Self righteous cameramen

[Vorpal]

It seems an odd coincidence that 6.25kph is 4mph............ is there an accidental switch in units by the person who entered it? Instead of +4kph should it not be +6.25kph in EU but uk has +4mph?

No, there EC directives definitely say 4 kph, and the British law says 6.25 mph. 6.25 mph is also 10 kph, so it may be based on an older version of the ECE normative standard (rather than EC directive)

[mjr]

Remember that the ECE is a United Nations thing, not an EEC/EU one.

[Vorpal]

Remember that the ECE is a United Nations thing, not an EEC/EU one.

The ECE regulation 39 and EC directive 75/443 say the same thing with regard to speedometer accuracy. The ECE regulation has been around since the 1960s and was updated in 2002. I don't know if the ECE regulation has always had the same accuracy requirements as the EC directive, or if that occurred sometime between 1975 and 2002. I don't believe there were any earlier versions of the EC directive; it may have been based upon the ECE regulation.

We've gotten a little off topic...

[rick99]

I've heard it suggested that the speed cameras on "smart" motorways only operate if a speed limit is displayed on the associated matrix signs. I've no idea if this is true and it may be an urban myth, of which there seem to be many on the subject. I do know from observation that as well as lower limits being displayed with a number in a red circle, the national speed limit sign - white with black diagonal - is shown to indicate when a lower limit ends but is not otherwise displayed.

Lower limits may be set for safety reasons, eg broken down vehicle, or to ease congestion. I get the impression that the cameras do not enforce the 70 limit. ie If there's no safety reason to impose a lower limit, they aren't particularly bothered about safety above 70.

It's not that they're not bothered about safety. It's that they know that only busting people doing 90+ in benign conditions is entirely at home with that priority.

At least you guys are beginning to admit that the 'real' speed limit is 80.
Perhaps we can, after 7 pages of denial and delusion, use that as an example as to how the letter of the law isn't everything.
Thus those cyclists shouting pedantically in the street (whilst wearing cameras or not) are a disagreeable menace.

[Vorpal]

At least you guys are beginning to admit that the 'real' speed limit is 80.
Perhaps we can, after 7 pages of denial and delusion, use that as an example as to how the letter of the law isn't everything.
Thus those cyclists shouting pedantically in the street (whilst wearing cameras or not) are a disagreeable menace.

I don't know which 'guys' you mean, but I certainly do not accept that the 'real' speed limit is 80. The speed limit is called a limit for a reason. It is a speed which may not legally be exceeded. The letter of the law isn't everything. The spirit of the law is often more important. But when (you feel) a law is not appropriate, the thing to do is to get the law changed, not ignore it.

I don't shout pedantically. I obey the law to the best of my ability, and I expect others to do so as well.

And cyclists are seldom a menace. Menace comes from the big chunks of metal and plastic sharing the streets with me.

[Graham]

Thus those cyclists shouting pedantically in the street (whilst wearing cameras or not) are a disagreeable menace.

This, from someone who openly admits to frequently breaking the speed limits whilst driving.

No further comment.

[BakfietsUK]

Here, here Graham well said. I wonder what the motives are for people like rick99 who post in this way. So keen to criticise others but offer very little insight into what they have to offer this forum.

[Kenn]

Perhaps the real problem is that human beings are both physically and mentally ill-equipped to drive motor vehicles. Our reactions are slow. We get tired, our eyesight deteriorates, some people drink and drive etc. We have a short attention span, we are easily distracted and some drivers even look for diversions via mobile phones. We underestimeate risk, overestimate our driving ability and have a tendency to believe that "it will never happen to me". One day (hopefully not too far off) self driving cars will eliminate this problem and I will feel much safer as a cyclist.

[rick99]

Here, here Graham well said. I wonder what the motives are for people like rick99 who post in this way. So keen to criticise others but offer very little insight into what they have to offer this forum.

