Safe Speed Forums

First post; hope my etiquette is OK.
It strikes me that mobile speed camera vans (Lancs. in my case) are designed not to be covert but their operators go to great pains to hide themselves.
I passed one today (below the limit thankfully); it was tucked in, obscured by a lamppost and parked near some very similar looking vans. The tail was open but the operator appeared to be hiding behind a load of white material making it appear that the tailgate was shut. The sign that they are supposed to display was barely visible. Are there any guidelines published as to what is and isn't acceptable.
I appreciate that these things have a detection range of many hundred metres but I can't help but think the operators are stretching their remit somewhat.

Plenty of pictures of dubious Talivan positioning on:

http://www.speedcam.co.uk

It seems to me the objective of these things is virtually always to bend the rules to make themselves as inconspicuous as possible.

IMV Talivans are even less justifiable than fixed cameras as you can't use the "visible permanent deterrent at recognised blackspot" argument. Any mobile enforcement should involve the driver being spoken to at the time of the alleged offence.

_________________
"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

hello and wecome stevemcol
New User

yes they hide as a matter of policy cash flow,
the better the hide , the more cash generated,
easy , simple , and very nearly always parked illegally, in a place they claim is to dangerous for ordinary drivers to stop!

_________________
Brian of Plymouth
When will the government realise , that to err is only human, to be perfect is to be GOD.

I've seen many mobile cameras, and NONE of them have been deployed in a way that would give motorists advance warning and therefore afford an opportunity to check their speed. EVERY one of them has, in one way or another, been concealed, camouflaged, or disguised, to the point that you are only aware of them once you are upon them, by which time it's too late. Sometimes you're not aware of them till you get the N.I.P.
The "pro" argument for this is that if you don't know where a camera may be hiding, you will ALWAYS stay within the speed limit. The "con", of course, is that as it is bloody nigh impossible, let alone impractical, to stick to the limit (unless you're in a model T Ford), an increased number of drivers will have to spend almost the whole of their journey looking at the speedo.
As for the old chestnut "don't break the limit and you won't get done", even the most mundane car/bike will go from 30 to 35 with little or no conscious effort on the part of the driver/rider- so even those who have every intention of staying legal will have to check the speedo every 5 seconds or so to comply.

here we go again

advance warning - are there not signs indicating cameras at work in the area, if not complain

van hidden by a lampost - a lampost say 30cm diameter, the smallest van say 1.5 m wide, enough said

illegaly parked - if theres a problem phone the local station, ask for a copper, traffic warden pcso to attend and demand to know of the resulting action, as for parking amongst like minded vehicles i must admit i spend hours looking for 4 transits parked in a row and hope i can slot inat the end

_________________
now retired

camera operator

You know all the tricks of the trade. You know a lamp post or mabe two, in direct line of site can make a difference. You also know that a phone call to the station won't make a difference (I have tried it).
Speed traps are purely numerical in function and do not take into account prevailing conditions, driver attitude, driving style or car to car distance.

Unlike many contributors to the arguments, I'm convinced that speed cameras are not revenue gatherers, just symptoms of the nanny, risk averse state.

Let's go back to the days when you actually got pulled up for speeding, given the attitude test a bit of a lecture and a speed ticket if you deserved it.

but if a scp takes over speed enforcement at designated areas from the traf pol / divisional units does that not then free them up to respond to incidents quicker, be able to stop more vehicles, carry out routine patrols

_________________
now retired

Only if what is left of the traffic divison starts ignoring speeding drivers.

Do you think a traffic patrol will ignore a serious speeder because they have a SCP in the area? No. So they are still stopping speeders, only with less staff so they have less resources to stop the other dangerous drivers.

SCPs don't take work away from traffic divisions.

Umm, I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. Anyone who has done an advanced test can confirm it is perfectly possible to drive within the prosecutable tolerances without making speedo checks anywhere near as frequently as every 5 seconds.

In my view "driving to a brief" like that contributes nothing to safety (it is on a par with "keeping the revs below 3000"), but it is nowhere near as difficult as you suggest.

_________________
"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

Agreed.



