Mobile speed cameras - again

[XCeed]

Whatever people think about speed cameras, I have always thought it a bit daft to insist that they must be clearly visible, etc. Sort of defeats the object - they’re not nicknamed speed traps for nothing! Just think, if everyone observed the speed limits, there would be no fines, ie, no easy money, and speed cameras would disappear at a stroke?!

[id5]

Originally Posted by XCeed

... Just think, if everyone observed the speed limits, there would be no fines, ie, no easy money, and speed cameras would disappear at a stroke?!

Just think, if nobody broke any rules there would be no prisons, or is that an unrealistic statement.

[Simon Jones]

Originally Posted by XCeed

Whatever people think about speed cameras, I have always thought it a bit daft to insist that they must be clearly visible, etc. Sort of defeats the object - they’re not nicknamed speed traps for nothing! Just think, if everyone observed the speed limits, there would be no fines, ie, no easy money, and speed cameras would disappear at a stroke?!

I believe they are supposed to be referred to as safety cameras, and the original locations were in areas where accidents tended to occur. The purpose of the camera being highly visible is to act as deterant. If they were solely there as a cash cow to bleed dry the hard doneby motorist, then the authorities would have made a lot more effort to ensure they always had film in back in the pre-digital days. I can't remember the exact figures, but I think in Wiltshire the majority of cameras have now been switched off so that's a shed load of revenue being 'lost'.

One of the trainers on the speed awareness course made a good comment. You wouldn't go into a shop and ask the locations of all their security cameras unless you were planning on shoplifting. We all see the signs that say CCTV in operation and we all know that stealing is wrong, so for the minority of people that don't find that sufficient to discourage them from breaking the law, they can't really complain when technology is used to catch them breaking the law.

[DaveNP]

There are a number of counties where next to the 'Welcome to Ruralshire - Home of the Muddy Potato' there's another sign that says 'Countywide Speed Cameras', which to my mind roughly translates as 'We've told you once so if you get caught don't whinge'. If the guidelines are just that and the lack of a sign doesn't invalidate the camera then we just have to cope with it, yes if we never go over the limit we don't need to worry but in a nice smooth modern(ish) car it's dead easy to slip over, my old 70's Mini by contrast would give your eardrums a battering at anything over 30mph.

[XCeed]

Originally Posted by id5

Just think, if nobody broke any rules there would be no prisons, or is that an unrealistic statement.

As a law abiding citizen, I cannot envisage any circumstance when I might commit an imprisonable offence (but you never know). So if everyone was like me...no, let’s not go there...
However, speeding is an easily avoidable offence if only people would re-evaluate the way they drive. Most drivers simply do not give much thought to their speed and sleepwalk into a speed trap (or safety camera if you prefer). Then they whinge!
If they would only take simple measures to stay within the speed limits - and yes there are limiter aids in modern cars - then speed cameras would not be the cash cows that they are now

[id5]

Originally Posted by XCeed

As a law abiding citizen, I cannot envisage any circumstance when I might commit an imprisonable offence (but you never know). So if everyone was like me...no, let’s not go there...
However, speeding is an easily avoidable offence if only people would re-evaluate the way they drive. Most drivers simply do not give much thought to their speed and sleepwalk into a speed trap (or safety camera if you prefer). Then they whinge!
If they would only take simple measures to stay within the speed limits - and yes there are limiter aids in modern cars - then speed cameras would not be the cash cows that they are now

It is still an unrealistic statement, a wish that is never going to happen.

[XCeed]

Originally Posted by id5

It is still an unrealistic statement, a wish that is never going to happen.

In fact, my statement is quite correct. What is unrealistic is the chance of it ever happening. That’s why I said...IF everyone observed...

[id5]

Originally Posted by XCeed

In fact, my statement is quite correct. What is unrealistic is the chance of it ever happening. That’s why I said...IF everyone observed...

Yes chap, and so is mine, it is unrealistic!

[canis]

Originally Posted by GrahamHR

Just the same as asking why anyone would buy a car that could exceed the arbitrary speed limit.

You did buy one , didn't you ?

There is a very good reason a car can exceed a speed limit.

A car has to be able to climb a hill towing something up to it's own weight while containing two-and-a-half kids and two-and-a-half dogs, plus luggage, from stationary. That takes a lot of horsepower.

Likewise, a flat road with round wheels and greasy bearings designed to reduce rolling friction as much as possible doesn't need much horsepower at all.

Stop blaming the technology! That's just a pathetic excuise... "It's not my fault my car is so fast!"

The reason 0-60 figures are important is because from stationary a combustion engine is working it's hardest. It's not about being able to get to 60mph in seconds, saving you vital seconds from watching adverts you might otherwise miss. It's not about speed. It's a represention of engine efficiency.

[NigelDay]

Originally Posted by canis

There is a very good reason a car can exceed a speed limit.

A car has to be able to climb a hill towing something up to it's own weight while containing two-and-a-half kids and two-and-a-half dogs, plus luggage, from stationary. That takes a lot of horsepower.

Actually, it takes a lot of torque, but here's the real problem. Manufacturers produce cars which can exceed even the 70mph limit by a significant margin. It is actually difficult to defend selling cars with such 'licence-risking / dangerous speed' potential. Only a very small proportion of UK drivers ever experience the joy of the German autobahns where, when conditions allow, you can have blast at over the ton. On such smooth roads, my XC60 is very quiet and stable under these conditions. Fuel consumption is poor, but you only drive for short periods at this speed (unless you are a 'local'). However, in all other countries, what is the point in selling cars which can drive so much in excess of the national motorway limits ? There is none, and it begs the question why governments have not regulated for speed limiters to be fitted to cars. This would not affect in-gear acceleration required for safe overtaking, but merely curtail 'dangerous' motorway speeding. A limit of 90mph could be argued as a reasonable measure, but some would argue it could be less, although not 70mph, as you would then have the situation with cars as you do for lorries limited to 56mph when you get convoys trying to overtake at marginal speed differences.