**** THREAD CLOSED, PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSSION IN
"The Speed Camera Thread - Volume 25" ****
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=24143
For the continued discussion of all things pertaining to Speed Cameras.
This is Volume 24
There is no need to repeat anything since earlier volumes will not be deleted. But then if we only posted original stuff the backroom would grind to a halt in a fortnight.
;o)
A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18846
DD.
|
There is a good picture in todays Daily Star (page 28 I think) with a police car parked totally on the pavement with a mobile speed camera. The complainent points out that because the car is completely blocking the pavement, pedestrians must walk around it on the busy road.
The polices reply.....its not blocking the pavement. The picture clearly shows it is, leaving absolutely no doubt!
What a watertight defence!
|
|
still as long as they catch a few guy's and gal's doing 3 MPH over the speed limit eh?
|
Maybe they're enforcing these new "home zone" things by forcing pedestrians out into the road thereby forcing the traffic to slow down?
And all in the name of road safety! So quite [politically] proper and correct!
|
|
|
|
If its in the village of Grimsargh, that van has been caught blocking the footpath twice! However, its there because the villagers want to stop the speed merchants who are leaving and entering the village at high speed, and its clocking sped and details against records. The fixed cameras (2) further down don't deter. This is not inadvertent slippage, but fully deliberate.
|
"The fixed cameras (2) further down don't deter."
So why were they put there? Presumably the problem they were intended to solve was the same then as now.
|
|
JBJ: they're half a mile a way near the shops etc. Practice is to whizz along until just before the camera. Walkers to nearby school at risk where speeders enter village at a rh bend. No doubt radar detectors/local knowledge tell them its clear for quite a while. Of cameras that is.
|
|
|
|
|
What is worse?
(A) Pedestrians walking on the pavement and motorists speeding
or
(B) Pedestrians being forced into the road to face speeding (or probably not as they would have seen the jam jar) cars.
And what would happen if I was in a wheelchair?
|
Nothing must get in the way of the money machine!
And if a few pedestrians get runover, well thats the NHS's problem. You want the rossers to do anything about it you gotta pony up the wedge!
|
|
Its the attitude that gets me, faced with indisputable evidence, their reply is No it isn't sir!
|
Instead of , yes indeed. But we were responding to a specific conern of the residents of this village who are so thoroughly & totally & completely fed up of being run down by BWMs doing 60 through the village that they are delighted to sacrifice a bit of their pavement for a few hours every now and then. Moreover they have all been informed of the hours at which this may happen (24/7).
At which point, even the most dedicated speeder would have to feel that NW is right!
|
Instead of...
If that is indeed the case, why not say so? Why deny the (allegedly) obvious? Why not make a decision to balance one factor against another and then stand up for that decision?
Glad I don't drive a BWM, btw. They seem to get an awful press...
|
|
|
|
And what would happen if I was in a wheelchair?
>>
Funny you should say that ...
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=23353&...e
However, in this instance, who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?
|
Why not say so
because they're absolutely paranoid about police bullying owing to a bunch of self-righteous pinkos who complain about police brutality and have the temerity to write to the Daily Star (which should be banned) to complain about poor old plod doing his job to tackle a specific problem where people have specifically complained.
If it were the Mirror, previous photos published there have been faked...
It's no wonder the police force is demoralised.
|
Come on, MM - say what you mean!
Parking a whole van on the pavement isn't necessary, though, is it? I thought equipment was supposed to be getting smaller - it's many years since I was nobbled by a hand-held radar, and the police were just standing at the roadside, one with the gun and the other with a notebook. Happy days...
|
|
|
|
>>And what would happen if I was in a wheelchair?
And what would happen if you were in a UFO doing 200 mph - they wouldn't know what address to send you a speeding ticket.
But you're no more in a wheelchair than a UFO. I have no doubt that if you were in a wheelchair, Mr Policeman would either move his van or hold the traffic up for you and help you round. Do you think they're like the Gestapo, for goodness sake? Would you expect them to shoot you for being so bold as to turn up in a wheelchair?
|
|
To uphold the law you should work within the law.
|
To uphold the law you should work within the law.
Spot on. Exactly why chief constables and home secretaries should speed, etc.
We are allegedly policed by consent; that consent requires that those who police us are subject to the same rules.
