LocostBuilders - powered by XMB

GATSO

drmike54 - 6/12/05 at 04:12 PM

One of the Local Cities, Akron installed some of the speed cameras.

2,371 speeders cited near Akron schools; City Council divided. The private firm ticketing speeders in and around Akron's school zones nailed 2,371 drivers in 19 days, issuing fines of $150 or $250.

2371 Times $150 or $250 = $356,000 to $593,000 in 19 days! These machines are evil!

Link

Oliver Jetson - 6/12/05 at 04:19 PM

Is this the 1st time you guys have got GATSOs?

David Jenkins - 6/12/05 at 04:38 PM

In one noteable 'scoop' a while ago, they'd set up some cameras on the Orwell Bridge, near Ipswich, because of road works. Managed to get more than 2000 cars in the few days! Made the local BBC news...

DJ

[Edited on 6/12/05 by David Jenkins]

theconrodkid - 6/12/05 at 04:53 PM

they set fire to them over here.....i wonder what the american answer to them would be?

UncleFista - 6/12/05 at 04:56 PM

No points issued though, sounds like they get off lightly with a $150-250 fine and no endorsements.

At the moment at least....

serendipity123 - 6/12/05 at 05:16 PM

i frame the speeding photos i've had, so far i have 7 on the wall in the garage. . . . not bad 11 points too maybe a bec 7 isnt a good idea.

britishtrident - 6/12/05 at 06:00 PM

In the UK never ceases to amaze me the different policies on cameras in different Police force areas in the UK, In west central Scotland Strathclyde Police have put most cameras in fairly sensible places where they do contibute to safety but in other areas of Scotland it seems to be all about revenue.

The million pound average speed camera chain near me on the A77 has been on line since June --- this a is major pilot scheme covering about 30 miles of road --- how may tickets did they issue in the first 3 months operation a whole 21 !!! --- I will watch with interest if more are installed anywhere in the UK , I suspect they won't be although this would totally demolish the argument that speed cameras are about safety not revenue. I drive through this 28 mile long trap fairly regularly and find the average speed cameras unlike GATSOs have actually have improved the situation greatly reducing tailgaiting.

Deckman001 - 6/12/05 at 06:06 PM

Anyone know about the smaller versions of the Gatso ? It's the same height but half the width with two slots at the front, The ones I'm after knowing about are in the roadworks on the M5 south of Bristol

Jason

oliwb - 6/12/05 at 07:07 PM

And one of my m8's makes up two of the 21! He got done by the same camera's twice in 10 days.....he is a bit of a f$%k wit though! I actually think (controvertialy) that if you get done on the motorway it almost serves you right - everyone knows the speed limit is 70 and if you go over it your risking it! However, I do get very anooyed with some of Aberdeen cities placings for "safety"! They put them amongst lots of other signs so rather than doing 2mph over the 30 limit everyone goes slower but there eyes aren't on the road anymore there in the hedges looking for cameras....its a matter of time before some gets killed by a motorist - I was looking for speed camera's officer, I honestly didn't see the mum and pram step out onto the zebra crossing!......how much can motorists be expected to take in! Oli.

Rant over....luckily.....

bigandy - 6/12/05 at 07:40 PM

Speed cameras? Not a problem. They don't bother me in the slightest.... They can be put wherever they like on the public highways, and I wouldn't complain. The simple fact is there is a speed limit in force on public roads, so the trick is to not speed. Then there's no need to worry about the speed cameras! Simple eh?

Okay, so you are unsure of the speed limit? Try slowing down a bit, just to be on the safe side! How about unsure as to where the cameras are? Simple: drive below/at the speed limit, and you don't need to keep a look out for speed cameras!

People who argue the toss over hidden cameras, and say that the drivers attention is distracted from the roads by the fact they have to look out for speed cameras, are talking $h!te. The simple fact is if you keep within the limits, you don't need to worry about cameras. Full stop.....

Howlor - 6/12/05 at 07:53 PM

I don't know if any of you guys use the A17 Sleaford to Kings Lynn as a number of Gatsos along that stretch look as though they have been hit with a torpedo! Large blackened hole front and rear!

britishtrident - 6/12/05 at 08:19 PM

In lot of areas cameras are sited purely for revenue and to increase stats, the difference in policy between police areas is very noticeable. As I said I have no problems with any of the camera sites in the west of scotland, indeed have no problem with increasing camera number of cameras provided they are in genuine black spots.

flak monkey - 6/12/05 at 08:19 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Howlor
I don't know if any of you guys use the A17 Sleaford to Kings Lynn as a number of Gatsos along that stretch look as though they have been hit with a torpedo! Large blackened hole front and rear!

