Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In message , at 18:51:22 on
Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Peter Sumner
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).

Phew! We agree. Sorry if your earlier posting led me to believe
otherwise.

--
Roland Perry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Roland Perry ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I would suggest that if you are driving in open countryside on a 60pmh
road, and jam on the brakes when you get to a 400yds lit section where a
side-road joins, that you'd be anything but "safe".

ITYF that those street lights carry NSL reminders.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

In message , at
20:46:56 on Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Adrian remarked:
I would suggest that if you are driving in open countryside on a 60pmh
road, and jam on the brakes when you get to a 400yds lit section where a
side-road joins, that you'd be anything but "safe".

ITYF that those street lights carry NSL reminders.

They don't have to unless the lit length exceeds certain distances.

There were at least three such stretches on the A10 between Royston and
Cambridge when I last looked (about 2 years ago).
--
Roland Perry

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Northampton Safety Camera Partnership use Truvelo front-facing piezo
triggered cameras. I've visited the manufacturer in South Africa and,
to the best of my knowledge they DO flash if you're dumb enough to
speed as you approach one ! The flash is magenta to avoid blinding
approaching drivers. This was developed in order to get the product
through Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) and agreed by the Police
Scientific Development Branch who are the test body for such approvals.

You _do_ see a flash with Truvelo, you do _not_ see a flash with SPECS
as the video cameras are constantly live and use IR filtered lamps and
lenses because that is the best way of delivering 24/7 images to the
underlying Automatic Number Plate Reader (ANPR) systems - assuming the
numberplates being viewed are retroflective - which they ARE in the UK.
As Truvelo cameras do NOT use ANPR and are designed to provide the best
image of an approaching, offending vehicle, there would be no sense in
using IR.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

Wasn't there a product on the market when spped cameras came into use
similar to cling film that made the same claims? I'd like to see some
tests and also how long the covering lasts. GATSO cameras are notorious
for not working properly. I've heard stories of certain makes of
numberplates flaring out the picture and also the cameras doing the job
themselves. It seems the latter occurs where the camera is sited in a
dark area that doesn't have the benifit of of street lighting at
night. Condensation on the inside of the box also creates problems
apparently.
Foreward facing cameras also have problems, mainly with the strips in
the road that fail regularly. It is also rumoured that they only work
over a certain weight, presumably they are set for car weight as
motorbikes cannot be caught by forward facing cameras as they have no
front numberplate.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

snip

Yes, a lot of main roads near where I live (Oxfordshire) have recently
been
downgraded to 50 (or are about to be downgraded) "to reduce the number of
traffic accidents". This is solving the right problem in the wrong way: to
avoid collisions, you need to penalise the person who *causes* the
accident,
typically a driver who is on a minor road who pulls out into fast-moving
traffic without assessing its speed or the pedestrian who crosses the road
without regard for the traffic, rather than penalising (by imposing a
draconian speed limit) the driver who is in the right and who has
priority.

/snip

Exactly how does penalising the person who causes the accident by pulling
out into fast moving traffic ACTUALLY HELP ???

Agreed. it might stop them doing it AGAIN - but the FIRST accident they
caused still happened. Perhaps they aren't even around to cause another
accident ! (Darwin has an explanation for that - sadly they often take
others with them).

Slowing the _other_ driver down minimises the kinetic energy when there is a
crash and reduces the probability of _someones_ family having to visit a
morgue to identify a mangled corpse.

If you were the relative of the person who caused the accident by pulling
out into faster-than-expected moving traffic - would you be comfortable with
the consequences - their death, the oncoming vehicle driver (and passengers'
deaths). Isn't slowing down worth it to avoid all that pain?

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:27:54 +0000 (UTC), "Graeme"
wrote:

Isn't slowing down worth it to avoid all that pain?

Shall we all drive around at 5mph with a man with a red flag in front?

That may sound rather devil's advocate, but IMO the best solution to
poor driving is to penalise it, improve driver education and so try to
reduce the amount of it around. Wholesale speed limit reductions do
not solve the problem of people driving too fast for the conditions.
The reason why they are in favour at present is that they are cheap to
enforce. What we *really* need is more patrolling traffic police, not
cameras, and that costs money.

Fortunately, Milton Keynes Council seem to have noticed this and it
would appear are reconsidering the proposed wholesale reduction in
speed limits by 20mph on the grid system.

The original idea was brought on by a few children being run down on
the roads, which are all provided with a good number of underpasses
and bridges so there is no need to cross on the level. To encourage
their use, what is needed is better lighting, CCTV and good signage,
not a way of mitigating the inevitable when people cross the roads
themselves, as well as a bit of parental responsibility in not
allowing their children to play near 70mph segregated dual
carriageways, just as they should not be playing on a motorway or
railway.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

"redtube" wrote in message
...



Would you really want to buy something from a company that thinks the
Scottish Highlands are off-shore?

(See Terms & Conditions 1: This product is only for UK inland sale - we
will not ship this to Northern Ireland, Scottish Highlands or any
international destination)

--
Paul Terry

I never noticed THAT Paul, how hilarious. Seems the product has the thumbs
down then and doesnt work.
From the other replies it seems its just not a viable product. Thanks for
your replies. Interesting comments.
regards
Redtube



In actual fact it's not that unusual to have the Highlands considered (for
delivery purposes) as "off shore". I believe some couriers think they're
the same.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

"Grizzly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:31:27 GMT, "Richard J."



Besides, how would you test it without running the risk of a penalty +
points?


I tried testing it (on an off road vehicle, of course) by flashing a camera
at the plate - pretty unscientific I know - but it picked up the plate from
every angle in every picture. So I figured it was a load of nonsense.

Speed Camera Avoidance
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4...
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.


I doubt that logically follows. I know of three people who have taken 8+
tests in an attempt to get their first licence.