It's quite variable from person to person and from vehicle to vehicle. For a person, being tone deaf is a massive hinderance that will increase the need to use the speedo.

For a vehicle having a slippy torque converter will make it much much harder as the engine note changes (somewhat) independently of speed.

But if drivers spend nationally 2% of their total time on the speedo instead of 1% (of their total time spent previously) we should expect literally thousands and thousands of extra crashes.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Exactly, Paul. I am - or was - cursed (or blessed for this purpose) with perfect pitch. I have learned not to harness this (either that or it has deserted me) over the years, but I still have the "ability" to some degree.

I used to drive manual transmission cars and, after only a couple of journeys in each one, got used to their notes in top and third gear for absolute speed. Furthermore, I am confident that, for the same make of car and engine size (and hence final drive), I could also tell the speed of a vehicle as it went past our house, simply by averaging the pre and post doppler notes (which, sad I know, I could detect even though at low speeds it was less than a semitone).

These days, I drive autos (started due to a gammy knee but love them now and would have them by choice anyway). Yes, these creep up on you thanks to far less engine braking on lift off. However, as Paul says, the engine speed (which at least in early autos was the dominant pitch is higher by a substantial margin when cruising than when lifted off for a given speed. This made me subconsciously speed up even more on downhills - until I came to my senses. I felt quite unnerved by this at the time and remember a lot of speedo-gazing. Not because of cameras; this effect in me predates those pesky things.

I have since learned to realise (entirely independently of SS I may add) that numerical speed knowledge is of negligible importance to safe progress, and so ignore engine note from that perspective. Seeing this site was just corroboration of that fact (but has given me substantial insight into lots more).

I disagree!

I can judge my speed whilst nothing else is happening, no problem. But when three lane changing and merging, looking in the mirrors, looking for road signs and general outer urban driving. I often find that I have been unable to find time to check my speedo and the speed is often not what what I expected.

perfectly possible? well depends where you live? What time of day you drive?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Camera Operator

From our brief exchanges, I can tell we will never agree, so not much point in continuing the argument.
I admire your devotion to the job, since following a hard day scrunched up in the back of your van, you're happy to debate the same subject adnauseum on the net.

Your utopia: Bumper to bumper, speedo obsessed drones.
Mine: Sensible use of safe higher speed when conditions are conducive but overt GATSOs at blackspots, schools etc.

Before you ask, I've got no points. I do sometimes feel my driving could be safer because as I nip along in a deserted 60 limit at 75, my eyes are locked to the horizon looking for a well hidden speed trap van rather than scanning the near and middle distance.

It's interesting you say that because I have more difficulty at night as the backlight is pretty poor in my vehicle and so it takes quite some time to focus if the street lighting is poor. There's nothing I can do about it, all the bulbs are working but it's just a feature of the car, something comfirmed by other owners. Still I don't think it's intensly difficult to stay within prosecution thresholds, but it does nothing for road safety.

I live in Stockport (as it says in my profile) and often drive on the M60, which contains some of the UK's most complex motorway layouts, in all kinds of traffic conditions.

As stated, I don't believe it adds anything to safety to aim to always drive within the speed limit (or a tiny bit above). But it is far easier to do than "biker" suggests.

Claims of needing to check the speedo every 5 seconds are, in my view, nonsense, and do the Safe Speed case no favours.

_________________
"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

well you asked the question not me

_________________
now retired

The camera van sitings shown on

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van.htm

are typical. While some camera van operators make the effort to be clearly visible, most operate as covertly as they can get away with.

Take a look at the pics and make up your own minds....

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken

don't forget the human behaviour angle - ever looked twice or three times at a junction or done two lifesavers.

I'm a senior observer and I can't help being glued to my speedo when I pass a mobile. I don't need to look, but I can't help it

PeterE

Forget 5secs. If I'm going over those GATSO lines or see a mobile, my eyes are fixed on the speedo.

The 5 second reference was about the generality of driving, not specifically in relation to driving past visible traps, where as you say psychology has a part to play.

I would still contend that if you train yourself to do it, it is not that difficult to drive within the prosecutable tolerances while making 2 or less speedo checks per minute.

_________________
"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