A little honesty from the bib...

pooley said:
:sleep: I suppose it's a bit more newsworthy than 'member of public keeps within the speed limit and doesn't get in trouble' ;)
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
Ch Supt O’Connor said placing cameras on motorway bridges was like "shooting fish in a barrel" because of the number of vehicles driving under them at close to or over the limit.
Click to expand...

Around my way it's more like dynamiting fish in the barrel, just before they started deploying the mobile cameras they somehow managed to get the 70MPH limit dropped to 50MPH for around 11 km, nice long straight downhill section and and lovely long straight section, the 2 stretches of road that now seem to have the "safety camera" vans permanently camped out on these stretches.
 
Dave1 said:
Around my way it's more like dynamiting fish in the barrel, just before they started deploying the mobile cameras they somehow managed to get the 70MPH limit dropped to 50MPH for around 11 km, nice long straight downhill section and and lovely long straight section, the 2 stretches of road that now seem to have the "safety camera" vans permanently camped out on these stretches.
Click to expand...


Yes, my only "mistake" a couple of years ago, involved a local stretch of dual carriageway - previously NSL - where I missed a 50MPH sign, and got pinged by the camera van on a bridge at 56MPH!
On the same road, you have little exit roads - single carriageway, bendy, country roads - where the NSL signs inform you, that having left the safety of the 50MPH zone on the dual carriageway with barriers, you are now free to do 60MPH and put walkers/ramblers, horse riders and cyclists at risk of mayhem!
 
pooley said:
:sleep: I suppose it's a bit more newsworthy than 'member of public keeps within the speed limit and doesn't get in trouble' ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to read it.....:rolleyes:


viv1969 said:
(y)
Click to expand...


:agree:

I find it interesting that all the garbage spouted by officials in support of the roving speed cameras and then a police officer is honest about the use.

Dave1 said:
Around my way it's more like dynamiting fish in the barrel, just before they started deploying the mobile cameras they somehow managed to get the 70MPH limit dropped to 50MPH for around 11 km, nice long straight downhill section and and lovely long straight section, the 2 stretches of road that now seem to have the "safety camera" vans permanently camped out on these stretches.
Click to expand...


Supports the point perfectly - and its the same here too, wife was caught at 34 in 30 as she was slowing down from a 60 NSL section - why it goes to 30 is any ones guess as there are no houses or junctions or lighting. the 30 limit just appeared and so did the camera van.
 
Last edited:
andy700 said:
On the same road, you have little exit roads - single carriageway, bendy, country roads - where the NSL signs inform you, that having left the safety of the 50MPH zone on the dual carriageway with barriers, you are now free to do 60MPH and put walkers/ramblers, horse riders and cyclists at risk of mayhem!
Click to expand...

Funny you say that, it's exactly the same here. From Google Streetview, a 60mph road, to the right through the trees is the 50mph motorway :rolleyes:.


8eabbe29d7185c1d27c3fb9a45c700a2_zps921b12f5.jpg
 
Police in catching motorists driving over the prescribed speed limit shocker ?

Dave1 said:
Funny you say that, it's exactly the same here. From Google Streetview, a 60mph road, to the right through the trees is the 50mph motorway :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Remember kids it's a limit not a target... Maybe the motorway has a higher incident statistic than the single carriageway.
 
neil_g said:
Remember kids it's a limit not a target...
Click to expand...
It's an arbitary limit introduced after a pile up in dense fog where travelling at anywhere close to 70mph would have been insane anyway, in an age where most cars still used crossply tyres and many couldn't even reach the newly imposed motorway limit.

Exceeding 70mph on a motorway is not inherently dangerous. I don't do it, because I don't regard the risk to my insurance premium from getting points as a risk worth taking, not because I think that driving at 90mph is of itself unsafe.
 
Insurers have stopped loading for speeding points anywhere near as much. Most assume the majority will get 3 points at some time. A statistician years ago pointed out the unfairness that habitual speeders and occasional speeders often ended up being caught a similar amount of times and latter could even end up banned. It was down more to luck than anything else. Even those that stuck to limits could be unlucky and miss a sign or drive by an obscured sign.

