**** THREAD CLOSED, PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSSION IN
"The Speed Camera Thread - Volume 20" ****
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=20856
For the continued discussion of all things pertaining to Speed Cameras.
Volume eighteen filled up.
This is Volume 19, 18 is closed but can be viewed here:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=19564
There is no need to repeat anything since earlier volumes will not be deleted, although I am quite sure that this will not stop you.
A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18846
|
Depressed! Why? You might well ask.
We've all read and contributed to the erudite discussions between involved, interested and informed drivers on this and other fora.
We all bang on about the advisability of being careful round schools at home time; this being just one example of places where it is obvious that inappropriate speed could be a killer
This week I've been on school duty and I've observed what really does go on. Quite frankly I'm appalled, sadly I'm not at all surprised because I've seen before just what hopeless and selfish basket cases some people are.
In this case the guilty parties are not the boy racers, with one very notable exception,, but it is mums, dads, grandparents, taxis, even the school bus driver! I'm not talking about marginal cases either.
Quite frankly while people continue to drive like total and utter numpties in a situation which is clearly dangerous then I question what chance anyone has got of getting a sensible debate on the issue.
Nevertheless having said that, come the next election time anyone knocking on my door will be invited in for a cup of tea, a choccy biccy and they better have their ears pinned back and answers ready.
I'm off for a drop of scrumpy, and I'll drink a toast to the health of all Backroomers,
cheers, FiF!
|
FiF,
Couldn't agree more. You highlight one of the major flaws in the argument for more speed cameras.
I dare say that the limit past the school is 30mph? And that many of the people who upset you were are at a steady 29mph that will be held whatever? I am guessing, but based on experience around my son's school.
Their driving is illegal - either dangerous, or without due care. A prosecution for this would admittedly be difficult but if a PC pulled them over for a talking to they might realise and the road would be safer. If they heard a road safety message telling them about choosing the right speed for the circumstances then they again might realise.
But neither happens. There are no traffic police so far as I can see. This sort of illegal driving is not caught because the camera deems it to be ok, just as it would 69mph in thick fog on a dual carriageway etc etc.
The road safety message that is given today is about keeping within the speed limit. Enforcement is about catching people above the speed limit, not about catching unsafe drivers. Now, the two groups overlap but are not coterminous. My concern is that by focusing the "safety" message (in practice) on speed limits, as opposed to excessive speed, we will push those who do not really understand from the "speeding and potentially unsafe" category into the "within the speed limit but actually unsafe" category.
That is what depresses me.
|
But neither happens. There are no traffic police so far as I can see. This sort of illegal driving is not caught because the camera deems it to be ok, just as it would 69mph in thick fog on a dual carriageway etc etc.
Any fule no that you can get away with 90+ in thick fog. The picture won't come out.
|
|
|
|
Well said FiF. I can't see how we can tackle the selfish and the criminal effectively until there is a policeman with a camera, to use where necessary, but also to tackle the other aspects of bad driving. Fines are not always the best appoach: compulsory education for the unaware (otherwise perfectly unremarkable people) seems a useful alternative.
I'd get rid of many fixed cameras except for advisory purposes, but would want additional police traffic resources to target reckless and illegal driving, e.g. without papers, whilst drunk/drugged, with convictions, and with cloned registrations etc.
|
I agree with contributors who would like to see more police enforcement on bad driving, but the speed cameras issue is a separate one.
I'm not claimimg to be perfect - I've been caught by them 3 times in about 6 years , but that's my fault for breaking the law.
I don't understand why in this area of the law we expect to be able to ignore the law because we know better .I'm sure we ouldn't have sympathy with a burglar who argued because he hadn't taken much it's OK.
The fact is that in this area of the law police have devised a very effective means of enforcement which is accurate, easy to operate and self-funding .They go to lengths they don't have to- warning us there are cameras in an area- and if we still get caught that's our problem . Would you expect police to agree that they can't nick a thief unless they give him prior warning that they are only just around the corner ?
|
Hmmm.
I can't speak for others (obviously), but my discomfort at the rise in speed cameras is not that speed limits are now being enforced. It is that the rise is accompanied by a drop in the enforcement of everything else.