It is also the reason why we who are not police officers do not have the right to act as we see fit to "teach a lesson" when we disapprove of another's driving - tailgating etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item on the BBC news website that someone in Oxfordshire has nicked the camera and flash from a Gatsco, presumably because they thought the film might be incriminating.
Replacement cost £42k.
|
|
BBC News news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3802871.stm on a camera in Scotland which caught over 100 speedsters in a day, including two doing over 90mph in a 40mph zone
|
Ref the news Item on the right about banning camera detectors, I would like to know by what piece of legislation they could try and ban the use of GPS detectors.
As a device it intercepts nothing, (except GPS signals - legally available and legally used) interferes with nothing, and uses information published legally in the publice domain.
|
Radar detectors are passive devices too. Ditto the eyes in people's heads that allow them to slow down when they see a speed camera or a mysterious white van.
The dft seem to be confusing the way laser diffusers work with radar detectors. Only the diffusers actually block police lasers from taking a reading. Changing scams to use laser instead of radar would solve the problem and they might have the added benefit of making them more accurate. If they ban the use of these detectors and then make cameras not visible until you are practically next to one then there are going to be a hell of a lot of rear end shunts around camera sites. I can't see how causing more accidents is going to help.
Set the speed limits properly and people don't speed so they're obviously just want to make money by making it harder for people to stick to the posted limit.Claiming they don't want to catch people out is just nonsense. They're onto a nice little earner and they know it. Scams are supposed to be at accident blackspots so people should be forewarned of the danger by whatever means.
teabelly
|
>Set the speed limits properly and people don't speed
Is, of course, wishful thinking.
So, most "sheep" drivers drive at 40 in 30 limits.
Is anyone seriously suggesting raising the "built-up" area speed limits from 30 to 40?
Is the "sheep" doing 40 in 30 a deliberate showing to "them" that the speed limit is "wrong"? No?
Or maybe 40 is minimum viable for top gear?
And their Dads told them that getting into top gear was really important?
|
|
|
Set the speed limits properly and people don't speed
So are you saying that the speed limit on the A77, near a junction, should have been set at 100mph so that the two 90mph+ drivers would not have been legally speeding? No thanks!
What's so dificult about reading speed limit signs, or realising that even if you don't see any, doing more than 90mph on an A-road past a junction is always guaranteed to be illegal and hardly ever conceivable as remotely safe?
|
Sorry, referring to the news item not the A77. Should have edited the title....oops.
teabelly
|
Sorry, referring to the news item not the A77
Fair enuf, but my point still stands. Isn't it a very good thing that those hooligans have been detected?
If a radar detector had helped them evade detection at that junction, is there any reason to doubt that they would have continued to endanger other road users by speeding again, in a place where they believed they would not be detected?
If this also generates some revenue to help fund enforcement measures, so much the better!
|
The hooligans are the uninsured and unregistered drivers. They have the greatest accident risk and they're usually the worst drivers. Speed cameras don't slow them down or make them drive more safely. They only affect those that have something to lose.
Half of all accidents are caused by inattention that is over 10 times as many as those that are caused by driving in excess of a posted limit.
Why was there a temporary 40 on an otherwise 70 limit road? Cameras only ever go after a small minority of accidents.
If there have been deaths on that road around that junction how many were the fault of a muppet pulling out into the path of another vehicle? The speed of the people on the road is largely irrelevant, it is the muppet pulling out that is at fault. If they were caused by overtaking drivers coming into contact with said muppet pulling out then they both have to share the blame as it clearly says in the highway code that you don't overtake where there are junctions. None of these accident scenarios are actually caused by someone speeding. Physics only plays a small part in whether someone is going to have an accident or not. Prevent that accident in the first place rather than reducing the consequences, stable door and escaped horse springs to mind!
Has anyone actually researched the relative accident rates of those with radar detectors and those without? According to the detector sellers in HJ's article radar detector owners have a much smaller accident risk then non radar detector owners.This should be investigated independantly as if true it could mean we are overlooking a way of getting people to reduce speed where necessary ie blackspots but allowing them latitude elsewhere where it is actually reasonably safe to exceed a posted limit.Sticking cameras on great wide straight roads without junctions is counter productive and sends out entirely the wrong safety message in my opinion.
Detectors can be used for avoidance or conformity. Which is chosen is down to the motives of the user, not the detector itself.Setting limits correctly in the first place negates all these arguments as the vast majority of people would then conform naturally.
teabelly
|
>Setting limits correctly in the first place negates all these arguments as the vast majority of people would then conform naturally.
