Sorry for posting to another site but I think its worth it..........

RE: Speed Guns In Builder's Vans?

Whatever next FFS.

Steve

A speed camera hidden in a goatse?

They're not even giving us a sporting chance now......:(

today I saw at least 5 incidents of dangerous driving, at least three drivers that shouldn't be driving (no liscence/forign/drunk ect) and...wait for it, I counted, 7 people driving while talking on their mobiles, two of which tried to drive into me, and one bloke in an old blue van with a f***ing dog bouncing around on his knee that tried to drive into me!

where are the police?!?!? hiding in old blue vans and horseboxes, trying to do mrs average doing 65 mpg in a 60 zone?!

get rid of the bloddy cameras, and get the police out on the road in patrol cars.

****es me off. bad and dangerouse driving does not get stopped by speed cameras.....

I was folloeing a blue scooby down the A66 last weekend, he was overtaking accross the solid white lines going DOWN the crawler lane.... if anyone had of come up, they would have been killed..... but he wasn't speeding, so what the f***.....

f***ing goverment has no idea what happens in the real world.

f***ing goverment has no idea what happens in the real world.

That's cause they don't live here :(

Ive just seen someone i know who had just been to court

He was up before the beak for driving whilst using a phone

He contested it and due to the police not being able to describe what his phone looked like

He got off with it

Im happy for him

but

What a joke

1) If you don't want to get caught speeding, don't speed. We are all old enough to know the risks and the speed limits and make a choice.

2) The other day, when I was trying to sell drugs to the local kids, a man approached me and told me he was a policeman and i was to be arrested. That's not fair I said, you're not wearing a uniform. I wouldn't have been selling to the kids if I'd known you are a police man. Ok he said, I'll get my uniform and come back .....

3) Whilst I agree that it seems as though speeding motorists are unfairly targeted, perhaps we should start a petition to use the money raised by speeding fines to be spent on more policeman out on the roads performing the dangerous driving that everyone thinks is more dangerous than speeding?

My wife is a lollypop lady and daily she sees terrible driving habits

For instance today

She saw a woman driving along with a notebook on the top of her steering wheel making notes in it.

Its this type of buffoonery that gets missed by the police whilst they are busy sitting in speed detector vans

Isnt it the case that when police use cameras in vehicles they have to put a sign up for all to see before you reach the vehicle?

There has to be a camera sign within a mile of the camera. They are usually permanent so you don't usually see a camera within the mile, but they could be there, so you are supposed to slow down. I recently found out, to by suprise, that they can legally hide again! I got caught in March just after overtaking a very slow moving car. I was doing 68 in a national for a few seconds and they are trying to get £60 from me and give me 3 points in return. Thieving gits. Still trying to find a way out of it. If it was a traffic cop and his gun I probably would be OK but of course it is a camera, so I am not.

Mark

Today coming out of Barnsley, on Doncaster road, about 500 yards after the fixed speed camera , plod on his motorbike decides to set up his tripod and camera . This is just after the brow of the hill and a corner, so everyone speeding up after the fixed camera gets caught

Not me though, A BIG thanks to the bloke in a green octy who came down the hill flashing his lights

Just goes to prove it is just a money making scam

1) If you don't want to get caught speeding, don't speed. We are all old enough to know the risks and the speed limits and make a choice.

2) The other day, when I was trying to sell drugs to the local kids, a man approached me and told me he was a policeman and i was to be arrested. That's not fair I said, you're not wearing a uniform. I wouldn't have been selling to the kids if I'd known you are a police man. Ok he said, I'll get my uniform and come back .....

3) Whilst I agree that it seems as though speeding motorists are unfairly targeted, perhaps we should start a petition to use the money raised by speeding fines to be spent on more policeman out on the roads performing the dangerous driving that everyone thinks is more dangerous than speeding?

The problem is of course that many people, while looking out on the road for dangers, as in real dangers like kids, schools, old people, animals, dangerous surfaces/conditions they can for a moment, just a moment take their eyes off the speedo. It is not practical, even if equipped to use cruise on many roads either. One cant keep an eye on the speedo all the time, if we did then we wouldnt see the real dangers.

Now, Im reliably informed that in NI they have a 14mph rule. 44 in a 30, 54 in a 40 and so on wont get you a ticket, but 45/55 will. If we maintained a similar system in the rest of the UK then maybe not so big deal about camera vans. Unfortunatly, every area of the UK seems to vary, so someone drifting over at 33 in one area could get away with it but a neighbouring county they may be made out to be satan themselves.

