150,000 in fines on Halifax road by speed camera

[ptigga 10]

There's a website I've recently become aware of that shows all of the road casualties in the UK between 2000 and 2010 on a map.

 

I've had a look at this location on Halifax road and it shows a cluster of serious injuries and minor injuries on the cross roads by the cameras. A female vehicle occupant was also killed just downhill from that spot in 2010. See http://map.itoworld.com/road-casualties-uk#lat=53.4242327760155&lon=-1.4929561181882651&zoom=16

 

Every serious injury on that map will have been a life changing event for person who suffered. It seems perfectly reasonable to take measures to enforce the speed limit in that area to reduce the risk.

Edited November 27, 2011 by ptigga
Readability

[BarryRiley 10]

Why would people need to slow down for them?

 

If they are speeding they would need to slow down for them to avoid a fine. Better a speeder slowing down for a known camera then one speeding through an unknown one and causing an accident

[DT Ralge 10]

But the person behind could be keeping their distance, then just at the second that they check their speedo the car in front brakes heavily for speed limit adjustment. You do no see it because you are looking at your speedo and BANG! you drive into the car in front. The speeding limit sign has caused yet another accident! It happens everyday.

 

Not convinced at all that this is anything other than a massive overstatement of the issue since I have seen plenty of drivers ahead of me touching their brakes nervously when they spot the camera but NEVER has their braking caused me any concern (I currently drive 35,000 miles per year).

With a two-second gap ahead as a minimum I can afford an occasional glance down at my speedo without any detriment to my safety. I am also in a gear that helps me calibrate my intuitive understanding of what speed I am travelling at so the occasional glance is nothing more than a confirmation and fine tuning calibration of this understanding.

If yours is not an overstatement, I have missed literally hundreds of drivers sat next to me spending too much time looking at their speedo's. Try 3rd gear in 30 zones then accelerate and move into 4th when entering 40 zones and the engine noise will eventually help you make legal progress without having to constantly refer to the speedo if you find that too distracting.

[BarryRiley 10]

Not convinced at all that this is anything other than a massive overstatement of the issue since I have seen plenty of drivers ahead of me touching their brakes nervously when they spot the camera but NEVER has their braking caused me any concern (I currently drive 35,000 miles per year).

Try 3rd gear in 30 zones then accelerate and move into 4th when entering 40 zones and the engine noise will eventually help you make legal progress without having to constantly refer to the speedo if you find that too distracting.

 

I'd agree with that. Plus, as the old adage says "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

Try 3rd gear in 30 zones then accelerate and move into 4th when entering 40 zones and the engine noise will eventually help you make legal progress without having to constantly refer to the speedo if you find that too distracting.

 

I'm not sure about this bit of advice through. Driving at these speeds in these gears will destroy your MPG in most cars and do nothing for the environment

[DT Ralge 10]

I'd agree with that. Plus, as the old adage says "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

 

 

I'm not sure about this bit of advice through. Driving at these speeds in these gears will destroy your MPG in most cars and do nothing for the environment

 

We disagree, then.

3rd gear downhill in 30 holds you at 30 far more readily than 4th.

It uses no fuel (neither would 4th) with foot off the accelerator.

Uphill and around parked cars and other hazards, 3rd gives you a fine-tuned, efficient responsivess and flexibility to slow and accelerate (gear changes: 4th to 3rd, back to 4th use more fuel than staying in 3rd).

On the level, 4th may be better if we can keep it at 30 but all too often 4th can take us up to 35 and the unfairness of being snapped.

Yes, I was taught to "get into top gear, lad" but engine technology and power delivery has changed massively even in the last ten years and the mantra "3rd for 30" works out economically for a huge number of vehicles.

[Penistone999 10]

The cameras are also a great way to show how many blind idiots are on the roads.

Assuming each blind fool has to cough up 60 quid, that's 2,500 twits who love to pay an optional tax on stupidity.

 

This one has NEVER got me ,and i drive that road every day up to 60MPH ,as its a good fast road . its a simple case of slowing down to the 40mph limit for the cameras benefit ,then speed up again after the camera , simples ................. fine avoided.