Nope. And repeating it does not improve the logic.
This "reasoning" is blown into the water by the "sheep" drivers doing 40 in 30 limits.
And they will continue to do 40.
Whatever the speed limit.
Cameras or no cameras.
Because 40 is a "Confortable" speed.
Do you mean "If you thought the speed limits were "correct" you would obey them?"
Well, there's a surprise.
"Look everyone - the world has changed to be how I want it to be."
|
The sheep drivers need dealing with separately as they are bad drivers. Drivers that don't vary their speed according to road conditions are dangerous and should be treated as such. I did say the vast majority would comply not all therefore I think the argument still stands. Set the speed limit to the 85% percentile speed and you have 85% of drivers driving at or below the limit. The 85 percentile method is a method that has been used for many years to set speed limits and it has proved the best one. More importantly the 85% percentile speed is the safest limit to set the road at.
FYI just because I disagree with a particular speed limit doesnt mean I ignore it. Staying within the posted limit at nearly all times does not make me safer driver compared to someone that ignores them completely. The law is still the law whether it is being an ass or not.There are plenty of people that driver faster and more safely than me and there are plenty that drive more slowly and more dangerous. Their speed of driving is not always an indicator of their relative safety.
teabelly
|
|
If there have been deaths on that road around that junction how many were the fault of a muppet pulling out into the path of another vehicle? The speed of the people on the road is largely irrelevant, it is the muppet pulling out that is at fault.
It's much easier and safer to pull out into a stream of trafic doing 40mph than into one where some vehicles are doing nearly 100mph. The speed of the drivers on the main road is very relevant: excessive speed reduces the visibility of oncoming cars, and increases the closing speed between the oncoming car and the one pulling out of the junction.
You're quite right: preventing the accident is important. In this case, one of crucial ways of doing that is to deter drivers from using excessive speeds, and punish those who do so. Before they can be punished, they have to be detected -- and the cameras have done just that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst I am not condoning in any way, and I will stress the I completely disagree with speeds like that they are dangerous and someone will get killed but it does say temporary limit. You of all people should know my stance on speeding but even I would do them for that speed.
Is it a dual carriageway? 70 limit normally? I don't know but it doesn't sound so bad if it is....but it is still a ridiculous speed.
*Disclaimer - abide by all speed limits temporary or otherwise :-)
Adam
|
I take that back. Apparently 150 got killed on that road. I shouldn't pass judgement so easily. Ridiculous speed given the circumstances.....feels weird saying that.
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know much about the speed cameras radar module?
I vaguely remember that some radar cavities get rather hot if their own output is reflected straight back, say by a sheet of aluminium foil taped to the front. Does anyone know if this is true of the radar system on speed cameras.
In a similar vein, does anyone know if the Gatso design uses separate emitter and receiver antennae? If so, where would one stick a piece of aluminium foil to obstruct the receiver horn?
Not that I'm advocating people sticking small pieces of foil to the front of revenue gathering cameras and, especially, not pieces painted to match the front of the camera.
|
The DC input power is about 1 watt and the microwave power output is about 1% of this. So reflecting all of the output power back into the cavity is not going to change how hot it gets.
The radar range required of the Gatso is very modest and easily provided by a single horn aerial that serves both for transmitting and receiving. As it does with a traffic light radar, which has a range of 100 yards/metres or more, and with the radar gun.
I have not actually dissected a Gatso but have no reason to believe it is anything more than that except for having a second mixer/detector so as to distinguish direction in order to fire the flash for departures.
When speed guns first appeared there was much speculation about whether they could be fooled electronically. This is not easy to do because the return (Doppler) signal is only a minute percentage different in frequency from that transmitted (speed is proportional to the frequency difference). Yet the frequency difference between one equipment's transmission frequency and that of another equipment can be several 1000 times greater than this. Thus you can't just generate microwaves and fire tham at it and expect a false reading to be produced -- the frequency difference would almost always be too great, without elaborate impractical precautions.
I have sort of half expected by now that some prankster would have taken the mechanical route and built a rotating reflecting machine that input reflections corresponding to 100 or 200 mph, using horn reflectors, sort of similar to those seen on boats, arranged around a rotating wheel. Presumably radio controlled to keep the offender out of the picture. But I have not heard of anyone doing it.
|
|
I dont think it has a second mixer/detector because they fire when you approach them (ie the wrong way) as well ( I know I have done it)
|
You got a ticket for approaching a saifty camera?
