Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:57 am Post subject:
Not that it resolves the drink-drive question, but the discussion in
Quote:
Notifying other drivers of speed cameras is an offence?
was quite interesting in terms of warning people not to commit an offence, and warning people who were in the process of committing an offence.
But it also points out the difficulty of proving whether a speeding offence was actually being committed at the point the warning was given - guess the same applies to drink-drive.
BRING ON THE LAWYERS - THEY'LL SORT IT (or at least they wont go hungry - even if their clients do ) _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:26 pm Post subject:
BigPerk wrote:
But it also points out the difficulty of proving whether a speeding offence was actually being committed at the point the warning was given - guess the same applies to drink-drive.
No. A breathalyser will prove a drunk driver AFTER the event quite easily. Speeding would be a lot more difficult to prove without the evidence of a speed gun
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject:
scarsdale037 wrote:
I agree with the above point re speed cameras and black spots, but alerts for drink drive traps is another matter. Most people should agree that avoiding drink drive traps is morally unacceptable because it allows drink drivers to get away with it.
Really what it boils down to is that speeding is more socially acceptable than drink driving.
If people can promote a speed camera database as an "accident black spot" warning system then why can't people promote a drink driving checkpoint warning system in the same way?
To put a positive spin on the app:
"Hmmm, I'm going out tonight I wonder if I should drive. Let's check the app for checkpoints. Wow, the Police are out in force stopping drivers tonight, I might be having 1 or maybe two pints tonight so I won't take any chances and get a taxi instead."
Police are all for publicising their checkpoints, high impact, high visibility = high deterrent value = successful campaign. Their aim is NOT to catch a few people drink driving but to create a deterrent to encourage the wider population that it's unacceptable so they won't do it in the first place. _________________ Gone fishing!
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject:
Quote:
A breathalyser will prove a drunk driver AFTER the event quite easily.
True enough - but the main point in the discussions I referred to was (I think) the need to establish a link between the crime being committed by a particular person, and the warning being given by another particular person.
Quote:
Really what it boils down to is that speeding is more socially acceptable than drink driving.
No, I don't think the argument is this, at least in practical terms. If a driver decides NOT to drink more than the 'permitted' level because of the drink/drive checks or, conversely, a driver decides to take a different route to avoid cameras so he/she can break the speeding law anyway, then YES.
But I think that we are talking mainly about the attitude of people on this forum. I like to think that we DO (at least try to) use the camera database as an aid to keeping within the law. But a drink/drive database can hardly be considered to be encouraging the same care. That's why I suspect PGPSW would view these in the same light as the ANPR location databases - it is harder to believe that the people using them are really going to get themselves licensed and insured as a result!
BUT I certainly agree with what I think is being said, that being over the speed limit is no more defensible than being over the alcohol limit (BUT all a matter of degree of course - I wouldn't say either 81 blood level is the equivalent of 120 mph, any more than 120 blood level is the same as 71 on the motorway!)
Ho Hum ... _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject:
Skippy wrote:
Their aim is NOT to catch a few people drink driving but to create a deterrent to encourage the wider population that it's unacceptable so they won't do it in the first place.
I must have missed your . You mean just like speed cams are NOT to raise revenue but to create a deterrent to encourage the wider population that it's unacceptable to speed so they won't do it in the first place
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:28 am Post subject: Cut to the chase
If any driver told me they never exceeded the speed limit - frankly I wouldn't believe them -and I don't mean the odd couple of mph accidentally. On a good straight country road , perfect visibility , quiet Sunday traffic , empty dual carridgeway - come on now - who are trying to kid. If any speed cam subscriber told me they didn't need to slow down on an unfamiliar road when the warning came up - I wouldn't believe them either . The main purpose of the database is to avoid a ticket - and we do that by slowing down . So ultimately the purpose of safer roads is served and I don't see anything wrong in that. We are driving more slowly with the warnings than without.
Personally I find the TomTom speed limit database reasonably accurate ( not their cams of course ) - I have the warning set to on and use it to remind me to stick to the limit on busy residential streets in peak periods or in bad weather.
My pet hate is those self righteous , sanctimonious and ostentatiously "law abiding" (and dangerous ) drivers with a powerful car who break heavily on the approach to a 30mph sign - then accelerate hard on the exit.
Joined: 30/12/2002 17:36:20 Posts: 4921 Location: Oxfordshire, England, UK
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:11 am Post subject:
Hi NickG,
NickG wrote:
I no longer own a TomTom as I use the iPhone, which AFAIK doesn't even support the POI file.
The iPhone can run CamerAlert, written by Lutz of PGPSW, which can use the full PGPSW camera database and warn of cameras only in the direction of your travel and also automatically show your average speed in within SPECS areas.
I use the Android version of CamerAlert and it's excellent!
Have a look to see whether you are still a subscriber to the PGPSW camera database.
Regards, _________________ Robert.
iPhone 6s Plus, iOS 14.0.1: iOS CamerAlert v2.0.7
TomTom GO Mobile iOS 2.3.1; TomTom (UK & ROI and Europe) iOS apps v1.29
Garmin Camper 770 LMT-D
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:13 pm Post subject:
Quote:
My pet hate is those self righteous , sanctimonious and ostentatiously "law abiding" (and dangerous ) drivers
Maybe I'm one of those! . I'll admit to doing this to some extent sometimes in the sort of circumstances described, but there comes a point where a driver can't be trusted to make his/her own rules up, surely?
"Perfect visibility" on an "unfamiliar road" for instance - ever come across a hidden side road, with a 'local's' car suddenly trundling out from nowhere?