Combine this with a simplistic "speed kills" message and the result is that "average" drivers drive to the limit without really thinking properly. Some will make mistakes and be caught. Meanwhile, the maniacs learn what is enforced and where, and avoid most forms of prosecution.
The result is that the introduction of "safety" cameras has arguably tilted the balance of law enforcement away from seriously dangerous drivers and towards Joe Average. OK, JA is not perfect but he's not the priority for prosecution. He IS the priority for education but I don't see that happening.
I am more often frightened by sheer bad driving than by speeding. In this, I draw a distinction between speeding and excessive speed, which are often but not always the same.
|
|
|
Theft always has a victim though, speeding largely doesn't. Although that puts us back round to the idea that the punishment should fit the consequences of a crime rather than the crime itself. Speed and nothing happens = light sentence, speed and plough through a bus queue then suddenly it is a heavy sentence. It is an impossible conundram. The alternative is a world of absolutes where if you break the speed limit it is always the same punishment regardless of what happens afterwards. I suppose you have to decide whether someone is responsible for their actual actions or the consequences of their actions, either way you are going to have inconsistencies. I suppose this is where reasonableness and thought comes into it as you could expect that if you drive like a tool then you will hit something and possibly hurt someone but if you drive within the law then can you expect to be always exonerated?
teabelly
|
|
|
|
|
A bit of help please
Does any body know if the 6 month rule, I.e. a motoring offense must be prosecuted within 6 months applies to the date of the offense or the date of NIP/offer of fixed penalty? I got a ticket from a mobile camera on 23 August last and was NIP’d on 27 August. I genuinely don’t know who was driving, as the car is a spare at work and could have been any one of 6 of us.
I have had lengthy correspondence with the fixed penalty office the result of which has been not to answer the last 2 letters and to write to me this morning telling me that they have been placed on file and the matter referred to the magistrates. You will receive a summons in due course!
I offered to take the points and fine in a previous letter but the said I was breaking the law if I did and could be fined £5000 instead we go to court
Thanks
Matt
|
To start the ball rolling to secure a court appearance/slot for an offence a preliminary step is to "lay an information" An information is a charge made before a justice to the effect that some person has or is suspected of having committed an offence. Defendant does not have to be present. Acting on the information laid a summons (written signed order directing the person named therein to appear at a given time in the court named with reference to the matters set out therein) can be issued.
Limitation on proceedings in relation to an offence of speeding is 6 months from the date of the offence. During this time an information has to be laid, otherwise no proceedings can take place.
Providing the information is laid within this time them a summons can be issued, served and Court case take place after the 6 months. So if they are going to have a go at you for speeding then they had up to midnight 26th February 2004 to lay the information.
If they are going for an offence of fail to name and shame driver then Section 172 (7)(a) RTA 88 states that 'requirement may be made by written notice served by post and it shall have an effect as a requirement to give information within period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice was served (.i.e. sent)'. So 6 months from date of service of Notice in which to lay an information.
How do you know date information laid? This should appear on the actual summons itself.
If summons are served on you within the next few days then contact Mags Clerks Office and ask for an adjournment. I understand that on 16th March 2004 there is to be a High Court Appeal connected with Sect 172 procedure, the outcome of which may or not affect your position (but don't bank on it).
Maybe of interest but for other more serious traffic offences, limitation on proceedings can be up to 3 years but then only 6 months from coming to the notice of the prosecutor.
DVD
|
DVD
Many thanks. I hope the failure to name and shame carries the same penalty as speeding ie £60 and three points. I have a large correspondence file relating to this matter, I have viewed photos etc at the local police station which were of no help. Would it be worth taking this to court or getting a solicitor to go on my behalf? . All comments welcome! By the way it was 38 in a 30.
regards
Matt
|
Sorry Matt - name and shame does not come under the conditional offer scheme as speeding i.e. 60 notes and 3 points.
Penalty for 172 offence is Fine up to &1,000, discretionary disqualification, obligatory endorsement - 3 points. This the maximum that be imposed.
I repeat the defence in case you are not aware:
A person shall not be guilty of failing to give information of the driver if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was.
