www.cambridge-news.co.uk/search/dispstory.asp?id=6...1
A 6 month ban seemed fairly harsh for the offence that tipped him over the edge. I suspect that he will not be voting for additional cameras if it comes up for debate in the future.
As an aside, I wonder in days gone by before cameras, if the local MP had been stopped by a real policeman whether the same result would have ensued.
|
|
Serves him right. Those speed cameras have been on the A1 at Sandy for years. He must travel that road hundreds of times and seen them. 9 points and he still drives with his eyes shut?
|
|
I have to agree with RF. I am no stranger to the dark side of the speed limit, and anyone can fall foul of a camera once or even twice. But, like the Duke of Gloucester, to get done four times in three years must bring your general road awareness into serious question.
|
|
|
|
|
The six month ban wasn't for the last offence; it was for being daft enough to be caught four times in three years.
|
"A spokesman for motoring organisation the RAC said: 'We would hope he understands the error he has made. No matter what safety improvements are made to roads the biggest safety improvement is to prevent drivers from speeding.' "
Ahem. The biggest safety improvement would be to remove junctions. Now there's something for the road safety committees to contemplate.
|
>>The biggest safety improvement would be to remove junctions>>
My view is that it would be to take off ALL vehicles off the roads - except, of course, for the one I drive...:-)
The maxim I was always taught, long before the days of the Gatso camera, was: "Speed in the right place at the right time."
It's as relevant today as it was all those years ago.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
slightly sickened by the soundbite from the RAC which shows how little of the big picture of road safety they understand
|
A speed limit is just someone's idea of how fast it is safe to drive along a particular piece of road. A speed camera is only a device activated by a vehicle travelling at a certain velocity. A speed limit is logically wrong for most vehicles most of the time.
There is no indication as to whether it is set for an old fully loaded badly maintained articulated lorry driven by a newly qualified driver in bad weather conditions or a new well maintained saloon car fitted with ABS driven by an experienced driver in perfect weather conditions.
A poorly maintained car driven by a newly qualified driver in bad weather conditions at 25 mph near a school at turning out times is surely more dangerous than a superbly maintained car, designed for high speed, driven by a highly experienced driver at 120+ on a deserted motorway in perfect weather conditions. I know which vehicle I would rather be in. If both vehicles went through a speed camera then it is obvious which would attract a fine.
The speed camera department should be re-named the random fines department.
I have every sympathy with the gentleman in question. Surely it is better to drive with due regard to the prevailing conditions and visible hazards even at the "risk" of exceeding a speed limit The alternative, if the speed camera menace spreads, is going to be drivers spending most of their time watching a dial inside the vehicle instead of watching the environment through which they are passing.
I would rather travel with the former driver, every time.
Speed cameras are inanimate and their use in judging unsuitable speed is zero.
Therefore to get banned from driving solely by the evidence of an inanimate object is wrong. It is probably breaking some part of the Human Right legislation somehow.
I know that a form has to be filled in stating the owner and driver of the car each time but that amounts to just a confession obtained under duress and threat of prosecution.
I hope the gentleman has his licence returned to him asap.
|
You miss the point, mjm. The crime was getting caught. No matter what we think of speed limits we all know the rules, we know there are cameras about and we know what happens if we accumulate points. To keep getting done time after time in a short period does not indicate a driver who is aware of the road conditions or is paying very much attention to them.
Get caught doing 100+ on a safe empty road and he would have my sympathy, but not in this case.
|
There is another point.
This guy is part of the parliament that sets the rules which the rest of us have to live by. OK, he's not in the government itself but he is in a position to ask awkward questions and generally kick up a fuss.
We wouldn't be treated leniently. 4x3 points = 12 points = automatic ban. Same rules apply to him. His advantage is that if he think is unfair he can try to change them. If we get banned and think its unfair, that's just tough on us.
|
|
|
The "crime" is exceeding the posted speed limit, not getting caught doing it. If the gent was paying attention to the road conditions then he may have exceeded the limit whilst doing so. What it really boils down to is that the law is an ass, we are now, effectively, in this area of motoring, being policed by robots. My point still stands. Speed limits may be applied by law but the law is seriously flawed in this area. Cameras are a stealth tax and as such they will not fall out of use. Their siting is purly arbitary. They were supposed to sited at accident black spots but there was a new trunk road extention built locally with cameras installed BEFORE ANY VEHICLE HAD DRIVEN ON IT.
Why not replace the standard camera with a video setup, and if it is triggered, a real, live traffic policeman can apply a brain to the situation and decide whether to initiate prosicution?
|
MJM you have missed the point again.
In this case its not about arbitary speed limits, or the method of enforcement, or even if they are appropriate to that road.
What we have here is a man who has 9 points on his license in a very short period of time, We have very well signed speed limits on that stretch of road, and we have very visible speed cameras.
All this adds up to a driver who has very little comprehension or awareness of his suroundings, who frankly should be banned for his sheer carelessness.
|
|
I should add that I am anti speed camera, they are a very good way of enforcing a speed limit in a very localised area but a very poor and inefective way of catching dangerously fast drivers.
|
RF if you did 10 times the miles per annum you did now I can guarantee you would be very close to loosing your licence, not because you drove any worse, simply because thats the way the odds work
current situation also unfairly assists locals drive badly (and brake for cameras) a luxury you dont have if you are constantly in a new town or area, just because you are not a local aware there is a camera hidden behind a road sign does not make you a road safety mennace
|
"constantly in a new town or area"
He wasnt
"camera hidden behind a road sign"
It wasnt
"does not make you a road safety mennace"
In this case?
|
in this case he is like masses of the hard working people working to keep this country solvent, by the sounds of it driving safely and only modestly over the speed limit
i can bet that same night in the same location there were masses of thugs driving round with mud on number plate, stolen car, masses of dangerous offences, non of which will have much chance of being policed or prosecuted
so on the whole i think the justice system has scored an own goal and picked completely the wrong target
im grateful it sounds as if he will be able to continue to work, an option lots of people dont have
loosing your job for being 10 or 15 mph over the limit while driving safely realy is ridiculous
compared to the v serious violent offences and driving offences which are routinely be much less severly handles
if he had KILLED someone in a typical old dear by pulling into a motorcycle or similar it is likely he would only have got 6 points, there is no way 4 x minor speeding is worse than being unable to spot a motorbike and driving into it
as a side issue you have little basis to know how he got his other points, he was almost certianly in unfamilar areas, any idiot brakes for a camera they pass regularly, its the ones in unfamilar areas when you are cocentrating on the pedestrians and other road users that get you
|
|
Thank you, JD. That is just the point I was trying to make.
|
It matters not a jot how he got his previous points. The fact he had them and STILL drove speeding with his eyes shut means he either does not care, or is a very unobservant driver.
|
>its the ones in unfamilar areas when you are cocentrating on the pedestrians and other road users that get you
No, you only get caught speeding when you are not concentrating. Those that are concentrating notice road signs as well and slow down.
Is not as if people can claim that they didn't know that they existed ....
|
|
I think I would declare JD 1 - 1 RF at this point.
|
Of course we are all assuming that the speed limits were clearly posted on each occasion that he was caught speeding.
Those that know the A5 stretch around Hinkley will know what I mean!
|
|
|
|
