Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Martin Underwood wrote:
In message , at
11:22:21 on Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Richard J.
remarked:

but it would be illegal for the highway authority to clarify
the situation by putting repeater 30 mph signs, which are
banned on restricted roads with street lighting. (Unless
there's been a change in the law recently. I've seen plates
in Reading containing a repeater 30 and a camera logo.)

How absurd that signs which would clarify the limit should be
deemed to be illegal. What a pathetic situtation :-(

The explanation, which I don't find very convincing, is as follows
(taken from Circular Roads 1/93, sent to local authorities by the
Department for Transport, January 1993):

"The use of repeater signs on lit 30 mph roads is expressly forbidden by
paragraph 6(1)(b) of the Traffic Signs (Speed Limits) General Directions
1969 (SI/1487). This is because if there were repeater signs on some lit
30 mph roads but not on others drivers might claim that the absence of
repeaters led them to believe that some speed limit other than 30 mph
applied. They are reported to have done so when repeaters were allowed.
The sign at the start of the limit must therefore be conspicuous. There
have been cases where drivers have been given no indication other than
the lighting itself that the speed limit has changed."

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:04:59
on Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Peter Sumner
remarked:
Agree that the highway code can not give full details of all of the
regulations, but it does refer you to them, and in this case it goes
on to clarify the "usually" with the quite explicit:

"The 30 mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and
Wales (only Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street
lighting unless signs show otherwise)"

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103

In that case, the "183m rule" must be embodied in the definition of
"street lighting".

In other words, "street lighting" must be defined as lights at least
every 183m.

Occasional lights, more than 183m apart, cannot therefore constitute
"Street lighting".

Remember, the 183m rule *does* exist. All I'm trying to do above is
square your view that "The Highway Code is infallible", with reality.

I don't see that anyone is saying the Highway Code is infallible, merely
that is is the first document that is referred to by the general public when
clarification of the rules is needed.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In message , at 16:38:36 on Sun, 20
Feb 2005, Brimstone remarked:
I don't see that anyone is saying the Highway Code is infallible, merely
that is is the first document that is referred to by the general public when
clarification of the rules is needed.

Peter appears to be claiming that *all* roads with streetlights are
30mph (unless otherwise marked), because it says so in the HC. The HC is
misleading, for the reasons I've already given.
--
Roland Perry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:15:34 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:38:36 on Sun, 20
Feb 2005, Brimstone remarked:
I don't see that anyone is saying the Highway Code is infallible, merely
that is is the first document that is referred to by the general public when
clarification of the rules is needed.

Peter appears to be claiming that *all* roads with streetlights are
30mph (unless otherwise marked), because it says so in the HC. The HC is
misleading, for the reasons I've already given.

No I'm not saying that, nor that the Highway Code is infallible. The
code refers you to the relevant law for definitions specifically the
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which says that the road is
restricted if it is illuminated by lamps not more than 200 yards apart
(Its not on line as far as I can tell).

The detailed regulations about signing go into the statutory
instruments and the latest seems to be The Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 2002 which goes into excruciating detail and
makes the distance (for the purpose of deciding if speed limit
repeaters is required 183 meters (185 in Scotland) and helpfully adds
that the lights must be electrically powered.

So if we are going to be fussy there are three situations in England
and Wales where there will not be speed limit repeater signs.

1. Non-motorway with street lights (less than 183m apart) 30mph
2. Non-motorway without lighting (or lights further than 183m) apart
national speed limit (60mph on a single carriageway 70mph on dual)
3. Motorway 70mph


--
Peter Sumner

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Graeme
writes

NOT TRUE.

2 standard colour 35mm exposures using flash illumination. Nothing
infrared
involved with Gatsos.

So are websites such as http://www.termsys.demon.co.uk/gatso.htm wrong
when they claim ...

The photographs taken will be both normal and infra-red. (The
infra-red will 'see' your registration mark when the vehicle is
caked in dirt.) Also, to collect the proof, two photographs are
taken in quick succession, so that the distance travelled can be
seen.

Yes - they are wrong.

Serco's back office systems include wet-film viewers that can invert the
images and this often helps to see plates that can't be seen normally.


And http://www.benlovejoy.com/speedtrapdetectors.html ... with its
picture of "A forward-facing infra-red Gatso hidden behind a sign"

Gatsometer's own site claims that they make GATSOs "with optional
infra-red flash", but I have no idea if these are used in the UK.


If you want it from the horse's mouth - why don't you ask the Warwickshire
or Sussex Partnerships who will be delighted to tell.