(S172(5) RTA 88) So you have to convince the Bench.
The more hard evidence that you can amass as to what you have done to trace the driver the more it stands in your favour and this is where your viewing of the photo and subsequent file may help. You can of course present the facts yourself if your feel you are elequent enough to do so but at the end of the day your case will be better put forward by a Solicitor which is going to cost.
You may consider having a word with C.A.B. and arrange a free consultation with one of their Solicitors to run what you have past him for an opinion as to how you stand well before hand.
Note that this defence has been abused that many times that there is no wonder Magistrates may well be sceptical.
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
Wonder if anyone knows the rules on this one....
Travelling home last Friday heading southbound on the A429 from Warwick to Cirencester and about 3 miles North from the Gloucestershre border (i.e. still in Warwickshire) I spots a Truvelo type camera pointing at the Northbound carriageway. Funny, thinks I, not seen any notices for speed cameras in Warwickshire, athough I know of the two gatso types around Bourton on the Water. I checked every sign on the Northbound carriageway and the only one is on the welcome to Warwickshire sign stating "mobile cameras", about 3 miles further south of the camera.
Here's the questions, do signs for cameras have to be exact i.e. this is a fixed not mobile camera or does it not really matter? and secondly is there a legal requirement for the sign to be a minimum distance from the camera site.
Paul45
|
There isn't a requirement for a sign at all.
Only if hypothecation is in use where plod gets a percentage of the 'tax'.
|
|
|
|
|
the photo the police send you is only circumstancial untill you sign the attached CONFESSION , up untill that point they can not win a court case against you, dont sign just send it back blank. i did this a year ago and still await a summons!!!! its not worth their time and money taking you to court as so many people just confess and pay. this is a loophole in the law! (not that i endorse speeding) sp30
|
1)dont speed you wont get caught or convicted
2)walk.
3)take a taxi taxi driver can get convicted you wont
4)bus same as above
sorry its the title ...keo
|
|
fair play to you, did the camera van get you?
|
|
I agree the best way not to get caught is not to drive like a crazed idiot.
|
some time ago i spoke to a traffic cop. he told me that the handheld laser detectors had problems getting a reading when the car that was being zapped had its windscreen wipers on - presumably the extra movement of the wipers relative to an already moving object confuses the detector.
i don't know whether he was telling porkies but if he was right then would this still be the case with the detectors in the mobile vans?
|
|
|
|
i dont drive like a crazed idiot, tactical placing of gatsos and sercos is disgracefull,i never exceed speed limits in built up areas however on the open road (where most of the cash collectors are) i have been known to drive slightly above the limit. they are placed for revenue not saftey,i have driven for a long time and never had an accident, its the overshooters at junctions the hesitators and people who dont indicate who need chastising, its time some form of camera for catching incompetent drivers is invented......then would you have points on your licence mr pug ugly ,i wonder?
|
|
Zero - Averging 26k per annum in a performance car. (Touch Wood)
|
|
you musnt drive through northamptonshire much then!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
who me ...who knows till the nip comes through the door still will try every dodge i know to get away with it i try not to speed (too) much anyway or at least use common sense
|
|
|
|
|
"i like speeding. there's no harm in it. of course there's a time and a place for it.speed cameras are a bad idea. what annoys me is people who stick at 45 in a 60 and then 45 through a 30. i mean if you're a good driver you can safely go over the limit on a good road. i think it's just another tax on motorists. it's crazy that you can lose your licence within 2 miles if you pass 4 cameras. i think some cameras do a good job of course - around schools etc. they only catch speeders not bad drivers. i have slowed down since the introduction of cameras as i don't want to lose my licence. it's very simple - if you don't want to be caught don't speed. i think they're a good idea. i don't like speeding."
any other old chestnuts out there?
|
For a moment I thought that was one of Volvoman's more coherent posts in its entirety and had to double check.
;o)
You know I'm kidding!
|
Boooiiinnngggggg! went zebedee.