[makes mental note to be more careful]
|
I knew you could set them off by approaching them, as they only measure the amount of doppler-shift, not the direction.
I didn't realise they would issue you with a ticket though. There aren't usually the ruler-markings on the road in the other direction.
|
That\'s a completely different system though, isn\'t it. Strips in the road measure your speed, and they don\'t flash. I guess a flash from a camera in front of you would be considered too dangerous even for Brunstrom\'s revenue collection program. Ooh... littlebitofpoliticsthere.
I have a feeling this thread will be merged with the Speed Camera one shortly. {correct. DD}
|
|
|
|
You won't get a ticket.
It's quite easy to set them off from the "opposite" direction, especially on two wheels. What a waste of film. LoL.
A mechanical device to fire them off shouldn't be too difficult to construct, you should just need an object large enough to reflect the beam vibrating at the equivalent of say 45mph and park it in front.
|
|
Or for a lower-tech approach, a dustbin lid tied onto the end of a piece of rope and swung around over your head ought to do the trick. If you're that bitter, and motivated, of course.
|
|
|
|
Sooo, if you set them off - as you're going over the speed limit - why don't they ticket you?
|
Unless the speed can be verified by the painted lines on the road it is open to challenge.
Plus a vehicle on the opposite carriageway is moving at an angle to the camera, rather than straight towards or away from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"rotating reflecting machine"
Like the wheels on a motorbike, whose apex is doing twice the road speed...
|
|
|
|
|
If s************s were only to do with cash, then surely they'd remove the points penalty. Then the wealthy could speed with impunity, and make regular payments to HMG. As could the poor, should they so wish.
A very fair solution - and I'm sure that many BMW drivers would be delighted to do 90 mph in exchange for a small fee. And Gordon would be delighted.
[/advocatus diabili mode]
|
Would suit me, provided you didn't need to tell the insurance co. I remember plenty of journeys where I'd have happily paid £60 to get there earlier. Most of them involved a hospital.
I suspect it would be politically impossible, though. And with good reason; the law should apply to us all equally, regardless of income or status.
|
|
|
A very fair solution - and I'm sure that many BMW drivers would be delighted to do 90 mph in exchange for a small fee.
Isn't that a bit like double-taxation on the BMW drivers, who have already paid a small fortune for their exclusive use of the outside lane?
[/advocatus diabili mode]
ditto!
|
|
|
|
After reading todays (10 July) HJ column in the Telegraph, I realised that speed cameras discriminate against the safest vehicles.
Say a speed camera is on a single carriageway national speed limit. The camera may be set to 68mph, this means that everyone doing 68+ is issued with a ticket.
Remember, goods vehicles, trailers and busses are not allowed to do 60 here, only cars. This means they can all do at least 10mph above their speed limits before they are caught.
A large lorry could be doing nearly 30mph over its speed limit before being caught!
This means that the car, which is more agile and stops quicker than anything else has the least margin of error before a camera catches you.
The only fair way to enforce speed limits outside of built up areas is with real policemen, hand held cameras and a bit of common sense.
Well, glad I got that off my chest.
Ben
|
Ben, the main thing is that everyone who is caught is exceeding the limit. "Someone else is worse" isn't much of an excuse for any offence.
You may be right that current cameras trigger at the same limit for all vehicles, but I'm sure that future generations of the technology will be smarter. Meanwhile the cameras are optimised for the overwhelming majority of the traffic they monitor.
|
No defence for those caught, I agree NW.
But should not our enforcement efforts be directed at those who pose the greatest danger? Otherwise, we might see an historic decline in UK road fatalities cease, perhaps even to be repaced with a rise in deaths....
|
But should not our enforcement efforts be directed at those who pose the greatest danger? Otherwise, we might see an historic decline in UK road fatalities cease, perhaps even to be repaced with a rise in deaths....
That's an interesting question. I guess it depends in part on how easily the most dangerous drivers can be identified, and on the relative costs of enforcement.
I fully agree with those who want more traffic police, which are probably the most impt weapon in catching the unlicensed/unregistered hoodlums. But that costs money, and those hoodlums don't cause all the accidents. On the other hand, cameras come at no net cost to the public purse: they are paid for by the speedsters.
