The reference to a garbage response was to the *expected* response from
Wodders. He didn't let me down: 'You never could bullshit your way out
of a wet paper bag'.
However, if you take the trouble to check the URL I gave, you'll find
that mobile and variable speed cameras are included in the database.
--
F
www.vulcantothesky.org - keep the last remaining Vulcan flying
Oh, do you mean you can't check the URL? other people find it possible!
On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.
The sat nav warns of variable speed camera sites even when the national
limit applies.
Newspapers regularly publish the locations of speed checking areas for the
coming month or so. It is in everyone's interest to reduce the number of
serious and fatal traffic accidents
John
--
John Mulrooney
NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while.
Which point has already been made above. It just means you need to be
careful when approaching those spots. If you see a large yellow van,
plastered with camera logos there, make sure your speed is legal.
That was just the first hit on Google. SFAIK, only the Scottish Police
don't think it is a good idea to tell drivers where they might encounter
speed cameras.
The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding the speed
limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver failed to look
properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents, loss of control
was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is easy to measure, which
makes it an easy target, but a serious attempt to cut accidents should
target bad driving.
Easier said than done.
What makes most sense it to make accidents more
survivable and to redesign the road system so that
accidents are minimised and that is what has been done.
You don't think that driving too fast was probably the main cause of
total loss of control then?
Failing to look is probably caused by driving too fast to, there is
plenty of evidence to back that up, just look at how many get snapped by
speed cameras they didn't see because they were driving too fast.
So from your post driving too fast is the main cause even if they list
it under a different heading.
This is why they have speed limits as there are so many idiots that
think they can drive fast and cant even work out that if they miss
seeing speed cameras that they are driving too fast for their abilities.
The same idiots will now take to abuse rather than accept they cant
drive very well.
So they were driving too fast then!
A speed limit isn't a target, if you can't see the camera what else have
you missed, one way signs, stop signs, pedestrians, etc.?
No it isn't they can be there for many reasons like noise reduction,
pollution reduction, to annoy huge, etc. You don't know why they are there.
Strangely one of these posters in in my killfile ;)
I'm less worried about speed camera locations, since I don't intend
speeding. However I am concerned that where there are (increasingly)
these 40/30/40 stretches, it's easy to miss the changeover signs.
TBH, it's hard not to get the impression that these 40/30/40 roads are
designed to rack up fines, since, with any more than a lone car, you
eventually wind up with the entire stretch going at 30 anyway. So you may
as well have had the whole road set to 30. Save metal and CO2 emissions.
If that mattered.
It is a result of a DfT guideline that speed limits should not reduce by
more than 20mph in one step, so you get 60mph / 40mph / 30mph / 40mph /
60 mph and 70mph / 50mph / 30mph / 50mph / 70mph wherever that guideline
has been implemented.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.