Speed camera myths

Bygone_Tones

aord43 said:

ESBlonde said:

The speed limit is a maximum limit not a target!

I hate that phrase. The speed limit IS a target that you should try to meet - but only when the driving conditions and visibility allow for it.

Why? because you need to be considerate to other road users who want to get to their destination as quickly as possible (legally). Not doing so will infuriate all the drivers behind you and is very dangerous because they are likely to perform very risky manoeuvers to get past you.

Also if you drive too slowly, especially on a motorway, you are a hazard.

midlifecrisis

HAL9000 said:

A conversation I overheard yesterday came up with these...

Speed cameras won't get you if you're changing lanes whilst being snapped.

All motorway speed cameras are set for at least 80mph.

On motorways with variable speed limits, the camera's trigger point doesn't vary with the speed limit i.e. it remains at 80mph.

The 10% + 2mph thing is not a guideline, it's the law.

I suspect that the only one of these that might be true is the second one.

3rd one definately not true,, i got done on a variable limit doing 52 on a 40 variable, i was offered and did the speed awareness course.

celentium

Does anyone stick to the speed limit at all times? I very rarely ever see cars driving at the speed limit unless there is a camera coming up.

ESBlonde

Bygone_Tones said:

aord43 said:

ESBlonde said:

The speed limit is a maximum limit not a target!

I hate that phrase. The speed limit IS a target that you should try to meet - but only when the driving conditions and visibility allow for it.

Why? because you need to be considerate to other road users who want to get to their destination as quickly as possible (legally). Not doing so will infuriate all the drivers behind you and is very dangerous because they are likely to perform very risky manoeuvers to get past you.

Also if you drive too slowly, especially on a motorway, you are a hazard.

Nope. If the people sharing the public highway haven't left enough time for thier journey safely, it's there problem and no one elses. I agree that doing 22mph in a thirty for any sustained period is most irritating and questions someones driving ability (I'm thinking old lady that can't see over the steering wheel). But there are plenty of valid reasons someone else doesn't have to rush at the maximum speed that others may not see or appreciate just because someone else thinks they are more important and unaware.

EricTheWeary

I remember on Top Gear they tried to establish a speed at which speed cameras couldn't get you , can't remember exactly but something like 160mph and you were too quick for it to register, so that was true ( although doesn't necessarily apply to all camera types). 
Some older types read the front plate so motorcyclists didn't get fines, fairly sure that's true but largely irrelevant now. 

Having sat through a few traffic courts in years gone by  and worked with a lot of drink drivers ( and having attended one of those speed awareness courses myself) it's amazing what people don't know about driving legally. 

I used to be on a Wild Camping page on Facebook which, despite what you might imagine, was primarily people who slept in lay-bys and car parks in campervans. Almost weekly there would be huge threads about wether you could drink alcohol if you were parked up for the night. The ignorance of some basic law and the weird explanations were mind boggling.

bingefeller

I remember my uncle used to put hairspray on his number plate to reflect the traffic camera's signal.

darthed1981

HAL9000 said:

Snap said:

When will cameras be able to nobble people for texting and driving? Some berk was doing that the other day, in the middle lane doing about 80. Ludicrous.

^This. Speed doesn't kill. Bad driving does. People who speed are easy (and legitimate) targets. People who text, use their mobiles, tailgate, etc are generally more dangerous and should be targeted at least as vigourously.

I was driving through a nearby village the other day, a woman was driving towards me in the middle of the road, at least two kids in the car, phone clearly in front of her on her steering wheel.  She turned back onto her side of the road about ten metres from me.

People are dicks.

crunchman

ESBlonde said:

Bygone_Tones said:

aord43 said:

ESBlonde said:

The speed limit is a maximum limit not a target!

I hate that phrase. The speed limit IS a target that you should try to meet - but only when the driving conditions and visibility allow for it.

Why? because you need to be considerate to other road users who want to get to their destination as quickly as possible (legally). Not doing so will infuriate all the drivers behind you and is very dangerous because they are likely to perform very risky manoeuvers to get past you.

