I thought 'Safety Camera' Vans were to be clearly visible?

An example of how road safety in the UK is a joke.
Imo drivers that go 60 in a 50 and 70 in a 60 are not the ones they need to concentrate on, as chances are such roads are suitable for swift driving. Yes people should stick to the limits, but you cant stop everyone. Concentrate on the areas where its most important such as outside schools and in residential areas
 
Interesting to hear that North Wales Police are using horse boxes as disguise for speed cameras ! - Can we expect at some time in the future Policeman will be dressed as trees and jump out in front of us ?
Click to expand...

^^ Lol, made me laugh
 
Apparently, after the first biker that stopped and approached to quiz the officer operating the camera, the personel in question promptly packed up the horsebox affair and drove off.

Pics in MCN, todays issue.

Ridiculous idea by the Mad Mullah and quite frankly, I simply do not understand why this guy is still in the position he currently holds. :rolleyes:
 
markyp23 said:
In this situation IF the majority of accidents are people going off the roads for driving too fast then stopping people speeding WOULD make the roads safer.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

They aren't stopping people speeding though. Just catching and fining them. That can be the only aim of hidden cameras. The whole idea of making speed cameras highly visible is that people see them and slow down, hence why they are meant to be used in accident blackspots.
 
Conscript said:
Precisely.

They aren't stopping people speeding though. Just catching and fining them. That can be the only aim of hidden cameras. The whole idea of making speed cameras highly visible is that people see them and slow down, hence why they are meant to be used in accident blackspots.
Click to expand...
If people are caught enough times, they won't be able to drive. Therefore, safer roads.
 
JimpsEd said:
If people are caught enough times, they won't be able to drive. Therefore, safer roads.
Click to expand...

I think this is a poor compromise. People should be deterred form speeding in the first place, rather than reprimanded after they've done so.

Edit: This is talking using the standpoint that speed=ultimate evil anyway. Perhaps we should spend less time lecturing people on the evils of speed and more time educating motorists how to drive safely at speed and pedestrians better road safety.
 
JimpsEd said:
If people are caught enough times, they won't be able to drive. Therefore, safer roads.
Click to expand...

How are the roads safer after somebody who does 70 in a 60 is banned? Chances are they are probably half decent drivers anyway and far safer than the Jazz driving plebs who think everything is fine provided they dont exceed the speed limit.
 
Presumably they would have had to place the two required camera warning signs at the specified distance from the camera to be legal , can't recall exactly but its 300mtrs or so.
A mobile camera in a van near me has to park in one of two specific places ,both marked with the two signs at the regulation distance apart, I noticed the other day that they had put white tapes on the road also . Mobiles that choose a spot at random have to use a camera warning on a tripod at the roadside to be legal also.



http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/aidememoireonspeedlimitandsa4797?page=3
 
Last edited:
markyp23 said:
Agreeing with what they are doing or not is irrelevant.

This would be a far more successful method of catching people speeding which is their aim.
Click to expand...

WRONG the aim is to prevent speeding.......not covertly catch those who do.

Speed cameras are meant to be an enforced means of reducing/enforcing speed over a fixed stretch of road
 
its the REALLY slow ones that the dangerous drivers. causing infuration which makes people try to overtake in unresoanable circumstances. i think there should be a retest after the age of 65.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom