• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I don't understand that, 20 mph isn't very fast so the braking distance definitely isn't 12m. It's what I've been taught, as it makes overtaking cyclists much safer.

Where does it say in the highway code you must leave 12m for cyclists??
It doesn't discriminate between different types of road users, it is the distance that a vehicle will travel before coming to a stand when making an emergency stop. At 20mph, that distance is comprised of a 'thinking time' over which the vehicle will cover 6m and a braking distance of another 6m. That is for good visibility and road surface conditions. The braking distance doubles in the wet.
Following a cyclist as close as 2m at 20mph might make it safer for you in your crash resistant box but it doesn't do anything for the cyclist's chances. The one-sided mindset of many motorists is something that cyclists have to live with.
Oops, just beaten to it by JamesT. :)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
Virtually all speed cameras seem to be painted fluorescent yellow. And when they're not in use, they seem to be required to put up bright yellow signs saying "SPEED CAMERA OUT OF USE". I'd love the highways agency to put up one of those signs on a functional speed camera and see how many drivers they catch...

In my view, this is a ridiculous decision. I personally don't see why speeding motorists deserve to be warned of the specific point at which their illegal actions will be enforced. This is why I much prefer average speed check systems. Clearly they can only catch someone who is constantly speeding, otherwise they'd have to catch everyone, but they also don't encourage slamming the brakes on for a speed camera and then speeding up again immediately afterwards... though even these cameras seem to be painted bright yellow and have huge signs!

So why don't they simply hide speed cameras? Camera technology is so small now that they could easily fit it into a small space and be well-concealed, and possibly they could not paint it bright yellow. And even if the radar technology used to actually measure speed can't be similarly miniaturised, it can presumably be hidden somewhere as well? This can't be technically impossible.
It depends on whether you think they are there for safety and encouraging people to drive more slowly or for raising money
I am sure we have all seen restrictions on the motorway down to 50 mph for no reason whatever.
Excuses that the highways agency forgot to turn them off don't wash as they have CCTV.
This can only mean money raising in my view.
Sadiq has made a lot of West London 20 MPH.
Great way of raising money.
( The police are not very interested in enforcing this however)
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
It depends on whether you think they are there for safety and encouraging people to drive more slowly or for raising money
I am sure we have all seen restrictions on the motorway down to 50 mph for no reason whatever.
Excuses that the highways agency forgot to turn them off don't wash as they have CCTV.
This can only mean money raising in my view.
Sadiq has made a lot of West London 20 MPH.
Great way of raising money.
( The police are not very interested in enforcing this however)

If 50 mph limits are to do with raising money, why are there so many reminders and so many people sticking to the limit? You have to be really stupid or careless to be fined by those things as you would have to be overtaking everyone and ignoring all those reminders.

Councils are responsible for 20 mph limits, not "Sadiq".

If the police are not enforcing speed limits then how can it be a great way of raising money?
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
636
In the UK, camera locations also appear on Google Maps in satnav mode. I understand this is illegal in France though.

As far as i recall from this year, French speed cameras feature on Waze. Very handy as whilst they are religiously signposted they are normally grey and of varying shapes.

A good reason not to use cruise on motorways, it just doesn’t really work well for various reasons - this being one.

I agree about fixed-speed cruise - unless its basically an empty road, it's pretty useless. Adaptive/variable cruise control is the way ahead here. Most new cars are fitted with it and having experienced it for the last three years, I am a massive fan. It takes the stress out of slow-moving traffic on motorways and is especially useful out of town on A-roads with moderate to heavy traffic. You can tether yourself to the car in front, set a conservative distance and worry less about the braking and acceleration habits of the car in front.

In stop start traffic, it does exactly that, stops and starts for you. For me, it relieves stress hugely, especially when combined with good lane-keeping assistance - although the latter varies more widely in terms of effectiveness between manufacturers.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
My dad is a big fan of "normal" cruise control, but doesn't really like the adaptive version. The first time he drove a car with it was to Frankfurt (I think) for business, and he said it was incredibly annoying because he'd get close to the car in front and then pull out to overtake. Except the cruise control would decide to slow the car down just as he pulled out. And is that a Mercedes behind bearing down on you at 155mph? :D
So, depending on the situation, adaptive cruise control can potentially be more dangerous
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
I'd be in favour of camouflaged cameras if there was a police officer waiting round the corner to pull over any vehicles and "educate" the driver. However what's the point of hiding the cameras if a fine is sent to the driver a week next Tuesday? How is that contributing to safety?
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
636
My dad is a big fan of "normal" cruise control, but doesn't really like the adaptive version. The first time he drove a car with it was to Frankfurt (I think) for business, and he said it was incredibly annoying because he'd get close to the car in front and then pull out to overtake. Except the cruise control would decide to slow the car down just as he pulled out. And is that a Mercedes behind bearing down on you at 155mph? :D
So, depending on the situation, adaptive cruise control can potentially be more dangerous

Yep, I tend to agree with this. I was quite specific in describing what ACC is good for and you've summarised what it's not very good at. I only tend to use it on motorways when there's very slow moving jams or in the average speed limit roadworks where you can peg yourself to someone else at 50mph. It's never failed to stop me.