Over to the SC Thread vol (n+1)
|
|
It's funny, I was in two minds whether to put FiF or Volvoman in my earlier reply..... :o)
|
if i hadn't just got up, i would have said time for bed!! while we are all off topic, have you ever thought that zebedeee is an anagram of zee bed, what we call a z-bed, that folds up.
on second thoughts, maybe it is time i had a lie-down, my head hurts.
|
No - I can safely say that I have never thought that :-)
--
"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will"
|
|
|
|
It's funny, I was in two minds whether to put FiF or Volvoman in my earlier reply..... :o)
Oi! steady on, you don't want to end up being called a cheeky gti.
(if anyone doesn't get the joke take gti and rearrange the letters into a recently discussed word :D )
|
|
Carefull FIF you can get in big uber trouble for attempting to bypass the spam filters ;)
|
Despite plastering the entire county with tickets and completely alienating the entire population Northamptonshire s************ partnership (don't you just love that title) is running at a huge LOSS. Which will have to be made up through the council tax.
How we laughed...
|
|
Disproves the theory of them being there only to make money, then.....?
|
No SR it does not.
They were supposed to be money making machines but its all gone pear shaped due in good part no doubt to the legendary efficiency of our public services.
Trouble is no one can now call a halt to what was always a bad idea because they have insisted until they are blue in the face that its a 'safety' issue.
The big problem now is that they will need to issue even more tickets to recover the loss so the easy targets will get targeted even more and the scam will become ever more obvious.
And to re-inforce the most important point of this whole debate, the bond of trust between the police and the public has been broken and will now probably never be mended,and that truly is a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
forgive me for my silly question , do truvelo cameras (forward facing) catch motorbikes , as their number plates are only on the back? i dont think they do, hmmmmmm
|
|
Yes a truvelo CAN photograph a bike, but not when its in forwards facing mode. To catch bikes simply open the housing, Take a ratchet and undo the securing bolts, spin it around and remove the magenta light filter which is required for forwards facing photography. You have to programme then up differently as well.
|
|
|
No they don,t. You can even pull a wheelie for the camera. Just hope they can't see your engine number as you do, it's another way to trace you.
Bill
|
"see your engine number.."
Don't worry, the camera resolution's not nearly good enough. A dirty numberplate will give it enough trouble...
|
|
Interesting that the BBC talking pint on speed cameras has been killed from the talking point homepage less than 34 hours after being started (normally the stuff on that page goes back at least a fortnight)
|
That\'s because us naughty joe public types aren\'t agreeing with the media elite.
8< Snip!
Sorry, straying too far off-topic and into the realms of political discussion. ND
|
|
|
|
I complained to the Beeb and it came back for a bit yesterday evening but it's gone again today.
|
|
|
|
|
A few times a camera has gone off on the opposite carriageway as I\'ve been going past on the bike.
What a shameful waste of film !
Never done it in a car, though.
Obviously on a bike there is no front plate so ID would be difficult, but accouring to a plod rellie prosecutions are not brought for opposite carriageway transgressions, so in theory the film could be used up without a single NIP being issued.
|
|
According to the Mr Darling and his underlings not ONE of the 5,500 speed cameras in the country is inappropriately located! On that basis all motorists are satisfied with the state of our roads, are happy with the levels of tax that we pay for the 'pleasure' of motoring, and the pigs are fed and ready for take-off!
|
|
The Metropolitan Police disagree, which is why they are decommissioning so many cameras over the next 6 weeks.
|
|
|
According to the Mr Darling and his underlings not ONE of the 5,500 speed cameras in the country is inappropriately located!
Oh - that's all right then. Glad he checked. I suppose that is the end of this thread then?
|
The "survey" was done by asking each of the camera partnerships whether any of their cameras were illegally placed.
Surprisingly, or not, they all pleaded "not guilty".
Well, they would say that, wouldn't they.
|
|
I have just picked my local weekly paper (Grantham Journal). A comment from the Local Camera Partnership states that there has been a 42% decrease in deaths and serious unjuries at Camera sites and a 32% reduction in personal injury collisions. This in a relatively rural county and away from the camera sites 103 people were killed on the county's roads last year, more than ever before. An article in the DT says that cameras can be put up anywhere on a 5k strtech of road where there have been 2 serious or fatal accidents in the preceeding 3 years but it added that cameras can actually be put anywhere where they may contribute to the overall strategy of reducing road accident casualties ie the guidelines are meaningless.
|
Essex has got a similar pattern, claimed reduction at camera sites, although pre and after camera comparisons are not necessarily like for like as new roads, different speed limits and other factors have not been taken out of the equation.
