Safe Speed Forums

No one will argue about the poor standard of much driving.

The point is that the negative behaviour around cameras is a reality that didn't exist before the cameras were introduced. They have been around a long time and this poor behaviour persists. Cameras have (regardless of how you feel about their effectiveness in reducing speed) therefore introduced an additional cause of bad driving.

Saying it shouldn't happen is, whilst probably true, no answer - do you have one?

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

*Sigh*, JubJub, read!!



Please, don't ignore parts of posts inconvenient to your argument.

I'll take that sigh, and raise you another.

Not ignoring anything. You learned to do it to pass your test. It wasn't difficult then and it isn't now. You talk like it takes up crucial processing power. It doesn't. Do you not understand what the brain is capable of? You can do both.

It is very easy to drive within the limits safely and competently. Thousands of us do it every time we get in a car. Since you claims have some to my attention I have been more conscious of how I drive, and this has only reassured me that I am right. It is very easy to drive within the limit and not have to be fixated on the speedo. You know it is. You just need to submit and get on with it.

It is the submission that is the crux.

You should try it. You'll find it very liberating.

The very weak claim about driving within the limit being too taxing on the brain is frankly ridiculous.

Take, for example, the other thread about the photo of the accident at the speed camera.

Ignoring the fact that this picture does pop up from time to time and has been claimed to be genuine and fake on both occasions, but...

Comments about the road 'screaming out for NSL', when the author didn't realise or acknowledge that there is a housing estate on one side and a park/leisure centre on the other.

And that's a big problem. How can a drive judge his own safe speed when there are situations where there are hazards that the driver will have absolutely no knowledge of? He can't. So it is safer to have a posted limit. And the driver, who has enough for his apparently limited mind to process, has to make a judgement about whether or not this is a limit which is safe to ignore or not, without having all of the facts required to make the decision.

This is equivalent to saying "Better not let anyone make any decisions for themselves as they don't have all the facts. Better let the powers that be decide for them."

Arranged marriages based on computer matching - better than personal choice.
We'll choose your job for you based on your profile, no need to think for yourself.

You have to let people use their own judgement. This is the essence of free will.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

'How can a drive judge his own safe speed when there are situations where there are hazards that the driver will have absolutely no knowledge of?'

What a fatuous statement! It happens every day, to all drivers,everywhere!

'And the driver, who has enough for his apparently limited mind to process,'

Speak for yourself!

The main reason for the speed limit on that stretch of road is noise, the sports centre has a good slip road and the residential roads have no access on that section. The DC drops to 40mph where it enters the main residential section which has side road entry/exits. My M-in-L lives about a mile from this road and it is usually audible at any time of the day when in the garden.

Maybe signs that point out that the speed restriction is for environmental reasons rather than safety might help?



I agree in the sense that if you are on an unfamiliar road you should always assume that a posted limit that seems unusually low may mean there are hazards of which you are unaware. The problem is that when a limit is artificially low compared to actual hazards on a well known road this can lead drivers into assuming that a limit on an unfamiliar road is also artificially low given the observed hazards.

Maybe speed signs that highlight the hazard would help.

30 School
40 Blind junction
50 Blind crest
50 Camber

It seems to me that speed cameras would not be a problem if the speed limit was appropriate in the first place. A limit based on noise reduction may well be appropriate but how about letting drivers know (though it should be obvious to any locals/regulars) why it seems low for the conditions. The other side of course is that the roads should be engineered to help with noise, surface, banking, planting trees etc.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

You need to be careful with setting limits for noise since every car is different, for example my Legacy, whilst technically quieter at low RPM (ie. just above idle) has this tendency to resonate inside buildings wheras if you get to 2.5K RPM it's louder but no-longer affects people inside buildings. If you set a 30 or 20 limit then the car will end up idling in 4th and wake everyone up.

Then again, what's the alternative, in an ideal world you could stick up a sign asking people to drive quietly (especially in special circumstances such as an old folks home or whatever) but we both know that the chav brigade would use this as an excuse to make as much noise as possible tearing up and down that stretch of road.