I've been criticised easily as much as criticising others. You just disagree with me, which isn't the same.
My motive is to debate a subject that I know this board has a view on. I wouldn't do so if I was not open minded to some extent A few have even agreed with the gist of my opening post.
Forums are not just for like minded people to agree on things.
The motorway speed is a red herring. The fact that you won't accept the observable fact that many speed on the motorway has stopped us having a discussion about what I actually care about.
Anything to 'offer'? Well it's my opening post so feel free to stop commenting and ignore me if I bore you.

Edit; to be honest that's the problem. You feel people have to justify their presence here by 'offering' you something. That's not how the Internet forum works. It's a melting pot of ideas which you can take or leave. Not an exclusive series of clubs with an intellectual entrance procedure.

[rick99]

Thus those cyclists shouting pedantically in the street (whilst wearing cameras or not) are a disagreeable menace.

This, from someone who openly admits to frequently breaking the speed limits whilst driving.

No further comment.

Yes. Only on the motorway though, like 50% of motorists.

[rick99]

Perhaps the real problem is that human beings are both physically and mentally ill-equipped to drive motor vehicles. Our reactions are slow. We get tired, our eyesight deteriorates, some people drink and drive etc. We have a short attention span, we are easily distracted and some drivers even look for diversions via mobile phones. We underestimeate risk, overestimate our driving ability and have a tendency to believe that "it will never happen to me". One day (hopefully not too far off) self driving cars will eliminate this problem and I will feel much safer as a cyclist.

But you'll be more likely to be a victim of bike theft. Auto drive cars= substantial increase in unemployment = more crime.

[AdamS]

My motive is to debate a subject that I know this board has a view on. I wouldn't do so if I was not open minded to some extent A few have even agreed with the gist of my opening post.
Forums are not just for like minded people to agree on things.

I do not think this board has an opinion. Forum members' opinions are mixed. There is probably agreement that the law should be followed where practicable but only some agree with telling off other cyclists. If you want to discuss this then you should put forward the reasons why you disagree with this behaviour. The first post read more like a rant than rational debate.

The motorway speed is a red herring. The fact that you won't accept the observable fact that many speed on the motorway has stopped us having a discussion about what I actually care about.

Cameras are another red herring. You could help by keeping your own discussion on track.

[Vorpal]

But you'll be more likely to be a victim of bike theft. Auto drive cars= substantial increase in unemployment = more crime.

That depends largely upon how society and government deal with the changing economy and transport needs.

If we carry on as today with no other changes, I'm sure there is some truth to that. I hope for better.

[Tizme]

Hopefully dragging this back to the opening post...

I have stated before that I have a camera and wear it whilst cycling, I bought one after two incidents within days of each other. The first was when I was verbally assaulted (no big deal, as a cyclist commuting on a busy A road I have learnt to live with it )but with it came a very real possibility of physical assault (2 witnesses came to ensure I was okay - after the 3 offenders had driven off ), to the extent that I had dialed 999 on my phone (when they realised what I was doing they drove off). The second was when a vehicle overtook another coming towards me, the overtaking driver clearly saw me and laughed as I took evasive action! I realised if either of the two incidents had resulted in injury or death the chances are the drivers would have got away with it.

I never post any footage, rarely look at it and only keep the really bad incidents where it is clear what has happened and if there were further incidents I could (possibly) use it as evidence of intent etc.

Recently, after a really close pass and the red mist closed in, the driver noticed my hand gesture and reversed back towards me (at speed), on hearing my shout that his actions were being recorded, he drove off, that is probably the nearest I have been to a "prat with a camera" but I would not describe myself as self righteous, I just want the Police to find the video footage when they scrap me off the tarmac and (perhaps) use it as evidence so the driver gets a £100 fine instead of a £50 one

[mjr]

One day (hopefully not too far off) self driving cars will eliminate this problem and I will feel much safer as a cyclist.

Why? The same people who currently disable their diesel particulate filters will be reprogramming their self-driving cars to be less namby-pamby about close-passing cyclists, harassing walkers and cutting up other motorists so that they can get to their destinations a few seconds faster.