Safety camera partnership

On 19/12/2014 00:41, F Murtz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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.

wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
Not even possible.

F submitted this idea :
  Quoted Text Here  
Fixed cameras on poles, but I have never seen one of their mobiles vans, ever in Leeds.

On 18/12/2014 18:28, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Ah! I took the reference to be all of the speed cameras they use so, no, I've not seen any of the vans in Leeds.

  Quoted Text Here  
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

On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Especially when its easy to add cameras to the database.

  Quoted Text Here  
Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans.
  Quoted Text Here  
Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans.
  Quoted Text Here  
Nothing like what is being discussed.
  Quoted Text Here  
There is fuck all evidence that those are due to speeding.

On 19/12/2014 22:37, Rod Speed wrote:
...
  Quoted Text Here  
Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations at which they use mobile speed cameras:
http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

  Quoted Text Here  
That doesn’t tell you where the van actually is tho, just where it MIGHT BE.
And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

On 19/12/2014 23:32, Rod Speed wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
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.

wrote
  Quoted Text Here  
Different matter entirely to speed vans and cops in cop cars.

  Quoted Text Here  
The police issue maps so that people slow down. If they see a road where people are speeding they will put a trap there even if it isn't on the map.

On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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.

  Quoted Text Here  
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.

  Quoted Text Here  
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.

  Quoted Text Here  
Not when its JUST exceeding the speed limit.
  Quoted Text Here  
Even sillier than you usually manage.
  Quoted Text Here  
Like hell there is.
  Quoted Text Here  
Or they concentrate on the traffic and wouldn’t have seen the camera even if they were below the speed limit.
  Quoted Text Here  
Even sillier than you usually manage.
  Quoted Text Here  
Wrong, as always.
  Quoted Text Here  
There are plenty who have enough of a clue to realise that the speed limit is by definition for the worst situation which normally isnt present.
  Quoted Text Here  
Even sillier than you usually manage.
  Quoted Text Here  
Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 20/12/2014 09:14, Rod Speed wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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.?
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Even sillier than you usually manage.
  Quoted Text Here  
Even sillier than you usually manage.
All of those are a lot more visible than speed cameras.
  Quoted Text Here  
Corse they are.
  Quoted Text Here  
Hardly ever.
  Quoted Text Here  
Hardly ever.
  Quoted Text Here  
Bullshit.
  Quoted Text Here  

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:42:48 +0000, F wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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.

On 19/12/2014 14:34, Jethro_uk wrote: ...
  Quoted Text Here  
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.