Try this quiz from the abd
1 Does this location have a history of road accidents caused (not merely contributed to) by illegal speed?
2 Whole camera housing PAINTED luminous bright yellow?
3 Camera obscured in any way (roadsigns, road-side structures, vegetation etc..)?
4aor Camera clearly visible from 60 metres in both directions (40mph/ lower limit zone)?
4b Camera clearly visible from 100 metres in both directions (above 40mph limit zone)?
5a or Mobile device clearly visible from 60 metres in both directions (40mph/ lower speed limit zone)?
5b Mobile device clearly visible from 100 metres in both directions (above 40mph limit zone)?
6 Nearest camera speed enforcement warning sign not more than 1 kilometre from site; with none in excess of that distance?
7 Signs only where camera housings present or mobile enforcement operating?
8 Mobile speed camera operators unconcealed?
9 Mobile speed camera operators highly conspicuous (fluorescent clothing)?
10 Mobile speed camera operators? vehicle highly conspicuous (marked with reflective fluorescent strip) and unconcealed?
11 Enforcement site subject to 6-monthly review of validity? (Demand proof of certification)
12 Enforcement equipment calibrated within 24 hours? Demand proof of calibration
13 Area free of power lines, other possible sources of radio interference?
14 Area free of parked vehicles?
15 Area free of potentially radar/ laser reflective road-side structures?
16 Area free of oncoming (or other moving) vehicles during act of attempted speed measurement?
17 In your opinion would other non-speed related engineering measures (e.g., graded roundabout/ over-/ underpass) be more effective in reducing accidents at this location?
If all of criteria 3. - 16. are not scrupulously met, risks of spurious/ invalid measurements are greatly increased
If you have inadvertently triggered this camera keep a copy of this form to show your legal representative. It may form a basis for your defence.
In event of any non-compliance with any of the above criteria, send this completed form to:· Rt. Hon. John Spellar MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA.· Rt. Hon David Blunkett MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.· The MP for ?????????, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.· Director of your Local Highways Agency.· The Chief Constable for your area.· Director of your Local Authority Police Consultative Committee.N.B.:If the enforcement site involved is not in an area currently participating in the revenue hypothecation scheme, you can only use this audit form to highlight deviations from Home Office guidelines and to recommend remedial action.If, however, the site is one in an area currently participating in the revenue hypothecation scheme (Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Essex, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, North Wales, Northamptonshire, Nottingham, South Wales, Staffordshire, Strathclyde, Thames Valley and Warwickshire. A further 12 forces have just applied to join, and more are expected to apply soon), it must adhere in full to the guidelines above. In this case you are entitled to demand to know from one or all of the above persons what remedial action will be taken - and by when - to bring this site back into compliance with Home Office guidelines. Note you will be demanding the site?s de-activation and removal if all criteria have not been complied with within 21 days of despatch of your letter (send by registered post). Report your progress to your local ABD representative or ABD National Chairman, Brian Gregory (e-mail: brian.gregory@abd.org.uk; Tel. 0800-358 9955)
|
What a complete waste of time!
Why don't you conserve all your energy and keep to the speed limit?
Speed limits are put there for the safety of all road users and pedestrians.
Why do so many people dream up reasons to break the law?
|
Really you misunderstand that some of out here are reasonable people passing comment because we passionately want fewer
road deaths.
I know several cases where "little old ladies" have pulled out of a side road into the path of a motorcyclist and caused
serious injury or death to the motorcyclists. I know that in such cases these people do not loose their licence or get locked up.
This is unacceptable.
And it compares badly with the way a young lad would get treated by the courts when causing an accident.
Also the whole use of discretion by traffic officers is now badly out of kilter with the reality that the vast majority of drivers would like to see.
I'm sorry but outrageous driving by police officers hardly ever gets to court. This is not acceptable.
Road deaths are caused by many factors which need looking at as a whole, including not swamping a road with millions of signs that are very hard to take in if you
are a newcomer to the area. Signage should be simple, informative and easily read. It often isn?t.
Roads should be designed with margin for error built in. The reverse is happening in the ever-increasing work thinning roads down in an effort to discourage people
going about their lawful business.
Pedestrian skills are practically non-existent, and "jay walking" is normal - education is needed here, and in the final analysis bad offenders should be
prosecuted as in other countries. (It needs to be a specific offence in this country and enforced)
Cycle proficiency training has practically disappeared in large parts of the country. And a cycle without lights is routine. This would be simple and cheap
for the police and authorities to remedy.
Minor infringement of arbitrary speed limits is often perfectly safe. It would be much better practise to teach people to drive according to the conditions.
|
|
Wholly agree. The TRRL (I think) said a while back that excessive speed was a factor in 4% of accidents, but it seems to receive 100% of the attention, simply because it's quantifiable.
|
|
|
|
Roger,
See the thread above, titled 'Physician heal thyself'.
I try not to speed, and often end up being tailgated in the process.
It could be that a moments lack of concentration (incidentally once used by a senior Police Officer to get off a speeding rap) causes one to pick up a camera ticket. I for one would appreciate having a go at the legal monstrocity that claims to be there for our safety but is probably mostly a revenue raiser.