Essex have experimented with front-facing photography to supplement their
successful (!) Gatso-based campaign, but they do NOT have approval (to the
best of my knowledge) as these images are triggered in the same way as a
slave flash gun is in photography. There is a big demand to identify
offending drivers and this is Gatso's attempt to help Essex achieve that
result.

Again, to my knowledge the optional IR illumination that Gatso offer is not
approved for use here. They have a shed load of products that are used
elsewhere in the world, but that are not approved for use here.

Other systems using Automatic Number Plate Reading Video cameras (such as
SPECS average speed enforcement system) use infrared illumination. Gatso
doesn't.

I believe the Truvelo system also uses I-R.


Truvelo have approval for a front facing camera that uses three piezo strips
in the road and NO radar, but due to it's front-facing nature, they are
obliged to use a magenta filter over the flash to avoid blinding on-coming
(offending!) drivers.

It's not IR.

Basically, if I-R is being used at all, and it certainly appears to be,
then I cannot see how a reflective spray varnish will help to avoid it.

--
Paul Terry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In article ,
Paul Cummins wrote:
In article ,
(Brimstone) wrote:

Even if they don't they are "failing
safe".

I wouldn't call 30 in a 60 "safe"

Why not? There are many types of vehicle that would be limited to
30 or less (because they have too many legs, for example) which one
can take on a desrestricted country road. Are they unsafe too?

--
Mike Bristow - really a very good driver

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In message , Graeme
writes

So are websites such as http://www.termsys.demon.co.uk/gatso.htm wrong
Yes - they are wrong.

I see.

Truvelo have approval for a front facing camera that uses three piezo strips
in the road and NO radar, but due to it's front-facing nature, they are
obliged to use a magenta filter over the flash to avoid blinding on-coming
(offending!) drivers.

It's not IR.

What is your evidence for that? Sorry to sound doubtful, but Google for
Truvelo "infra red" and you will find many, many websites like
http://www.radardetectors.co.uk/faqs.htm ...

Q What is the Truvelo system?

A This is easy to spot because it's a forward facing camera with
pressure strips across the road in front of it. The time and distance of
a vehicle's axles passing over these strips are measured to calculate
speed and a photo is then taken if you are considered to be over the
speed limit. Like the SPECS system the picture is taken using infra red
so you do not see a flash.

Or is this yet another website that is wrong?

--
Paul Terry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
.. .
I think it's something to do with the fact that 80% of British dual
carriageways are of a better standard that German Autobahnen, but have
slower, and often unreasonably slower, speed limits.

A12 in the Kelvedon area. Side turnings into minor tracks that have no
advance warning, and require anyone turning into them to almost come to a
dead stand on the dual-carriageway. But I agree that the 70mph speed limit
is sometimes unreasonably slow; I'm thinking more of other types of road.


How am I endangering anyone by doing 80-90 down the M6 at 3am on a clear
morning?

I doubt you are, but are there any cameras on the M6? I'm not aware of too
many motorway sites in the south-east.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

"redtube" wrote in message
...
Arrrgh listen to old self righteousness Lardface out there, - Obey the
road
traffic laws? oh sure and thats why the overwhelming majority of us *real*
people out there find the wretched things things anything but a safety
measure and purely as a device to earn revenue? Easy money in other words.
Most Dual Carriageway speed limits should be removed anyway cos no
pedestrians are involved usually most are barrier proofed with footbridges
or traffic lights these days. So why even HAVE a 50 say for instance
suddenly turn into a 40 or even 30 on a Dual Carriageway with perfectly
good
barriers to safeguard the pedestrians? Reason? to catch the motorists out,
thats what.

Perhaps if some (most?) motorists learned not to pull out in front of other
cars when not safe to do, or leave proper gaps between themselves and the
vehicle in front, the lower speed limits might not be necessary.

Saw the remnants of a smash in Lincolnshire earlier today, T-junction on a
60mph 'A'-road, flowers beside the road and the remains of two seriously
restyled cars being moved away by the police.

sigh

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Chris Tolley ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I've still not heard a compelling reason why mandatory periodic
re-testing isn't a good idea

Logistics? If one presumes that people take a test and then drive for
40 years on average, then it follows that he testing system has to
cope with 2.5% of the drivers per annum. Give people a test, say every
5 years, and it will have to cope with 20%. That's an awful lot of
appointments to fit in.

Over the years, the number of retests will go down as the irredemably
incompetent decide they just can't be arsed.

Surely that's a good thing?

Of course, what we then need to do is to ensure that driving without a
licence is much, much more difficult.

Perhaps a legal requirement to display it in the windscreen while driving,
along with MOT and insurance to demonstrate the car is legal?