Let us know where we stand!

Steve

There has to be a camera sign within a mile of the camera. They are usually permanent so you don't usually see a camera within the mile, but they could be there, so you are supposed to slow down. I recently found out, to by suprise, that they can legally hide again! I got caught in March just after overtaking a very slow moving car. I was doing 68 in a national for a few seconds and they are trying to get £60 from me and give me 3 points in return. Thieving gits. Still trying to find a way out of it. If it was a traffic cop and his gun I probably would be OK but of course it is a camera, so I am not.

Mark

There isn't a sign outside my house that says it's illegal to break in. Does that mean the guy that does shouldn't be prosecuted? Its the law. If you've got a licence, you learned what the signs mean. You know the limit. It's your choice. Sorry

The problem is of course that many people, while looking out on the road for dangers, as in real dangers like kids, schools, old people, animals, dangerous surfaces/conditions they can for a moment, just a moment take their eyes off the speedo. It is not practical, even if equipped to use cruise on many roads either. One cant keep an eye on the speedo all the time, if we did then we wouldnt see the real dangers.

Now, Im reliably informed that in NI they have a 14mph rule. 44 in a 30, 54 in a 40 and so on wont get you a ticket, but 45/55 will. If we maintained a similar system in the rest of the UK then maybe not so big deal about camera vans. Unfortunatly, every area of the UK seems to vary, so someone drifting over at 33 in one area could get away with it but a neighbouring county they may be made out to be satan themselves.

Let us know where we stand!

Steve

We know where we stand. 31 in a 30 and you can get a ticket.

Now, I appreciate the fact that you shouldn't be driving round all the time looking at the speedo. However, people use this to take the ****. In the old days, the limit was 70, but everyone knew that you could do up to 85, so they did. Then because everyone did 85, some people who wanted to go faster did 90 etc. Then you're sat in the inside lane of the m4 at 95 with everyone going past you.

If you can keep your car at 44 to avoid getting a ticket in a 30 (your NI rules), you can keep you car at 30 to avoid getting a ticket in a strict 30. It's a limit, not a target speed. If you want to complain about inappropriate speed limits, that's a different subject...

Don't get me wrong, I do occassionally speed and I will be as ****ed off as the next person if (when?) i get a ticket, but I know the limits and I know what speed to drive at if I don't want a ticket.

Steve (again :-))

There are now using a man on a bike to carry out laser speed checks on the M23, there used to be a nice fully marked up Merc estate parked for all to see. Now all you get is a man dressed head to toe in black leathers with the bike parked conveniently out of sight :thumbdwn:

There isn't a sign outside my house that says it's illegal to break in. Does that mean the guy that does shouldn't be prosecuted? Its the law. If you've got a licence, you learned what the signs mean. You know the limit. It's your choice. Sorry

But is the point to make sure people don't speed, or catch them doing it? That's the difference between a big yellow camera and warning signs at blackspots and hiding in driveways with radar guns.

The problem sdenny IMHO is the police only seem to be after speeders cause it is a nice easy way to nick people and make money. As one of the other posters above stated, his mate got off a driving whilst using his phone offence because the police couldn't describe his phone.

Speed camera's are supposed to be for safety, shame they don't pick up tailgaters, people weaving all over the road, people changing lanes without looking, people sitting in the wrong lane, people diving across 3 lanes of a motorway to get off, people......etc. do you get my point?

But is the point to make sure people don't speed, or catch them doing it? That's the difference between a big yellow camera and warning signs at blackspots and hiding in driveways with radar guns.

If you catch enough people speeding, and assuming the punishment outweighs the benefit of commiting the crime, then surely the two will become the same.

You could argue that if speeding carried a £1000 fine and instant ban, people may be more reticent. The trouble is that £60 is nothing to a large number of people and so it becomes more a toll than a fine.

At the end of the day, the speeder is commiting a crime, and no matter how many time people claim extenuating circumstances, nobody is forcing anyone to drive at 1 mph above the limit. Nobody complains when drug deals or terrorists are caught by covert means, why is speeding different?

And before anybody raises severity of crime, the punishment is altered for that, not the method of detection.

Nobody complains when drug deals or terrorists are caught by covert means, why is speeding different?

Because you're average terrorist and drug dealer doesn't have a nice easy plate on them identifying who they are.

