me guess, North coast between Bude and Bodmin? That is one of the safest roads in Cornwall to go fast on. Not much traffic, not many houses, wide open roads and yet still put a camera on one of the safest parts of that road, because they can get much coinage into the coffers!

Nope, A30 down the middle, still heading to Bodmin though on the way to Truro.

[Mark_h]

No disrespect to the serious points raised in this thread but ........
<watch>

Not gory, kid/work safe (some comments not kid safe), tell me if unsuitable and I'll remove.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by pinpoint_uk

I would love no speed limits but a minimum of 15 years in jail for knocking someone over and causing gbh etc. You decide what speed is appropiate but there are bad consequences if you choose a speed thats not safe.

Will never work in real life but would be a better system if it could IMO.

No it wouldn't, what sort of a spastic system would that be?

Some dopy slag can't control her offspring... you are riding sensibly when aforementioned little chavrat runs out from hiding and under your wheels... 15 years inside?
What else... riding through the town centre late one night, one drunken idiot pushes another one, without warning into the road due to drunkenly mentioning sh*gging his sister or something.

I've had "nearly" moments with both of those. They need the opposite, ditch the US style "sue everyone" culture, teach people to watch the road. 33mph vs 30mph is the absolute last thing that needs attention...

99% of people getting run over is the victims fault, reduce those don't try make it safer to be stupid.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by granty92

i know but it was late it night on empty road and was stupid of me, usually im very wary of my speed, but wasn't at the time

Have you had the dreaded NIP yet? Check into the 14 day rules if not and start praying

On my speed awareness course the lady told us how she had someone in who was done for 31 in a 30. Not sure if I believe her or not. Also just because you're doing 30 in a 30 and say you hit someone, doesn't mea you can't be done for death by dangerous driving etc say if you were driving down a busy high street lined with parked cars and someone ran out in front of you.

[punyXpress]

" 31 in a 30 "
The limit is absolute, and any increase above it is only a suggestion.
BTW, what, or who, is ACPO?
Yes, I know what it stands for - a cosy cabal of senior cops

Yeah but she THEN went on to say how as an advanced driving instructor who takes people on their test they let people off for speeding if they notice the error and bring it back down. So I asked her if you can laspe in concentration in your test how come you can't do it on the road when there is a copper hiding in the bush? Which just led to an argument.