speeding

[ScouseIan]

Hello Ken

I have to disagree that every motorist with a speed camera device is therefore a speeder. The original poster was claiming some ambiguity with the speed limits at the point he was (allegedly) caught and my point was that the device would help with this.

As you say, 'if you are driving within the law, you don't have to look out for speed camera', but we're all human and could miss the sign, as may have happened here.

We've all seen the driver approaching a speed camera who slams on to 40 mph because he doesn't know what the speed limit is. My particular gripe here is the cameras on the A562 about a mile from Runcorn bridge (liverpool bound) which are in a 'national speed limit' area which is 70 mph. Most of the drivers I see there brake down to about 50 or 60 mph (indicated). My road angel shows that an indicated 78 mph is actually an actual 70. So, therefore I am not breaking any laws doing this but I am sure there are people tutting and shaking their heads as I 'fly' past at some 25-30 mph faster than them, but I'm legal, and by assertions on this thread I'm also 'safe'. BTW, I'm talking about solo here

Anyway, would it not make sense for all speed cameras to have a speed limit posted prior to the actual camera?

The reason for people missing speed limit changes is not necessarily because they are going too fast. Many of our signs are currently obscured by overgrown hedges and trees on both sides of dual carriageways.

Regards

Ian

 

[KnL]

Hi Ian,

I never said 'every' motorist with a device is a speeder, I intimated and stand by my comment that that type of device was introduced and is mainly used by prolific speeders and that drivers who rely on such equipment are not driving safely.

My old sat nav had static safety camera locations on it and I don't consider myself a prolific speeder.

Also, the sat nav systems do not detect lazer or radar - there is only one type of motorist that needs advance warning of the Police using such devices.

The drivers you describe as "slamming on to 40 mph because they don't know what speed limit they are in" are obviously not competent and IMO should not be on the road.

Unless you have had your speedometer calibrated, I wouldn't take the disparity between it and your RA as gospel. I do agree that your speedometer will read lower than your actual vehicle speed, but don't take the speed on the RA as being 100% accurate.

cheers,

Ken.

 

[Dustydog]

Meister

I don't the area but here in Wiltshire we have many roundabouts

, not in built up areas , where the speed limit changes rapidly from 70 to 40 to 30 about 200 yards before and after the roundabout then up to 40 and 70 ( or whatever the national speed limit is for that area.

Now unless you are very familiar with the route or a very conscientious experienced driver, it will be very easy for mr average to miss the 30 mph sign.

I just wonder how Paul got on?

Cheers

Alan

 

[Dustydog]

Ken said

" I do agree that your speedometer will read lower than your actual vehicle speed..."

Surely all vehicle speedos deliberately read higher than your actual vehicle speed!! ie an indicated 75 may only be a true 70 mph?

Cheers

Alan

 

[Chrisbee]

Ian, in the area where I live there is a blue sign with a combined speed camera warning/ 30mph symbol just prior to all fixed camera sites. If you see one, you know there's a camera in the next 200 mtrs or so. Even that doesn't stop people getting flashed. Ask my wife!

 

[KnL]

Ken said

" I do agree that your speedometer will read lower than your actual vehicle speed..."

Surely all vehicle speedos deliberately read higher than your actual vehicle speed!! ie an indicated 75 may only be a true 70 mph?

Cheers

Alan

Thanks Alan.... I did mean higher !

 

[Dustydog]

Thanks Alan.... I did mean higher !

Ken

Now I know why people get caught. LOL

Cheers

Alan

 

[Dustydog]

Ian, in the area where I live there is a blue sign with a combined speed camera warning/ 30mph symbol just prior to all fixed camera sites. If you see one, you know there's a camera in the next 200 mtrs or so. Even that doesn't stop people getting flashed. Ask my wife!

Was it a white mac?

Cheers

Alan

 

[ScouseIan]

Ken

How can my GPS based device not be accurate? I understand it may be 1 mph out or so but thats all. Unless the satellite's are on a go slow.

