OT: Smart Motorways and overly smart cameras?

[bert]

I can't recall ever seeing the question on any proposal form.

[bert]

Then you would have answered incorrectly and put your cover at risk.

[bert]

In article , Tim Streater writes

They quite often specifically exclude speeding when asking about motoring convictions. Maybe I don't see this because I don't go for the absolute cheapest offers.

[T i m]

Ok, so on one bit of one motorway at some times (unless you have some stats to back your comments up?) were improved. Another here has suggested another such system has made matters worse?

Nope. They might, but there are no guarantees.

But you can't ever guarantee that.

What? 1) I was talking of the issue of people not concentrating because of your suggestion that *slower* = better (= safer) and 2) you do realise I don't make any of these rules don't you (well, not directly anyway).

Don't need your money mate.

That's 'bikers' for you. Luckily we just 'ride motorcycles' sometimes.

It looks like your record is stuck mate. If you don't believe what you read out there (stuff I've not written you know) it clearly states that the whole point of this new *Zero Tolerance* system is that there is, well, 'No tolerance', hence the scales starting at 1mph over the marked limit. If you don't think it's being enforced, give it a try and report back.

Or you could have a look on the net, it's all over the place:

"Although the motorway fines have taken the headlines, drivers are most likely to be affected by the new fines and penalties on slower roads. If you are caught at between 31 and 40mph in a 30mph zone you will get three penalty points and a fine of between 25 and 75 per cent of your weekly income. Currently many drivers get away without points and a fine by paying for a speed awareness course."

You may notice how that differs greatly to the previous 30mph +10%+2 =

35mph threshold.

The good reason was already there, it was illegal.

"Rule 219

Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or traffic officer and incident support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you."

Why would you need to stop?

I think you find the answer to that is 'good enough and better than my speedo'.

You *really* aught to get out mate!

They are *also* good as calibration tools.

Read it yourself FFS!

Limit: 40 Range: 41 ? 55 Fine (Starting point): 50% of relevant weekly income (Range): 25 ? 75% of relevant weekly income Points: 3

(Or attend a SAC, if they offer you one and take no fine or points).

Couldn't really be much clearer eh ... *FORTY ONE* ... and (for a right brainer) fits in with the words *Zero tolerance*!

Duh ... but with the same basic goals.

You know what I was saying about you getting out more ...

In case it uses words you don't understand, speed restrictions were introduced for safety reasons.

As above, cameras were introduced to enforce speed restrictions.

Who do you believe in this world OOI dennis? Your carer, your shrink ... God?

Who is 'they' in this world of yours? The local Police for running the SAC's, yes they do, they say they do.

"Last year, the police received more than £36m from course fees, more than any other year."

Hey, you are learning a lot in this thread aren't you dennis! ;-)

I have never mentioned about 'profit', just that they take in money for providing the courses (£35/head in Oct 2014 apparently). Even if they in turn spend that on Road Safety, that means they aren't spending money they should be spending on other things.

So your variable speed camera utopia *does not* always remove or even reduce congestion. Like many 'bolt on' solutions, they can only sometimes address the symptoms.

You get my point though.

Bwhahaha ... I'm not sure you have even visited this world and are hacking in from another planet!

"In England and Wales the main source of income for the 43 geographic police forces is central government grant made available through the annual Home Office Police Grant Report."

So nothing. Your call mate.

No droid, it's so the drivers can easier adhere to the speed limits without obsessively staring at the speedo.

'Ourselves' you mean? Or 'yourselves' as you obviously aren't one of us.

Do you know how to use Google OOI? Give it a go and see how much discussion is out there on the whole change to Zero Tolerance speed monitoring.

For reasons you are probably unable to ever comprehend mate. ;-(

'Rage', no, get frustrated because of the inabilities or selfishness of others, sometimes.

Again, this is another 'limitation' of you left brainers. You *think* I need to agree with everyone or that I should or would suddenly change my views based on the *opinions* of others. Now, come up with any supportive facts for your 'opinions' and I might be swayed otherwise.

Or maybe that wasn't what I wanted at all? Why do you think I'm still trying to counter most of your opinion and banal questions with variable fact ... most of which seem to support my current understanding of the (recent) situation but not yours?

Where did I exclude such a usage?

See above.

Possibly (although highly traffic weight and situation depending).

You appear (once again) to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. We are primarily discussing the new 'Zero Tolerance' speed cameras and their usage on variable speed limit / smart motorways, not 101 'other' uses for a speed camera (or any other traffic calming / managing measures).

Doh, it must be so limiting stuck with just 0 and 1 as your options in life. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

A speed limit as a safety mechanism is very arbitrary. The safe speed at any instant is subject to several variables. And 99.9% of the time breaking this law is a victimless crime.

[T i m]

How clever. ;-)

I have seen a couple of areas round here where the phasing of the lights are so predictable that the regulars know there is little point even driving at the speed limit between them so just pootle between each set often keep rolling. There are some you could get though faster if you raced but there are also cameras along there. ;-(

That's not to say they wouldn't sometimes traverse that sequence of lights quicker if they were more random, just that they aren't. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[bert]

A maths professor calculated it at 3mph for a 3 lane motorway but that was under the old Highway Code rules for vehicle spacing before they were dumbed down.

[T i m]

Exactly wot I said then?

Unlike doing the same thing as you pass a 'spot' speed camera.

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

Only if you are a tourist.

[T i m]

They are classically less good at maths than left brainers, yes.

Did you have an actual point though? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Are these the new / current guidelines though Colin?

Would you have a link you could share please?

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

No it doesn't. The law says you can be done for doing 31 in a 30 and has for years. Now show one authority that is fining drivers doing 31 in a 30 limit.

[T i m]

Ok ...

Ok.

Not even a FPN?

So is all this 'getting done for just 1mph over the top' you can read in the press and on the Net just scare mongering then?

Cheers, T i m

[dennis]

There isn't much point in putting a speed trap where drivers don't speed. I bet that if you look into it they only sent warning letters out for the first few days. Not that motorists are clever enough to understand them. I know someone who got a warning letter that she had been driving along a pedestrian only street and that fines would be issued from a fortnight in the future. Now she says she can't pay the 27 fines she has racked up driving down the street every day since.

[T i m]

Understood.

But weren't they the old / pre 'Zero tolerance' levels? What is the Zero Tolerance thing all about then?

Why have people here (personally) known of someone being done for doing 33 in a 30?

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Check. ;-)

Of course, positive and negative and they have different names to make it more straightforward to understand. ;-)

Hehe, quite, whiplash versus headplanting the windscreen. ;-(

So it's a similar thing with centripetal / centrifugal forces ... many get the general idea (typically centrifugal) but fewer know of the existence of both or what they actually mean. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Jethro_uk]

Cheers.

Looked at the S-max a few years ago, but were put off by the salesman refusing to arrange a test drive in an automatic. Had 3 Citroens since then, but never say never ...

Overriding requirement is ease of entry for SWMBO plus space for wheelchair plus power buggy ...

[T i m]

Ah, we agree on that at least. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Andy Burns]

Yes, the fine levels have changed if you get prosecuted, the ACPO has become NPCC but the ticket/nicking guidelines haven't changed, I don't know where this "zero tolerance" idea has come from.

[Steve Walker]

There isn't much point in speed-trapping drivers on a road where there was no history of accidents and the speed limit has been dropped so much, when it was a road specifically designed for 70mph.

An definite example of the wrong speed limit for the road and the police unnecessarily policing it.

Now the speed limit may be more suitable, but that is only because a completely new junction, with traffic lights was introduced years later.

SteveW