Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes

bertieduff · Post by **bertieduff** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:56 pm

..and the guy who blew one up recently, but parked in front of it whilst doing so. Last pic on the film was of his car

Post by **pete** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:59 am

dezzy wrote:Yup, I agree renmure. As much as I'm not a fan of any speed cameras, if they are going to use them, then I think these ones are better. Gatsos are just money-makers, whereas these ones actually do improve safety by making people cut their speed. If they are placed in proven accident blackspots, then I don't have a problem with them.

Gatsos on the other hand . . .

ARRRGGGGHHHH Don't do it! You are just falling for the propaganda.

Say it with me - the link between speed and accidents is fallacious. For many "proven accident blackspots" speed is not the issue.

(I'm not sayin that speed is not dangerous, just that there is not a direct link between speed and accidents - certainly not a link so simplistic that a speed camera will fix it. 90mph is not, on it's own, more dangerous than 70 - accident blackspot or not....)

Pete

Victor Meldrew · Post by **Victor Meldrew** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:04 am

pete wrote:
dezzy wrote:Yup, I agree renmure. As much as I'm not a fan of any speed cameras, if they are going to use them, then I think these ones are better. Gatsos are just money-makers, whereas these ones actually do improve safety by making people cut their speed. If they are placed in proven accident blackspots, then I don't have a problem with them.

Gatsos on the other hand . . .
ARRRGGGGHHHH Don't do it! You are just falling for the propaganda.

Say it with me - the link between speed and accidents is falacious. For many "proven accident blackspots" speed is not the issue.

(I'm not sayin that speed is not dangerous, just that there is not a direct link - certainly not a link so simplistic that a speed camera will fix it. 90 is not, on it's own, more dangerous than 70 accident blackspot or not....)

Pete

Wot he says...

Michael · Post by **Michael** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:10 am

by the way, i think they are actually picturing your rear number plate as well as your front.

Imagine the dual carriageway scenario. Look at the angle of the camera on the right of the pair...its just far too angled to the side for it to be for you approaching it.

There are two sensors for each camera - one on each side of it. I reckon the camera covers both lanes on your side - triggered by a sensor when it detects a car in its lane. Each camera must cost a fortune, therefore its more efficient to have two sensors attached to the one camera covering the pair of lanes for one direction.

The other argument supporting this is that the cops are SO much more fussy about rear plates - hence motorbikes only have one. Also that they must be vertical.

Possible?

Post by **pete** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:12 am

jke11y wrote:I remember reading recently about stats for the A77 specs - something like 20,000 vehicles use the road every day and in the first 6 months they had only fined 48 drivers for speeding.

So as a money making measure they are not doing very well considering setup costs. This could, of course, be propaganda I have absorbed.

Oh I heard that interview and it had me shouting at the radio.

The twat in charge of making the roads safer in Scotland said (and I'm paraphrasing but this is the gist of it)

"The a77 SPECS is a success because we have only caught 48 people speeding."
(An astute reader may at this point notice that he appears to have made two unconnected statements. He might as well have said "The Middle East peace process is a success as the urban fox population of Wolverhampton is rising.")

They were put up at great cost to stop people dying. Not to stop people speeding. Speeding, in itself, is not a crime which we spend millions of pounds trying to stop.
Now a sensible chap like myself may say that money could have been spent improving the junctions on the A77, at least one of which claims a few lives a year and requires a right turn over what is effectively a motorway. But I guess that would have cost even more than the Specs system.

But the twat didn't talk of road safety at all, just speeders. According to the home offices' own figures speeding and accidents are not directly connected.

Pete

(The rumour is the a77 system doesn't work very well hence only 48 speeders. What they should do is spread a rumour on the internet that it is only on when there is a full moon and thus encourage people to push their luck. Or tell us you can switch lanes and avoid it....)

dezzy · Post by **dezzy** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:45 am

Pete, I agree that it's not speed that kills, it's *inappropriate* speed that kills. 50mph in a 70 can be just as dangerous as 90mph in a 70. All I'm saying is that if they want people to obey the speed limit, then the average speed cameras work better. All a GATSO does is make someone slow down for that exact spot.

Generally, I still disagree with most speed cameras though!

alicrozier · Post by **alicrozier** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:33 am

dezzy wrote:All I'm saying is that if they want people to obey the speed limit, then the average speed cameras work better. All a GATSO does is make someone slow down for that exact spot.

Agreed but they neither 'improve safety by making people cut their speed'.

Post by **simon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:59 am

Michael wrote:by the way, i think they are actually picturing your rear number plate as well as your front.

No, they don't.

Post by **simon** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:01 am

And I agree with Ali, every time I go through the SPECS at Perth, I spend more time looking at the speedo to make sure I'm doing bang on 40mph instead of looking at the road.

To make matters worse, I'm amazed at the amount of people that seem to view the 40 limit as a time to make phone calls/brush their hair/put make up on etc.

Post by **pete** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:50 am

dezzy wrote:Pete, I agree that it's not speed that kills, it's *inappropriate* speed that kills. 50mph in a 70 can be just as dangerous as 90mph in a 70. All I'm saying is that if they want people to obey the speed limit, then the average speed cameras work better. All a GATSO does is make someone slow down for that exact spot.

Generally, I still disagree with most speed cameras though!

Hi Dezzy,

Yes you are right (they make people obey the speed limit better. They also make me devote WAY too much of my time to looking at the speedo - no cruise on the Elise). But that is not the point of them is it?

I think you could argue that a Gatso improves safety over a SPECS as without a detector at least you are looking for it, constantly scanning aead looking for the tell tale day-glo box, (or the bonnet poking out of a side street; or the hi-vis hiding behind a lamp post for that matter) and whilst looking might also spot the child before they jump in front of you whereas with a SPECS you are purely watching your speedo.

But we are falling into their trap, discussing the lesser of two evils, I don't *generally* disagree with speed cameras. I disagree with the very concept.

Pete

Although there could do with one outside my house where people drive much too quickly. But that's different

Bennicus · Post by **Bennicus** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:12 pm

Wow, this will make the Dundee->Perth journey so much quicker!

For.. err.. some.. other people.