Yes I agree there is only one type of motorist that needs laser/radar. Guilty as charged.

Seriously though, its very easy to stray over the speed limit without realising it given the quietness of todays cars, some road surfaces and sometimes ludicrously low limits for SOME roads. It would 'jolt' me into action to adjust my speed immediately. What could be wrong with that? Of course, these speed cameras/detectors are only allowed to be placed at spots where the road is a historic problem with accidents anyway so it serves to warn me whenever I am in a dangerous location.

Anyway, I'd like to see all speed limits abolished and drivers prosecuted for 'dangerous driving' only. If thats 29 mph past a school or motorway driving in the wet at 70 (both currently legal) then so be it. But then what is the problem of 80mph in the summer on a quiet section of motorway?

60 mph on country roads is at times also ridiculously too fast. 60mph going right past peoples front doors in the countryside????

Regards

Ian

 

[Chrisbee]

Was it a white mac?

Cheers

Alan

She wouldn't complain if it was that kind of flash!

 

[KnL]

Ian,

I agree that if used correctly by responsible drivers, systems that warn drivers of speed changes could be beneficial to certain types of drivers.

However, if they are used to allow a driver to speed to his heart's content and evade prosecution by highlighting the only points where detection equipment is placed, I cannot condone such use.

I had a wry smile at your "guilty as charged" comment, followed by "seriously though", as if you were only joking about speeding.

It seems only a few days ago you were giving us consumption figures for your car at speeds of 80 - 95 mph on the motorway. (Please accept my apologies if you were referring to an autobahn or similar).

I don't see 60 mph limits on some country roads as ridiculously too fast, they are an absolute maximum and not a target to be achieved. If one sees houses or bends or pedestrians - slow down.

If the local authorities signed every country road hazard with a speed restriction, we'd all be back on here complaining about the confusing speed limits.

Take care,

Ken.

 

[ScouseIan]

Ian,

I agree that if used correctly by responsible drivers, systems that warn drivers of speed changes could be beneficial to certain types of drivers.

However, if they are used to allow a driver to speed to his heart's content and evade prosecution by highlighting the only points where detection equipment is placed, I cannot condone such use.

I had a wry smile at your "guilty as charged" comment, followed by "seriously though", as if you were only joking about speeding.

It seems only a few days ago you were giving us consumption figures for your car at speeds of 80 - 95 mph on the motorway. (Please accept my apologies if you were referring to an autobahn or similar).

I don't see 60 mph limits on some country roads as ridiculously too fast, they are an absolute maximum and not a target to be achieved. If one sees houses or bends or pedestrians - slow down.

If the local authorities signed every country road hazard with a speed restriction, we'd all be back on here complaining about the confusing speed limits.

Take care,

Ken.

Thanks Ken

'as if' I was only joking?

Apology accepted then

We all tow caravans and as such have a bigger responsibly than some. We understand having discussed it on here and heard about others misfortunes how easy it is for something to go badly wrong.

You too take care Ken.

Ian

 

[weejock]

For all of you with points on your license a wait of 5 further weeks will be required to see if they are illegal.

There is a case before the Scottish courts just now and the basis of it is that all these instruments have to be passed before parliament.

Well oop's it seem as if someone omitted to do this.

 

[Steve L]

As I've aready stated in this thread, I don't condone speeding at all. However I also understand and support those people who because they have been caught out in the past speeding, and now in an effort to self train themselves, they have invested in scanning devices to alert them of speed ristricted zones.

With all these slow to 30 speed to 50 slow to 40 short distance speed ristrictions we see these days perhaps the department of transport should also monitor the air quality as I'm dammed sure they would find more carbon emmissions there than any where else. So bang goes the green britain campaign!!

One particular bug bear of mine is the 20mph speed limits outside schools. Now first of all I whole heartedly agree they need to be in place when there is any possability of children entering or exiting school grounds during operational hours Ie 8am to 6pm, but why on earth have a pemanent 24/7 speed ristriction? Ther are some areas that use the illuminated speed ristriction that changes the limit from 30 to 20 when the lights flash, surely this is adequate.

