Safe Speed Forums

Sorry about the long link, I don't know how to shorten it (perhaps the moderator could help)

I spotted this in the local paper

Link to icayrshire.co.uk

(link hidden by Moderator*)

It must be obvious if Phil Gallie can work it out!

Duncan Macarthur

* it's done like this:

Thanks for that, I'll try to remember next time.

Duncan

I don’t know what the A77 was like before the introduction of 40mph limits for Lorries, and the addition of SPECS, but this has all the making of another diliberate scam by the SCP’s (they're really scraping the barrel). They won’t put passing places in because this will cost them money. It’s easier to make angry motorists and then reap the benefits from speeding fines.

As these SPECS measure over time/distance a motorist will most probably only have to overtake once to cause their speed to be in excess of the limit. The poor old motorist probably won't even realise what he's done by just overtaking a lorry. As it's been said before they should take off the limiters.

I know I shouldn’t say this but wait until there is a head on collision caused by a frustrated motorist, see what excuses the SCP’s come up with then.

Does anybody know if the A77 had a poor road accident record before?

One thing about this is the right people are starting to realise what a lethal position our SCP’s and Governments are putting the motorist in.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Lorries over 7.5 tonnes have always had a 40 mph limit on SC roads. In fact I think until the early 1980s they also had a 40 mph limit on DCs, which was then raised to 50.

Going back to the 1950s and before, for a long time they had a general 20 mph limit, which was (I think) then raised to 30 before eventually becoming 40.

_________________
"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

Sorry I didn’t realise the A77 was SC, and have probably never driven along it.

The point I was trying to make was that the BiB’s used to turn a blind eye to HGV’s in excess of the 40 mph limit. Now HGV drivers are being fined for going over 40, they themselves are keeping to the limit. The SCP’s know this, and I would guess that’s why they’re installing SPEC’s.

Cheers
Dixie

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Dixie,

the A77 is dual carriageway from the end of the M77 to half way around the Ayr by-pass, then it is single carriageway down to Stranraer. The DC section has several junctions with minor roads where vehicles turning right have a very small refuge in the central reservation, the SC section has very few decent overtaking opportunities.

Over the last few years there has been a campaign by the local media to highlight the 'danger' firstly of the northen DC section and then when they finally bothered to check the figures the southern SC section (with the worse safety record) this has finally resulted in the installation of the SPECS cameras (although they are also going to do some engineering work to fix some of the junctions on the DC sections I mentioned above - I wonder what will get the credit for any benefit on this section?)

In my opinion the thing that makes the SC section so dangerous is that it is the main route from Glasgow to the ferries at Cairnryan/Stranraer. What tends to happen (and the SPECS cameras will make this worse) is that people get stuck in a slow moving queue of traffic and suddenly realise they are going to miss their ferry, in an effort not to miss the boat they resort to dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

There are also bottlenecks at towns like Maybole where a couple of badly parked cars can cause a total logjam for five or ten minutes and tractors/combines who are reluctant to let traffic pass as they will not easily get moving again.

For most of the day you have to plan on an average speed of no more than 30mph to arrive on time, yet most of the road it is safe to travel much faster than the national speed limit.

Duncan

duncanmac,

Thanks for the enlightenment. It will be interesting to see how many accidents are caused by the installation of the SPEC’s.

Dixie

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

title "CAMERAS COULD CAUSE ACCIDENTS"

Hasn't Safespeed proved it "CAMERAS DO CAUSE ACCIDENTS"

The SPECS cameras could enable you to go faster along that road. Why? Well, the speed at which you'll receive an NiP will be not less than the posted limit plus 10% plus 2. To average this speed, in light of hold-ups by slower vehicles, will mean driving at considerably over the posted limits when not being held up. Through the SPECS areas there can be no other cameras as you can only be prosecuted once for any offence and to put additional cameras in would not be politically acceptable to the scammers - it would show that the SPECS don't work. Manned patrols could also not report you for speeding if you are already being SPECS monitored and, anyway, there will be very few manned patrols as the SPECS will solve all speeding problems (?).
All you need is a way of reading your average speed, and a simple rally co-drivers computer will do this for a couple of hundred quid. Re-set with one push of a button at each SPECS unit, as identified by a Road Angel or similar, and stay within the limit +10%. You'll be surprised how hard you can push on if you've been held up earlier in a SPECS section. Just treat it as a total regularity section on a rally

Do we know for sure that the APCO guidelines of 10% plus 2 apply to the specs camera's also?

There is an A77 Safety Group web site which has it's own forum. I've had a look at it and there don't seem to be many people posting on there. Maybe we should improve their level of activity and let them know what we think of their cameras and the limitations of those cameras to actually save lives.
It may be that they will confirm their compliance with the ACPO guidelines for prosecution speeds if someone asks nicely.

Cooperman, I have an old school friend who is on the A77 Safety Group. I could ask him that question and any others of interest.

