Foamed Gatso - someone listened to Clarkson!

[Dj_Jestar]

25mph under the limit, i was doing 35mph in an NSL road, and obviously i cant prove this as my driving test report only shows "appropriate speed" not where and when it happened.

Ah, my apologies. I misread that you were only 5mph under limit.

The highway code does say you are to "Make progress" but that is a hazy rule at best.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

One other little point

If speed camers work why are so many people caught speeding?

because cameras have a side effect.
they give us all an idea of how many stupid, arrogant or just plain unobservant drivers are on the UK's roads.
mobile cams aside for a moment, they put up signs telling you there's a camera ahead, then paint the thing luminous green/yellow and yet people STILL get caught speeding?
unless the driver isn't in his local environment and didn't know the fixed cam was there then how do you explain so many people being caught speeding?

 

[grahamjenks]

because cameras have a side effect.
they give us all an idea of how many stupid, arrogant or just plain unobservant drivers are on the UK's roads.
mobile cams aside for a moment, they put up signs telling you there's a camera ahead, then paint the thing luminous green/yellow and yet people STILL get caught speeding?
unless the driver isn't in his local environment and didn't know the fixed cam was there then how do you explain so many people being caught speeding?

Exactly - if they were hidden and unnoticeable people would call them unfair - paint them print yellow and people get caught so still call them unfair.

 

[volospian]

Aside from the fact that pedestrians have right of way and traffic should stop for people on a crossing...

... have you ever seen a car coming at you at 95mph? Straight on and at distance, it is exceptionally hard to judge speed like that. Not many people are used to standing about while cars scream past at that sort of speed. I have been in situations where I have been trackside and close to "traffic" at that sort of speeds after spinning out or something and it is *really* hard to judge what is an accurate gap. Especially if you are not expecting it.

Yep, I have thanks. and I could see them coming too. If you are not expecting the car, or are incapable of deciding whether there is time to cross, you really shouldn't be crossing the road. Anybody crossing the road should be ready for an unexpected event, even the braindeads.

Oh, and yes they should stop, and I never said anywhere that I would change that rule. The driver doing 95 where there could be a pedestrian crossing is clearly a braindead moron with no right to be on Gods green earth, let alone driving. Infact, I think that anyone caught doing such a speed in such an environment should be given a lethal injection there and then. Good riddance. Also, anyone intent on crossing the road in an area where someone could reach speeds of 95mph is, frankly, taking risks and should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

I dont need to explain why they dont slow down, my point was

A camera is supposed to be a safety device designed to slow you down in accident blackspots, they obviously fail to do this as people still speed past them

and exactly how do you know that fewer people don't speed past that very point than in the days before the camera?
all you can say for sure is how many people were caught on a stretch of road both before and after a cam has been installed.
before the cam the only way to get a speeding conviction was either a roadside trap or by a traffic car behind you.the amount of time either if these were actually there is minimal whereas the cam is there 24/7.

you could put neon signs saying " SPEED CAM THIS WAY!!!" and you'd STILL find drivers being flashed.i was behind a guy a few weeks ago who approached a roundabout then tried to drive the wrong way around it, despite all the keep left signs, chevrons etc to tell him what to do.
the fact is we have a huge percentage of drivers in the UK that are IMHO too stupid to hold a license.to say that a large section of the driving public is nowhere near as observant as they should be is like saying rik waller is a pound or two overweight.

 

[Hilly]

I got a minor on my driving test, for doing 30 in a 40. 2 week's later it was put back to a 30.

I do the speeds where I feel comfortable, if I got caught speeding then I get caught, i'd prefer to be caught by a policeman though who could use discression, circumstance's, rather than a yellow box.

DJ, i agree with the majority of what you have said, if you don't want the points don't speed...

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Yep, I have thanks. and I could see them coming too. If you are not expecting the car, or are incapable of deciding whether there is time to cross, you really shouldn't be crossing the road. Anybody crossing the road should be ready for an unexpected event, even the braindeads.

