Safe Speed Forums

I was driving back from Southampton on Saturday along the M4, and as I passed under the 1st overpass at junction 15 westbound I spotted a bloke in a hi-viz on the bridge with something on a tripod. It was almost completely dark at the time. Since he was possitioned to view rear plates (assuming it WAS a scam) I spotted him and slowed accordingly, but it irritated me to see it.

If they have to be anywhere then surely right above a very busy junction is exactly the WRONG place? People leaving the m/way, changing lanes etc, its the last thing you need to be looking for.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I guess that'll be Site MB4 (more) or Site MB5 (more) then..

I must admit I've never seen them there before (TomTom always gives me a warning though).
Interesting that the figures for both Eastbound and Westbound are the same though - I thought for motorways each carriageway had to be considered separate (they wouldn't be combining the figures for both would they)?

Do the scamera vans work in the dark? I didn't think they could get a photo of your number plate in the hours of darkness...

I know for a fact that wiltshire SCP have one that does - I know someone who was nicked by it...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Sixy - I also saw this chap, last Sunday. He had something on a tripod, facing west, and I thought I saw TWO tripods.

You didn't mention it, but did you also notice the SPECs cameras? I'm pleased to say that RoadAngel notified me of this, and so chances are that TomTom knows about it as well.

Yeah, he did have more than 1 tripod. Might have been 1 or 2 - I didn't really have time to look.

Do you meen the SPECS in the roadworks? I knew about them anyway. If you meen SPECS on the NSL parts of the motorway then

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Why would you need to be looking for him?

I wasn't 'looking for him', I noticed him during the course of my normal observational sweep. A high-viz jacket at dusk is not easy to miss.

Do me a favour, if you're a troll don't quote me. You won't get a very pleasant response next time.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

No, I'm not a troll. Just someone who has been a lurker for a while and thought I'd begin to contribute. Thanks for the welcome .

I asked the question purely because I don't understand why one would need to look for something like this.

one should look for all hazards when driving and someone standing on a bridge is a very big hazard. Not just because they might be holding a dodgy scope. For example: Are they going to jump? Are they going to drop a rock on your car?

Of course. So you would look up at the bridge anyway then presumably?

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... _ID=115626


Jub Jub = Mister Paul

Then please accept my most sincere appologies, Jub Jub. Its all too common here to get first time posters posting very short and seemingly flippent questions like yours simply to provoke. The next post is usually 'of you weren't speeding you shouldn't need to look for cameras' followed by a torrent of closed-minded posts about how cameras are wonderful, with no intention of 'seeing the other side'.



Welcome aboard!

I scan my entire environment for potential hazards. As Johnsher point out, there might be a very sinister reason for someone to be standing on an overpass. I also need to know whether or not traffic around me is likely to panic brake, and as I don't generally drive around glued to my speedo, yes, I need to know whether or not I need to lose a few mph

My particular concern with this specific siting is that its just after a very busy off-ramp which often sees slow moving or queued traffic on the motorway itself. Not the place you need to be distracted by the sight of a speed camera (or POTENTIAL speed camera).

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

If I see any activity then I look up to check, regardless of whether I think they are scammers or not!

Yup. I'm a Cycling+ regular. I don't think that should prevent me from any useful debate should it? It doesn't mean that I have to agree. I don't hate motorists and I'm not a sandal-wearing hippy cyclist.

After all, we all use the same roads and, being a car driver and one-time caravanner, biker and 7.5t wagon driver, we all encounter the same issues.

I asked my first question because I didn't see any reason why someone should be looking out for men in luminous jackets with tripods on bridges. Possible reasons have been given, and now the thread is discussing general awareness while driving, which is a slightly different issue.

Can I ask then, given that the issue of panic braking has been raised here, what proportion of the blame should be given to the panic braker, and what to the 'man with tripod'?

Forgive me if this has been discussed previously. Like I said, I have been a lurker for a while, but not that long, and I haven't found the option on here (if there is one) which lists active threads.

[quote="Jub Jub"]Yup. I'm a Cycling+ regular. I don't think that should prevent me from any useful debate should it? It doesn't mean that I have to agree. I don't hate motorists and I'm not a sandal-wearing hippy cyclist.