Steve L.

 

[ScouseIan]

Steve

This comes back to my suggestion about 'who needs a speed limit'? If the police catch somebody going past a school too fast an an inappropriate time then they should have the power to prosecute him. To be able to just stop someone and issue a

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hello Ian,

Your suggestion of removing speed limits and simply relying on enforcement officers to 'assess' if a speed is inappropriate would be unworkable.

For the very reason that you point out, a driver may traverse the same stretch of road at the same speed under the same conditions, yet he/she may be prosecuted on one occasion but not on the other. Humans are notoriously unreliable at assessing speeds of moving objects, and the ambiguity of the situation would be unfair, and unenforceable as the prosecutions would be challenged on the basis of inconsistency.

At least with a speed limit, and accurate measurement systems, the assessment of 'speeding' becomes far more objective and enforceable process.

It is of course still the case that the police can try to prosecute where they believe a speed is excessive given the prevailing conditions, even if the vehicle was within the set speed limit, but this is usually under dangerous driving regulations.

 

[Steve L]

John & Ian I agree with aspects of both of your views.

While relaxing speed limits and providing more stringent policing sounds good I have to say that you would have to use a methodical and mechanical means of implementation, as human perseption should not be relied upon. However having said that I would not be in favor of more fixed speed cameras. The issuing of fixed penalty notices without points for say twice at the same spot for an offence followed by a third plus 3 points might be sufficient deterent to some.

My point about human perception can easily be born out by the following experience I had in Hereford.

I was driving along the main trunk road past the footy ground at 10pm one dark and dingy night. Because several street lights were out of action due to road works I had put my headlights and auxilary lights on. You know the ones, they're fitted below the bumper and give a good spread of light for about 30ft infront of the vehicle (yes foglights as they are commonly refered to).

Now then as I was approaching a particularly dark bit of the road those aforementioned lower lights picked up a lady in black stood in the center of the road waiting for traffic to clear. At about the same time the car coming the opposite was flashed his headlights vigorously and swerved towards my direction. I also noticed the driver with his head out of the window yelling something. Next came the blue lights on that car!! Now at this point he was past me and now trying to do a "starsky & hutch" 180 degree turn, but had to take evasive action as now he was directly in the path of the pedestrian that my lower lights had found.

Of coarse I stopped safely on the side of the road. The police car then reversed at full speed back to me. The driver then stated that using fog lights was illegal unless it was foggy (WRONG)and that drivers using them as I did was "A PET HATE" of his.

I realy felt like having a discussion about his diabolical standard of driving, not only driving direcctly at oncomming traffic while flashing main beam headlights which blinded me, but what about the poor pedestrian who he nearly ran down and of coarse there was the near 30 Mph reverse in the dark up a main street with no regard for anyone's safety.

But of coarse you have to button your lip, sit on your hands and put the "oh I'm sorry officer" face on.

Now apart from his particularly good example of what not to do in a car, the alledged offence of using fog lights was not quite right either. You see technically front fog lights used to be yellow lensed lights fitted below the bumper of a car. The white lights below the bumper are referred as poor visability lights in the highway code. Now of coarse trying to fight technicalities through the courts would be futile as a poilice man is always right. Or is he!

The highway code states that poor visability lighting on the front of a vehicle may be used where visability is severely ruduced due to adverse conditions. It doesn't mention fog as a singular prerequisite.

You see As I said, personal interpretations can lead to inaccurate quantification of a situation.

Steve L.

 

[KnL]

John & Ian I agree with aspects of both of your views.

While relaxing speed limits and providing more stringent policing sounds good I have to say that you would have to use a methodical and mechanical means of implementation, as human perseption should not be relied upon. However having said that I would not be in favor of more fixed speed cameras. The issuing of fixed penalty notices without points for say twice at the same spot for an offence followed by a third plus 3 points might be sufficient deterent to some.

My point about human perception can easily be born out by the following experience I had in Hereford.

