It also catches inattentive drivers, much like Gatsos do. Attentive drivers don't get caught by either.
The police use hidden cameras if they just want to catch speeders.
I have no sympathy at all for anyone stupid enough to get caught by a visible speed trap. I don't have much for the ones caught by hidden ones either but at least they may actually be paying attention unlike the others.
I think compulsory eyesight tests should be required if you are caught by a visible speed trap.
What a load of s**te.
I partially agree with you. Surveys suggest as many as 1 in 20 drivers cannot pass the basic eyesight test needed to pass the driving exam. And to be fair that eyesight test is not much of a test.
But then it is not the speed limit that is the problem. The ones that would fail the eyesight test are a danger when doing under the speed limit.
You seem to be having problems spelling "impotent".
Hmm, do you live near me? One of the local villages here did that and every third scarecrow in the village was a plodcrow. Most of them were set up with a cheap tripod and a broken video camera. Astonishing to see the rubber marks on the tarmac, some people must drive around eyes closed.
My spell checker also suggested "incompetent":-)
Good words to describe dennis though.
Couldn't be the evidence from the hairdryer would not be admissable.
Shite that plods will be told the number and be watching for it. Not so the ANPR system...
I find it very odd that you can pass your test at 17 and not have to do anything to keep your licence, other than keeping your nose clean, until your 70th birthday. And even then it's pretty much "self assesment".
Seems very counter to todays cooton wool world that people are allowed to be in charge of a leathal(*) bit of machinery with out regular checks on their competancy to operate that bit of machinery.
(*) Around seven people *a day* are killed in UK road "accidents". If virtually anything else under the control of people killed that many there would be an out cry.
"Dave Liquorice" wrote: [snip]
No, the number killed per day is 5.
Doctors kill more people than drivers do. There are 72,000 preventable deaths in hospital each year. I don't hear much of an outcry about that. Approximately 1,800 people die on the roads annually so doctors kill 40 times more people than die in accidents. Where is your outrage over this carnage?
The number of people killed on the roads in the UK has halved in a decade, I don't hear much praise for that.
How many of those 7 are killed by speeding motorists in a village?
Having never lived in a village with a big speeding problem I really cannot comment on how bad it could be. But IMHO the problems are not the speeders doing 7 mph above the legal speed limit (often the limit is too low for the circumstances) but those that are driving under or at the legal speed limit when the safe limit due to the road conditions at the time is 15MPH or less.
I had a friend who was killed by a motorist who knocked him off his bike. I had multiple fractures in one arm when I was knocked off my bike.
I agree with this second part.
I wonder how that would work.
The ANPR camera reports to the police that is has spotted a car that has been reported 3 times for speeding in a quiet village. It's now driving in a town centre doing 10MPH like ever other car in the traffic jam that has just passed the ANPR camera.
Anyway the answer is simple. The volunteer speed camera operatives should be given the address of the speeder and then made to speed past his house 3 times in their cars.
I cannot see many people getting caught 3 times by the volunteers and still not managing to lose their license by being caught speeding elsewhere by the police (unless they live local)
Were the motorists speeding as your post implies? And if so, were they prosecuted for it as well as dangerous driving?
Forty years ago, a friend of mine was killed while he was cycling to school. The car hit him from behind at *below the speed limit*, and he was hit so hard that his skull came through his face.
/Irony As the car wasn't speeding, the driver must have been driving safely, yes? Irony/
That's more to do with a bike being a bloody silly form of transport surely?
I'll happily ride a bike anywhere on mainland Europe, except maybe Italy. I won't willingly ride a bike in *any* large British town or city. It's (IMHO) the bad standard of driving in the UK that makes bikes more dangerous than necessary.
It is easy to spot a cyclist that is also a good motorist (they can be both).
However
The good cyclist has no proper protection from the bad motorist.
The bad cyclist has no proper protection from the good motorist.
I'm surprised that more cyclists don't get killed. They ride all over the place and know the car driver will get the blame. Last week before the clocks were changed. one was cycling without lights coming towards me on myside of the road. Another one disregared the give way sign. One other thing is that speed limits are often put in place to keep the wealthy happy. The road near me has a 30mph limit, this leads to a roundabout over a motorway with five roads leading into it and that has a forty mph limit. Then one road leading off has big posh houses so that goes back to 30mph all the others are 40mph. Robbie
All the accidents I have witnessed bar one were at sub legal speeds.
Focussing on your speedometer is a bad way to drive safely.
I witnessed a fatal accident as a kid when a rather senile old dear walked straight in front of a car. Doing less than 30mph.
Nothing the driver could have done, and no law was broken.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.