But assume for the sake of argument that both cost the same amount, and assume that the hoodlums cause as much as half the accidents. In that case it's just as effective to use the cash to effectively target the 95% of drivers who pose a lower risk, as to target the 5% hardcore. (my %s may be wrong, but the principle stands)
|
It might be cost effective to target that 95% but I consider it unfair. If the 5% are getting away with murder (literally in some cases) then you get the majority feeling resentful. Resentment and bottled anger is not conducive to safe driving
:-)
I think a university did some research into a company's reps and discovered that over the monitored time 5% of drivers caused 45% of accidents and something daft like 15% caused 80 odd %. If you target that 15% and leave the rest alone I think better results will ensue.
Targetting the 5% will cost a lot less and the 5% of bad drivers is on the rise because of road safety policy going after the majority of drivers who drive safely if not necessarily within speed limits.
I don't know whether you have read the Stone report which was produced by the today programme but it is well worth a read. Stone is a statistician and took part in a long debate with Paul Smith of SafeSpeed and Robert Gifford a pro camera pro hump person.
Both sides' evidence is here:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/camera_giff...f
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/pdf/camera_smit...f
Prof Stone's considered conclusions are here:
www.ucl.ac.uk/Stats/research/Resrprts/speed.pdf
teabelly
|
I heard the Today programme broadcast: very interesting.
The presenter summarised Stone's assessment of Paul Smith's attacks on the statistics as Smith "can't see the wood for the tress".
Stone also came out in favour of speed cameras, and recommended that they should be hidden again.
The written conclusions are a good read too. I particularly enjoyed his description of Paul Smith as a "gadfly par excellence". Ouch!
|
Visible cameras are accepted because they can be seen and slowed down for.
Hidden cameras would be likely to be destroyed.
|
Visible cameras are accepted because they can be seen and slowed down for.
The idea is to encourage drivers to obey the limits at all times, not just when they might be caught.
Hidden cameras would be likely to be destroyed.
only if they ain't well enough hidden :)
|
|
|
|
just as effective to use the cash to effectively target the 95% of drivers who pose a lower risk, as to target the 5% hardcore
But you leave the 5% dangerous hardcore to grow, unrestrained and unseen.
And you dispel the respect in which the police used to be held amongst the 95%.
|
I was tired last night and I missed the real point.
A Justice system is not there to discriminate between an arbitrary rule that is cost-effective to prohibit and an arbitrary rule that is not. It is there to discriminate between that which is right and that which is wrong. That is its primary purpose.
The rules should then be set to prohibit that which is wrong. Most speed limits do. Rules such as those requiring insurance, MOT and some measure of driving ability also do. Some speed limits may need to be reconsidered, however.
Sometimes there will be practical limits placed on the extent to which the Justice system can act. In those circumstances it should focus on the wrongdoings that are most serious.
Rules for camera placement encourage their siting at places where speed limits are questionably low. In the name of "cost-effectiveness" the visible part of the system then focuses on those (relatively) minor speeding offences committed (mainly) by generally honest people and misses more serious offences by the malign and dishonest. This means that the system appears to bear down heaviest on the middle ground and less so on the more serious.
This is not just. This is why speed cameras are so widely hated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I keep seeing cameras or other devices set up on 3 foot high tripods around Dorset. They are unmanned, in fact there is usually no-one in sight. They sometimes face traffic, sometimes their view follows it. They are black, about 15 inches square by 6 deep with an opaque grey window and, in spite of what sometimes appears to be traffic exceeding limits, don't flash. How do they work?
|
They are speed cameras alright. I too live in Dorset and frequently see these on the Upton Bypass as well as around Bournemouth and Poole. They also use them on the Spur Road on either side of the Cooper Dean, usually on the downhill side (so by Chase on the W/b carriageaway and towards Blackwater on the E/b one.
Not sure how they work, but Dorset Scamera Partnership have got very cute at hiding the Safety Message van away, hence negating any claim that they are primarily interested in prevention.
To quote from Dorset Scamera Partnership\'s website:
Dorset s************ Partnership Mobile Camera Locations ?
10th July to 16th July 2004 (inclusive)
In accordance with the Operational guidelines, this week the Dorset s************ Partnership will be operating in ?community concern areas? in response to requests for camera enforcement from local communities.