I was driving along the main trunk road past the footy ground at 10pm one dark and dingy night. Because several street lights were out of action due to road works I had put my headlights and auxilary lights on. You know the ones, they're fitted below the bumper and give a good spread of light for about 30ft infront of the vehicle (yes foglights as they are commonly refered to).

Now then as I was approaching a particularly dark bit of the road those aforementioned lower lights picked up a lady in black stood in the center of the road waiting for traffic to clear. At about the same time the car coming the opposite was flashed his headlights vigorously and swerved towards my direction. I also noticed the driver with his head out of the window yelling something. Next came the blue lights on that car!! Now at this point he was past me and now trying to do a "starsky & hutch" 180 degree turn, but had to take evasive action as now he was directly in the path of the pedestrian that my lower lights had found.

Of coarse I stopped safely on the side of the road. The police car then reversed at full speed back to me. The driver then stated that using fog lights was illegal unless it was foggy (WRONG)and that drivers using them as I did was "A PET HATE" of his.

I realy felt like having a discussion about his diabolical standard of driving, not only driving direcctly at oncomming traffic while flashing main beam headlights which blinded me, but what about the poor pedestrian who he nearly ran down and of coarse there was the near 30 Mph reverse in the dark up a main street with no regard for anyone's safety.

But of coarse you have to button your lip, sit on your hands and put the "oh I'm sorry officer" face on.

Now apart from his particularly good example of what not to do in a car, the alledged offence of using fog lights was not quite right either. You see technically front fog lights used to be yellow lensed lights fitted below the bumper of a car. The white lights below the bumper are referred as poor visability lights in the highway code. Now of coarse trying to fight technicalities through the courts would be futile as a poilice man is always right. Or is he!

The highway code states that poor visability lighting on the front of a vehicle may be used where visability is severely ruduced due to adverse conditions. It doesn't mention fog as a singular prerequisite.

You see As I said, personal interpretations can lead to inaccurate quantification of a situation.

Steve L.

Steve,

It's a funny thing perception.

Foglights - You are correct in that they are not to be solely used in fog as that Policeman told you, they 'should' also be used in any situation of seriously reduced visibility eg. torrential rain with heavy surface spray, snow, smoke etc.

A few broken streetlights in otherwise clear conditions does not constitute seriously reduced visibility.

Properly adjusted dipped beam headlights should provide

adequate illumination for driving at suitable speeds, with traffic travelling ahead of you, as well as oncoming traffic providing further illumination.

The intensity and scatter pattern of foglights is designed to penetrate conditions of seriously reduced visibility and when used in conjunction with headlights in clear conditions, can cause dazzle to oncoming drivers.

This in turn can mask pedestrians & cyclists in the road and can be dangerous, which is why such use is both unsafe and illegal.

Perhaps your illegal use of your foglights had masked the lady in black from the approaching Police driver and that is why the driver spoke to you as he did.

Please note, I make no attempt to offer an alternative explanation to his crappy driving, which I could not have resisted pointing out to him had I been in your shoes.

Ken.

 

[KnL]

Steve,

It's a funny thing perception.

Foglights - You are correct in that they are not to be solely used in fog as that Policeman told you, they 'should' also be used in any situation of seriously reduced visibility eg. torrential rain with heavy surface spray, snow, smoke etc.

A few broken streetlights in otherwise clear conditions does not constitute seriously reduced visibility.

Properly adjusted dipped beam headlights should provide

adequate illumination for driving at suitable speeds, with traffic travelling ahead of you, as well as oncoming traffic providing further illumination.

The intensity and scatter pattern of foglights is designed to penetrate conditions of seriously reduced visibility and when used in conjunction with headlights in clear conditions, can cause dazzle to oncoming drivers.

This in turn can mask pedestrians & cyclists in the road and can be dangerous, which is why such use is both unsafe and illegal.

Perhaps your illegal use of your foglights had masked the lady in black from the approaching Police driver and that is why the driver spoke to you as he did.