Then again, they probably do anyway, so the idea may still have merit. I'm sure most people know the best ways to keep their car to a reasonable volume.

You're coming back to the old debate: drivers 'should' be able to, but they 'don't'. We have to work with what we've got.

Given that they currently don't/can't, it is clear that teaching safe driving is a preferable aim than teaching compliant driving.

Not going to get into your kinky S&M 'submitting' stuff, that's neither appropriate nor relevant.

Talking bout fiction and cameras --anyone near Tamworth tell me if the cameras on the old s/c section of the A5 have been moved onto the D/C (Hints area)

Lum, I was thinking more of when DCs are dropped to 50mph rather than smaller residential roads. At higher speeds tyre noise is a big contributor to overall sound levels, though your point about different cars does still apply.

I do try to be careful at night myself as my cars are not exactly quiet, one of them only just manages to meet the 105dB limits on track days for instance and I have an Impreza so I know exactly what you mean about your Legacy. For me the sound of a V8 at full throttle stirs the soul but not everyone feels the same way.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

My main issue with the OP's post is that he/she didn't actually say anything about their poor driving skills. The entire incident was blamed on the camera, in fact the OP seems to be using that camera to excuse their driving.

I don't doubt that education is preferable to speed cameras but I can pick many holes in the OP's argument, and so could anybody else interested in the debate.

on the subject of those, wasn't it a shade quick how they reduced hints to 40 then had cameras up within weeks. To my knowledgem there are no cameras on the new route A5

on the subject of those, wasn't it a shade quick how they reduced hints to 40 then had cameras up within weeks. To my knowledgem there are no cameras on the new route A5---thanks -just getting updated --as you say 50-40 ,-Warks -county of enterprise ,they're putting more in to try and beat any further ban in other parts.

If responding to what I considered to be a hazard to my license makes me guilty of bad driving, then so be it.

You can dress it up however you like.
However the simple fact of the matter is if the scamvan hadn't of been there, then I would have had no reason whatsoever to scrub off what I considered to be enough speed to GUARANTEE that I wasn't in excess of the artificial limit.
Likewise, White Van Man wouldn't have responded in exactly the same vein as just about everybody else was and he wouldn't have ended up fighting with a partial broadside.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I know what you're saying. I agree that its better that the camera isn't there.

Do you think your driving ability is lacking? Or would you rather keep the same level of skills, and blame that camera? Because thats what your post sounds like.

I've many times seen cameras or vans coming up and thought about my speed, even covering the brake 'just in case'. The difference being that I've never braked as you describe. My own personal safety is more important than my licence.

It sounds to me as though you're embarrassed by what happened, but don't accept that you're partly to blame.

Like every single last driver out there, I like to think that there is nothing wrong at all with my standard of driving. I have been riding motorcycles since the age of 9 (at competition level), and passed both my car & bike tests within 30 days of turning 17 (which was a VERY long time ago).

If I'm going to be honest, I do have more than my fair share of "bad habits" that have developed over the years but I have never done anything that would cause another road user any concern.


Of course I am blaming the camera.
I am categorically stating (for the 3rd time now) that if the camera had not of been hiding, then I would not have had any reason whatsoever to touch the brake pedal.
Please try to remember, we are not talking just a shade above 30mph here where a light tap on the brake pedal would have done the job.....we are talking almost motorway speeds where I wanted to be 100% sure of not being captured in an artificially low limit along with almost everybody else.


I think you may have missed the point of my original post.
My actions on that particular day were NOT voluntary at all, they were based on conditioning and completely automatic.


I'm not embarrased at all, if anything I am pissed off that a cheap attempt to extort £60 could quite easily have had far more serious consequences.

If cameras recorded the likes of the aforementioned "Herr Fuckwit" sitting 6 inches off my bumper (literally) at 70mph, then I would be right up the front campaigning for them everywhere.
However the ONLY "contribution" a camera makes is to line the back pockets of the so called SCP.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?