I have to say MY pet hates are selfish, self-opinionated drivers who (a) sear past me at 100+, even if it is a motorway, assuming everyone else had better not impede them, or (b) park across two spaces (even 4 on one occasion!) in a busy/full car park, taking up the last space, because they can't be asked to be considerate. (if anything I hate (b) more than (a), because parking ought to be so easy for anyone, even if they can't drive properly!) _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
I would not condone a system that warns of drink/driving checkpoints. Drink driving implies a reduced level of attentiveness, skill, awareness etc. As such it causes drink drivers to make mistakes, some of which they are probably unaware of.
A drink drive checkpoint warning may well save a driver from being caught, but it may well then result in someone being killed a few hundred yards further down the road. Such warnings are wrong.
As for speed camera warning: I believe I drive safely. 25 years of no claims would help support that assertion. However many speed limits are inappropriate, and they take a one size fits all approach. They take no account of the weather, traffic, nor of the skill of the driver. A 30 limit or a 40 limit is as fine a gradation as you get. So many a road could actually be perfectly safe at 38mph, but would be designated a 30 limit. An experiernced driver would be perfectly safe at that 38 in good weather, and he/she would be concentrating on what he was doing. Add a need to speedo watch into the system and it adds a distraction that he does not need.
Before I got a SATNAV system with speed camera warnings, I was clocked at 36 in a 30 zone once. I was driving very carefully on a sunny afternoon, with little traffic. I thought it was a 40 limit, one I viewed as appropriate. It turned out that the 30 limit sign had become totally obscured by foliage, and I had been unable to see it. I was summonsed but convinced them to drop the charge, but only after an appearance in the magistrates court, with a scheduled crown court apperance being dropped only after I wrote a long angst- stricken letter. This won't happen again. I will continue to drive carefully, and will have that extra protection against inadvertently, but safely, drifting over a limit. Thanks to speed camera warnings.
It takes a lot of extra concentration to drive at 28/29/30 rather than to drive at a speed which experience tells you is safe for the day and road in question. I can better use my concentration in looking out for hazards. _________________ Too many people "search for the zero inside themselves". Sadly, many fail to find even that.
Joined: Apr 04, 2006 Posts: 10118 Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:49 am Post subject:
Naomi wrote:
Drink driving implies a reduced level of attentiveness, skill, awareness etc. As such it causes drink drivers to make mistakes, some of which they are probably unaware of.
And speeding does not cause the above. Boy racers egged on by peer pressure possibly excepted.
Naomi wrote:
An experiernced driver would be perfectly safe at that 38 in good weather, and he/she would be concentrating on what he was doing. Add a need to speedo watch into the system and it adds a distraction that he does not need.
No. People would still think it was too slow and complain that they have to speedo watch
Font size will be reduced after mid day
Last edited by M8TJT on Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 05/01/2003 10:51:57 Posts: 118 Location: United Kingdom
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:30 am Post subject:
I see cameras as revenue generators and the more i can deprive the government of my hard earned taxable income the better.
Car users pay through the bloody nose for the right to transport...I dont see ministers, politicians etc at the filling station, or in the post office queue for their tax disks....Why? because once again, we, the workers and drivers pay it for them. They are not feathering their nests at my (more) expense.
Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:10 pm Post subject: Why I use camera alerts
I try to comply with all speed limits and I have held a clean licence since 1973 but when you are driving in an area you don't know it is easy to turn out of a minor road onto a major one and get a ticket before you pass a speed limit sign informing you of what the local limit is. The speed camera alerts can save you from doing this as you are most likely to be using the satnav in an area you don't know!
It is also easy for your speed to creep up, especially downhill or when following another vehicle. I check the speedo regularly but can find I am 3-4 over the limit and have to reduce speed when I do so. A camera at such a spot (frequently located near the bottom of hills) could catch me out.
Drink drive alerts are another thing altogether. If you know you have had too much to drink you should not drive. Warning people where they are likely to be checked encourages irresponsible behaviour and a feeling that the offender is immune to prosecution. You can't accidentally have a drink too many but you can easily speed accidentally.
£20 a year is a good investment to help a law abiding citizen keep the law.
Last edited by gettingmad on Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
I can see no justification for this type of warning as drinking & driving is dangerous regardless of what speed or type of road you are on i.e. You would always be "AN ACCIDENT BLACKSPOT" waiting to happen.
The speed camera database/warning enables one to be aware of dangerous sections of road & accident blackspots which are not readily discernible when driving and of course this is also the justification that the authorities use for installing them.
I can see no justification for this type of warning as drinking & driving is dangerous regardless of what speed or type of road you are on i.e. You would always be "AN ACCIDENT BLACKSPOT" waiting to happen....
Just to be controversial the justification for this would be for regular people with no inclination to drink and drive or take drugs and drive to avoid the traps and so continue on with their journey in a timely manner.
I have been stuck in a queue in Holland where they regularly have these roadblocks for over 30 minutes a delay I could do without.
Whilst I abhor people who are incapable of driving I support proper means of detection rather than an arbitrary roadblock inconveniencing a very large number of drivers in an effort to catch (hopefully) a very small number of offenders. _________________ Mike Barrett
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
)
. You mean just like speed cams are NOT to raise revenue but to create a deterrent to encourage the wider population that it's unacceptable to speed so they won't do it in the first place 
. I'll admit to doing this to some extent sometimes in the sort of circumstances described, but there comes a point where a driver can't be trusted to make his/her own rules up, surely?