Oh, and yes they should stop, and I never said anywhere that I would change that rule. The driver doing 95 where there could be a pedestrian crossing is clearly a braindead moron with no right to be on Gods green earth, let alone driving. Infact, I think that anyone caught doing such a speed in such an environment should be given a lethal injection there and then. Good riddance. Also, anyone intent on crossing the road in an area where someone could reach speeds of 95mph is, frankly, taking risks and should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

My local newsagent is across the road, across a busy, very straight, and quite long A road. I've actually seen people doing 100mph (well, ok I didn't measure it, but it was damned quick, I'm talking atleast motorway speeds, but more like track speeds from 'hotrod' races at places like wimbledon track.)

Removing limits is not an option. On certain stretches of road, yes, but not completely removed.

Plus we already have the eejits who think it's wise to drive at their's and their cars limits every where they go already, removing the limit is just offering an invite for carnage - innocent, 'good' drivers lives at risk too.

 

[volospian]

removing the limit is just offering an invite for carnage - innocent, 'good' drivers lives at risk too.

Yep, and the road deaths would soar to start with, then the people left alive would begin to realise that driving like loons is no good for anyone

So some innocents would die, but you can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Yep, and the road deaths would soar to start with, then the people left alive would begin to realise that driving like loons is no good for anyone

So some innocents would die, but you can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs.

Sorry, I can't agree, nor even see sense in that. Human life is worth much more than for the sake of a speed limit (or limitless in this case) and it would never stop, either. Much like it still hasn't stopped now, with the idiots who already drive very inappropriately on our roads.

 

[Durzel]

The overall driving standard in this country is way too low to consider getting rid of upper speed limits completely. I've been doing 70 on the motorway before and blithering idiots in front have just veered across into the same lane as me as if I wasn't there, etc....

 

[slap ed]

like marmite . love em or hate em .

 

[kitten_caboodle]

so is the camera destroyed then if it's 'foamed'?

 

[Morthoseth]

No offense here jester, but you seem to suffer from sum sort of 'tunnel vision'

If i asked you to walk to the back of a queue, you would go away, wait a while and come back telling me that you couldnt, because there was already someone there.

I suppose ever since you have passed your test you have driven at the speed limit or below so as to be safe from cameras?

I try, although i dont often stick to the speed limit on roads without cameras - i mean, they are safe, everyone drives through one villiage at 40 when the limit is 30, there has been one crash in the last 4 years or so.

I mean, you cant say "Dont drive fast or you will get caught", when i'd imagine you drive above the speed limit perfectly safely on roads which you know it is safe to do so on.

Maybe im jumping into the thread too late, but from what ive read, i much, much prefer the mentality of Fox and his arguments about it than i do your "If you dont speed, you dont get caught" re-iterated in different ways every other thread

I do value your opinion to an extent, and of course i see where you are coming from, maybe i am just labelling people here or assuming, but unless you religiously back up what you preach, im going to call you a hypocrite.

Morth.

 

[kitten_caboodle]

aah i see. the foam goes hard.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

No offense here jester, but you seem to suffer from sum sort of 'tunnel vision'

You are mistaken.

If i asked you to walk to the back of a queue, you would go away, wait a while and come back telling me that you couldnt, because there was already someone there.

No, because walking to the back of the queue means joining the line of people, from the back.. what are you trying to prove?

I suppose ever since you have passed your test you have driven at the speed limit or below so as to be safe from cameras?

Not at first, I did the typical male thing of laring round as much as possible, but have since calmed and now I do tend to stick to under the limits. However I tend more to keep pace with the traffic.

I try, although i dont often stick to the speed limit on roads without cameras - i mean, they are safe, everyone drives through one villiage at 40 when the limit is 30, there has been one crash in the last 4 years or so.

That's a disagreement with the limit, not the cameras.

I mean, you cant say "Dont drive fast or you will get caught", when i'd imagine you drive above the speed limit perfectly safely on roads which you know it is safe to do so on.

