I went passed a mobile police trap (unmarked car with camera in front window)yesterday and was probably over the speed limit(no excuse)but i was not stopped.My question is
Have these traps the ability to photograph like the fixed cameras with no road markings on the road,or have i been lucky not to get a ticket or will i get one in the post
|
You probably got caught if you were over the limit - depends on which area you were in. It will have been a laser-based detector with a digital still or digital video camera.
They tend to send the notice through in about 1-2 weeks these days, although legally they have 6 months to contact you.
|
|
No, road markings are not a legal requirement and unless you are stopped and booked the NIP must be issued within 14 days. Many theads on references to the act/law Regards Peter
|
|
What a pointless exercise. Surely the function of traffic police is to stop speeding, a marked car in full view is much more effective at this, just watch the brake lights on the motorway when one comes into sight.
|
|
It is a strange reading of the law that, if you flash your headlights to warn an oncoming driver of a speed trap, you can be convicted of Obstructing the Police in the Course of their Duty, and yet their 'Duty' amongst others, is to stop people speeding which is what you were trying to achieve with your flashing headlights - discuss!
|
|
|
What a pointless exercise. Surely the function of traffic police is to stop speeding, a marked car in full view is much more effective at this, just watch the brake lights on the motorway when one comes into sight.
And the collsion when someone is paying attention???
Speed limits are fact. Keep to them, and you don't get fined and endorsed. No wonder the police / governemt target speeders, there's so many that it's easy money.
The law is the law. Don't exceed the limits. Then the traffic police might have time to spot the idiots who can't drive.
Mare
|
|
My point is that unmarked cars trap the odd speeder, while all the others whizz past thanking the Lord it wasn't them. A marked car on a bridge slows everyone, which is surely the point of the Police, prevention.
|
|
|
"The law is the law." How trite.
Some laws are good, some are not. Some speed limits are reasonable, some are not. Some "laws" are easy revenue, some require investigation.
Laws sometimes need challenging, long may that be the case otherwise nothing would ever change.
Nothing is stopping police from spotting idiots right now - in fact, cameras are supposed to free time up for that. The fact is there are fewer traffic cops doing that than ever.
|
Quite agree, some limits are too low, and some are too high. Campaign to get them changed. Talk to the local authority. Vote Tory if you want to as they seem to have spotted a vote winner.
Nonetheless, the law IS the law. Break it and get punished.
|
|
|
|
Steve - some laws are good, some bad, some just silly. But many of them would be unnecessary if more individuals behaved more responsibly. Because they don't, we have to try to invent compromises and make threats to persuade them to conform. Result - frequent annoyance and frustration for the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What was the speed limit and how fast were you going?
****Signature? - Ideas on a postcard please anyone!****
****We never stop learning****
Hugo
|
Should have added - never been stopped (or scamered) for speeding, occasionally break the 70 by 10 or so, mostly everyone else seems to be too.
Such humbug.
|
In cumbria, the Police have two Transit speed scamera vans, which are virtually unmarked, bearing the Cubria County Council logo and "Traffic Safety Vehicle" far more clearly than POLICE. At one stage, they were actually even using hire vans!!
Their record to date is 3000 fixed penalty notices and court summons issued in 3 weeks using these two vans.
They justify these scameras by advertising a selection of locations where they will be on each day, two weeks in advance.
The list can be found at the following location on BBC News website:
www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/travel/speed-camera/speed_ca...m
These camera vans will cause an accident sooner or later, especially when used on the M6 and dual carriageways in Cumbria. I've seen some very severe evasive action when drivers have spotted the camera vans on a bridge or parked in the speically built camera van parking bays on various roads in Cumbria.
WHEN TRAVELLING IN CUMBRIA BE WARNED - THERE MAY ONLY BE ONE SINGLE FIXED GATSO IN THE WHOLE COUNTY (A66 TEMPLE SOWERBY), BUT THESE TWO SCAMERA VANS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE!
|
|
Can't imagine why people get so worked up about speed cameras etc. Congestion is the journey lengthener (is that a word?) whenever I'm driving.
|
Gen
I think there are a few good reasons why people can get worked up by cameras. I for one welcome cameras located at accident blackspots, where the very presence of a highly visible camera should awaken people to the dangerous section of road.