Please note, I make no attempt to offer an alternative explanation to his crappy driving, which I could not have resisted pointing out to him had I been in your shoes.

Ken.

 

[Meister]

Steve in Leo: Just a couple of points.

You certainly seem to have something of a chip on your shoulder in relation to the Police.

Ken is quite correct in relation to reduced visibility, it relates to weather conditions NOT darkness due to it being night-time. If your headlights did not provide sufficient illumination perhaps they were/are defective and should be checked.

I make no comment on the alledged behaviour of the Police as we only have your version of events and I learned a long time ago that it is better to hear both/all sides before forming an opinion in these matters.

Steve

 

[Steve L]

Miester & Ken.

I don't particularly have a "chip on my shoulder about police persons", they often have to work extremely hard to gain public recognition for their efforts. However as in the case I related to the particular officer did quite the opposite.

As for the amaount of light needed to illuminate the road. My car has the dipped beam lights set to dip down and to the left which does reduce the vsability on the right on the car. The "fog lights" do spread the light pattern equally wide and short range (30 feet) as I have set them that way myself. You see I am conscious of the fact that dipped beam lights and fog lights can dazzle drivers by the shear "volume of light" let alone the direction of light.

I would welcome the fog lights becoming a tested item in the MOT as they are not included either for function or beam alignment at present. The road in question is a dual carriage way reducing to single lane, and when the street lights work, it does not necesitate the use of anything other than dipped beam head lights. However, this was not the case on the night in question.

Now to add to Ken's interpretation of using frnt fog in the rain. What I do in that case is to use my front fog lights and side lights in day light rain, rather than dipped beam because my car has clear indicator lenses with orange bulbs sited right next to the headlight and I have noticed that the indicators even when in use tent to not be clearly visable and in the wet you realy can't see them. But by turning off the dipped beam headlight to side lights, it is much clearer. In my oppinion this allows the motorist in front (if they are using their mirrors) to see more clearly any intent of change of direction you are making (overtaking for instance).

Steve L.

 

[Steve L]

I should of also added that my car passed it's MOT only 3 wks ago without any lighting faults.

Not that an Mot should be relied upon to quantify the condition of a vehicle as an MOT ensures minimum compliance standard.

Steve L.

 

[Andrew._374353608]

The "we cannot remember who was driving" trick has been done so many times that the Police do not care anymore. They will issue a fine to the registered keeper of the vehicle which is 3 points and a fine of

 

[ScouseIan]

One again we are relying on the law about 'fog lights' being illegal. Do we really need a law that tells us when it is illegal or legal to use these lights? Is there really any need for us to get so angry about a matter such as this? Its a bloody light for gods sake.

Now don't get me wrong, I dislike the practice myself of people driving round with the fog lights, but mainly because when I normally look closer its a pratt showing us his 'special lights'. He may have Angel eyes (BMW) or LED's (Audi) and he will more often than not also have a baseball cap on. If he's really tough and lives in a small provincial town he'll have it on back to front too, with the windows open, a boom box in the boot (on full) and a cigarette cocked in the corner of his mouth. Phwoar, cool or what?

But come on Ken, how is it 'dangerous'? Its not like they are full beam headlights or anything. Its an annoyance, thats all. I can think of lots of other things that I would like the police to be doing such as checking car tax or whatever.

We really are losing all our senses of what is right and wrong and are simply relying on what the law states. Whats more, people are getting really, really angry about stupid stuff.

Now rear fog lights, thats a different story as they really can be dazzling. Lets hunt those ones down and kill them

 

[Chrisbee]

The thing is that the law is the law. That's it, end of story. Some laws appear silly, some stupid but all have been made by those we elect to do the job. Where would we be if we all ignored the laws we disliked?

With regards to fog lights (rear), I once read a paper on how they came by the 100mm light emitting surface regulation. It's not a distance plucked from thin air but a carefully calculated spacing for safety reasons. Presumably front fog light regulations are just as carefully researched so there will be a valid reason why they should only be used in conditions of seriously reduced visibility.