Also if you drive too slowly, especially on a motorway, you are a hazard.

Nope. If the people sharing the public highway haven't left enough time for thier journey safely, it's there problem and no one elses. I agree that doing 22mph in a thirty for any sustained period is most irritating and questions someones driving ability (I'm thinking old lady that can't see over the steering wheel). But there are plenty of valid reasons someone else doesn't have to rush at the maximum speed that others may not see or appreciate just because someone else thinks they are more important and unaware.

If someone is crawling along the motorway at 40 it is dangerous.  People can legally be doing 70.  A speed differential  of 30mph is just dangerous.  I'm pretty sure I've read of people being prosecuted for driving too slow on motorways.

If you want to do 60mph to save fuel then fair enough, but generally you ought to be within 10mph or so of the speed limit as long as weather and visibility conditions permit.  On the other hand I remember driving at night in horrendous rain where I did have to slow down to about 35 or 40 as that was all that the visibility allowed.  There were nutters still going past me at high speed.

Those people who drive along at 22mph in a 30mph limit are the ones who annoy me the most though.  There is no reason for it apart from incompetence.  They won't even be saving fuel as they will have to drive in a lower gear.

FX_Munkee

The ones that really wind me up are the ones who drive along at 35 in the 30 zone, continue at 35 in the National speed limit section, 35 in the 40 section etc.

octatonic

roundthebend said:

As such, the only sensible advice is to not exceed the speed limit on your own speedo, and hope that it's not wildly inaccurate. You can't know how accurate the recording equipment is. So forget playing games.

It is illegal for manufacturers to have a speedo that reads under actual speed, so all car and bike manufacturers err on the side of caution and have their vehicles read about 2mph over the actual speed.
You can test by using a GPS device, which will register your true speed and you can compare it to what the car says.

We have BMW's and I can tell you that when you are doing 30 on the cars speedo you are actually doing 28.
When you are doing 70 you are actually doing 67mph.

crunchman

octatonic said:

We have BMW's and I can tell you that when you are doing 30 on the cars speedo you are actually doing 28.
When you are doing 70 you are actually doing 67mph.

The pedant in me has to ask whether that is with new tyres or old tyres?  Just did some basic sums, and a 16" tyre would read about 1mph different with brand new tyres compared with tyres with 2mm of tread left.

ICBM

ESBlonde said:

I agree that doing 22mph in a thirty for any sustained period is most irritating and questions someones driving ability (I'm thinking old lady that can't see over the steering wheel).

Randomly slowing down to 22/23mph for no apparent reason - as the driver I was behind last night kept doing - is actually even more annoying!

ESBlonde said:

But there are plenty of valid reasons someone else doesn't have to rush at the maximum speed that others may not see or appreciate just because someone else thinks they are more important and unaware.

That is true, but being unaware and/or inconsiderate of traffic behind them means they are probably more of a hazard than someone driving at or just over the speed limit.

crunchman said:

If someone is crawling along the motorway at 40 it is dangerous.  People can legally be doing 70.  A speed differential  of 30mph is just dangerous.  I'm pretty sure I've read of people being prosecuted for driving too slow on motorways.

40 is getting dangerous, yes - traffic coming up behind in normal clear conditions won't be expecting something that slow. I think the legal lower limit is actually 30 though! You also aren't supposed to be on the motorway at all in a vehicle which isn't capable of at least 50mph.

crunchman said:

If you want to do 60mph to save fuel then fair enough, but generally you ought to be within 10mph or so of the speed limit as long as weather and visibility conditions permit.

I choose to drive fairly slowly on the motorway usually - 55-60mph, exactly because it saves fuel, and I find it more relaxing - but I pay a lot of attention to what's behind me as well as what's in front, so I don't do anything stupid like pulling out to overtake at that speed if there's someone fast behind - and at that I'm not going any slower than the lorries either.

crunchman said:

Those people who drive along at 22mph in a 30mph limit are the ones who annoy me the most though.  There is no reason for it apart from incompetence.  They won't even be saving fuel as they will have to drive in a lower gear.

