Who Else Thinks That Speed Cameras Are Actually Dengerous?

[Scunnered]

driver concentration is proportional to the speed you're going at

That's a bold statement. Do you have any evidence to support it?

[Guest happy?]

So you have no problem with speed cameras despite that fact that they distract other drivers around you? Take a look at this video from 1.57 to 2.17, there are two examples of accidents caused by speed cameras. Would you still not have a problem with the things if someone crashed into you because they suddenly braked to avoid being caught and lost control of their car?

Edited to say that as per my previous post regarding speed camera placement, speed cameras are only put in places where the safest drivers think that it's safe to break the speed limit and it is illegal to put them in areas where the majority of drivers either stick to the speed limit or drive below it. Therefore drivers who are driving too fast for the circumstances will more than likely not be caught by speed cameras.

It's not safe to break the speed limit in those areas. People speeding there are risking the lives of others but have failed to take full account of other road users - they've made a bad judgement based around their perception of safety - ignoring evidence which doesn't fit with their highly selective viewpoint.

How many overweight children are there because the roads aren't 'safe' for them to cycle on. These roads aren't 'safe' because of poor driving - the dangers of which are multiplied at speed.

Your posting doesn't include the link you refer to so I can't comment on it.

[Goat]

I'm serious about the IAM - you should be able to judge your speed with reasonable accuracy without constant recourse to a speedometer: the engine noise, the gear your using, the feedback from the road, the sound of the tyres should be telling you this - if you're driving your car sympathetically it will last longer, need fewer repairs and have lower maintainance costs.

I see you've ignored Rich B's post so I'll repeat it; can you really judge your speed to 30mph +(-) 3mph.

[athe]

I see you've ignored Rich B's post so I'll repeat it; can you really judge your speed to 30mph +(-) 3mph.

I haven't followed the thread, but just in answer to this - I believe in my own car I can definitely stay within 10% of 30, 40, or 70 without looking at the speedo - although of course, once you check it against the speed given by a GPS which is supposedly more accurate than a speedo, I am actually keeping it within 10% of 28, 37, and 65.

[Rare Bear]

It's not safe to break the speed limit in those areas. People speeding there are risking the lives of others but have failed to take full account of other road users - they've made a bad judgement based around their perception of safety - ignoring evidence which doesn't fit with their highly selective viewpoint.

How many overweight children are there because the roads aren't 'safe' for them to cycle on. These roads aren't 'safe' because of poor driving - the dangers of which are multiplied at speed.

Your posting doesn't include the link you refer to so I can't comment on it.

They are overweight because they eat too much. No other reason.

[OnionTerror]

Lack of exercise is also a major issue although that has more to do with it "not being safe" for kids to walk to school or play outside and the rise of more sedentary pass times such as TV and computer games.

Another problem is that kids nowadays dont have any road sense and kids are driven everywhere, .It would also be interesting to see how many kids now do cycling proficiency tests, as compared to 20 years ago. I did mine twenty years ago, and it certainly makes you pay attention when you're on the roads. Drivers always get the blame, if they hurt a child or an adult on the roads, even if they behave well within the law. Pedestrains don't use their common sense, and drivers often pay the price for mistakes that they make.

[Rare Bear]

Another problem is that kids nowadays dont have any road sense and kids are driven everywhere, .It would also be interesting to see how many kids now do cycling proficiency tests, as compared to 20 years ago. I did mine twenty years ago, and it certainly makes you pay attention when you're on the roads. Drivers always get the blame, if they hurt a child or an adult on the roads, even if they behave well within the law. Pedestrains don't use their common sense, and drivers often pay the price for mistakes that they make.

Not so much kids as cyclists in general. I was out in a car before daylight for the first time this autumn and I saw several cyclists. None had any lights.

[Scunnered]

Not so much kids as cyclists in general. I was out in a car before daylight for the first time this autumn and I saw several cyclists. None had any lights.

How did you see them then?

[Bossybabe]

Not so much kids as cyclists in general. I was out in a car before daylight for the first time this autumn and I saw several cyclists. None had any lights.

And when you couple that with kids riding bikes without lights, you get the impression that cycling is part of a Darwinian plan, survival of the lightest.

This is a common problem where I live. On my way home from work in dark evenings, I used regularly to have to avoid cyclists without lights, who should have been using the cycle tracks, not main, mainly unlit, roads. Only the other day I narrowly avoided two boys on unlit bikes, who wobbled out in front of my car. And had I hit them, whose insurance would be hit? MINE. :angry:

Finally, I can estimate my speed by the engine sound in my car. On the motorbike, I watch the speedo more than in the car.

[fluffy666]

How did you see them then?

Bob the builder rucksack (partial) in the engine grille. Pink stabilizer lodged in alloys. Baby Annabel head stuck on aerial. That sort of thing.

[MrPin]

On the motorbike, I watch the speedo more than in the car.

It's not that interesting! It does the same thing on a bike, as in any other vehicle!

Stick a plaster on it so it can't distract you!