|
Surely the vast majority of road signs are not illuminated at night? There must have been some special circumstances involved with this sign.
|
It's distinctly possible that an illuminated sign isn't reflective.
|
|
|
I think the signs that 'inform' you just sit there. If they are intended to 'order' you to do, or not to do something, they must be legible and visible and that implies clean and illuminated during the hours of darkness.
|
Speed Cameras as a source of Revenue
Well according to the news section on the right,
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=4583
"'Fewer motorists caught on camera in 2008' Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:10
There are fewer British motorists being caught breaking the law behind the wheel on speed cameras this year than last, it has been reported. ... "
They will have to make up the shortfall somehow.
|
They will have to make up the shortfall somehow.
There are several initiatives to help there:
On speed, NSL will be removed from most A & B roads and replaced with 50MPH.
20MPH zones are being widely introduced.
Parking offences now can be picked up by surveillance cameras.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the terminal signs at the start and end of a limit have to be lit, but if they are lit then the lights must work at night, or the limit isn't legal.
Also there must be terminal signs clearly visible on both sides of the road. There have been cases dropped when it was proven that one or both signs were obscured by vegetation.
|
Can anyone please advise where this camera is on the M11?
Thank you
Edited by Petel on 30/03/2008 at 19:55
|
Don't usually post much but this is about my 10th today. Can you tell I nothing else to do?
Anyhow.
I often wonder what would happen if we all suddenly stopped exceeding any speed limits.
Zero revenue for the 'Safety Partnerships'.
Still lots of offices, chair polishers and their gold plated government pensions to be paid for.
TMTUPFITHOTW claim hey are cash strapped already so they wouldn't want to pay for it.
What exactly would happen?
(Key. The Most Totally Useless Police Force In The History Of The World AKA the UK police)
|
Reminder from Traffic Signs and General Direction 2002 Schedule 17
Sign 670 (speed roundel)
(1) Where the sign is a terminal sign and is erected on a trunk or principal road within 50 metres of a street lamp lit by electricity, it shall throughout the hours of darkness -
(a) be continuously illuminated by means of internal or external lighting and may also be reflectorised; or
(b) while the street lamp is lit, be continuously illuminated by means of external lighting and shall also be reflectorised.
(2) If any sign is required to be illuminated in the manner and at the times described in paragraph (1) above -
(a) every sign shown in the same diagram as the first-mentioned sign which is erected at or near the same point on the road or the same junction for the same purpose as the first-mentioned sign shall be continuously illuminated throughout the same period by the same means of lighting as the first-mentioned sign; and
(b) if any of the signs is reflectorised, every other such sign shall be similarly illuminated.
and
If the sign is not required as above to be illuminated by lighting throughout the hours of darkness or throughout such hours while a street lamp is lit, it may be illuminated by a means of internal or external lighting; but if not so illuminated, it shall be reflectorised
Paragraph (2) of item 10 shall apply as if the sign were a sign required by paragraph (1) of item 10 to be illuminated by lighting throughout the hours of darkness or throughout those hours while a street lamp is lit.
dvd
|
Well, West Mercia have certainly had revenue from me. After over 30 years with no points, within 3 months I find I have 9. All three occasions being for 36/37 in a 30 limit, and all via mobile vans.
Now I'm not saying that I'm not guilty, but the ease with which you can drift above a limit makes it easy money for these tax collectors.
To put it mildly for the forum, I'm really "quite upset" about this.
Having just got the NIP for the last 3 points, I've sent for a copy of the "drivershandbook" which may have some approaches that can help.
If I decide to "fight it" I'll report on how this goes.
MM
|
If I decide to "fight it" I'll report on how this goes.
If you're going to fight any of them, then this would be the one - if there's a next time within 3yrs then it'll be altogther more complicated as you'll be looking at an automatic court appearance.
have a look at www.pepipoo.com too.
I share you anger, and the same thing happened to a good friend of mine except that he got 9 points within 2week. OK, fine us if you must, but to ban people and cause them to lose their jobs is a punishment out of all proportion with minor speeding offences.
|
I've said before that the points system is completely broken. It was designed for enforcement by policemen, not cameras, and so when it was first conceived it was never thought a driver could be banned for several minor speeding offences within a sort period.
Automated enforcement with no discretion has negated the value of the point system so much that many insurers no longer use penalty points as one of their risk factors when deciding premiums.
As Bill Payer says, it beggars belief that someone could be banned for several very minor traffic offences. You get punished more harshly for the victimless crime of minor speeding than for proper crimes like shoplifting.
|
"As Bill Payer says, it beggars belief that someone could be banned for several very minor traffic offences. You get punished more harshly for the victimless crime of minor speeding than for proper crimes like shoplifting."
Victimless most of the time. You're many times more likely to kill some idiot (or child) that runs out in front of you if you're doing the speeds many here seem to be completely comfortable with in town.
|
|
|
|
MM, 36 or 37 in a 30 means that *if* you hit some muppet who ran in front of you, your chance of killing them would rise massively disproportionately. If you're not able to judge the (quite large) difference between 30 and 37, then maybe you should get a car with cruise control or a speed limiter?