Martin.
|
|
|
Roger k......
You say speed limits are put there for the safety of all road users and pedestrians.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I have Council minutes stating that a 60 reduced to 40 near me was opposed by the police, but imposed anyway.
You must get your head around the fact that many limits are being reduced by people who either know nothing about the subject, or are environmentalists determined to be petty idiots.
Also, remember our 60 & 70 were introduced to conserve fuel during an oil crisis and as a panic measure by a non-driving Transport Minister to solve the problem of motorway pile-ups in fog.
The foregoing does nothing "for the safety of all road users and pedestrians."
As the law-making process is abused, more people will ignore bad laws. I can't believe I'm saying this, but my respect for the law is rapidly disappearing.
|
"Also, remember our 60 & 70 were introduced to conserve fuel during an oil crisis and as a panic measure by a non-driving Transport Minister to solve the problem of motorway pile-ups in fog."
Well, which was it ? 70 was in place well before the early 70s fuel crisis.
|
|
Many of the posts on this board refer to transport ministers who don't drive. They probably can't fly commercial aircraft or drive trains either. Sure, road transport is very important, but I don't see a car licence as a pre-requisite. If it is, can I also demand that the minister has a full motorcycle licence as well?
|
Derek wrote:
>
> Many of the posts on this board refer to transport ministers
> who don't drive. They probably can't fly commercial aircraft
> or drive trains either. Sure, road transport is very
> important, but I don't see a car licence as a pre-requisite.
> If it is, can I also demand that the minister has a full
> motorcycle licence as well?
Derek,
interesting question that.
I would say most of the public use planes and trains as paying passengers but not as pilots or drivers. Therefore for the minister to be in touch with the voting public he should use these without the VIP facilities.
A significant proportion, maybe someone could advise of the %, hold licences and drive regularly. I submit that by being unable and clearly unwilling to drive a minister without a licence cannot be in touch with a significant part, possibly even a majority, of the electorate.
Can you also demand that he has a full motorcycle licence as well? Extending the argument above why not? Plus he should use a pedal cycle too, again why not? A pedestrian, yes you got it.
Lets put it this way, I have heard it said in all seriousness at election time that a particular individual would not vote for a candidate if they did not have a family on the basis that they would not understand the issues facing the parents of young families today. Fair point, bit of a single issue, but its a valid point.
So why *not* refuse to vote for cretins like Byers, it is votes these idiots understand and crave above all else.
|
Well, yes, I can appreciate your argument. On the other hand, you only have to look at the width of opinion on HJ's site to see how ineffective an individual minister's experience might be. He might hold a driving licence, but after that he could be a speed merchant, environmentalist, or whatever.
He/she might be a pedestrian, but also a persistent jaywalker.
Besides, the minister will be chaufferred at the very least, so they'll know the frustration of traffic jams.
I'm not being very articulate with this, but I hope you get the drift.
Personally, I'd prefer that the individual concerned had some intelligence or, better still, common sense (so often, you don't find them together). Direct, but limited, experience may be worse than none at all.
|
Just a quick answer
"Besides, the minister will be chaufferred at the very least, so they'll know the frustration of traffic jams."
True, but at least he/she will be able to continue to work whilst sitting in the back.
He/she won't understand the difficulty of finding his way to a strange place, dealing with the traffic, finding somewhere to park, how will the meeting go, mentally running through the meeting preparation and the hundred and one other things we all have to cope with while trying to concentrate 100% on driving safely and make optimum progress.
I'll not get into the issues of having the worry of will his driver being let off speeding at >100 mph because he is late for a LABOUR party meeting, NOT Government business. ref J Straw OK he wasn't transport minister but the example is relevant I feel.
Realise we might have to agree to disagree on this and I'm totally happy with that.
|
|
|
|
|
I heard the 70 limit was a result of lobying from British Rail, Fast motorway coaches were able to compete with trains oevr long distance.
|
|
|
As mybrainhurts says, people will obey laws which they can see to be valid.
The existence if largely invalid laws causes less respect for all law and the use of the police to enforce them causes the public perception of the police to be as a hazard to be avoided rather than an aid.
To take a similar example, it is supposedly a fact that being in an enclosed space with a smoker (passive smoking) inflicts damage to the health of the non-smoker.
Suppose the solution was to make smoking illegal. not just in an enclosed space, but anywhere in the country.
A smokerwould argue that if he smoked in a field, miles away from anyone, he would be doing no harm to anyone other than himself and therefore it should be allowed.
The authorities would reply "but it is illegal, you're nicked".
Substitute exceeding 30 mph (or any speed limit unsupported by local conditions) for smoking and the invalidity of arbitary limits covering hundreds of square miles becomes apparent.
|
|
|
Reply to Matt Kelly........
Matt, you said "Well, which was it ? 70 was in place well before the early 70s fuel crisis."
Bit rusty on the precise date, but the threat of 70 prompted me to carry a newspaper sticker on my back window that read :
Backwards with Labour into the 70's..............
Barbara Castle was the culprit, another non-driving Minister of Transport.
|
|
|