The partnership is able to carry out enforcement in community concern areas under the ?15% rule?, whereby the Partnership can utilise up to 15% of camera enforcement time responding to such concerns.
Under the ?15% rule? advanced warning signage is NOT required, unless the site is visited more than twice in a two month period.
Mobile camera enforcement for 10th July to 16th July (inclusive) is likely to take place in the following areas:
Poole
Lytchett Matravers
Bournemouth
Broadmayne
Dorchester
Maiden Newton
Weymouth
Sherbourne
Long Burton
Winterbourne Whitechurch
Gillingham
Studland
Christchurch and Highcliffe
Ferndown
So that\'s pretty much every built-up area in Dorset. How helpful.....
On the subject of the vans, the site states that
The vans used by the Partnerships are not covered by the DfT guidelines. The DSCP however has taken the decision to have high-visibility vehicles for use in the transportation of equipment to and from all fixed and mobile sites. There is no requirement for these vans to be visible, however the DSCP operates a policy that wherever possible the van will be visible to passing motorists. Consideration has to be given to the personal safety of the operatives and that the location permits lawful parking of the van in the vicinity of the camera.
Which clearly explains why they have taken to backing the van into hedges at the side of the spur road. Lying gits.
More lies, damn lies and statistics at www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/
No Dosh - Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
You've got to hand it to them, ND. "Community concern areas" sound so much more suitable than "free flowing fast trunk roads where we can raise loads of cash".
You're our man on the spot - which is it?
|
To be fair to them, the "community concern areas" were intended to be rat-runs where no accidents have happened yet but the locals have kicked up a stink.
Trouble is, word gets out about such schemes and now rent-a-mob demand a camera on the very roads you describe.
|
Why are they rat-runs, I wonder? Are the local main roads camera-laden? ;-)
It is typical, though. People don't choose local roads as rat runs because they want to, but because they need to. All stick and no carrot.
|
Patently repeats the very point that I have made previously.
If you have got sensible main roads then rat runs disappear.
Rat runs are inherently more dangerous because the roads they encompass are only designed for local traffic.
|
|
I'm good at repeating points!
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks for this information, especially the website.
|
Many thanks for this information, especially the website.
Happy to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Driving along Bourges Boulevard coming out of Peterborough just now, I noticed a white van (no markings whatsoever) with a square black panel on the floor behind it facing the traffic. What was this? Normally when they're doing ANPR checks in the area, there are triangular warning signs. The scamera vans I've seen in Northamptonshire have black and yellow stripes on the back.
Any ideas anyone?
|
|
Sounds like a mobile speed camera unit.
|
|
I thought as much. I'll just be waiting for that brown envelope now...
|
I'm probably completely wrong but I thought that a Mobile Ripoff Van had to, not matter how small, have a marking of some desription whether it be something as ricidulous as "Casualty Reduction Scheme" or "Let's take the fun out of motoring" or "Arrive Alive" rubbish. Don't want to get your hopes up but a completely unmarked van, I *think* is more likely to be ANPR rather than speed related.
I eagerly await someone to blow my theory out of the water...namely DVD.
Cheers
Adam
|
I eagerly await someone to blow my theory out of the water...namely DVD.
Won't have to wait for DVD. The vans aren't covered by any DfT guidance. The Dorset Scamera site has info and links (see above)
|
Very sorry ND. That will teach me to read the previous posts before giving duff advice!
Adam
|
LOL. Take that hair shirt off, it doesn't suit.
ND
:O)
|
Just when I was a few months away from having the first points I'd "won" in 19 years of motoring wiped from my licence.
As Unlucky Al from the Fast Show might say, "b*****"...
|
Just when I was a few months away from having the first points I'd "won" in 19 years of motoring wiped from my licence. As Unlucky Al from the Fast Show might say, "b*****"...
Indeed. I know the road you mean as I was on contract at AMP for several months last year, living out of the Sleep Inn on the A605/A1M junction. That road gets used as a racetrack pretty much 24/7.
|
|
|
|
tinyurl.com/4g96t
DVD
|
Interesting snippet from the above article:
The A537 from Macclesfield to Buxton is the most dangerous road in England. There are no speed cameras on this road
|
The A537 from Macclesfield to Buxton is the most dangerous road in England. There are no speed cameras on this road
You didn't think they placed them in response to road safety concerns, did you ND?