Yep, regularly.... not sure what they have done to them. It could have been well aimed fireworks though over the past few weeks.

Usual trick is a tyre and some petrol....

Messenjah - 6/12/05 at 08:35 PM

m6 toll road is great no speed cameras lol hit 140 down there the other day

i think the cameras should monitor your driving not your speed people who tailgata should get fned people who sit int he outside lane goign slower then people inside them should get fined and people who sit int he middle or utside lane of an empty road

a nice way to do it would be for people to have to pass graded licences to use the faster lanes and at higher speeds so only the good drivers (better reaction times better judgement etc) could drive at higher speeds and people that can barely scrape through a test should be restricted to the slow lane with the lorries

Messenjah - 6/12/05 at 08:38 PM

i suppose i think that because someone i know regularly drive in excess of 110 mph and not once have i ever felt unsafe because said person is an exceptionally good driver doesnt do it in heavy traffic only on relatively empty roads and not usually in poor weather conditions and has not had an accident EVER other then a few people driving into the back of him at traffic lights ...

also i think people who dont move out of the way for emergency vehicles should be fined and get points

caber - 6/12/05 at 08:55 PM

Best way to slow people down are the signs with radar detectors that light up with the speed limit and yellow flashing lights . They have a few of these around and when they go off people slow down dead quick and look embarrassed. They use them extensively in Scandanavia I saw some there over 20 years ago. They are cheap compared to Gatsos but raise no revenue so guess why they don't install them so much here!

Caber

Taz Surfleet - 6/12/05 at 09:03 PM

"People who argue the toss over hidden cameras, and say that the drivers attention is distracted from the roads by the fact they have to look out for speed cameras, are talking $h!te. The simple fact is if you keep within the limits, you don't need to worry about cameras. Full stop....."

Agreed if the speed limits were reasonable but they are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia !!

britishtrident - 6/12/05 at 09:18 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Taz Surfleet
"People who argue the toss over hidden cameras, and say that the drivers attention is distracted from the roads by the fact they have to look out for speed cameras, are talking $h!te. The simple fact is if you keep within the limits, you don't need to worry about cameras. Full stop....."

Agreed if the speed limits were reasonable but they are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia !!

Problem is on a wet greasey motorway a 60s Ford would stop just as well as most modern cars --- the majority of drivers just don't adjust driving style to the conditions, raise the limit to 90 and the guy who tailgaits you at 70 will still drive the same 10 feet from you bumper no matter what the weather and traffic conditions are.

bigandy - 6/12/05 at 09:26 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Taz Surfleet

Agreed if the speed limits were reasonable but they are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia !!

Why should the fact they are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia make any difference to the speed limits in force at present?

At present the speed limits in some situations/circumstances are way way to fast. 70Mph on a busy dual carriage way, with a fair amount of spray being thrown up in poor lighting conditions? Way too fast. Especially if some arrogant to$$ers see the need to drive with about 5 yards space between themselves and the car in front.

70Mph on an empty motorway in dry conditions? Different story.

The fact speed limits are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia, are irrelevant. Just because modern cars are capable of over 100mph, doesn't mean the limits should be set at that.

Anyway, if you follow that logic, the limits should be based on the slowest cars on the road, not the fastest, so the top speed should be 52mph (the maximum speed on the straight and level of my mates campervan....)

andyps - 6/12/05 at 11:29 PM

Speed limits were introduced on Motorways in the 60's when many cars could not do 70mph, and the brakes they had were pretty inadequate for those sort of speeds (get in a drum braked saloon car and try for yourself!!).

70mph can be far too fast, but 140 can be perfectly safe (in fact, a judge agreed that over 150mph is safe), it depends on the car, the road condition, the weather and the driver. Trouble is a camera can't differentiate these things and will not prosecute the dangerous driver who is below the limit passing the camera. I like driving fast, as I guess most on this forum do, and some of the limits are pretty arbitary, and often unrealistic. Why do straight roads, with no houses which used to be de-restricted now have 40mph limits? There are plenty round here like that.

There should be only one driving offence - dangerous driving. That offence would cover anything which endangers others in whatever way.

need4speed - 7/12/05 at 08:51 AM

M6 Toll may not have any camera's but it has police sitting and waiting for you very offen. I know three people how have been done at +90 on empty road as well.

Dave.

MikeRJ - 7/12/05 at 01:39 PM

quote:
Originally posted by oliwb
I actually think (controvertialy) that if you get done on the motorway it almost serves you right - everyone knows the speed limit is 70 and if you go over it your risking it!