The a34 in staffs is a good example. Full of cameras and the 40 bit with a camera right after the 40, on a bend, the sign is frequently obscured by foliage. If you have access to radar detectors the live cameras are usually the ones on big wide straight roads where it is perfectly safe to travel a bit quicker. They're not live in dangerous narrow roads where it isn't as the vast majority slow down in those places so they earn no money.

After watching the horizon last night the last thing you want is drivers focussing on speed limit compliance above all else as it naturally leads to missing other important information. Drivers need to focus on driving safely and speed choice needs to be always appropriate to current conditions which is far more important than just mindlessly driving along at whatever speed the signs say.
 
I remember reading a paper a while back that showed excess speed was a factor in only 2% of all road accidents but driver error was something like 40%.

You would save more lives if you educated drivers but it's always easier to catch a speeding motorist than a dangerous driver.
 
omens said:
I remember reading a paper a while back that showed excess speed was a factor in only 2% of all road accidents but driver error was something like 40%.

You would save more lives if you educated drivers but it's always easier to catch a speeding motorist than a dangerous driver.
Click to expand...

Most definitely, it seems dangerous and even drunk drivers can drive with relative impunity in many areas because of the cutbacks to traffic patrols, and the Gatso camera does nothing to stop the dangerous or drunk driver or the stolen cars.

It's probably easier to catch speeders than almost any other offence, it's no wonder it's become the cash cow it has.
 
Dont speed no, but this introduction of 50mph speed cameras along straight sections of dual carriageway with no junctions or other hazards anwhere to be found is just more erosion of our civil liberties so feel free to complain about it/write to your MP or whatever it takes to get them to stop doing it. Cash cow pure and simple.
 
viv1969 said:
Exactly. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

It isn't, actually. I have never been caught speeding (and very seldom consciously speed), but when you get this sort of underhanded enforcement it's quite easy to get caught without even realising it.

How about a driver going from London to Edinburgh on the A1M, cruising along at 65mph like a good driver, they crest a hill and start down the other side and for whatever reason miss the 50 board (no changes to the road, no lane reduction, no roadworks) and continue down the hill at 65MPH for the mobile camera hiding behind the bridge at the bottom of the hill to zap them.

See the bridge at the bottom of the hill? That's the one they hide behind. Early Sunday mornings seem a popular time to be there, probably because the lack of heavy traffic makes other traffic speed tend to drift up a little.

Sorry, it's a straight cash cow.

f5d1bf8f354c704232b0dfe9c9a891af_zpsabf958a5.jpg
 
Dave1 said:
....................... probably because the lack of heavy traffic makes other traffic speed tend to drift up a little.
Click to expand...

And this.
No one pays a penny unless they're breaking the law.
 
No the problem is in having dual carriageways (they have central reservations) which have functioned perfectly ok for donkeys years with 60 or 70mph speed limits and then whacking on different speed signs every couple of hundred yards because someone once got injured there, probably by someone doing less than the speed limit anyway. :rage:

And for gods sake please lets not descend into the boring old pedantry about dual lane and dual carriageway.
 
viv1969 said:
And this.
No one pays a penny unless they're breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Only breaking a law because of a surreptitious change to a speed limit for no reason other than to create a site for safety camera operatives to target motorists who probably don't even realise they are breaking the motorway limit.

Anyone driving up the A1 and hitting the stretch for the first time is going to get caught even though they are travelling within the normal motorway limit.

I don't see how you don't get the point Ruth, I have no sympathy for a person caught doing 85 on the motorway, everyone knows the limit is 70, but I dislike this sneaky method of cash gathering from people who are driving within the NSL which is twisted to suit a "Safety Camera Partnership" just for the sake of profit.
 
Last edited:
But Dave I do get the point. I just disagree with it.
Said change in the limit will be posted before the speed trap.
If it isn't, appeal. Plenty do and plenty win.
If it is and it's "somehow missed", tough.
 
Dave1 said:
Only breaking a law because of a surreptitious change to a speed limit for no reason other than to create a site for safety camera operatives to target motorists who probably don't even realise they are breaking the motorway limit.
Click to expand...


Agreed, but still a law no matter the reasons behind it. There are many laws I dont agree with, but I still have to abide by them, and pay the penalty if I dont.
 
viv1969 said:
If it isn't, appeal. Plenty do and plenty win.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, you are incorrect.