I don't understand - if the lorry is driving at 40mph and 40mph is the limit, then why would anyone be wanting to overtake? If the limit is 60mph, then you have a 20mph margin to overtake - people should factor this into their decision as to whether a particular opportunity to overtake is safe or not, if you can't safely pass without exceeding the speed limit, you shouldn't be overtaking. It is NOT legal to temporarily exceed the speed limit to overtake someone, I always assumed it was something that would be regarded as sensible, to minimise the duration of the overtake, but I once got pulled over for doing this - I started to overtake a car that was doing 25 in a 40 limit, and the car speeded up, forcing me to go faster to overtake. There was a police car about 6 cars back and he then stopped me rather than the vehicle that had caused the problem by tootling along the road then speeding up when someone tried to go past them. Anyway, the police officer was very clear that there is never any excuse for exceeding the speed limit, no matter how briefly, as soon as you exceed it, you're breaking the law and that's that. So now I only overtake if I believe I can do it without exceeding the legal speed limit, and I have a faster car so the car I'm overtaking generally can't accelerate fast enough to disrupt my plans.

From something said elsewhere here, the fact that you needed to break the speed limit to get out of the dangerous situation the other driver had put you in may be a valid defense in a court. I may be misunderstanding that, in which case I'm sure someone will correct me, but in principle it sounds like David Beckham's defense.

In any event, what a shame the copper pulled you over. The person creating the danger was not you but the eejit who didn't fancy being overtaken. Careless driving? IMO once a car is alongside it's in both driver's best interests to ensure the overtake is completed safely, and if that means the overtakee slowing down to help the overtaker then so be it. Pride comes before a crash! In your shoes I'd have been disappointed that the copper failed to notice that and have a word with him. It just makes the law look like an ass once again. Were you supposed to stay on the wrong side of the road until the wally felt like letting you back in again? Wouldn't that be a more serious offence than speeding - dangerous driving maybe? Clearly breaking the speed limit in this situation is the lesser evil as far as the law goes and the greater good as far as returning to a safe situation is concerned. Silly plod - was he a vanilla BiB or traffic as a matter of interest?

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

Are we talking about road safety or strict legal compliance?

That police officer definitely does not deserve a Crackerjack Pencil !

Not sure, I wasn't really aware of the difference at the time, this was a few years ago. I suspect he was a BiB - first of all he didn't know what the speed limit was, he started off saying it was a 30 limit when it was a 40. It was quite hard work getting him to believe me, but when I told him the precise locations of where it changed from 40 to 30 in both directions he seemed to comprehend that I did actually know what I was talking about. He then told me that I shouldn't have been overtaking at all, as I had to go on the wrong side of the road to do so, which is dangerous. I tried to explain that this is surely the whole point of the road markings not being solid white lines in the middle of the road, that you can overtake if it's safe to do so, when police officer number 2 got out of the car and started getting cross with me for having a discussion with police officer number 1 rather than just saying "yes, I'm really sorry officer, I did a very bad thing and it won't happen again". I finally said "yes, I can see that my driving could perhaps be described as a little on the aggressive side" at which point they seemed happy and let me get on with my journey.

Disgraceful. The plank wasn't aware of the limit, tugged the driver who did the safe though legally questionable thing rather than the one who actually behaved dangerously, and then got the hump when you pointed out what actually happened. Not one of the better examples of the police dealing with the public. I would hope that TrafPlods would have been much better in the same situation.

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

Stevei,

In the early days before the era of speed camera’s responsible drivers would drive at speeds that they thought safe and appropriate for the conditions of the road. There where many more police officer’s on our roads those days, and these policemen would use their judgement as to weather a person was driving in a manner that would put other people’s lives in jeopardy. They would also give the benefit of doubt weather to prosecute or give you a ticking off. Now we have speed cameras, this once acceptable way of life has gone.

Speed limits are a guide to motorist, these limits are broken everyday by millions of drivers. I will admit (like most of the other millions of responsible drivers) that I break the speed limits. This is because like most other’s I believe I’m driving at a safe appropriate speed for the conditions of the road. I do not drive with any intent, or the view that I am going to injure or kill anybody.

In most cases (depending on the road and weight of the vehicle) an HGV cannot drive at a steady 40 mph and quite often drops well below this speed. If I was travelling behind a HGV doing 40 mph on a 40 mph restricted road, and then decided in my judgement that I could get past at safe and appropriate speed for the conditions, then I would break the speed limit. I would not deem to have put myself (or anybody else’s) life in danger.

As for your case with the police, and form what you have said. I’m afraid that in my opinion the police had nothing better to do.

I drive a motor cycle (and a car) and one of my neighbours (an old lady) is constantly nagging at me about how I drive to fast and that all motor cyclists are dangerous. (She’s never seen me driving my bike on the roads), but she still has this misconception about speed. As this site is about campaigning for safety on our roads, good policing, and the misuse of speed cameras, allow me tell you a short story.

Now.. I know for a fact that this lady has had operations on both her eyes and will still openly admit that she cannot see properly. One day I was driving my car to the local shops and ended up driving behind her (my neighbour) while she was at the wheel. As we neared the shop she indicated to turn right into a car park at the rear of the shops.

The carpark has a wide entrance and is fronted by a large hedge and pavement, at the back of the hedge there is a recycle collection point where I quite often see children playing. When she turned into the entrance (way to early) she ended up mounting a large portion of the pavement, brushing the hedge and just missing a brick wall protecting the recycle bins (she didn’t even apply her brakes). Luckily there where no children playing at the time, and although this happened a low speed (probably 10-15 mph), if there had been children in the area she could quite easily have injured or even killed one.

Speed cameras do not capture this kind of driver behaviour. More police on our roads might have, and might have saved a life. Lets get back to the once acceptable way of life.

Kind Regards
Dixie

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.