In the meantime, the 9 points should focus your mind on keeping to about 25 mph to make sure you don't get banned. What do you mean, that would be excruciatingly slow?? It's the same %age difference as 36-37 is to 30, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference.
(Sorry, not really aimed just at you personally, but "only doing 36-37" is probably the excuse that winds me up most in the motoring world).
|
|
|
|
|
I fear we cannot adhere to speed-limits, so there will always be some that drift-over or are unaware as they take-in the view of the roadside scenery.
We all know speed cameras are there to collect revenue, so why pretend we are criminals? Jy=ust have a random flash and anyone caught pays-up for the benefit of others. Spikes in the ground could immobilise cars even more randomly and produce an income for tyre-shops etc.
I don't imagine the Police are exactly happy with the situation, but Rules is Rules and that brings them into conflict with the very people that "used-to" support them 100%.
In most instances speed-limits are obvious - and experienced drives adjust top the conditions . . .with Revenue generation speed limits pop up willy-nilly.
On a point of readability ( you read it here first!), - I suggest all speed limits should use the same number for both numerals.
This would make it clearer, thus:- 22, 33, 44, 55, 66 and drop that silly black-band sign - what a nonsense so many years-on. Lets get it right! A proper posted speed, for goodness' sake. If you want another idea - then lets have decent-size signs, if I'm doing 60 MPH, how am I supposed to see a tiddly 20-sign?
|
>>.. there will always be some that drift-over or are unaware as they take-in the view of the roadside scenery.
We all know that those who shout the loudest are those that deliberately ignore the limit - Like the guy in the Renault estate that overtook me in the 30 in Milford two weeks ago, took several attempts before he found a gap between the islands that was big enough (I was doing a sat nav indicated 33 but was not fast enough for him) and the "lady" in the 4x4 who overtook me in the 20 limit near the Scottish Executive in Leith a few days later.
They know exactly what they are doing and the sooner they nationalise the traffic master system and start using that as an average speed check the sooner these idiots will get stopped!.
|
not fast enough for him (& her).
This is what happens when limits are set un-naturally low.
The road out of our (by-passed) village is 30MPH. Yet it's clear for half a mile between the built up area of the village and where the bypass starts. Drive at 30MPH and everyone passes you. Towards the end there a farily hidden left turn, People pull out, turning right without looking properly, and find themselves head on with overtaking traffic.
Whose fault is all that? Anyone's but the person doing 30 of course. Yet they could have avoided the situation arising in the first place by driving at a more natural pace.
|
|
|
We all know that those who shout the loudest are those that deliberately ignore the limit - Like the guy in the Renault estate that overtook me in the 30 in Milford two weeks ago took several attempts before he found a gap between the islands that was big enough
That sounds like a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre, not speeding. Just because someone does something dangerous at a speed that happens to be greater than the posted limit doesn't necessarily mean that the offence should be called "speeding".
They know exactly what they are doing and the sooner they nationalise the traffic master system and start using that as an average speed check the sooner these idiots will get stopped!.
You'd be happy if idiots were confined to only doing dangerous thing below the speed limit would you? Maybe I'm naive, but I'm not that ready to throw in the towel on the idea of stopping dangerous things and allowing safe things yet.
|
|
|
|
"I fear we cannot adhere to speed-limits, so there will always be some that drift-over or are unaware as they take-in the view of the roadside scenery. "
If you're looking at the roadside scenery then you deserve all you get. Driving is dangerous, it requires you to pay attention. Points will focus that attention.
Frankly if you can't see a bright yellow reflective box on a pole, with lots of white lines painted on the road, that doesn't trigger until a decent percentage over the limit, then you've got it coming. (And yes, I realise that some could be miscalibrated, but that's the exception).
This thread is getting me so wound up I think I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone please advise where this camera is on the M11? Thank you
You cannot miss it, or the sign. It is just after the gentle S bend at the bottom end southbound.
Obviously the man in the article did! And I bet he drives past it regularly.
|
I think the point is that you can miss it, at night, as it has not been lit for 2 1/2 years! Hence the appeal and collapse of prosecution related to alleged speeding!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the terminal signs at the start and end of a limit have to be lit but if they are lit then the lights must work at night or the limit isn't legal.
>
logic tells me this cannot be true. It would mean speed limits not legal during power cut!
|
I often wonder what would happen if we all suddenly stopped exceeding any speed limits
By the rule of nature (randomness), that's never going to happen.
However, as people become more aware (which is happening), the number of prosecutions will come down.
Then again, authorities will develop new rules to screw the motorists! It's their job.
|
Then again authorities will develop new rules to screw the motorists! It's their job.
It's called 'VED Changes'
|
See here
tinyurl.com/2fb33t
Police hide speed camera inside horsebox!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