What I personally dislike is when cameras are obviously used as revenue earners, for example on the A45 on the way into Birmingham on a dual carriageway immediately after a 40 posted limited (from D restricted) a camera is hidden behind the hedge in the central reservation, it's not an accident blackspot and is there to catch drivers out. Other examples include modern dual carriageways with 30 or 40 mph limits that are deliberately kept low to increase the chances of earning more from the cameras.
As with the vans, i would say no problem if they are located to reduce accidents in dangerous locations, but not on a clear stretch of road with a poorly chosen speed limit.
At the moment the driver is used as a revenue earner for different authorities, and cameras are an easy way to do this.
BTW I'm not condoning innapropriate speeding, and feel high speed in urban areas is not acceptable, I just enjoy driving especially when on clear roads in good conditions away from built up areas.
Paul.
|
|
|
Agree - I'm fortunate in that most of my journeys can be scheduled so I travel outside usual congestion times, I also listen to local traffic reports and use 1740 on my (handsfree) mobile.
I despair at the lack of traffic police - cameras don't catch the egits using the hard shoulder, undertaking to gain one space or the downright dangerous drivers.
Speeding is not anti-social or yobbish, despite what we are being force-fed by this government, that statement is too broad in its sweep.
Sort out the anti-social and yobbish drivers by proper policing, introduce speed limits appropriate to the road instead of to the constabulary's coffers and I'll be happy.
|
|
I believe that the county/area with the high profile Chief Constable who speaks for the ACPO organisation re speeding and policy, heads a police force with a 6% clear-up rate on burglaries. How much use is that to the citizens in his domain?
|
Speed is not a significant factor in road accidents except when very excessive.
Excessive speeding is largely restricted to drunk drivers, drivers of stolen vehicles, police pursuing stolen vehicles or ansering emergency calls, plus a couple of other categories.
None of the accidents involving those categories of drivers would have been prevented by speed cameras because none of these drivers would pay any attention to them.
Speed cameras are only effective against ordinary motorists who are marginally exceeding the limit and 99% of the time driving perfectly safely.
Speed cameras have been found to increase accident rates - and in fact the UK accident rate has increased for the first time in many years in direct correlation with the introduction of speed cameras.
Some enlightened countries in the world are removing speed cameras and some are increasing speed limits. They have discovered that reduced speed causes loss of concentration in many drivers and stress in many others leading to even more excessive driving because some of those stressed drivers want to make up time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you are unlucky enough to get a summons try "forgetting" to sign the declaration form it certainly worked for dwight yorke!
|
|
Erm, there was a lot more to the Dwight Yorke case than simply failing to sign the form see www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html . If any BR leagle eagle could interpret Judge Owen's judgement for me out of interest I would be grateful.
|
G.
Trying to put this in a nut shell:
Bear in mind to secure a conviction for speeding that the prosecution rely on the form naming the driver being signed so that it can be accepted under the law as the fact that he was the driver and can therefore convict.
Scroll down the page and read:
Analysis by John Jospehs
...all should then be apparent?
DVD
|
|
DVD, there are issues not covered by John Josephs analysis. Like filling in a NIP but not signing it was ruled by Judge Owen to be confession under PACE!
|
G.
Forget the NIP - this is just a notification somewhere in the forms you receive having been flashed, that has to be sent to you within 14 days of the offence otherwise no proceedings. No action needed by the recepient.
Other form will ask to name the driver and ends with a signature block. If this is completed and SIGNED then it is accepted as evidence there and then that the driver is so and allows Court to accept this fact and convict without any more ado. Now if this is not signed then it opens up a kettle of fish that has been subject to the Owens judgement and from this you should now get the jist.
DVD
|
On the speed trap thing, we have had a fixed camera set up in Bellshill Lanarkshire for about a year.
The road it is situated on has no pavements because there is no pedestrians on that stretch.
Where the camera is there is an underpass directly underneath it for any pedestrians.
When I questioned with the council why here, I found out that each authority had to nominate its worse accident blackspot and this was theirs.
Why was it the worse blackspot? On 3 different occasions the Police have crashed marked cars there!!!!!
|
Bobby G
Clearly a good spot for a camera. If advanced drivers (the police) crash there often it must indeed be a bad bit of road. [wink]
|
|
or perhaps they were just going too fast... :-)
|
|
|
|