Covert surveillance in those cases is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt (still supposed to be the basis of UK law) the person the police arrested is the person who was planning on blowing stuff up, selling drugs etc.

With speeding, the first you know about it could well be when you have a picture of the rear OF YOUR CAR saying you owe £60 and have gained some points, it's up to you to then prove you're not driving, rather than the police prove you were driving.

The problem sdenny IMHO is the police only seem to be after speeders cause it is a nice easy way to nick people and make money. As one of the other posters above stated, his mate got off a driving whilst using his phone offence because the police couldn't describe his phone.

Speed camera's are supposed to be for safety, shame they don't pick up tailgaters, people weaving all over the road, people changing lanes without looking, people sitting in the wrong lane, people diving across 3 lanes of a motorway to get off, people......etc. do you get my point?

I agree entirely about the second point. Unfortunately they don't and as I mentioned earlier, perhaps we should campain for the fines to go to add more traffic police (or technology) that will. Unfortuately, a camera can never (certainly not at the moment) be a safety camera, as it cannot detect safe or dangerous driving. It can only be a speed camera. I don't really understand why ths misleding name was given (labour spin?). We feel mislead because we know that it's a speed camera and that makes us angry. However, the fine is not enough to make us stop speeding.

Re the first, I think it's a bit cause and effect. If nobody speeds, no one get tickets. Police can then spend time catching the "proper criminals " that every one wants them too.

Re the phone, perhaps the police should take a photo and use this as evidence? Save them describing it.....

If you catch enough people speeding, and assuming the punishment outweighs the benefit of commiting the crime, then surely the two will become the same.

You could argue that if speeding carried a £1000 fine and instant ban, people may be more reticent. The trouble is that £60 is nothing to a large number of people and so it becomes more a toll than a fine.

At the end of the day, the speeder is commiting a crime, and no matter how many time people claim extenuating circumstances, nobody is forcing anyone to drive at 1 mph above the limit. Nobody complains when drug deals or terrorists are caught by covert means, why is speeding different?

And before anybody raises severity of crime, the punishment is altered for that, not the method of detection.

It must be nice to live in black and white land.

I agree entirely about the second point. Unfortunately they don't and as I mentioned earlier, perhaps we should campain for the fines to go to add more traffic police (or technology) that will. Unfortuately, a camera can never (certainly not at the moment) be a safety camera, as it cannot detect safe or dangerous driving. It can only be a speed camera.

Alternatively, we save millions of pounds a year in erecting the things and spend the money on police officers, and use the fines as you recommended.

Why waste millions of pounds a year on a device that only detects one offence when the same money can be used to pay for someone who can detect numerous offences, and not just driving offences? After all, a speed camera can't detect a drug dealer, a police officer can as well as a speeding motorist.

Because you're average terrorist and drug dealer doesn't have a nice easy plate on them identifying who they are.

Covert surveillance in those cases is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt (still supposed to be the basis of UK law) the person the police arrested is the person who was planning on blowing stuff up, selling drugs etc.

With speeding, the first you know about it could well be when you have a picture of the rear OF YOUR CAR saying you owe £60 and have gained some points, it's up to you to then prove you're not driving, rather than the police prove you were driving.

And in the case of speeding, covert surveillance will prove that an offence was commited.

Do people share cars so much that they don't know approx where they were when?

If you're driving and the first you know is the ticket, that doesn't seem like you're paying enough attention (to your speed at the very least).

We may have to agree to differ here. My point was that you should know the speed limit, and you then have a choice whether or not to exceed it. If you choose to (for whatever reason) then you lay yourself open to a ticket, and really you have no reason to feel miffed if you get caught.

If the first you know that

a device that only detects one offence

They don't even manage that - most cameras have trouble with bikes and AFAIK don't catch speeding HGV's.

With regards to not knowing, if you get caught by a fixed gatso then yes, a bright flash may give the game away, but in the case of a speed camera hidden in another vehicle as per the original post then there could well be no indication you've been zapped.

And in the case of speeding, covert surveillance will prove that an offence was commited.

But they don't prove WHO committed the offence, under UK law it is up to the police to prove beyond reasonable doubt who was driving the car not the motorist to prove it wasn't them. Next time a drug deal goes down close to you, how miffed would you be if the police knocked on your door and said they'd seen you in the area and were going to nick you for drug dealing unless YOU can prove you weren't dealing in drugs?