Would it be legal to build and maintain a network that warns the public (or, at least, the EF members) of certain EFers being on the road? For instance the guy who ran seven (SEVEN!) 80 km/h signs along the Walensee without seeing them and still complained about the ticket he got...

So would knowing where they are.

Tom

No. The whole point is to recognise that many drivers, although not necessarily dangerous, will regularly exceed posted limits, so let's take the opportunity to make some money out of them. It's a speeding tax, nothing more, nothing less. Use of technical means to avoid paying this tax is not in the interests of the tax collectors, so it's banned.

If they were seriously trying to stop people from committing these small speed infringements they'd make the penalty much more severe, like it is for the +25kph and over offences. As it is many (most?) drivers treat some of the less clearly justified limits with disdain, and (hopefully) don't complain too much when they occasionally get flashed and fined 120 francs or whatever. "Ooops, another tax collector got me" sort of thing.

The rules of the game actively encourage such people to exceed the posted limits whenever possible and only slow down to the absolute minimum to avoid the cameras. I.e. if it's a 'clear' bit of 120kph motorway, you _must_ drive above an indicated 130, if there's a camera you'll only drop to 130 (a real 124, say) at the exact moment you pass the camera, accelerating again as quickly as possible afterwards.

Perhaps disdain is too strong a word...how about "risk-based flexibility"?

In that case the authorities will brainwash you.

Well, no actually. I know of a few permanent ones and people speed to within 100m, slam on the breaks, amble past and then start speeding all over again (hands up - even me!). To some extent one could argue here that we know of the ones in our area, where we are we know the road very very well, and any specific risks involved, bend, pot holes, whatever - so it is possibly much less dangerous to be slightly over the limit.

Incredible though how much testosterone is flying around this idea of speed and speeding - so many of you so darn absolutely sure that you are the best drivers in the world and that therefore speed limits do not apply to you.

One day they'll have a speedtrap on the road from Weesen to Ziegelbrucke - and one day I'll exercise a bit more of my right ankle.

One day hasn't happened in 2 years

(And for the kitten killer - check out the road - arrow straight)

To be fair, I don't think anyone here is *seriously* advocating speeding, nor claiming to be excellent drivers. In fact getting a ticket would prove the contrary, surely? Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see much testosterone on this thread.

Of course, I've never had a ticket, so obviously i'm a BLOODY EXCELLENT DRIVER...

I think the undertone of the thread is that perhaps - just perhaps - some limits (and their cameras) are set not for *primarily* safety reasons.

This was definitely the case in the UK, where a large number of cameras were removed or relocated after numerous public complaints - mainly that a new "artificial" limit (eg a 40mph when it's been - safely - 60mph for 20 years) and a camera were introduced to roads which had no history of serious accidents.

Edit: this is still the case in the UK. The number of cameras on motorways (statistically the safest roads to be on) outnumber the number of cameras outside schools, recreation centres, play parks etc. If safety was the concern, it should be the other way round?

Well, this has gone full circle.

Next thread: I paid my tax bill three kilometres too slowly and now they've fined me! Ridiculous revenue generating whist generating revenue! What do they want?

Pic unrelated, this time.

half a litre of your blood will be enough, thank you

I dunno...that bear on the right better slow down...if he exceeds 3kph he'll crack the skull of the one on the left...or his own!

Try spinning a paddle on the end of a chain.

I never tried it here but it worked pretty well back in the UK.

How about a chihuahua? I don't have a paddle.

I always thought you were a bit up the creek

Well, in the UK, there was a case brought against hidden cameras which was upheld. The point was that cameras are meant to be a deterrent, to prevent accidents, not to catch speeders. It is a subtle but important distinction. One that was made clear when the requirements for putting speed cameras in place were made public and strict in Dec 2011 - details here: http://www.speedcameras.org/speed_ca...guidelines.htm

These vary by the type of camera in operation (e.g. fixed, mobile etc.). In that light, having location knowledge of clearly-marked cameras, is more likely to be effective at reducing speeds at known danger spots, thus making the roads safer in dangerous locations.

So no, it isn't as daft a comment as you might think.

I just can't believe this thread is still going...

About "people don't know where they are and that it hopefully encourages them to stick to speed limit, no?"

Well that is the theory stated by the people who ban these devices but you only have to look at the many millions collected in speed fines here to see that theory is rubbish.

But at what speed?

How do you know the cause was speeding?

Speeding doesnt kill anybody. Is the sudden stop at the end that does