However, the annual average killed has increased from an average of about 75 before widescale introduction of cameras to around 105 since their introduction.
|
|
|
|
Don't normally say anything on this thread because my opinions differ from most here, (yeah I know that doesn't stop me elsewhere, before you say it mods) but surely if there has been a 42% decrease in deaths and serious injuries, and a 32% decrease in personal injury collisions, then it shows the cameras are having a good effect? And particularly since there were more deaths away from camera sites. So whatever the guidelines, meaningless or not, cameras must be good in certain situations?
|
|
That depends on what's classed as 'away from camera sites' If it's just 50 yards around the camera then it's kind of meaningless. There could be a situation where people slow for the camera - then speed up after passing it and have an accident
|
|
|
There is a long-runing concern that cameras merely displace speeding traffic - i.e. that locals know where they are so use different roads in order to preserve their licence. These figures would appear to support that hypothesis.
There is also a suspicion that the proponents of cameras select the best statistics to support their view. Again, this would appear to support that view, although those who reported the statistcs may well have selected the counties that most embarrassed the SCPs.
Finally, though, "safety" cameras are meant to improve our safety. If road deaths in the county concerned have risen then the county is evidently less safe.
|
|
Hmm, I do take your points, OP and patently. In fact you are almost persuading me to change my views. I'd still like to see something, though, if not cameras, that was effective in catching speeders in relevant places (which would exclude, even in my book, long stretches of wide straight road). I know this has been done to death but I still don't know what a really viable alternative would be.
|
>>but I still don\'t know what a really viable alternative would be.
Here\'s a wild idea;
What about manning the road with a person who was able to judge whether or not the person was driving safely and reasonably, and also able to check on many other factors such as drunkeness, drug-effects, etc. etc. And who was in a position to ensure that people not doing the above were prosecuted and punished.
We could put them in uniform so everybody knew what they were doing - perhaps a blue uniform would be good.
|
Blimey whoever'd have thought of that?
You are a pure innovative genius Mark.
|
Maybe as well Mark we could put them in high powered cars say...a Volvo T5. We could paint these as well so people knew who they were. Maybe put lights on the top...blue ones perhaps.
--
"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will"
|
|
I think you're going a bit far Adski; you'll be expecting then to have a force of these people for every city next.
|
Hmmm. Ok - I have an idea then. What about putting these boxes on the side of the road. These could...say...take a picture of any cars that speed thus freeing up these uniformed people to perform other duties. We could call them Speed Cameras.
--
"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will"
|
I will say that I agree with your previous post that there are circumstances where speed cameras are useful. (To my mind these include outside schools hospitals and some residential roads with a high speed limit) So your not alone with that.
As for what's effective in catching speeders - erm, the police? who interestingly enough can even catch the tailgaters, non-insured and other scrotes whilst thier at it.
|
|
Yes, completely agreed - however there is a large contingency that complains about police 'wasting' their time on catching speeding motorists and not in catching 'real' criminals.
|
You can't please 'em all :)
Perhaps a new divison seperate to the 'normal' police dedicated to this sort of thing (yes I know there's dedicated transport divisions in most forces already) similar to the railway transport police. The key thing would be to make sure that funding is not related in any way to the amount of fines/revenue generated.
|
Yes, there are appropriate places for cameras.
But not on roads as you are LEAVING a built-up area, not just PAST a park entrance, not as you enter a stretch of road with NO side roads or other hazards.
All real-life examples.
|
I'd still like to see something, though, ..., that was effective in catching speeders in relevant places
So would I. That's why I don't like cameras. They are not "effective.." in that they catch the wrong drivers and do not make our roads safer.
Everyone else has beaten me to it with their suggested replacement, viz a bloke dressed in blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone got one/seen one in use?