I totaly disagree. The motorways are the safest roads we have because they are engineered for high speeds. Almost no-one does 70mph or under on a motorway (excepting HGVs), and the police rarely stop people doing under 85mph for speeding (although trafpol are an increasingly rare sight as many of them have been replaced by scameras).

Motorways are exactly the roads that DON'T warrant scameras. I don't have a problem with them in 30mph residential areas, even though I'm almost certain they aren't actualy saving any lives.

Taz Surfleet - 14/12/05 at 10:30 AM

"Why should the fact they are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia make any difference to the speed limits in force at present? "

so there hasnt been any improvements in brake and tyre technology in the interim period ??
I agree about tailgaters but thats a different offence isnt it ?

britishtrident - 14/12/05 at 12:53 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Taz Surfleet
"Why should the fact they are based on a 1960's Ford Anglia make any difference to the speed limits in force at present? "

so there hasnt been any improvements in brake and tyre technology in the interim period ??
I agree about tailgaters but thats a different offence isnt it ?

Trouble is wet weather and greasey surface stopping distances haven't improved in some ways the worse and drivers don't allow for it -- the worst case scenario being Nova/Corsa/Civic boy with excessively wide but bit worn far eastern tyres can aquaplane into the next county.
The fact that modern brakes tend to be over servoed giving a false sense of security dosen't help and some drivers believe the ABS actuall helps them stop in a miraculouly short distance.

Loss of control accidents on wet/greasey/icy roads have if anything increased in the last few years. In normal driving 4 weeks I came across four end swapping incidents one of them I actually saw happen, the driver of a Seat swapped ends because he either lifted off or braked while on very greasey roundabout.

NS Dev - 14/12/05 at 01:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by bigandy
Speed cameras? Not a problem. They don't bother me in the slightest.... They can be put wherever they like on the public highways, and I wouldn't complain. The simple fact is there is a speed limit in force on public roads, so the trick is to not speed. Then there's no need to worry about the speed cameras! Simple eh?

Okay, so you are unsure of the speed limit? Try slowing down a bit, just to be on the safe side! How about unsure as to where the cameras are? Simple: drive below/at the speed limit, and you don't need to keep a look out for speed cameras!

People who argue the toss over hidden cameras, and say that the drivers attention is distracted from the roads by the fact they have to look out for speed cameras, are talking $h!te. The simple fact is if you keep within the limits, you don't need to worry about cameras. Full stop.....

that's bollocks

Sorry but that is total and utter shite.

"Okay, so you are unsure of the speed limit? Try slowing down a bit, just to be on the safe side!"

On the motorway at night when it is empty I would consider 90mph as having slowed down a bit to be on the safe side.

In wet conditions and busy traffic I would consider maybe 50mph to be slowing down a bit to be on the safe side.

How does the speed camera differentiate between the two...........it doesn't.

It lets the wanker driving 10 feet from the car in front at 69.9mph in thick fog carry on at his nice "safe" speed, while on the empty motorway with no-one but themselves to hurt, the driver progressing steadily and calmly at 90mph is apparently "driving unsafely"

cameras are total and utter shite, and the sooner they are removed and replaced with proper policing by police capable of making informed descisions on law enforcement the better.

Co. Durham constabulary have proved that one, lowest accident rates and death rates but NO speed cameras at all..........

NS Dev - 14/12/05 at 01:49 PM

quote:
Originally posted by andyps
Speed limits were introduced on Motorways in the 60's when many cars could not do 70mph, and the brakes they had were pretty inadequate for those sort of speeds (get in a drum braked saloon car and try for yourself!!).

70mph can be far too fast, but 140 can be perfectly safe (in fact, a judge agreed that over 150mph is safe), it depends on the car, the road condition, the weather and the driver. Trouble is a camera can't differentiate these things and will not prosecute the dangerous driver who is below the limit passing the camera. I like driving fast, as I guess most on this forum do, and some of the limits are pretty arbitary, and often unrealistic. Why do straight roads, with no houses which used to be de-restricted now have 40mph limits? There are plenty round here like that.

There should be only one driving offence - dangerous driving. That offence would cover anything which endangers others in whatever way.

Perfectly put, just the point I made above as well.

Speed limits should be a guide, not black and white, as you say, they can be WAY too fast for some conditions, but the same arseholes that sing the praises of the speed cameras are probably the ones that drive at the same speed in the dry, wet, fog, ice snow etc and then wonder why they crash..............never any trouble with the police though as they never broke the law, they were just totally inept and incompetent.