This is what annoys me about Edinburgh's new almost blanket 20mph rule - it's actually going to increase pollution (contrary to what they claim) because most cars won't take anything much under 30 in top gear. Under 20 is usually a struggle even in 4th. Luckily it seems to be being interpreted more as "definitely well under 30" (as opposed to the 35mph that people think is the limit in the 30) than "20", which I can live with - on the flat my car will go down to about 24mph in top. 20 is really too slow on anything other than a narrow residential street or outside a school.

FX_Munkee said:

The ones that really wind me up are the ones who drive along at 35 in the 30 zone, continue at 35 in the National speed limit section, 35 in the 40 section etc.

That's simple lack of awareness of road conditions, which includes speed limits. Very common.

But even worse are the bastards who do that on a country road, through the villages and the twisty bits where you can't overtake, then when you come to a long straight bit where you can finally get past, they speed up to 55 or 60 so you have to break the law if you do actually want to overtake - then usually flash their lights at you...

Paul_C

I generally stick to the limit these days, mostly because I'm old and can't be arsed to race everywhere anymore.

Having said that, I do get annoyed by people not making an effort to at least get close to the limit, particularly half-wits driving at 60-65mph in the middle lane on the motorway when it's possible to drive at 70mph in the inside lane due to it being empty.

Sundays are particularly bad for this, which is usually when I'm on the road . . . sigh.

Electro_Ham

What about motorcycles that only have a rear reg. plate. Do the cameras pic that up?

crunchman

ICBM said:

crunchman said:

Those people who drive along at 22mph in a 30mph limit are the ones who annoy me the most though.  There is no reason for it apart from incompetence.  They won't even be saving fuel as they will have to drive in a lower gear.

This is what annoys me about Edinburgh's new almost blanket 20mph rule - it's actually going to increase pollution (contrary to what they claim) because most cars won't take anything much under 30 in top gear. Under 20 is usually a struggle even in 4th. Luckily it seems to be being interpreted more as "definitely well under 30" (as opposed to the 35mph that people think is the limit in the 30) than "20", which I can live with - on the flat my car will go down to about 24mph in top. 20 is really too slow on anything other than a narrow residential street or outside a school.

Most of London is going to end up in a blanket 20mph.  The borough where I live (Hounslow) is planning to put 20mph limits on all of it's roads.  The only ones that won't be 20mph will be the TFL controlled main roads.  Some other boroughs have already done that.

The problem is that the 20mph limits that have already been put in are being ignored on the bigger roads.   There is a wide road through an industrial area on my journey to work, that is now a 20mph (although very badly signposted) and cars still regularly do 35 or 40 mph.  It's not near any schools, and living locally, I've never heard of any major accidents on that road.  A 20mph limit isn't required.

It's actually going to encourage rat runs as well.  There is another road near us, where there is a shorter route through a residential street.  When the roads were all 30mph I often used to use the more major road because of the layout of the junctions etc.  Now they are both 20mph so the additional distance takes longer to cover, I use the residential street every time.

20mph is a good idea on residential streets, but blanket 20mph is silly - especially if it is not being enforced.  Any law that you don't enforce just breeds lack of respect for the law.

fields5069

If I'm in a monkey mask, it's not me, so u carnt cach me?

boogieman

FX_Munkee said:

The ones that really wind me up are the ones who drive along at 35 in the 30 zone, continue at 35 in the National speed limit section, 35 in the 40 section etc.

I was behind an old guy doing something similar once. Constant 30 mph, no matter what the speed limit. He also indicated just to go around bends in the road. I couldn't get past him so was stuck. He was still doing 30mph when he drove straight up the back of a bus. 

chillidoggy

There should be a minimum speed limit on a motorway.

Whitecat

There are a couple stretches of dual carriageway near me that I use quite frequently where literally nobody sees the National Speed Limit signage when it appears (and thus increases to 70 from 50). I've gotta be ready for some overtaking because I know they are there but it seems like they must be pretty camo'd into the background or something.

boogieman

chillidoggy said:

There should be a minimum speed limit on a motorway.

I thought there was tbh?