Are they as good as they claim to be?
|
What's a road angel?
--
Fill what's empty, empty what's full and scratch where it itches!
|
|
Installed a Blue 2 in a friends car and used it - Yes its the dogs teeth
|
|
My BMW dealer fitted one to the courtesy car they lent me for three days at the end of last month. We have no speed cameras locally, and I didn't run into any radar, so very limited testing! No false alarms. It did alert me to two black spots, both places where I tend to be wary anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Jane - it's a dash mounted GPS based speed camera locator and laser detector.
|
|
Its a device designed to permit a certain breed of driver to speed with impunity. Until the devices are made illegal, that is.
|
Oooerr, I'll be after one of them then.
|
|
|
|
|
Nitro
I just upgraded to a RoadAngel + radar last weekend and so far it's excellent. Unlike the Morpheous it replaced (see my ad in Classifieds if you want to try an entry-model GPS device) it is directional so you don't get alarms for cameras on the opposite side of the road. Also very interesting to see where the blackspots are, although I had to mute these going down the M4 on Saturday as there were so many of them.
It's also interesting to see exactly how much the speedo over-reads by. Just a shame I can't use it in France as the kph speed setting would be very useful.
And no, I don't speed consistently or deliberately but we all make mistakes don't we (as the Dalek said as he climbed off the dustbin):o) Plus, the blackspot alarm makes for a safer journey.
Terry
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand"
|
This is a device designed to allow people to evade being caught when breaking the law. It has no other purpose.
Drive within the speed limit and appropriately for the conditions. Simple, and it saves a couple of hundred pounds too.
I wonder what the reaction would be if I started a thread about how to evade detection when stealing a car?
|
This is a device designed to allow people to evade being caught when breaking the law. It has no other purpose. Drive within the speed limit and appropriately for the conditions. Simple, and it saves a couple of hundred pounds too. I wonder what the reaction would be if I started a thread about how to evade detection when stealing a car?
GoG
Some strange logic here, especially if you've read the posts above.
1. It's designed to stop people from breaking the law, as I'm sure even you do occasionally, albeit accidentally.
2. It's also designed to highlight particular blackspots (without cameras) to enable extra care to be taken.
3. Driving within the speed limits and appropriately for the conditions are not necessarily compatible statements.
4. How are speeding and stealing a car even remotely comparable? Can you accidently steal a car?
Terry
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand"
|
|
I'd disagree with the first comment "1. It's designed to stop people from breaking the law, as I'm sure even you do occasionally, albeit accidentally." The converse applies: they are designed to allow the law to be flouted, except when detection is imminent. Your position seems to be that the law only applies within range of the camera.
|
I'd disagree with the first comment "1. It's designed to stop people from breaking the law, as I'm sure even you do occasionally, albeit accidentally." The converse applies: they are designed to allow the law to be flouted, except when detection is imminent. Your position seems to be that the law only applies within range of the camera.
Nortones
It depends on your motives for having one. What you say could well apply; I'm only speaking from my personal position which is that I never deliberately flout a law (I can't recall ever even parking on a yellow line!). The Road Angel reminds me if my speed has crept up in the location of a camera (which after all are supposed to be at danger locations) or another accident blackspot. With 40 years conviction-free driving so far it would be silly to let one momentary lapse like that get me a NIP or worse. And yes, I know I can check my speed at any time but I do like to spend as much time as possible looking where I'm going!
Terry
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand"
|
terryb
Cheers for the useful advice and I tend to agree with all you say...
|
|
|
|
TerryB: I accept all you are saying about your personal approach to driving. However, there are others who are not so mature, and you can see them every day. I think the market for the latter brigade is a wee bit larger, judging by the antics in town. Call me cynical, but the M6 roadworks have a number of very confident drivers, who seem to be able to anticipate the cameras, but otherwise are low-flying!
|
|
|
|
|
|
New roadworks have appeared on M8 at Livingston. Speed camera each side.
Although there are the standard countdown signs to the roadworks, the only sign warning of speed cameras can be no more than 50 yards before the actual camera!