You've missed the point entirely - as I had to say to Fox and others several times, it's the people who jump up and down after being caught with complaints like "OMG I WAS DONE FOR 34mph IN A 30! WHY WASN'T I LET OFF? BURN ALL CAMERAS BLAH BLAH" the limit is 30, not 34. If the police really wanted to be rententive about it, they can quite easily charge you for 31mph in a 30, but this doesn't happen. It's also the people who want officers only on the roads, so they can be let off for an offence, then continually recommit the offence, where a camera would not have this leniency, whilst completely ignoring that it is ever so simple to just slow down and not worry about being caught in the first place, by police officer or camera.

and FYI: I am NOT saying "Don't speed or you will get caught!" (note: the will bit) I am saying "If you don't speed, you won't get caught" there is a difference, but a pedantic one.

Maybe im jumping into the thread too late, but from what ive read, i much, much prefer the mentality of Fox and his arguments about it than i do your "If you dont speed, you dont get caught" re-iterated in different ways every other thread

Every other thread? Which ones are those then? EDIT: I take it you meant reply? Well, it needed reiterating because Fox has a habit of trying to imprint a conjured up image on those he is arguing against, just look at how he asked, nay, demanded I answer a question which was an attempt to 'catch me out' and was quite frankly, borederline insulting.

I do value your opinion to an extent, and of course i see where you are coming from, maybe i am just labelling people here or assuming, but unless you religiously back up what you preach, im going to call you a hypocrite.

Morth.

Good for you, I'll be calling you a flame bait for the last bit.

I don't have to prove anything to you, or anyone else on this forum, with regards to my driving behaviour, neither does anyone else need to prove themselves to me and/or anyone else.

Whether I do, or don't drive faster than the limits has precisley 0 relevance or implications on this subject, it does have implications on me, or rather peoples perception of me, as you say, but not this subject. Again, same for anyone else.

However, If I am ever fined for speeding - and it is not a false charge - I most certainly will not be blaming cameras or traffic police for doing their job. It is the ridiculous tripe from people like "Haven't they got a real criminal to catch?" or any other dumbfounded excuse apart from "Perhaps I should have slowed down," that is what get's me, yet those same people can't see that the cameras were brought in so that the police wouldn't need to be on the roads as much, and can spend their time elsewhere for 'real' crimes.
At least, that was/is the theory/promise of them, and to a certain degree the practice too.. but we all know things are not exactly ideal and much improvement is desired, in terms of emphasis on what the police do with their time..

And finally, the condoning of vandalism also gets my goat. Not only that, but the humorous display of idiocy that these vandals cannot recognise they are doing more harm than good, because the camera may be out of action for a few weeks, but it'll be replaced - at the expense of the public.

 

[stoofa]

No offense here jester, but you seem to suffer from sum sort of 'tunnel vision'

If i asked you to walk to the back of a queue, you would go away, wait a while and come back telling me that you couldnt, because there was already someone there.

I suppose ever since you have passed your test you have driven at the speed limit or below so as to be safe from cameras?

I try, although i dont often stick to the speed limit on roads without cameras - i mean, they are safe, everyone drives through one villiage at 40 when the limit is 30, there has been one crash in the last 4 years or so.

I mean, you cant say "Dont drive fast or you will get caught", when i'd imagine you drive above the speed limit perfectly safely on roads which you know it is safe to do so on.

Maybe im jumping into the thread too late, but from what ive read, i much, much prefer the mentality of Fox and his arguments about it than i do your "If you dont speed, you dont get caught" re-iterated in different ways every other thread

I do value your opinion to an extent, and of course i see where you are coming from, maybe i am just labelling people here or assuming, but unless you religiously back up what you preach, im going to call you a hypocrite.

Morth.

Like many others you are glossing over a major point:

If you don't speed you don't get caught.

You all sit back and say that a camera is nothing more than a revenue source.
They are painted bright yellow, there are warning signs leading up to a stretch of road that contains them.
They are not hidden away yet they still catch people.
So who's fault is that?
It's not the camera's fault - they are just pieces of dumb technology programed to act in certain ways depending on what happens in front of them.
It's not the polices fault - there is a speed limit, there is a camera however as above there are also warning signs, they aren't hidden and they are bright yellow.
The ONLY person to blame is the motorist who speeds past it.