After all, we all use the same roads and, being a car driver and one-time caravanner, biker and 7.5t wagon driver, we all encounter the same issues.

I asked my first question because I didn't see any reason why someone should be looking out for men in luminous jackets with tripods on bridges. Possible reasons have been given, and now the thread is discussing general awareness while driving, which is a slightly different issue.

Can I ask then, given that the issue of panic braking has been raised here, what proportion of the blame should be given to the panic braker, and what to the 'man with tripod'?

Forgive me if this has been discussed previously. Like I said, I have been a lurker for a while, but not that long, and I haven't found the option on here (if there is one) which lists active threads.[/quote]

Mr P - Fancy finding you over here We all look for men with tripods these days and yes panic braking is a problem. How the blame is apportioned is IMO academic really - a solution is of more interest.

First - welcome!

Whilst one could argue that "if you were not speeding you wouldn't have to panic brake", it is sadly the case that speed cameras cause even those not "speeding" to either look at their speedo or brake. The real hazard comes when the first driver recats by braking and the one behind by looking at their speedo...

By the way isn't Jub Jub an iguana on The Simpsons?

Hi Jub Jub,

To give an additional ansewr to your question about looking up at bridges, I will always look up at anybody on a bridge no matter what they are wearing. There have been numerous examples of people throwing things off bridges at drivers, often with fatal consequences - therefore they are a potential hazard and must be assessed. The things thrown off don't have to be bricks and things either - for example the justification for speed cameras over the M4 was due to a number of fatal accidents, one of which was a person on a bridge that threw themselves off. Of course they could just be taking the typical blurred lights photo, or they could be a scamera.

As for allocating "blame", it is a not something that I can easilily do - the driver has observed a possible hazard and is reacting to it, and the people that are typically put into danger by it are those that are not observing and anticipating potential hazards to themselves. An observant driver wouldn't be troubled by even an emergency stop - except perhaps to curse slightly.

The threads are listed in last posting order, so the first thread in each section is the most recently updated - you can also use the "View Posts Since Last Visit" link top-right on the Forum Index to quickly list the ones changed since you were last visiting.

Now we've been properly introduced...

I don't have a problem with you being a C+ member, in fact I think that Racer's post is a little pointless (although I DON'T like the insinuation that your question was lost on me )

I think it has been discussed, but what the hell....

I think the crux of the issue is that exceeding the posted limit is a purely technical offence. Years past you might get a tug and a chat off a BiB, a slap on the wrist and if you were doing something dangerous would be nicked for it. Nowadays its simply 'you're exceeding X speed therefore you're nicked'.

So to address your question about panic braking...depending on the situation, levels of visibility, knowledge of the area etc you COULD blame the panic-braker enitirely. If, say, the camera/van/operator was visible from a significant distance then there's no excuse for panic braking. Also, many people panic brake when they're already below the threshold speed which just shows plain poor awareness. However, increasingly mobile operators do seem to hide out of site meening that a passing motorist has little or no warning of the impending 'hazard'.

You COULD blame the camera/van/operator. I'd rather see a proper trafpol anyway. People still brake for police cars though. From that argument you could also say that if speed limits were set appropriately then very few would be exceeding them in the first place.

HOWEVER. If a rear end shunt occurs as a result of panic braking there really is only one party at fault and that's the driver who was following too close in the first place. Hense the extra observation at flyovers - I know I'm far enough away from anyone who's likely to brake suddenly, but the fact that panic braking MAY occur meens that I might alter my possition / speed in order to allow for possible incidents.

Hope that helps....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Assuming that panic braking is serious enough to cause risk or a crash, the driver bears total responsibility for his actions.

However the authorities also have their own responsibilities, one of which is to create an environment within which is is safe for 'real human beings' to operate. If the authorities know that something they do is likely to cause ('activate' if you prefer) a risk, then they have a very clear responsibility to assess that risk and ensure that it is acceptable. In this they have failed, because the consequences of real world driver panic reactions to cameras have never been studied.

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