Is there a legal requirement that this should be a set distance away?
|
|
Would have thought that the big red circle with a big black 50 in the middle would be the only legal notice required.
|
|
|
No legal requirement for an SC to be signed. Advisory only.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Good for a laugh, before it gets moved to speed cameras or humour??
homepage.ntlworld.com/keith.jones61/Front%20Page.h...m
|
|
LOL - good for a Friday!!
|
Hilarious!
On a more sober note I think Brunstrom will be out by end 2004 and once we get one Chief Constable the others might wise up a little...
|
|
Interesting to hear today that Lancashire are removing some of their cameras. Apparently, there has been an increase in RTAs and a huge growth in complaints.
|
Staffordshire has had a 45% increase in road fatalities between 2002 and 2003. Oddly enough this information is missing from the scamera partnership website.... they only show stats for 2002.
teabelly
|
OOOOOH! Think this is turning in to the speed camera thread.
Anyway I'll jump in.
Northamptonshire.
County PLASTERED with speed cameras and tickets.
Road fatalities going up.
Convictions rates for all other crimes plummetting. Northampton town having such a huge rise in violent crime that a special government task force has been sent in.
Scamera partnership LOSING money.
Police demanding huge increase in its slice of council tax.
Among the natives the smell of revolution is in the air...
|
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been mentioned before, there too many threads to search piece by piece - forum search on the obvious does not answer...
On the M25, Southbound Junction 10 to 12 (heading for the M3) and northbourd 12-10 (away from M3) is a variable speed limit with speed camera signs.
Is the limit enforced at all times, ie are the cameras always on. Or, as i suspect (see below for reasoning) as the sign 'variable speed limit' suggests, are they only active when the matrix signs stipulate a speed limit (eg 60 with red circle round it)
I use this road regularly and usualy slow to 75 for fear of a ticket, and have cars pass me that are easily doig 90 or more - are they mad or do they know the answer.
On the odd occasion im driving on auto pilot i have been through the whole section doing 90 myself - and have not recieved a ticket (i ought to point out the road was clear, middle of the night, and there were no speed limits on the signs).
Dave
|
I drive this section a lot (live nearby). I have never triggered the cameras (at 90mph+ late at night). I understand that when no variable limit is displayed the cameras are inactive. Friend of mine claims he was nicked by them with no variable displayed but I dispute that.
So from experience - no limit displayed, no camera.
|
|
The sign says 1700+ caught exceeding 40 mph through the roadworks. I think it will be 2 years before any speedy progess is possible.
|
In the M25 roadworks they have mobile scameras set up.
Does this mean that the overhead scameras are not working whilst the roadworks are in place?
My GPS system would seem to suggest that they are turned off as it bleeps at the mobile scameras sites but not at the overheads as it did previously.
Academic as I have never gone through over 10 mph due to congestion but I would like to know.
|
|
Thro the roadworks on the M25 the overhead gantry cameras are out of use. Watch the ones just prior to the roadwork speedlimits tho.
|
|
|
|
IMO, they do a good job to an extent. Those that do not bother to register their/stolen car will get away with it.
IMO, motors that are not registered and speed past these 'Road s************s' should be stopped forthwith.
My solution is that these RSC's should have surface to surface missel facilities and launch when appropriate. This should cut speeding and car crime in go IMO.
I now this will not be a safe solution, but I felt it was worth airing!!
Thanks
MM
|
I'd hate to see the anti-detection methods employed by the criminals then; M1A1 Abrams? T82?
Nice idea in theory....but then again, communism works.....in theory
--
"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will"
|
But how does that raise money for the government which is the point of speed cameras after all...
Kev
|
|
|
|
www.safespeed.org.uk/pr109.html
Things could get interesting if this appeal is upheld.
teabelly
|
www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL548.pdf
The above is from the Transport Research Lab and they have concluded that the smiley (you're not speeding) and frowning (you are speeding) vehicle activated signs (and others warning of junctions and bends) are much better at modifying driver behaviour than speed cameras.
teabelly
|
|
God knows they frighten the bejassus out of me. They are monitoring my speed and they tell me they are not linked to cameras but I just don't trust them...
|
|
|
|