[DT Ralge 10]

This one has NEVER got me ,and i drive that road every day up to 60MPH ,as its a good fast road . its a simple case of slowing down to the 40mph limit for the cameras benefit ,then speed up again after the camera , simples ................. fine avoided.

 

There you go, an impressive example of cunning, aware, devious non-compliance that will surely get the driver to the red light, pedestrian crossing, bus stop, junction, roundabout that much earlier than the losers around him.

[sccsux 10]

If they are speeding they would need to slow down for them to avoid a fine. Better a speeder slowing down for a known camera then one speeding through an unknown one and causing an accident

 

Better not to speed at all.

[BarryRiley 10]

Better not to speed at all.

 

I agree, but people will always speed

[BarryRiley 10]

We disagree, then.

3rd gear downhill in 30 holds you at 30 far more readily than 4th.

It uses no fuel (neither would 4th) with foot off the accelerator.

Uphill and around parked cars and other hazards, 3rd gives you a fine-tuned, efficient responsivess and flexibility to slow and accelerate (gear changes: 4th to 3rd, back to 4th use more fuel than staying in 3rd).

On the level, 4th may be better if we can keep it at 30 but all too often 4th can take us up to 35 and the unfairness of being snapped.

Yes, I was taught to "get into top gear, lad" but engine technology and power delivery has changed massively even in the last ten years and the mantra "3rd for 30" works out economically for a huge number of vehicles.

 

I would have to disagree. You didn't mention anything about hills - obviously lower gears are needed going down or up - but there's no way most cars are more economic travelling in 3rd at 30 rather than 4th or even 5th. On flat road always get in the highest gear your car can handle.

 

Also, cars do use fuel when going downhill. They use fuel at any time the engine is on and ticking over, even when not moving.

 

I understand you are just trying to give tips for not breaking the law though so props for that

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Mmmmmmmm, too slow is dangerous driving but...

 

 

 

for a slow driver, you blindly went past a speed can while speeding.

That suggests you're a bad driver. Perhaps you should stick to slow.

 

 

 

 

Lost or you're half blind?

I only ask because you didn't seem to see a speed trap as well.

 

 

 

Life is full of changes. You have now.

 

 

 

Apart from being an over dramatic lie (you don't get your licence taken off you for a single offence of 5mph over the limit), tough if you did.

You broke the law and should take the punishment like a man.

Your problem if you lost your business because you broke the law.

 

 

 

Easier way to catch drunks than......

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/overtaking_dad_killed_in_a61_crash_carnage_1_300217

 

 

 

and it gets rid of dangerous speeding motorists with eyesight or observation skills so bad, they can't see a speed trap.

 

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/driver_aged_35_is_killed_in_horrific_road_accident_1_264361

 

 

 

Oh look, a speeder. He was lucky. He could have been nabbed by a speed trap instead.

 

.

Read your own post, the accidents you glibly crow about were caused by SPEED, not by some unfortunate motorist doing 35 in a 30 zone.

 

I realy do think you should remove your head from your anus before scribing the tosh you put on the webby site.

 

I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you do it - just to get a reaction, not because you are somehow lacking in the brain dept. Or maybe

on second thoughts, you are on the sauce and do not know what you are writing.

 

Regards

 

Angel.

[DT Ralge 10]

I would have to disagree. You didn't mention anything about hills - obviously lower gears are needed going down or up - but there's no way most cars are more economic travelling in 3rd at 30 rather than 4th or even 5th. On flat road always get in the highest gear your car can handle.

 

Also, cars do use fuel when going downhill. They use fuel at any time the engine is on and ticking over, even when not moving.

 

I understand you are just trying to give tips for not breaking the law though so props for that

 

Sorry, my understanding (I'm not very technical) is that the ECU works out that going downhill, foot off the accelerator in whatever gear NO fuel is required. With old carburettor technology, it was the case that rolling downhill in neutral was cheaper than being in gear. Today, you'd consume more fuel coasting downhill in neutral than in gear because, on tick-over the engine needs fuel.

.. Which is why, when going downhill your immediate mpg fuel consumption meter reads 99.9 mpg (off the scale, infinity even).

Edited November 27, 2011 by DT Ralge