Speed Cameras

#21
yawn... don't speed, if you do and get pinched, fess up and take it!
 
#23
Harry Paget Flashman said:
thefootman said:
there not spped cameras, they are safety cameras.
Utter balls! Are you a government spokesman? They must be the only ones who can pretend to believe this while keeping a straight face.

They are revenue collection devices, nothing more and nothing less. Yet another tax on the motorist.
Right.
 
#24
Has anybody got the definitive line on these temporary speed limits.

A friend of mine who's in the motor trade tells me that they're advisory, but i've always thought they were mandatory.
That's why I drove at 30mph for miles, on a more or less deserted section of the M4 at 0600, because the little orange signs told me to.

there were no roadworks, driving conditions were perfect, so was I being too **** in keeping to the ordered speed limit??
 
#25
The orange matrix signs are advisory - they are put on by the police control rooms to cover eventualities such as poor visibility, accidents or road maintenance. They can display an advisory speed, show closed lanes etc., or words like FOG.
Unfortunately, they do lose credibility when the control rooms forget to take them off! Sometimes it does take a while to get them changed if there has, for example, been fog which then clears. They need to get a police patrol car to check the entire length of the marked section and advise if the signs need to be altered. The problem is that if they take them off too early (perhaps taking the incorrect word of a motorist phoning-in), they're open to be sued if there's then an accident.

You also find them put on to help safeguard the poor copper who has to scuttle into the fast lane to retrieve debris or some muppett's luggage that's fallen off his roof rack. The problem there is that the initial report of where the item is in the carriageway may not be very accurate, so they'll put on an advisory speed limit for a good length of the road to make sure its covered. You may well have endured miles of this and not seen the police car miles up ahead removing the debris.

An enforceable temporary speed limit will be marked by the familiar speed restriction signs (the speed limit in black in a red circle). These will be put on if there are major roadworks and are authorised by a temporary spped limit order which has been obtained by the authority carrying out the work.
 
#26
there are ways and means of getting around them - potentially - but not without risk...

the risk being that you dont fill in the NIP and follow a different route, but it will - more than likely - mean going to court and if you lose the fines will be a little bigger.

however, it could all hinge on the cases of Frances/O'Halloran (that are before the ECHR currently) on the basis that the NIP process is illegal as it ignores the 'right to silence' and not to incriminate oneself.

Now while I would hold my breath for the ECHR judgement to find in favour of the plaintiffs - you can check out the anti-speed camera help forums at www.pepipoo.com

very very knowledgable and helpful bunch they are.
 
#27
thefootman said:
there not spped cameras, they are safety cameras.
the fcuk they are - they are roadside ATM's for the police and local authorities.
 
#28
They're not 'speed cameras', they're cash cows. Speed doesn't kill, incompetent driving does.

Kill the camera.
 
#29
Whiskybreath said:
They're not 'speed cameras', they're cash cows. Speed doesn't kill, incompetent driving does.

Kill the camera.
Got to disagree - drive at 25 in a 30 and you will stop in time - do 35 in a 30 and you will kill the kid.

Now there is no incompetent driving - the kid merely runs out onto the road...

Now incompetent driving kills - i agree with that but you cannot say that the speed of a car is not a factor!
 
#30
thefootman said:
there not spped cameras, they are safety cameras.

just admit it and get on with it. its no big deal. everyone gets caught sometime. even policemen get caught and have to get the penalty.
Have a serious chat with yourself. A small percentage are there for safety reasons, however the majority are there to raise additional revenue for the local Police Force (now that they are able to keep the proceeds of speeding fines).

That said it is each individuals responsibility not to exceed the set speed limits and if you get caught, just cough up!!
 
#31
Got to disagree - drive at 25 in a 30 and you will stop in time - do 35 in a 30 and you will kill the kid.

Now there is no incompetent driving - the kid merely runs out onto the road...

Now incompetent driving kills - i agree with that but you cannot say that the speed of a car is not a factor!
NO NO NO sorry but you are talking arse, lots of factors determine impact etc, etc. You been watching the telly too much. Modern cars can stop a LOT quicker than the highway code states for stopping distances. My instructor proved it when I was on my advanced driving course. Of course I'm not advocating speeding in a30 far from it, but and the official figures show it speeding accounts for fewer than 30% of all accidents on the road. 8O
 
#32
I'm not a great fan of speed cameras, but lets make one thing absolutely clear.

Cameras may generate income but (and this is the important point) none of it whatsoever goes to the local police force. If it did you might see it being spent on worthwhile stuff such as more police officers or better equipment to fight crime.