Seriously, while I'm not sure whether I approve of radar detectors and don't have one myself, I am aware that the companies selling them quote apparently reputable research showing that drivers who use them have a lower accident rate than those who do not.
It is argued that the detectors provide advance warning of potential hazard areas and encourage drivers to slow down for them. Indeed, in a test drive of a car that was fitted with one, about 2/3 of its beeps were for blackspots that were not camera sites. [Query: if they were known blackspots, why weren't they?]
If HMG's aim is to improve road safety, I wonder how they plan to deal with this research which would suggest the exact opposite policy.
[tic] Of course, if HMG's aim is to maximise revenue, then I will fully understand why they will completely ignore the research and use their finely honed spin skills to paint detector-equipped drivers as irresponsible lawbreakers [tic]
|
|
|
|
Without this adding to the speeding threads, I would appreciate any opinions.
One morning the week before last, father-in-law (in his 70s) was rushed to hospital after collapsing.
At 8:30 the same evening mother-in-law receives a phone call from the hospital telling her to get there straight away as his condition had taken a significant turn for the worse and it's looking a bit touch and go.
En route to the hospital she is flashed doing 42 in a 30 limit on the main road into the centre of Birmingham.
Is it worth appealing to a magistrates sense of decency, or have they heard it all before, and thus just pay the fixed penalty ticket?
As father-in-law is still in intensive care, not the sort of letter she wanted in the post.
|
Firstly, hope you and your family get through this difficult time ok.
Speaking from a position of virtually no knowledge - I would hope that the magistrates show some leniency in this situation.
But, would your MIL wish to elect to appear in court at the moment?
It may be easier all round if she accepted the 3 points and fine and forgot about it (after notifying insurers of course!).
Steve
|
A few years ago my cousin got rushed into hospital while on holiday in Scotland (I think!). Aunt and Uncle dashed up there to see him, and a week later got a NIP in the post.
My uncle filled in the details of who was driving, fully prepared to accept the three points and the fine, but included a letter explaining the circumstances.
They never heard anything else about it.
|
Whilst I have empathy with your predicament there is an opinion that a car taking a casualty to hospital in an urgent case as one being exempt from speeding i.e acting as a vehicle conveying wounded - an Ambulance, Unfortunately in this case it does not apply and it would be up to the discretion of the Bench as to whether or not they accept the facts as mitigation. They may take the view that by travelling faster the risk of something untowards is greater.I personally cannot see any alteration in their finding of Guilt, as to punishment who knows?
From the speed you mention you should have had a Conditional Offer (&60/3 points) with no Court involved.
As mentioned you should inform the Insurance Company. Many do not take any action on the first transgression.
DVD
|
|
|
|
Without this adding to the speeding threads....
It will be eventually, but not just yet ;o)
DD.
|
I remember reading of a case like this once - in the days before cameras and the driver was pulled by plod. His reaction to the reasoning of speeding was "well if you drive like that you could get to the hospital faster in the ambulance you may well be needing"
|
I remember reading of a case like this once - in the days before cameras and the driver was pulled by plod. His reaction to the reasoning of speeding was "well if you drive like that you could get to the hospital faster in the ambulance you may well be needing"
Which is why it is for the magistrates to decide the guilt and punishment, not the police officer.
|
I remember reading of a case like this once - in the days before cameras and the driver was pulled by plod. His reaction to the reasoning of speeding was "well if you drive like that you could get to the hospital faster in the ambulance you may well be needing"
>>
>Which is why it is for the magistrates to decide the guilt and >punishment, not the police officer.
Sorry, should have added that they got off being nicked, but got warned that driving fast when concentrating on things other than drving was a dangerous thing to do.
|
|
|
|
I think cases like this should be dealt with individually. It would be difficult to make a blanket immunity from prosecution for ordinary motorists speeding because of an emergency situation.
However, the authorities should look sympathetically in such cases, as long as the speeding was not reckless. Maybe signed proof of the circumstances might be required, although that may be hard on people going through anxious times over relatives.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
|
|
|
|
Couple of points here:
1. Is MIL's licence clean?
If this is a genuine first offence this should aid her case.
2. Magistrates vary deciding which side of bed they get of in
the morning - however, it's unlikely although not impossible
that the MIL will leave court with a heavier penalty than
the fixed penalty.