There is no "appeal" for a speeding offence, are you getting confused with parking?

If you disagree you have to attend court and plead not guilty, and unfortunately Magistrates Court has become a bit of a rubber stamp exercise for speeding offences by camera. Unless you are rich enough to instruct someone like Nick Freeman and he finds a big loophole you can forget getting anything but a guilty verdict from the bench.

Also in my example, Mr London_to_Edinburgh is going to have to make a trip (or trips) to the North East if he wants to defend the charge, which is going to cost a lot more than the FPN. If he then loses in court he could also face another £600+ in costs in addition to the fine imposed by the magistrate. I doubt 95% of speeding fines are worth defending in court, even if there was doubt in the offence.
 
Asking the question from a different angle then, how many people think speed cameras are there to improve safety and how many think they are there to gather cash from motorists? Guess what camp Im in.
 
Can be either - a few are installed in accident blackspots for a good reason - but most are cash cows , and tallivans are worse
 
Appeal / contest / plead, whichever you wish to use. :rolleyes:

Whether you would consider it worthwhile is entirely your decision; but it can, and is, done often, especially in cases where speed signage was obscured.
 
viv1969 said:
Appeal / contest / plead, whichever you wish to use. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can roll your eyes :rolleyes:, but appeal does not mean the same as plead (and neither does contest).

To help, this is how those words would you be used in this context:

If you were to contest the charge and plead not guilty, and then be found guilty you could then appeal the verdict.
 
Very well. Once more for the chap with (I would imagine) elevated blood pressure.....

You can contest the speeding fine and penalty points.
That you personally, it seems, would decide not to is irrelevant.
 
viv1969 said:
Very well. Once more for the chap with (I would imagine) elevated blood pressure.....

You can contest the speeding fine and penalty points.
That you personally, it seems, would decide not to is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

but you can only contest them in court - there is no appeal/pleading/contesting process for a fixed penalty , other than refusing to accept it. Once you have refused to accept the FPN, you can then contest whether you are guilty of the offence or not in front of a magistrate - but this is a risky and potentially expensive avenue
 
big soft moose said:
but you can only contest them in court - there is no appeal/pleading/contesting process for a fixed penalty , other than refusing to accept it. Once you have refused to accept the FPN, you can then contest whether you are guilty of the offence or not in front of a magistrate - but this is a risky and potentially expensive avenue
Click to expand...

Indeed! I never said it was easy, nor did I mention any other option than court. I merely misused a word and was leapt on by captain paperclip.
For the record, I have also never stated that the speed cameras are NOT "cash cows" but in the overwhelmingly huge majority of cases there is no-one to blame but the driver.
 
omens said:
I remember reading a paper a while back that showed excess speed was a factor in only 2% of all road accidents but driver error was something like 40%.

You would save more lives if you educated drivers but it's always easier to catch a speeding motorist than a dangerous driver.
Click to expand...
That's accidents not deaths and its about 5% or 15% depending on whether you include driving at inappropriate speed for the conditions. I dont disagree about the educating bit but speeding should be a major factor in that education

Steve
 
onomatopoeia said:
Exceeding 70mph on a motorway is not inherently dangerous. I don't do it, because I don't regard the risk to my insurance premium from getting points as a risk worth taking, not because I think that driving at 90mph is of itself unsafe.
Click to expand...

I stopped driving at 80 on the motorway when I realised I had to go 100 miles to save 10 mins that's assuming you could do 100 miles at a constant 80. It just wasn't worth the extra petrol.

Steve
 
jakeblu said:
That's accidents not deaths and its about 5% or 15% depending on whether you include driving at inappropriate speed for the conditions. I dont disagree about the educating bit but speeding should be a major factor in that education

Steve
Click to expand...
Disagree. If speeding is a factor in only 15% of cases, what were the remaining 85%?

I see people failing to indicate at junctions/roundabouts, driving without lights on at night, texting whilst driving, running through red lights, and other such ridiculous things. These people aren't safe whilst stationary let alone at any speed be it under the limit or safe for conditions.

I had a car accident. Why? A driver pulled out of a junction from the offside without bothering to check for oncoming traffic. We were both doing sub 10mph at the time of the collision.

As I said, driver awareness and education is far, far more important than looking solely at speed through cameras/fines/courses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top