Safety camera partnership

[Bob Eager]

We're talking about road signs, not the stripes on the road...

[Uncle Peter]

Innocent until proven guilty. If I saw you looking at a bank vault door, it would be wrong of me to assume you were going to break into it.

[dennis]

She can't hear, its probably the soil stopping her from hearing.

[Tim Lamb]

In message , bert writes

There is a noticeable *tailing off* in driver confidence, opportunism and determination to get where they are going, outside *rush hours*.

I suppose this is inevitable as us geriatrics, probably driving less than 3000 miles per year, venture out when the road is less busy.

At the risk of fortune, I can say that there have never been any points on my licence. However, I am aware of slow responses to fresh driving situations and difficulty in complying with unexpected traffic signals. Lights at roundabouts in Aylesbury come to mind!

Distraction from conversation, radio, mobile phones, sat nav. can't help.

[fred]

I refuse to believe those tests that repute to show that using a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving.

Either (a) Drunk driving isn't as dangerous as we've been told for years or (b)the tests are spurious. An awful lot of people behind the wheel are using a mobile phone. If we had the same number of them as drunk drivers there would presumably be carnage.

On a simple level using a mobile phone is transitory whereas if I get behind the wheel drunk I'm going to be drunk all through the journey.

I'm not denying that using a mobile is dangerous while driving but these nonsense arguments that are being presented, imho, do more harm than good.

[Syd Rumpo]

I think if it weren't both illegal and visible, for many people it wouldn't be transitory, it would be continuous. The evidence for this is everywhere.

Cheers

[tony sayer]

Very fortunate for you she hasn't read that or else that would be it trust me U sod;!....

[ARW]

And it gives you time to hide the can of Special Brew.

[Uncle Peter]

Me, a Scotsman, enjoy alcohol?

[johnjessop46]

Going into the next village via dual carriageway recently I spotted a camer a van in the distance ahead and tootled past at a sedate thirty. Returning home I passed in the opposite direction at thirty until I saw the fifty lim it start sign when I increased my speed gently. Discovered the misbegotten wretch in the van was aiming at cars leaving the thirty limit when I receiv ed an unwelcome letter. I asked to see the photographic evidence and it's s eriously annoying to have a photo of the back of the car with the fifty lim it sign in full view and my speed shown as thirtyfive. I look forward to finding a camera van on fire in one of the more robust ne ighbourhoods. For sure I won't stop to help.

[dennis]

Unless you go and dig here up shes not going to see it.

[dennis]

They can film in more than one direction at a time. The speed limit starts at the sign not 200 yards before or after.

[Vir Campestris]

A few weeks back they were doing one of those voluntary speedwatch things. As I drove into the village I saw something new on the side of the road, so I was looking at it as I it lit up 34 for an instant, then dropped to 33, then off about as I went through the limit sign.

Then I got a letter from the local police saying that I'd been doing

35... I can't write back and complain, because after all 33 would be an admission of guilt. But I daresay if there _is_ a real policeman, and I get it further wrong, they'll see that 35 in their records and have me tagged...

Andy

[Tim Watts]

Whilst you might not get anywhere in a court with that, if that were me, that photo would be on a blog, and tweeted, FB'd and emailed to a couple of rags who like that sort of story (DM, Sun maybe).

Policing is still by consent and I would make damn sure they were so ridiculed for that one episode they'd think twice about setting up a camera in such a fashion again.

[Tim Watts]

Thank you Detective Inspector Dennis...

[alan_m]

No, they have fixed cameras where there have been accidents but that doesn't mean that it's a accident black spot or a dangerous road.

[polygonum]

You end up in a crazy place with the locations of cameras and "There have been xxx accidents" signs.

If they work, then the accident rate will drop to the point at which they are no longer justified. But if they are then moved you would expect the accident rate to rise again...

If they don't work, there is no point other than "We tried to do something" and blame shifting.

That's aside from the fact that "nnn accidents in last 18 months" is inherently variable. So the sign should regularly be reviewed and updated.

[alan_m]

in 99.99% of cases if they did not erect a camera the result would be the same - Google "regression to the mean".

[Uncle Peter]

The rules state there must have been 4 serious accidents in the last 3 years (or similar numbers).

[Huge]

That and the fact that the number of accidents is so small by comparison with the volume of traffic, it's quite hard to do statistics on.