This has never been about DJ's, mine or anybody else who is attempting to get this point accross personal opinion on speeding.
This is simply about the fact that even with all the warning things in place on a near daily basis somebody will come on here and say "Got caught by a scammera doing 80 in a 70".
The motorist is the only party that can be blamed - it is not the cameras fault you were caught, it is not the polices fault you were caught, it is not the governments fault you were caught.

Now lets go back to those people who feel that it is indeed anyone or anything to blame except themselves that they were caught.
They do the 40 in a 30 zone, fail to stop in time for that pedestrian crossing the road.
Even though there were plenty of warning signs indicating the speed limit the motorist was exercising "their right" to break that limit.
Unfortunately the result wasn't a flash of a bright yellow camera and a £50 fine, instead it was a red smear as the pedestrian disappears under the front of the car.
Pedestrians fault?

Think of the camera not as a camera, instead imagine it as a hazzard in the road.
Not even a difficult "man wearing black at night" kind of hazzard.
I'm talking about pedestrian crossing the road during day light wearing bright clothes and a sign 1 mile before the pedestrian warning you that you're now in a pedestrian walking accross the road area.
Now if you still manage to hit that pedestrian who exactly are you going to blame?

Correct answer - the motorist.
Now change that pedestrian back to being a camera - the person to blame has not changed.

 

[Morthoseth]

Snip.

Good reply, but my point on top of that is - which roads should be watched and which shouldnt?

Any idiot going 40 in a 30 zone with a school, or where it is unsafe deserve to be jailed, although if there are no cameras there, it doesnt stop people, and since there are little to no accidents there compared to the 30mph stretch covered by a camera's low amount of accidents, i mean - they are virtually the same.

To cut it short, if you are speeding in a residential area where the roads are against you (Lane width, road markings, bus stops, sharp corners, crossroads, whatever else) You deserve to be nicked by every camera there, you are putting others at risk.

On the motorway, while no speed limit e.g. autobahn would be ridiculous, A raised speed limit would be very handy, 80 or 90mph would be a very nice increase to say the least, rather than having to break to speed limit to do it.

I have no doubt in my mind that cameras are very useful tools in the right places, but in the wrong places, where speed isnt -really- an issue***, they can make your life a misery.

I've never been caught speeding, im very careful, and i think thats wrong.

If i can go 40mph in a 30mph and not get caught, where it is potentially more dangerous than 80/90 in an NSL zone, then get caught doing 80 on a motorway where it is pretty much irrellevant, something is wrong - if you know what i mean, ish..

*** - I mean within sensible limits, of course

 

[volospian]

Sorry, I can't agree, nor even see sense in that. Human life is worth much more than for the sake of a speed limit (or limitless in this case) and it would never stop, either.

But this planet is infested with humans anyway.

Much like it still hasn't stopped now, with the idiots who already drive very inappropriately on our roads.

Perhaps there should be another kind of limit. You shouldn't be allowed to drive until you're 30. by then you should be calm enough not to kill yourself, or innocent grandmothers, or helpless babies, by your reckless use of speed.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

But this planet is infested with humans anyway.



Perhaps there should be another kind of limit. You shouldn't be allowed to drive until you're 30. by then you should be calm enough not to kill yourself, or innocent grandmothers, or helpless babies, by your reckless use of speed.

For the hell of it, I'm gonna pretend you are actually being serious, or rather, go along with it.

Infested with humans - why bother letting Darwin do it then? Why not just start culling? What shall we start with? Elderly and decrepit? Nah, they are no bother they just sit in their old peoples homes and complain "They don't make 'em like they used to." Let's go for the new borns.. they still have the potential to procreate more idiots, the elderly will be taken care of by time if nothing else. Besides, culling at birth stems the problem of them going through the immature driving stage and letting darwin take them. Bonus!

Up the age limit to 30 you say, why stop there? Let's go for 40, no.. 50! No! 60! Surely they will be mature by then?