Speeding is controlled by two agencies in the UK, both of which are financially completely separate. First there is the police and second, Safety Camera Partnerships. It's the latter which operate the roadside speed cameras and the speed detection vans we all know and love. The former operate as they always have with police officers from the traffic departments enforcing speed along with all the other traffic law. And, no, police forces don't get to keep the fines imposed by their traffic officers either!

A few years ago it was decided that a proportion of the revenue from speeding fines generated by the Partnerships (not the police), rather than going into the same pot as all the other fines imposed by courts for shoplifting, drunk and disorderly et al, could be "netted off" to pay for the Camera Partnerships and make them self-financing. The argument (whether you agree or disagee) was that it was unfair for safe drivers to have to pay for speed enforcement through their taxes when the offenders themselves could pay for it.

Where the confusion sometimes arises is that some partnerships crew their vehicles with police officers seconded from the local force. People hear about the "netting off" procedure and, putting two and two together, leap to the conclusion that all the money goes to the local force, which simply isn't the case.

So what happens to the money, other than the amount "netted off" to run the Partnership? It goes to the Lord Chancellor's Office, just like all the other fines for shoplifting etc. imposed by the courts, to be spent on God-knows-what, but not necessarily anything to do with policing or road safety.

Precisely because the public has got the wrong end of the stick regarding the "netting-off" procedure, it will cease sometime next year. Partnerships will then be financed through a grant from the local council and ALL the money will then go to the Chancellor.
 
#33
I do drive according to the conditions at the time, empty roads esrly morning etc , however if i do see a police speed check or a camera, i DELIBERATELY drive 10 mph or so below speed limit as a form of protest and DEPRIVE the Govt of MY money.

if everybody did that, the "Safety" camera Partnership would have to go cap in hand to the Govt for money, the SCP is self perpetuating through money raised from fines, so there is inevitably accusations of Vested interest.
 
#34
the_matelot said:
No, you're evidently an incompetent cnut who shouldn't be allowed to drive....
Not strickly true, i drive between 800-1300 miles a week for my job and all three times that i have been caught was from a mobile camera on a stretch of road that i deemed safe to go slightly over the limit on.
I dont deny that i broke the law and i paid the fines without an issue, im just saying that the placement of the mobile cameras always seems suspect to me.
Never seen [a mobile camera] in an area that i personally would see as a dangerous bit of road and thats what annoys me, they just seem to be placed solely as revenue.
However, the fixed cameras are normally well placed and i dont have a problem with them.
Could have the road's speed labeled on the back tho, that would help. Especially on roads where the speed limit jumps up and down over a few miles.
 
#35
SparkySteve said:
Could have the road's speed labeled on the back tho, that would help. Especially on roads where the speed limit jumps up and down over a few miles.
Every speed camera operated by Safety Camera Partnerships is signed with a camera sign a set distance in front of it. Up until recently these have simply consisted of the camera sign (the "box brownie" in black on a white background).

These are slowly being replaced with ones that not only show the camera warning sign, but the speed limit as well, in order to address the point you have made.

Note that only cameras operated by the Partnerships need be so signed. It does not apply to speed detection carried out by the police, so don't expect them being set up in front of a traffic officer working from his patrol car!
 
#36
RedRabbit said:
Note that only cameras operated by the Partnerships need be so signed. It does not apply to speed detection carried out by the police, so don't expect them being set up in front of a traffic officer working from his patrol car!
Im well aware of that...
 
#38
As an aside (and out of a bit of devilment to see what the reaction is!), all the regulations regarding signing, having cameras painted yellow, being easily visible etc., only apply when a Partnership is "netting off" a proportion of the proceeds in order to self-finance.

Unless the guidelines change when the "netting off" is dispensed with next year, and the Partnerships are financed by a council grant, this will no longer apply, so they could, in theory, take down their signs, hide cameras in wheelie bins and all the other little tricks that are the stuff of urban legend!

I don't think many of them will, but it'll be interesting to see what does happen.
 

terroratthepicnic

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#39
If you were in uniform at the time, you could always claim that you thought you were being followed and you sped up to see if the car 'following you' would speed up also.

Failing that just take it on the chin, be a man, and admit ya mistakes.
 
#40
Or simply do what I hear lots of people in the South East are doing - go to France, buy and register a car there to an accommodation address in Calais. You might even be able to insure it there as well (not sure about that bit).

You then have a car on French plates that you can use for 12 months without tax or MOT. After 12 months you'll need to pop back over to France and buy another one and start the same procedure again.

Even if they do follow up the ticket with the French authorities, your accommodation address will ensure its difficult to trace you.

Now, don't take this at face value, but this is what I understand is happening. Anyone with any better knowledge able to enlighten?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
ObnoxiousJockGit Cars, Bikes 'n AFVs 29
TaffJ Travel 23
Berlin_104s Cars, Bikes 'n AFVs 51

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top