In normal, faster moving traffic it is either too cautious and slow reacting as you describe (overtaking is a nightmare - you need to override it in advance) or too late to brake - it's can't "see" brake lights in the distance in the same way a human can. it can only respond to large chunks of metal that have already begun to slow. I've virtually never used it on a German motorway as it would clearly never be as good as me at 130mph. :lol:

And the late braking is not normally an issue for me as I also have a human speed limiter installed in the passenger seat who offers additional "advice" on a regular basis. :rolleyes:
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I'd be in favour of camouflaged cameras if there was a police officer waiting round the corner to pull over any vehicles and "educate" the driver. However what's the point of hiding the cameras if a fine is sent to the driver a week next Tuesday? How is that contributing to safety?
Most drivers learn that breaking speed laws costs money. It does that even with the minority that don't care about the safety of others.

It depends on whether you think they are there for safety and encouraging people to drive more slowly or for raising money
I am sure we have all seen restrictions on the motorway down to 50 mph for no reason whatever.
Excuses that the highways agency forgot to turn them off don't wash as they have CCTV.
This can only mean money raising in my view.
Sadiq has made a lot of West London 20 MPH.
Great way of raising money.
( The police are not very interested in enforcing this however)
What's the point of a camera that everybody slows down to avoid a penalty and then speeds up again? Far better if they don't know when and where the camera will catch them, - it might even make them consider why not everybody breaks the limit like they do. I would agree though that they are a great way to raise money, to the benefit of the more considerate drivers on the road. It maens that the lawbreakers pay more into the public purse than the others.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
It means that the lawbreakers pay more into the public purse than the others.

That's what I don't understand about people who complain about "revenue raising cameras". So what if it raises revenue? Surely that is better than everyone paying more tax?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
That's what I don't understand about people who complain about "revenue raising cameras". So what if it raises revenue? Surely that is better than everyone paying more tax?
It's in their own control whether they speed or not so what's the point of complaining?
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Most drivers learn that breaking speed laws costs money. It does that even with the minority that don't care about the safety of others.

A lot of speed limits are political and have nothing to do with safety.
You have single track roads have a national speed limit. But a wide A road in good condition has a 30 mph limit, which is just ridiculous.
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
The limit isn't a target though. You should be driving to the conditions at all times.

Can you show us a 30mph limit which is 'ridiculous'?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
It's in their own control whether they speed or not so what's the point of complaining?

I wouldn’t say totally. Driving back from Wales last month, I was surprised to encounter motorway variable speed limits set to 20 mph in the Newport area. I presume that’s a Welsh thing as I’ve never seen that before in England. Complying with that on a fairly empty motorway during darkness I found extremely dangerous. It was seemingly related to roadworks, but was in place long before the actual work area.

If speed limits are *routinely* leading to tailgating then they are probably too low.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Or too high, in the case where tailgating is caused by traffic being unable to keep up with the speed limit.

I cannot think of any cases were traffic would routinely struggle to reach the speed limit (given no congestion and good road conditions) apart from cyclists on 20mph and higher roads
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
I cannot think of any cases were traffic would routinely struggle to reach the speed limit (given no congestion and good road conditions) apart from cyclists on 20mph and higher roads
Yes, but there are plenty of cyclists on 20mph and above roads, and there are plenty of roads which are often congested.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Yes, but there are plenty of cyclists on 20mph and above roads, and there are plenty of roads which are often congested.

There may be plenty of cyclists but definitely not enough to justify lowering speed limits. Ditto congestion is seldom frequent enough of a concern to lower the speed limit, and even then variable speed limits would be a better solution than blanket lowering
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I wouldn’t say totally. Driving back from Wales last month, I was surprised to encounter motorway variable speed limits set to 20 mph in the Newport area. I presume that’s a Welsh thing as I’ve never seen that before in England. Complying with that on a fairly empty motorway during darkness I found extremely dangerous. It was seemingly related to roadworks, but was in place long before the actual work area.

If speed limits are *routinely* leading to tailgating then they are probably too low.