If MIL's licence is clean - I'd go for court with suitable evidence backing her story.
|
I think POLOGIRL has the best idea. Worth a try anyway.
Also, you do not need to inform your insurers of points until renewal. You have paid for the year already. Most insurers do not charge extra for 1 fixed penalty. If yours do, change to a new insurer.
|
Sorry to disagree, you need to look up the definition of "material change" in your insurance policy. In my book this would be a material change and therfore sufficient to render your "contract of insurance" null and void if not declared.
A motoring offence and resultant licence endorsement applies from the moment you plead/are found guilty not at the date of renewal. Not informing your insurance company could result in you techically having no insurance cover (6 penalty points and £200 fine if offered a FP or 6-8 points and variable fine if dealt with in court)
However I do agree that many insurers (given the prevalance of speding points these days ignore a first offence (some do load premiums for any offence.
Again good luck.
SIMON
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately your MIL cannot plead "not guilty" since she did speed past a camera and regardless of circumstances, she did commit an offence.
She should therefore plead accordingly but provide the reason why preferably backed by confirmation of story as personal mitigation. This ca be done by post on the Fixed penalty form.
If not offered an FP (at 12 mph over the limit she might not be depending what local practice is in that road traffic area) then you need to appear in court or employ a brief to appear on you behalf (and explain why you cannot personally appear).
Magistrates cannot ignore offence totally but could vary penalty e.g absolute discharge or smaller fine but no points etc.
JP's contrary to opinion are human and do want to apply justice, they cannot however say that an absolute offence e.g. you did speed, did not happen.
Hope she gets a satisfactory result.
SIMON
|
|
|
|
|
Friend at work just received notification that he was caught doing 80mph by a Camera van on the M6.
We both thought 80mph was kind of accepted now? I assume that its not?
Is the maximum "accepted" now the straight 10% ie 77mph?
|
Keep under 10% plus two, i.e. conditional offer for 70 kicks in at 79 mph.
DVD
|
A friend has just been done for 35 in a village in Shropshire where the limit was 30. He asked the local police why, since it was 5 AM and children playing unlikely etc. Was told the fines kick in at 10% + 2. ie, 35. Police not interested in the fact that his driving was totally safe at that time of the morning.
There is no doubt that all speed limits are too low most of the time. ie when traffic is light, in good visibility, etc. It would surely be easy to set various times when the cameras would switch on, ie when there was some danger, and have them off, or at least only flashing at higher speeds, the rest of the time.
|
|
|
|
Try the M40, they\'re always around between Oxford and Warwick.
Quite a few on the A43 & A5 around Towcester, and M1 between Northampton and Luton as well.
Since that\'s all the area I live/socialise in, its a challenge.
Strangely there are less cameras around here than most places.
Although if you\'re coming up the M40 this evening do be careful just before J13; they put a speed camera up on the bridge by the services this afternoon.
|
Mark,
Funnily enough I travel on that bit of the M40 on occasion and have never seen a jam sandwich on that bit of road, mind you I have noticed a couple of dark V70's looking a little suspicious on the same stretch.
ta for the tip on the A43, I have to go to Cambridge next week and my usual route is Bicester, the A43 Towcester, Northampton and on to the A14 to Cambridge. I know there are some cameras on the new bit of the A43 but I dont drive that bit of road often enough to be confident that I know them all.
StarGazer
|
There were two between the A43 & Banbury this morning, one in either direction.
Also watch out for a brown or burgundy Omega on the same stretch.
On the A43 there are only a couple of cameras - going north (towards the M1) the camera is just before the Silverstone turning but its not that easy to see. There is one on the opposite carriageway at the same place.
Heading south you'll find another one between the M1 and Towcester, about 3 miles before Towcester on an upwards incline.
|
|
|
|
M1 between Northampton and Luton as well.
I travel this stretch of motorway fairly regularly and connot recall the last time I saw a police car :s
Northamptonshire bows only to North wales in it use of speed cameras, they are all loaded and they always result in a nip.
I know of nobody who has been flashed/snapped or gatsoed in Northhants that didn't result in a nip :-(
JaB
|
>>I travel this stretch of motorway fairly regularly
Until a few months ago I did it twice a day.
There's certainly more on the M1 around there than you normally see on a motorway - of course it may well have changed in the last 7 or 8 months.
|
|
|
|
|