I've seen 20 on the M25. In my understanding to put up below 40 (I think, might be 50) it has to be done manually, whereas above that it will do it automatically based on how much congestion is seen.

It does concern me that incorrectly set limits (e.g. the aforementioned 20 on an empty motorway) could indeed be very dangerous.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Ridiculously high or ridiculously low?

..
Right now is 'road safety week'
One is advised to by *experts* (?) to "stick to the speed limit". Sickening
 
Last edited:

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Ridiculously high or ridiculously low?

..
Right now is 'road safety week'
One is advised to by *experts* (?) to "stick to the speed limit". Sickening
Given that it looks like a 30mph dual carriageway road, I would imaging some see it as having a speed limit too low.
 

PeterC

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2014
Messages
4,069
Why shouldn't you stick to the speed limit in good conditions?
As opposed to speeding or travelling significantly below the limit?

My own view is that, in the absence of any overriding legal restriction, you should travel at the maximum speed that is safe for both the road and your vehicle. If the safe speed exceeds the legal limit for the road or for your vehicle then you should be travelling at the legal maximum.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
This is a railway forum. On the railways almost no people are killed, in some years no passengers are killed. I think that zero deaths on the road should be striven for too. Do others agree?

If aiming to travel at the maximum limit there is a risk of exceeding it, breaking the law. The experts should IMHO advise keeping comfortably inside the maximum limit

'Sticking to the limit' is an inappropriate phrase. I know what happens if I go a few pence over my overdraft limit, so I make sure to keep comfortably inside it
I do the same when driving
 
Last edited:

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
As opposed to speeding or travelling significantly below the limit?

My own view is that, in the absence of any overriding legal restriction, you should travel at the maximum speed that is safe for both the road and your vehicle. If the safe speed exceeds the legal limit for the road or for your vehicle then you should be travelling at the legal maximum.

As opposed to travelling below the limit, sorry should have been clearer - although obviously speeding is illegal so probably should have been a hint.

Fully agree with your summary though. The problem arises when you start judging that every safe speed for the road is lower than the legal limit at which point it becomes apparent the problem is between the steering wheel and the seat. You're entirely within the law to go lower than the speed limit, but it does make you a d*ck - especially when it's a single lane in each direction


This is a railway forum. On the railways almost no people are killed. I think that should be the case on the road too. Do others agree?

If aiming to travel at the maximum limit there is a risk of exceeding it, breaking the law. The experts should IMHO advise keeping comfortably inside the maximum limit

'Sticking to the limit' is an inappropriate phrase

If you aren't comfortable controlling your speed to the extent that you might inadvertently exceed the speed limit, you need to reconsider if you should be driving. It should be entirely possible to drive at whatever indicated speed and hold that within ±.5mph without any difficulty. Hell, given the tendency for speedometers to overread, you could exceed the speed limit by several mph indicated and remain within the absolute legal limit

Sticking the limit is an entirely appropriate phrase. Anyone with any ounce of sense will take it to mean driving within a sensible margin of the limit, which would be around 1mph. I don't think that there are many people who would take it as an indication that they should be pegged at 30.499mph on a 30mph road - odds are they're too busy breaking other traffic laws
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,645
Location
Northern England
If you aren't comfortable controlling your speed to the extent that you might inadvertently exceed the speed limit, you need to reconsider if you should be driving. It should be entirely possible to drive at whatever indicated speed and hold that within ±.5mph without any difficulty. Hell, given the tendency for speedometers to overread, you could exceed the speed limit by several mph indicated and remain within the absolute legal limit

Sticking the limit is an entirely appropriate phrase. Anyone with any ounce of sense will take it to mean driving within a sensible margin of the limit, which would be around 1mph. I don't think that there are many people who would take it as an indication that they should be pegged at 30.499mph on a 30mph road - odds are they're too busy breaking other traffic laws
I can see your point. But people who tailgate and honk at people driving at 37 in a 40 zone - or, worse, people who tailgate and honk at people driving at 40 in a 40 zone - really need to consider whether they've allowed enough time for their journey or not.
 
Last edited:

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
I can see your point. But people who tailgate and honk at people driving at 37 in a 40 zone - or, worse, driving at 40 in a 40 zone - really need to consider whether they've allowed enough time for their journey or not.

Eh? Driving at the intended speed limit is worse than tailgating and sounding the horn?
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,085
What is the point of 20mph limits on main roads? Part of the A217 near Mitcham is a dual carriageway, but has a 20 mph limit, which few seem to comply with. If it is to reduce the number of people injured on the roads, are there any before-and-after data setting out whether this objective has been achieved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top